By D.M. LeNeveu
The web pages on the Energy East Pipeline by TransCanada are filled with reassuring information on pipeline safety and conspicuously ignore far more important issues.(1) Building of the Energy East and the Keystone Pipeline to carry diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the tar sands locks us into decades of fossil extraction and consumption. We are in a global greenhouse gas crisis. We must begin to reduce carbon emissions to avoid runaway climate change.
CO2 and CLIMATE CHANGE
It has been estimated that consumption of the tar sands oil alone at a pace sustained by the pipelines will increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 400 to 450 parts per million, greatly increasing the risk of climate disaster.(2, 3) There are already more than enough proven reserves of conventional fossil fuels to drive climate warming to unsafe levels without the extra burden available from the Alberta Tar Sands.(4)
ACID GAS
In addition to contributing to the risk of catastrophic climate change, and the associated effects of sea level rise, and acidification of the ocean(5), pipeline expansion will lead to massive environmental destruction from the extraction processes in the tar sands. Vast areas of toxic tailing ponds containing carcinogenic waste will be left to ooze into the watershed. Huge amounts of toxic and carcinogenic PAH’s (polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons) and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) will be released to the atmosphere.(6)
The massive hidden associated sulphur problem is rarely considered. Already the mounds of raw sulphur extracted from tar sands bitumen are larger than the pyramids of Egypt.(7) The preferred method of disposal of sulphur is now injection of the deadly neuro-toxin hydrogen sulphide (H2S) into mainly old or operational oil fields.(8) This is called acid gas disposal.(9)
In addition to H2S, acid gas contains up to 80% carbon dioxide. Up until 2013 acid gas disposal was considered to be a method of carbon dioxide sequestration in Alberta and received carbon offset credits.(10) Companies were actually paid to inject H2S into the ground in areas that carry a high risk of future leakage from numerous old oil and gas wells.(11)
Pipeline expansion will intensify the sulphur problem. A study on the potential leakage of acid gas from disposal at Zama Lake, Alberta, with sulphur accumulations much smaller than the tar sands indicates that an area 600 kilometres in radius could be rendered unliveable for over one thousand years due to poisoned air and water.(12) (sign the petiton to: Ban Underground Injection of Hydrogen Sulphide Gas)
PETCOKE and FRACKING
Refining of bitumen from the tar sands leaves a carbon rich petcoke as by-product that is more carbon dioxide intensive than coal. Canadian petcoke production at bitumen upgraders in Alberta and Saskatchewan was nearly nine million metric tons in 2011. At the end of 2011, 72.3 million metric tons of petcoke was stockpiled in Alberta.(13) Partly because of petcoke, the Pembina Institute estimates that bitumen is up to 4.5 times more carbon intensive per barrel than conventional crude oil.(13) Petcoke has high sulphur and heavy metals content resulting in high toxic emissions when burned.(13)
Another associated detriment is the environmental damage from fracking that produces large quantities of shale gas used in the steam extraction and processing of bitumen from the tar sands.(14) Fracking depletes our fresh water reserves, and injects toxic frack fluids and saline water underground.(15) Much of the shale gas used for tar sands extraction is sour and adds to the massive sulphur problem.(15) Flaring of sour and surplus sweet gas from fracking operations contributes to air pollution.(15) Drill mud from the fracked wells containing drill fluids, saline groundwater, salts and heavy metals is sprayed onto agricultural lands.(16) (also see blog entry: Fracking in Manitoba)
CARBON LIABILITY
Society, not the oil companies, bears the burden of the enormous future liabilities associated with climate change, acidification of the ocean, sea level rise, tailing ponds pollution, air pollution, sulphur disposal, aquifer depletion and poisoning, heavy metal poisoning, and contamination of agricultural land associated with pipeline expansion. The carbon liability of fossil fuels is estimated to be $50 to $200 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. For Canadian companies the carbon liabilities exceed the market value of the assets by a factor of between 2 and 13.(17) This does not include the cost of the other environmental liabilities.
The energy recovery ratio of tar sands oil is estimated to be only 2.9 to 1. This means for every 2.9 units of energy obtained from tar sands oil, one unit of energy is consumed. When the cost of pumping and transportation is included the energy ratio drops as low as 2.4 to one.(18, 19) The global average energy return ratio on conventional oil is 17 to 1 (20), thus oil from the tar sands generates less revenue than conventional oil. Tar sands oil is also more carbon intensive and creates more environmental degradation.(3, 13, 14) The world cannot afford to burn all its known reserves at current and projected rates.(4) To remain within the climate targets it is estimated that Canada must leave 83 per cent of unproven reserves of 91Gt of CO2 equivalents unburned.(21) Canada is the world’s fifth-largest producer of oil and has the third-largest proven reserves – 172 billion barrels, of which 168 billion are from the oil sands.(21) The least environmentally detrimental and least energy consumptive sources of oil should be used as we transition to a lower carbon economy. It is pure madness, from a global environmental perspective, to build pipelines to accelerate the extraction of tar sands bitumen.(22)
RENEWABLE CARBON FREE ENERGY
It has been estimated that half the power from the proposed Keeyask hydro dam on the Nelson River in Manitoba would be required to pump tars sands dilbit through the pipelines. Now we have further madness of an essentially carbon free renewable energy supply used to transport a fossil fuel that will produce more carbon dioxide.(23)
We must ask how much undeveloped renewable energy could be produced equivalent to the Energy East pipeline. The energy content of a barrel of crude oil and dilbit is 6.14 gigajoules.(19) The Energy East pipeline will transport 800,000 barrels per day by 2015.(21) This is an energy delivery rate of 57 gigawatts. When discounted by the energy required to produce and transport this energy, we are left with about 33 gigawatts which is about 7 times the 5 gigawatts of undeveloped potential of hydropower in Manitoba(24) and about one fifth of the 163 gigawatts of undeveloped hydro power in Canada.(25) This does not include wind power. It is clear that the energy content of the pipeline could be easily replaced by renewable carbon free sources in Canada.
