New Front Group for Big Oil Promotes Tar Sands as Safe and Secure  

July 11, 2012

JUST A RANDOM SAMPLE……………………

How many inaccuracies can you physically cram into a video that’s only one minute and 42 seconds in length? Well, if the author of the video is the Sierra Club and the topic is the oil sands, turns out the answer is: quite a lot. By our count, there are at least 15 separate things in the film that at best have a complicated relationship with the truth – and, at worst, have never even laid eyes upon it. To wit:

(0:03 -0:09): “Oil companies want to build pipelines across America to carry tar sands crude from Canada to our coasts.”

FACT: Part of that is true: Companies like TransCanada are indeed interested in investing in America by building critical energy infrastructure needed in our country. But the Sierra Club makes it sound as if that hasn’t already happened. Pipelines connecting Canada and the U.S. have been on line for decades, beginning in the late 1940s. Thanks to this established infrastructure, Canada currently provides two million barrels of oil per day to the U.S. via pipeline, according to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, making Canada our top supplier of imported oil.

For a more accurate visual of where Canadian oil is going within the U.S., disregard the video’s over-simplified map and check out this pipeline map from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) HERE.

(0:10-0:15): “The truth is these proposed pipelines won’t bring oil to America. They bring oil through America.”

FACT: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2011, 99.7 percent of the crude oil produced in (or imported into) the United States was also consumed here, which means less than one-half of one percent (0.3 percent) was exported – and those exported products are generally not used in the U.S.. Additionally, 92 percent of all gasoline and diesel in the United States was refined and processed here. The U.S. Dept. of Energy even concluded that “there would be no economic incentive to ship Canadian oil sands [crude] to Asia via Port Arthur” without a surplus of heavy oil. Simply put, we import oil from Canada to satisfy our own demand – in a manner that’s secure, affordable and proximate to markets.

(0:16-0:20): “The asphalt-like tar-sands are mined from Canada’s northern boreal forests.”

FACT: The energy source in question is actually called “oil sands” – not “tar sands.” The oil sands are a mixture of inorganic matter, silt, clay, water and viscous oil called bitumen. Tar, in contrast, is a modified pitch produced primarily from wood and roots. They serve completely different purposes and therefore deserve different names.

Second, Sierra Club’s preferred visual of bulldozers destroying the boreal forest is certainly eye-catching, but it’s simply not accurate. Here are the facts: Canada’s oil sands development has affected less than 0.2 percent of Alberta’s boreal forest. In fact, in Alberta alone, approximately 24 percent of the boreal forest (about the size of South Carolina) is under federal protection and can’t even be touched by production. Any land that is disturbed by production processes must be reclaimed by law. Thus far, over 67 sq. km have been reclaimed.

(0:20-0:29): “Oil companies have to heat the tar sands with toxic additives generating massive greenhouse gas pollution and dumping cancer-causing chemicals into the air and water.”

FACT(s): Lots to work with here, so we’re counting this as at least two inaccuracies and will just give you the rundown.

1) We have no idea what “toxic additives” are being discussed here. Naturally, Sierra Club doesn’t go into specifics. But we do know that the crude from the oil sands is liquefied by using steam – a generally un-imposing process by most standards.

2) The oil sands region makes up only about 6.5 percent of Canada’s overall GHG emissions and approximately 0.1 percent of the world’s emissions. That’s far from “massive.” On top of that, of the five leading oil exporters to the United States, only Canada has strict GHG regulations – the result of which has been an emission reduction of 29 percent since 1990.

3) Following a familiar (and irresponsible) playbook, anti-energy activists have sought to tie oil sands development to cancer for decades – notwithstanding findings from the Royal Society of Canada that “there is currently no credible evidence” linking anything related to the oil sands with elevated cancer rates. Furthermore, “[p]rojected additional emissions from expanded operations are not likely to change this expectation.”

(0:29-0:31): “Tar sands is the dirtiest oil on earth.”

FACT: According to Alberta Innovates, a government-led initiative, prior to being transported via pipeline from the extraction site, oil sands crude is upgraded to a standard similar to other heavy crude oils commonly transported throughout the country, including heavy crude produced in California.

(0:37-0:39): “Sands and chemicals in the mixture corrodes steel.”

FACT: Oil derived from the oil sands does not pose a unique threat to pipelines. Before any oil is transported via pipeline, it must meet federally-mandated quality specifications in both the U.S. and Canada. Shocking, we know, but petroleum pipelines are actually constructed to specifications that ensure they can handle the intended operating pressure and the type of liquid that flows through them. In examining accident reports from PHMSA since 2002, no pipelines carrying Canadian crude have experienced releases resulting from internal corrosion.

(0:39-0:47): “An existing tar sands pipeline spilled 12 times in its first 12 months of operation. That’s a spill a month.”

