Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

ANDERSON: Oil sands spell energy security

By James Anderson

Published December 20, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

Any serious approach to national security and energy policies must include a significant reduction on the dependence of oil from hostile countries such as Venezuela and Iran. It should include maximum use of a vast energy resource: Canada’s 174 billion barrels of oil sands. This oil can be recovered with existing technology, but Congress has been too preoccupied with global warming and the emission of greenhouse gases to recognize that it is essential to our national security.

Instead, Congress voted last December to prohibit government agencies (including our military) from using petroleum products made from oil sands.

Congress banned its use on the grounds that oil sands, along with shale oil and liquefied coal, are types of "heavy oil" whose recovery, distilling and refining emit more greenhouse gases than that of conventional crude oil. Congress patterned its ban on California’s low-carbon fuel standard, which essentially prohibits the use of oil sands.

The fact is, oil sands formations in northern Alberta hold enough oil to help meet U.S. energy needs for decades. The Alberta oil sands are second in size only to Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion barrels of oil reserves. With the development of more advanced technologies, it might be possible to produce ten times that amount from Canada’s oil sands - 1.7 trillion barrels.

Crude oil from Alberta is brought here safely and securely by pipeline -- 1.2 million barrels a day. With investment from U.S. oil companies, the supply of oil-sands crude is expected to reach 3 million barrels a day by 2020. By comparison, U.S. domestic oil production is about 5.2 million barrels a day, but it has been declining since the early 1970s, with imports making up for the widening gap between supply and U.S. oil demand, which is 21 million barrels a day. Secure imported Canadian oil will be needed by U.S. refineries that are increasing their refining capacity to meet current and future consumer demands.

Environmental groups pretend as if the United States has nothing to gain from access to Canada’s oil sands. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and other national organizations have been pressing state agencies to deny operating permits to refineries that use heavy crude oil from oil sands. Environmentalists have also taken legal action to block construction of a large pipeline that would carry oil-sands crude from Alberta to U.S. refineries in the upper Midwest.

The Canadian Government is making a concerted effort to address environmental concerns. It reports that per barrel emissions of carbon dioxide from oil sands recovery have declined 32 percent since 1990. And the oil industry is also working toward meaningful reduction of air and water pollution from oil-sands mining and processing. Concurrently, U.S. refiners are in the process of reducing carbon emissions 10 percent as well as investing in research on carbon dioxide capture for potential use in enhanced recovery of oil and natural gas.

One doesn’t have to be an energy expert to realize that the United States is not the only country with an interest in Canada’s oil sands. China is likely to become a formidable competitor. If China replaces the United States as an importer of Canadian oil sands, you can be sure that America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East and other problem-plagued regions of the world will grow. Now is the time to get our priorities right.

The Canadian Government and the U.S. Defense Department have urged Congress to drop its ban on the use of heavy oil. But Congress has yet to respond.

Like it or not, Congress must stop indulging in global warming and unproven greenhouse-gas emission hysteria and recognize that oil is the bridge to the new future alternative fuel sources that must be developed but are presently neither economically viable nor available in sufficient quantities to meet our current or future energy needs. Our energy security can only be secured by utilizing any and all energy sources.

James Anderson is a petroleum geologist in Morrison.

Comments

  • December 20, 2008

    6:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    claudelong writes:

    "Congress must stop indulging in global warming and unproven greenhouse-gas emission hysteria" Mr. Anderson, you need to wake up. Finding a scientist who believes that global warming is unproven is like finding one who thinks the world is flat. Keep looking, I'm sure there is one out there somewhere.

    "The fact is, oil sands formations in northern Alberta hold enough oil to help meet U.S. energy needs for decades." Dude...decades is not a very long time. It may be that global warming is for a lot longer and the consequences may be more important than a few more sips of gas for your guzzler. So, even if we go after the sand, what then? Are you old enough to not have to worry about where the next sand is coming from? Maybe our "national security" could be better served by weening ourselves from the addiction of oil?

