Economic Short-Sightedness & The Environment: Canadian Tar Sands Oil

The Tar Sands Go Back 50 Years

This is not to challenge Weatherdem, but the development of this resource began in the early sixties when Howard Pew's Sun Oil Corp invested about $200 million to extract the petroleum in this surface deposit.  The process is not unlike a mining operation followed by a SASOL-like conversion of the bitumen to a liquid faux-crude oil. I believe that the process can be much less damaging, and it has improved immensely over the past 5 decades.  As an aside, the oil refinery in Commerce City processes crude from this site.

It should be noted that even with all the environmental damage, Sun was and continues to be considered one of the best environmental oil companies in the world. That does not extend to Suncor its successor operator of the tar sands source.

Were the proposed pipeline not built, the output from the sands operation would be sent to refineries in Ontario, Quebec, here and in Alberta as well as a very likely proposed pipeline across the Rockies to Vancouver.

As long as the price of crude oil is high, sources such as the Athabasca Tar Sands will be exploited as will the deep shale oil, liquids and gas in the Dakotas, Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York.  I would rather see these sources highly regulated and controlled more than they are today.  Whether we want them to be or not, I don't think there is a way to prevent their development.  

Should the All American pipeline be built?  Probably not.  But, that material will be delivered to its markets in one way or another as long as it is competitive.  

---

by: saindenver @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 17:10:09 PM UTC

Good points made

You're absolutely correct, and I hope I didn't mislead readers into thinking this region was only recently under development.  At question is whether the pipeline should be built through America for refining along the Gulf Coast.  If it isn't refined there, it will certainly be refined somewhere else, and eventually burned anyway.

I don't think the Obama administration should allow the pipeline to be built across America.  The ramifications are numerous and not needed in moving this country forward through the 21st century.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 18:27:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree, but There Are More Refineries In the Texas Gulf

The Denver refinery, though Suncor's third largest oil refinery but relatively small by world or North American standards. They could send the crude to Sarnia, near Detroit, with existing pipelines; but that refinery is near capacity now. Chicago is a possibility with the BP, former Amoco, operation in Northern Indiana which would encourage shipment of refined products elsewhere.  The problem is that this crude oil will have to be shipped somewhere to be refined and the closer it is to major transportation and market hubs.   It's a real problem.

Something which has not been discussed much when this pipeline is brought up is it proximity to the Bakken field in North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan.  Though it's not planned to pass directly through it, getting crude oil from this highly productive area to refineries near the markets or transportation hubs is of very high importance, regardless of which refiner gets the best treatment.  

---

by: saindenver @ Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 23:30:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hear they want to put a pipeline from Alberta to Texas

which would run through Montana, where they just had a spill, and Colorado.

I'm pro-labor but the only reason why is because I'd like to see humanity collectively get our shit together and return to a sustainable way of life. I see labor and labor's history as being a big inspiration for that but the short-sidedness of so many in the labor movement puts jobs before the earth. It makes no sense. AFL-CIO's endorsement of this final project is sofa king retarded.  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 05:38:32 AM UTC