FACT: Of course, there’s actually no such thing as an “[oil] sands pipeline,” at least one that’s separate and distinct from any other petroleum pipeline. Truth is: pipelines carry various grades of oil from different sources and are not distinguished as oil sands or non-oil-sands lines. Oil sands crude may be upgraded prior to transportation or diluted to enable flow. But once it is, guess what? It’s just oil – the same stuff that you’d encounter anywhere else, with virtually the similar profiles. Pipelines are heavily regulated and any oil placed into the pipeline has to meet the same standards.

We think that Sierra Club is trying to reference supposed spills on TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline. Those 12 spills came at pumping stations and were responded to promptly.

(0:47-0:54): “Spills pollute waterways in critical underground aquifers and can put crops and drinking water for millions of Americans at risk.”

FACT: In examining potential health issues associated with oil sands development in the Athabasca region, the Royal Society of Canada concluded that “current evidence on water quality impacts on the Athabasca River system suggests that oil sands development activities are not a current threat to aquatic system viability.” In the case of the proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline, billions of barrels of crude oil are being safely produced and transported across the Ogallala Aquifer by existing pipelines. Sierra Club’s claim is speculative, if not alarmist.

(0:54-0:59): “Oil companies use legal intimidation to force dangerous pipelines on landowners who don’t want them.”

FACT: Any company seeking to build a pipeline must follow strict state laws regarding land acquisition. There is no “intimidation,” only the law.

Again, Sierra Club tends to lump all landowners under the same umbrella of pipeline-haters. You might be surprised to hear it, but, as it turns out, the truth is quite a bit different. Here’s what a Montana rancher who lives along the proposed KXL line told the Billings Gazette, “We’re not worried about it at all … When they come in to put it in you hardly know they are there. When it’s done you don’t even know they were there.”

(1:00-1:05): “The Canadian tar sands crude is destined for U.S. coastal refineries releasing more cancer-causing chemicals.”

FACT: We’re getting to the end, and at this point, they’re clearly running out of material. See our response above.

(1:06-1:08): “The fuel would be largely exported overseas.”

FACT: Ditto. See our response at the top of the page.

(1:09-1:17): “Americans take on all the risk while oil companies collect all the rewards – the huge profits Big Oil uses to buy more influence in Washington, D.C.”

FACT: There’s no denying the simple (and irrelevant) truth that an element of risk exists anytime humans decide to do, well, anything. And yes, building a $7 billion transcontinental oil pipeline is not immune from that reality.

That said, Americans are taking on benefits, not risk, with increased production and transportation of Canadian oil sands crude. According to a 2011 study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), for every two jobs created in Canada from oil sands development, approximately one is created in the U.S. Increased investment in Canadian oil sands development will create more than 500,000 new U.S. jobs and generate $775 billion in GDP by 2035.

(1:18-1:30): “Moving America beyond oil isn’t that difficult. With smart transportation choices including vehicles powered by clean, advanced technology we can achieve real energy independence, long-term national security, and create jobs.”

FACT: True, we need all kinds of energy – renewables included — to meet what every single serious analyst predicts will be continued growth in world energy demand. But according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. will increase oil imports by 21 percent more in 2035 than in 2009. Even doubling the amount of renewable energy consumed in the U.S. would not be enough to match current oil consumption rates.

(1:31-1:35): “We need to draw the line at tar sands. The world’s dirtiest oil isn’t welcome here.”

FACT: The oil sands may not be welcomed by the Sierra Club, but Americans are all for it. According to a March Gallup poll, Americans support the construction of KXL by nearly a 2-1 margin. Regardless, this resource is being produced and Canada will seek other customers if we don’t seize the opportunity KXL can provide.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Washington Post attempts to explain the significance of KXL beyond Capitol Hill politics – and misses a few facts along the way

It’s long been a source of pride for folks in Washington, D.C. to be living in one of the “best-educated” regions in the country, a status to which it lays claim thanks to the outrageously high ratio of residents in possession of a college degree (“smartest” is a different matter).

But when it comes to issues relevant to the debate over Canadian energy and the oil sands, it’s safe to assume that, among most folks in Washington, Canada’s role as our number one supplier of imported oil goes unnoticed and only one word comes to mind: Keystone. That’s why we were excited to hear that the Washington Post was breaking free of the Beltway to head up to Alberta to do some reporting on the issue.

Based on tours of the Athabasca oil sands region and speaking to a diverse set of interests along the way, the story attempts to explain the somewhat foreign process of oil sands extraction to a Washington audience more familiar with campaign promises to build KXL than the reasons behind it.

While there were many things the article got right, there are a few points that remain unclear. As MEG Energy spokesman Brad Bellows told the reporter, much of the criticism of oil sands development is “political, misleading or downright wrong.” Well Mr. Bellows, we tend to agree, and we’re checking the facts on this story in hopes that the 38 percent of Americans who are against KXL may have a change of heart – or at least be better informed.

–

WaPo: “The rush to expand [oil sands development] has been fueled by high oil prices.”