  • December 20, 2008

    7:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pak writes:

    Right on. We need to reduce use of foreign oil and gas. Man caused global warming is a hoax and global warming or cooling is a natural effect of the earth. We can not effect it or change it! The answer is oil sands, coal, nuclear for baseload and expensive, intermiitent, unreliable wind and solar for some peaking power at the margin.

  • December 20, 2008

    8:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    socrates writes:

    This is an excellent endorsement of the maxim, "when you're stuck in a hole, keep digging".

    Clearly, the author bases his argument on a premise that is faulty. He states that Congress is too preoccupied with global climate change. As if something that threatens our shorelines, invites mass environmental displacement, and a shifting of the agricultural and economic underpinnings of the country is something the governing body of our nation could be "too preoccupied" about.

    Individuals like Mr. Anderson are myopic in their response to a changing world. It's a 1950s perspective that is no longer appropriate or in the country's best interests.

    Do we need to eliminate our reliance on the middle east? Of course. But, shifting to a reliance on Canada and exacerbation of the problems associated with global climate change is a ridiculous solution.

  • December 20, 2008

    8:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brix57 writes:

    The author tends to gloss over the facts that extracting the oil from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada is an environmental nightmare. Perhaps, this could, and may happen to Colorado when we start on the oil shale. Upsetting the natural ecology of the local area merely to satisfy far off oil users has severe effects. Have we lost sight of the many Superfund sites that are still waiting to be cleaned?

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/featu...

  • December 20, 2008

    8:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Oliver2 writes:

    Much of our continent's remaining fresh water is in Canada. Tar sands require vast amounts of water, and leave an ugly ugly mess behind. Mr. Anderson might think that he cannot live without a few decades more gas to fuel his Escalade, but water will quickly surpass fossil fuel as the resource of scarcity in this century if we pursue policies like he advocates.

  • December 20, 2008

    9:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TallPaul writes:

    I don't think you will have the option of oil sands for quite a long time anyway. They are only economic to pursue when oil is at a higher price: $70, $80, or $100 per barrel, depending on the project. In case you haven't looked, oil is at about $35 today. It takes enormous capital to build the projects and this capital has dried up, so oil sands developers are mothballing the projects right and left. So don't get too excited about it as the solution to our energy problems.
    I'm glad the visionaries writing comments here are Beyond Petroleum.
    For the commentor above who can't find a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming: I'm a scientist, and I'm quite sure that man-made global warming is a hoax. It is a political mission of Democrats who want to control the agenda, supported by sell-out scientists who can only get a grant if they find the "right answer".

  • December 20, 2008

    10:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    Two points are in order here. The first being that neither Venezuela nor Iran have been hostile towards us in spite of the fact that the Bush Administration has been extremely hostile towards them. Secondly the tar sands belong to Canada and the fate of oil extraction there and what becomes of the oil is entirely their business and not ours.

  • December 20, 2008

    11:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Those who advocate not using imported Canadian oil should stop consuming petroleum products. Your words will be consistent with your actions. You can even arrange a boycott of Canadian oil.

    The rest of us need petroleum for the foreseeable future. I encourage subsidies for research (but not consumption) of petroleum substitutes. These substitutes are decades from economic viabililty. When they are viable or even near viable, we should embrace them. If the left forces non economically viable energy sources on the economy, our standard of living will substantially decline. Your good feelings about the environment will not put food on your table.

  • December 20, 2008

    12:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TC writes:

    On the 8th day God created oil. More specifically sweet light crude. Nothing else even comes close.

  • December 20, 2008

    7:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    yaakovwatkins writes:

    Anyone who is concerned with global warming and carbon footprints who get a print subscription to the Rocky is a hypocrite.

  • December 21, 2008

    11:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SheikYurBooty writes:

    yaak - we are all hypocrites in a thousand different ways. Yes, that includes you. You and everyone will stop being hypocritcal only when you assume room temperature.

  • December 22, 2008

    9:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    James Anderson (and the president, veep, and most of the cabinet) are perfect examples of "When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail."