Oilsands Unfairly Targeted: Conference Board Report

by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke | January 12, 2010 at 01:14 pm

238 views | 36 Recommendations | 10 comments

The Alberta Oil Sands have been a bone of contention for environmentalists for some time. Greenpeace, Al Gore and even President Obama have thrashed the Alberta Oil Sands. A favorite name for environmentalists is Alberta Tar Sands.

The industry maintains that it is developing new technology to capture carbons (carbon sequestration) and has recently partnered with a German company to develop technology to make the oil sands more environmentally friendly.

Canada is a democratic, peaceful country, which makes it an easy target for demonstrations. Recently there were demonstrations at Parliament Hill in Ottawa and Syncrude was required to shut down part of its operation in Fort Mac Murray due to a Greenpeace protest.

A Conference Board report has concluded that the Alberta Oil Sands have been unfairly targeted. The Oil Sands account for about 5% of Canada' carbon emissions, about 40 million tons. During the same period in 2007 road transportation amounted to 137 million tons or 18% of Canada's emissions.

The board concluded that demand for oil and transportation is a larger threat than the Alberta Oil Sands. While the emissions of the Alberta Oil Sands are expected to double in the next decade, better technology to reduce emissions must be introduced. The industry is actively working on this in partnership with a German company.

The board also concluded that the public has to decrease its demand for oil and its driving habits to reduce transportation emissions.

The essence of this story is that all things are interconnected and we each must do our part, without pointing fingers at only one source. There is no free ride for the Oil Sands despite this report. Both the Federal and Provincial governments must continue to demand technological improvements in the production of oil from the Oil Sands. Syncrude has organized a tour briefing tour during 2010 to brief concerned citizens across the country.

Read the Conference Board Report

The report concluded the oilsands do not produce significantly more greenhouse gases than other sources of oil. It quoted an analysis that when considering the full chain of production, such as emissions created while shipping, refining, and consuming, oilsands crude results in between seven to 21 per cent more carbon than the lowest-emitting crude oil currently refined in the United States.

The board relied on an Environment Canada report that suggested road transportation in Canada in 2007 accounted for 137 million tonnes of emissions, or 18 per cent of Canada's total. The oilsands accounted for 40 million tones in the same period, or five per cent.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Amy Judd

at 14:22 on January 12th, 2010

Well I hope they work fast...

marianmo

at 14:33 on January 12th, 2010

good post, from what i understand the alberta government has made commitment to help clean up emissions but those are basically american companies...hope they do their share

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 14:38 on January 12th, 2010

The Alberta government has budgeted money for a pipeline and carbon sequestration West of Edmonton. There is a major commitment by the companies to reclaim the land over a 40 year period. There are still problems with the Athabasca River and some of the ponds used. Just last year several hundred of birds were killed there. While the Oilsands is not the worst emitter in Canada by any stretch, there are still a lot of improvements that can be made.

marianmo

at 14:43 on January 12th, 2010

yes i agree acp...as a person who lived in fort mcmurray for three years i can reassure all that the people of the area, the workers as well as the companies are all aware of the need for envir improvementsonbmental

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 14:48 on January 12th, 2010

I think that is very true. I take the biggest lesson of this report is the need for us to pollute less in the area of transportation. Our demand on oil must be reduced, while at the same time reducing emission producing the oil. This will be a significant challenge in the next decade when the oil sands production is expected to double.

marianmo

at 14:55 on January 12th, 2010

right on,,,,making efforts by each person to reduce carbon emmissions by biking or walking does help, lessenoning our dependence on fossil fuels is important, personally i make as few trips as i can with the car and in the summer will be biking more...small but important steps

PIM of SPAIN

at 08:08 on January 13th, 2010

Go nuclear for energy and there won't be any CO2 emission. With nuclear power fuel can economically be generated from coal, almost 99% CO2 emission free, against a price competitive with power from coal <3ct/KW and crude. This fuel can also be used for aviation and all other kind of transport. Get the greens on the side of nuclear is a better initiative. The money is kept in the country and millions of NEW JOBS are created. Crisis solving in the process. While terrorist don't receive anymore financial support.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 08:19 on January 13th, 2010

The going nuclear concept makes sense. Except whenever the subject comes up, even here in Alberta, nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Coal is abundant here as well. Our power grid is fueled by coal.

PIM of SPAIN

at 10:12 on January 13th, 2010

But nuclear power plants can be constructed in remote areas because the transport of fuel is nothing compared to the ones fired by coal! Somewhere people want to have electricity isn't it? Besides new generation nucplants are much safer then the old ones.

Barry ORegan

at 07:18 on January 14th, 2010

Oil sands oil most likely goes for vehicles, soooo nuclear energy is pretty moot, Coal on the other hand is a pretty filty alternative, yet coal can be made into fuel for vehicles as well and other products