LIABILITIES EXCEED VALUE
From an economic input view point the pipeline expansion is dubious. The fossil fuel industry was subsidized at a rate of 26 billion per year in 2011 according to an IMF study (about 4% of government revenues).(26) This level of subsidy is continuing. Canada’s oil trade in 2012 was about 73 billion.(27, 28, 29) Roughly 2% of Canada’s GDP is from the tar sands in 2012 and 90% goes to Alberta.(30) Oil sands-related investments are expected to generate $79.4 billion in federal and provincial government revenues between 2012 and 2035, on an inflation-adjusted basis. (Conference Board of Canada Report 2012) or about 3.4 billion per year (31) which is only about 1.4% of total Government revenue.(32) This high rate of subsidy and relatively low government revenue return is partly a consequence of the low energy recovery ratio and technology intensive recovery and processing requirements of the tar sands.
A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Senior Economist Marc Lee and researcher Amanda Card, finds that less than 1% of Canadian workers are employed in fossil fuel extraction and production in Canada (oil, natural gas and coal).(33)
From 2000-2011, the oil and gas sector created about 16,500 jobs, while, at the same time, Canada lost 520,000 manufacturing jobs.(34)
From these data, forgoing pipeline expansion and tar sands development would likely be a net economic benefit, would lessen our contribution to the global carbon burden and enhance our international reputation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER
From every standpoint, environmental, economic, global sharing of climate liability, the expansion of the pipelines is unjustifiable. These steel veins will supply our fossil fuel addiction for decades and will lock us into a climate and environmental Armageddon. We are in a global crisis of unprecedented magnitude. We are sleepwalking to an environmental disaster with petro dollars blinding eyes that refuse to see.
D.M. LeNeveu participating in a Water Wednesday in 2013References
1. TransCanada, Energy East Pipeline http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/
2. Avery, S. The Pipeline and the Paradigm, Ruka Press, Washington, D.C., April 23, 2013
http://rethinkenergyflorida.org/index.php/causes/keystone-xl-pipeline-call-to-action-and-talking-points
3. D. Biello, How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? Scientific American, Jan 23, 2013.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 5th Assessment Report, Working Group III, Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7,: Energy Systems, 2014
http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter7.pdf
5. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Bruno, J.F. The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosytems, Science,V 328, 1523, 2010
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/44683425_The_impact_of_climate_change_on_the_world%27s_marine_ecosystems/file/e0b49516254ecbc78b.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3VB9vt_puzA3cLbx5wc3TOR3Wn2w&oi=scholarr&ei=uD-XU6uvA5SnyATB3ILYBw&ved=0CB8QgAMoAjAA
6. Grant, J., Dyer,S. and Woynillowicz, D. Clearing the Air on Oil Sands Myths, The Pembina Institute, The Pembina Institute, Box 7558. Drayton Valley, AlbertaCanada T7A 1S7June 2009
http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/OSMyths200906.pdf
7. Johnson, R. The Mountains of Sulfur in the Tar Sands are only getting Bigger, Business Insider April 28, 2012. http://www.businessinsider.com/there-are-mountains-of-sulfur-growing-in-the-oil-sands-just-waiting-for-demand-to-increase-2012-4
7.1 Pyramids of Giza, The Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/234470/Pyramids-of-Giza
8. Wichert, E. and Royan,T. Technology Acid Gas Injection Eliminates Sulfur Recovery Expense, Oil and Gas Journal , 1455 West Loop SouthHouston, Texas 77027, April 28, 1997
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-95/issue-17/in-this-issue/production/technology-acid-gas-injection-eliminates-sulfur-recovery-expense.html
9. Alberta Geological Survey, Deep Injection of Acid Gas (H2S) in Western Canada
http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/co2_h2s/co2_acidgas.html
10. Savage, B. Director of Climate Change Secretariat, Notice to termination of the Quantification Protocol for Acid Gas Injection Memorandum Alberta Environmental and Sustainable Resource Development. Climate Change Secretariat
12th Floor Baker Centre 10025 – 106 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 1G4 Canada
Jan. 28, 2013
http://esrd.alberta.ca/focus/alberta-and-climate-change/regulating-greenhouse-gas-emissions/alberta-based-offset-credit-system/offset-credit-system-protocols/documents/8792.pdf
11. Offset Project Report: Suncor South Rosevear Acid Gas Injection Project, Prepared by Blue Source Canada ULC 2210, 777 8th Ave. SW, Calgary AB
April 2012
http://www.csaregistries.ca/files/projects/2959-5549_GHGReport_20120101_20130531.pdf
http://www.csaregistries.ca/files/projects/prj_7124_935.pdf
12. LeNeveu, D.M. Potential for environmental impact due to acid gas leakage from wellbores at EOR injection sites near Zama Lake, Alberta, Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology Volume 2, Issue 2, pages 99–114, April 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.1271/abstract
13. Stockman,L. , Turnbull, D. and Stephen Kretzmann, S., Petroleum Coke: the coal hiding in the tar Sands Published by Oil Change International, Washington. D.C. January 2013
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2013/01/OCI.Petcoke.FINALSCREEN.pdf
14. Hout,M. Oilsands and climate change: How Canada’s oilsands are standing in the way of effective climate action. The Pembina Institute. September 2011
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/oilsands-and-climate-fs-201109.pdf
15. The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts Shale Gas Extraction. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada, Council of Canadian Academies, 180 Elgin Street, Suite 1401, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K2P 2K3, 2014
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/shale%20gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf
16. Alberta Energy Regulator, Directive 50: Drilling Waste Management, Calagary Office, Suite 1000, 250 – 5th Street Calgary Alberta Canada, T2P 0R4 May 2 2012
http://www.aer.ca/documents/directives/Directive050.pdf
17. Lee, M. Carbon Bubbles and Fossil Fuel Divestment, Behind the Numbers Blog, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, March 26, 2013 http://behindthenumbers.ca/2013/03/26/carbon-bubbles-and-fossil-fuel-divestment/
18. Rapier,R The Energy Return of the Tar Sands, Energy Trends Insider, 2008
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2008/11/14/the-energy-return-of-tar-sands/
19. Peter,C. From C.J. Peter Associates Engineering – Oral presentation, Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc.
Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Application of 27 May 2010 Volume 13 Hearing held at Ramada Hotel Downtown 444 George Street Prince George, British Columbia January 18, 2012
http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p21799/81717E.pdf
20. D.J. Murphy, The implications of the declining energy return on investment of oil production, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 13 January 2014 vol. 372, 2006 http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130126
21. Linnitt,C. Gobal Carbon Budget Mean’s Canada’s Fossil Fuels a Risky Investment,. DesMog Canada, DesSmog Canada, 595 Burrard St., PO Box 48167, STN Bentall Centre, Vancouver, B.C. V7Z 1N8, Oct. 31, 2013
22. Dobson,S. Tar Sands are Sticky Business, Financial Post, Nov. 18, 2013
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/11/18/tar-sands-are-sticky-business/
23. Owen, B. Mixing of Oil and Water, Winnipeg Free Press, May 24, 2014
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/mixing-oil-and-water-260507611.html?device=mobile
24.Interchurch Council on Hydropower in collaboration with MCC Manitoba
http://energyjustice.mcc.org/system/future
25. Electrical Fuel Source Technical Papers The Canadian Electricity Association (CEA),275 Slater Street, Suite 1500, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1P 5H9
http://powerforthefuture.ca/electricity-411/electricity-fuel-source-technical-papers/hydro/
26. International Monetary Fund. Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications, Jan 28, 2013
http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf
27. Van Loon, J. and Plenty, R. Bloomberg News. Oil pipelines to drive Canadian economy like 1800s railway track, May 22, 2013
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/22/oil-pipelines-to-drive-canadian-economy-like-1800s-railway-track/?__lsa=9143-a504
28. Wong, D. Just How Much, Exactly, Are You Paying to Subsidize Fossil Fuels? DesMog Canada May 10 , 2013
http://www.desmog.ca/2013/05/10/just-how-much-exactly-are-you-paying-subsidize-fossil-fuels
29. Nikiforuk, A. Albertans Get Bum Deal from the Oil Industry, The Tyee, April 5, 2012
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/05/Low-Oil-Sands-Royalties/
30. Saxifrage, B. Climate Snapshot Sept 26, 2013
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/tar-secret-2-what-percentage-canadas-gdp-comes-tar-sands
31. Alberta Energy Facts and Statistics
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp
32. Department of Finance Canada http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp
33. Lee,M. and Card, A. A Green Industrial Revolution: Climate Justice, Green Jobs and Sustainable Production in Canada June 12, 2012 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/few-jobs-massive-emissions-oil-and-gas#sthash.r8ouNISI.v5kxfyuP.dpuf
http://policyalternatives.ca
34. Taliano, M. Fossil fuel economy costs Canada far more jobs than it creates, The Common Sense Canadian, April 7, 2014
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/petro-state-economy-costs-canada-far-jobs-creates/
