{"id":571804,"date":"2010-05-20T11:47:01","date_gmt":"2010-05-20T15:47:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/climateprogress.org\/?p=25420"},"modified":"2010-05-20T11:47:01","modified_gmt":"2010-05-20T15:47:01","slug":"canadian-tar-sands-set-to-be-top-u-s-oil-import-lets-not-forget-that-other-risky-dirty-oil-business-bp-is-part-of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/571804","title":{"rendered":"Canadian tar sands set to be top U.S. oil import – Let’s not forget that other risky, dirty oil business BP is part of"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Canada’s large reserves of tar sands (or oil sands) are poised to become the number one source of U.S. crude oil imports in 2010, according to a new report<\/strong><\/a> from research firm IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.<\/p>\n

Oil sands imports could ultimately increase to account for 20 percent to 36 percent of U.S. oil and refined product imports by 2030 from the 2009 level of 8 percent, according to the report, “The Role of Canadian Oil Sands in U.S. Oil Supply.”<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"featured<\/a>I’m so glad the Houston Chronicle<\/em><\/a> still uses the term tar sands, unlike the semi-greenwashing term CERA is using (see Memo to all: They ain\u2019t \u201coil sands.\u201d<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The CERA report also seriously underplays the devastating environmental and human health consequences of the \u201cbiggest global warming crime ever seen.\u201d<\/a> See also Canadian bishop challenges the \u201cmoral legitimacy\u201d of tar sands production<\/a>.\u00a0 Indeed, a major new study by Ceres, discussed below, comes to a very different view.<\/p>\n

And these reports couldn’t be more timely, given which company is betting big time on the tar sands (see BP stand for \u201cback to petroleum\u201d \u2014 oil giant shuts clean energy HQ, slashes renewables budget up to $900 million this year, dives into tar sands<\/a>).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\"bp-subvertpreview.jpg\"<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

CERA claims the environmental concerns are not big enough to undermine the rationale for continued expansion of the tar Sands:<\/p>\n

\n

Energy security does not need to be at odds with the environment<\/strong>. Innovation in oil sands has been a constant theme. Since its inception, the industry has made and continues to make major technological strides in optimizing resources, innovating new processes, reducing costs, increasing efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reducing its environmental impact. However, new techniques and technologies are needed to continue to grow production sustainably. Cooperation between governments, both in the United States and Canada, and the private sector is crucial to continued advancement of new technologies.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As the Houston Chronicle<\/em> reports,<\/p>\n

\n

The findings are at odds with those released this week by sustainable investment advocacy group Ceres, which released a report<\/strong><\/a> saying Canada’s oil sands are potentially riskier investments than the Gulf of Mexico. Stricter climate regulation and a possible federal low-carbon fuels mandate undermine such investments, the study says.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And CP just happens to have an analysis of the Ceres report by CAP\u2019s Colorado-based Tom Kenworthy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

As hard as it is to take our eyes off the volcano of oil erupting into the Gulf of Mexico, a new report on the Canadian tar sands industry is worth a look northward.<\/p>\n

\u201cCanada\u2019s Oil Sands\/Shrinking Window of Opportunity,\u201d<\/a> just published by Ceres<\/a>, a coalition of investors, environmental and public interest organizations that studies challenges to sustainability, says that in financial and environmental terms our northern neighbor\u2019s tar sands industry may be even riskier\u00a0 than sucking oil from beneath the Gulf.<\/p>\n

\u201cMost of these risks are related to the energy- and water-intensive nature of oil sands production, risks that will only increase as the industry seeks to double or even triple production in a world that is increasingly becoming water- and carbon-constrained,\u201d writes Ceres president Mindy S. Lubber in her introduction to the report.<\/p>\n

The mining, processing and upgrading of the viscous bitumen that lies beneath a great swath of northern Alberta, produces about 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. Most of it is exported to the U.S. where many states are considering imposing low-carbon fuel standards for transportation fuels that threaten the Canadian industry\u2019s growth. Canadian and Albertan officials, along with industry leaders, have embarked on a high-intensity lobbying campaign to change the dirty image of tar sands oil<\/a>, which is about three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil.<\/p>\n

Because new production of oil from tar sands is so expensive, requiring a world price of at least $65 a barrel and \u201cpotentially as high as $95 per barrel to make economic sense,\u201d the industry\u2019s plans to greatly expand are vulnerable to price pressures, including those from low carbon fuel standards. Though the carbon content of tar sands could be reduced by mixing the oil with biofuels produced from cellulosic ethanol, that additive is not yet available on a commercial scale. Ceres estimates that if a quarter of the U.S. vehicle market were subject to a low carbon fuel standard, requiring a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of gasoline by 2020 and another 10% reduction by 2030, that could cut tar sands production by 13.5% compared to a baseline estimate.<\/p>\n

Other risks facing the industry cited by the Ceres report include:<\/p>\n