[Vision2020] Oil Sands and Megaloads

[Ted Moffett]

Controlling Canada's decisions regarding tar sands development
presents unique problems, but the US side of the equation can more
directly be addressed by US citizens.  Not mentioned in this letter to
the editor, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to carry tar sands
product from Canada through the US, is now (Aug. 20 through Sept. 3,
2011) a major focus of action in the US, to lessen or stop tar sands
development, with arrests at the Whitehouse during protests regarding
this pipeline project:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/fifty-more-americans-arrested-at-white-house-on-day-2-of-sit-in-over-oil-pipeline/

The destruction of forests due to tar sands development, and how this
impacts global warming, is very important, of course, as are the
impacts of toxic pollution, but the process of tar sands development
releases significant amounts of CO2 in its use of natural gas (or oil
or gasoline), before the burning of the refined fuels eventually
releases more CO2.  Tar sands thus have a larger global greenhouse gas
impact than some other oil resources, inherant to the process of
development, even if other negative environmental impacts, the toxic
releases or local environmental degradation, were limited.  Some
contend the increased CO2 emissions from tar sands development can be
reduced with improved technologies:
http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Nuclear%20oil%20sand.htm

However, reductions in CO2 emissions across the board are required to
address climate change, even if tar sands impacts can be lessened.
CO2 emissions from tar sands development are arguably less of a
environmental threat to global climate than US coal fired plants.  The
scale of the reduction in CO2 emissions required to avoid severe
impacts of climate change are daunting, as the following publication
from the Earth Policy Institute indicates, advocating 80 percent
reductions by 2020:
http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020notes.pdf

An informative article on the tar sands development from Yale's
Environment360 is at website below, with a short excerpt:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_albertas_tar_sands_boom_foes_target_projects_lifelines/2422/

Oil companies have limited refining capacity for the dense crude in
Alberta, and that’s where the biggest pipeline project, Keystone XL,
figures in. Each day the proposed Keystone XL pipeline — to be built
by Calgary-based TransCanada Corporation — would move 910,000 barrels
of a slurry of bitumen, natural gas, and undisclosed chemicals through
a 36-inch-diameter, high-pressure pipe, buried four feet underground.
The nearly 1,700-mile route would run from Hardisty, Alberta, through
Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska (including 92 miles of
the Sand Hills), and Oklahoma. After connecting with an existing
pipeline in Nebraska, the new Keystone XL would begin again in
Cushing, Oklahoma and continue on to Houston and Port Arthur, Texas.
There, company officials say, they would have the special refining
capacity they need.

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 8/22/11, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> Courtesy of the "Letters to the Editor" section of today's (August 22, 2011)
> Moscow-Pullman Daily News with thanks to Vince Murray and Sonja Lewis.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> More than tree trimming
>
> When I first read Devin Rokyta's "Our View" editorial (Opinion, Aug. 16)
> about the Kearl Oil Sands project in Alberta, I thought he was being
> satirical, and I almost started laughing. But after reading it several
> times, my jaw began to drop. Writing to express the opinion of the Daily
> News editorial board, Rokyta states that the oil sands project cannot be
> stopped, but that will be true only if we do nothing to stop it - if we
> merely say, as Rokyta does, that it's going to happen, so let's make some
> money off it.
>
> Yes, Rokyta, mining the oil sands does bring with it severe environmental
> consequences, and first among them, according to the Alberta Cancer Board,
> is the 30 percent increase in cancer rates already documented among the
> First Nation Albertans of Fort Chipewyan. But this project will also destroy
> boreal forests from a tract of land the size of the state of Florida,
> forests that currently absorb carbon dioxide and slow global warming, and
> wipe out the numerous animal species that inhabit these forests.
>
> Pipelines from this project, especially the one to Kitimat, British
> Columbia, will ultimately destroy much more. It seems to me that looking for
> economic benefits in a bankrupt endeavor is the height of folly and
> something that should never overshadow the ethical concerns.
>
> Vince Murray, Moscow
>
> --------------------
>
> Rethink megaload issue
>
> Devin Rokyta (Our View, Opinion, Aug. 16) needs to rethink the megaload
> issue.
>
> As a 20-year resident of Moscow and 10-year homeowner, I have witnessed how
> reluctant large self-contained RVs are to freely roam around town to shop
> and utilize our dining and lodging. Vehicle size is not without consequence!
>
> Imperial Oil/Exxon Mobil's drivers and support crew may not be eager to find
> adequate parking and cruise our facilities, either.
>
> Furthermore, why count on the corporation's hiring locally (in order to cut
> the transport units down to size)? Businesses often prefer to hire from
> their own employee pool.
>
> Moscow's city utility and street engineer state that the megaloads will
> cause no significant wear and tear - but on what grounds did they base their
> opinions? With each unit weighing more than 200 tons, wouldn't it be more
> prudent for a sizeable and adequate damage deposit be required up front?
>
> But at least, Idahoans have kept the loads out of our irreplaceable Lochsa
> River corridor - so far. Let's support the legal battle to ensure this.
>
> Sonja Lewis, Moscow
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Seeya At the rally Thursday night, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>
> - Unknown
>
>