Sure, more energy production means more supply, which in turn can bring down the overall cost of oil. But the rate at which we’re seeing the oil sands develop has less to do with oil prices and more to do with improvements in the technology being deployed. Advancements in drilling technology such as directional drilling are generating significant production power, allowing as many as 20 wells to be drilled at a time. And according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), oil sands production is projected to more than double by 2025 thanks in large part to innovations in drilling technologies as compared to more traditional mining operations.
WaPo: “A new Washington Post poll finds nearly six in 10 saying the U.S. government should approve the project. Its wide acceptance is rooted in the fact that 83 percent think it will create jobs. Nearly half think it will not cause significant damage to the environment.”

Many experts think KXL will create jobs and not have significant environmental impacts too; in fact, they know it. Data from the Canadian Energy Research Institute concludes that the U.S. will fail to create 10,000 new U.S. jobs this year due to the delay in KXL approval. That number jumps to 45,000 in 2015. And according to the State Department’s supplemental draft of its environmental review of KXL, the pipeline would “have a degree of safety over any other” and “limited adverse environmental impacts.”
On top of WaPo’s poll findings, Rasmussen Reports found that 60 percent of Americans favor building KXL. Sentiment hasn’t changed much since March 2012, when Gallop reported that Americans favor KXL by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
WaPo: “Unlike oil that spurts up from reservoirs in most of the world, including Saudi Arabia, half of Canada’s oil sands are dredged up in a process more akin to strip mining.”

The type of extraction the story is attempting to describe is known as surface or open pit mining and only 20 percent of oil sands reserved can be developed this way – not half. The majority (80 percent) of the oil sands region can be developed using a process known as “in situ drilling,” which produces oil from more than 200 feet below the ground and does not require tailing ponds as the article notes.
WaPo: “Congressional Research Service report released May 15 estimated that Canada’s oil sands produced 14 to 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average barrel of U.S. imported crude oil — or comparable to low-quality Venezuelan crudes. By other standards, however, oil sands look worse. The ‘well to tank’ emissions (those created just to get the gas to the car) of Canadian oil sands are about twice as high as the average U.S. crude import.”

And by other standards, oil sands are quite comparable. An analysis from IHS CERA concluded that life-cycle (or “well to wheels”) greenhouse gas emissions are only 5 to 15 percent higher than the average barrel of U.S. imported crude oil, and generally stick around 6 percent. There are lots of other reasons why OSFC thinks the Congressional Research Service report is a bit flawed, and we outlined them all in this previous issue alert.
Another point to consider: out of the top five countries from which the U.S. imports oil, only Canada has GHG regulations.
WaPo: “Companies expend energy equal to one barrel of oil to extract four to eight barrels from the oil sands.”

According to calculations by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers based on data collected by the Energy Resources Conservation Board, it takes one unit of energy – most often in the form of natural gas and not oil– to get between 6 and 10 units of energy out of the oil sands. Water is used at a minimum as well. Mining processes use 2 to 4 barrels, while in situ processes use even less – 0.5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.
WaPo: “‘The projects themselves are enormous and ugly — but even uglier is the freight of carbon they contain,’ said Bill McKibben, a Middlebury College professor who has been a leading voice against the pipeline.”

Carbon is not uniquely “contained” within crude oil from the oil sands. Instead, it is largely released during the combustion process e.g. when you turn on your car or run your lawnmower. According to IHS CERA, 70 to 80 percent of GHG emissions for all sources of crude, including oil sands, occur during combustion. Once the oil is refined, there is no difference between combusting oil sands crude and any other crude oil. Notably, oil sands development accounts for just over 0.1 percent of global GHG emissions.
WaPo: “The process of extracting the bitumen hasn’t changed since it was patented in the 1920s by a University of Alberta scientist, Karl Clark.”

We get the gist of this statement; bitumen extraction has always involved a process by which bitumen is separated from the other components that make up the oil sands. But to suggest that nothing much has changed at an oil sands production site would be far from the truth. The in situ process – which calls for advanced technology to inject steam or other sources of heat into the ground to warm and eventually extract bitumen – was first used commercially in 1985 and continues to evolve. In March 2012, twelve oil sands companies, now known as Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) pledged to continue this evolution while improving environmental performance and accountability.
Two good examples of advanced in situ technologies in action:
Imperial Oil developed Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhanced Recovery in 2005. The process has made drilling more efficient and reduces GHG emissions by 25 percent.
Petrobank Energy has spent the last three years developing THAI technology – Toe to Heal Air Injection – which has proven to produce 70 to 80 percent more of the resource, while using significantly less fresh water. The process brings the bitumen up using natural pressure and allows for partial upgrading underground.
WaPo: “[T]he Pembina Institute says only 1 percent of the tailings ponds have been replanted. Even if land can be reclaimed, a costly undertaking, the greenhouse gases will be long gone into the atmosphere.”

According to Alberta law, reclamation isn’t an option – every mining site must be reclaimed. Thus far, over 67 square kilometers have been reclaimed and the Lower Athabasca region is showing a species intactness index of 94 percent.
We question the logic used here as well. If oil sands projects can last for 40 or 50 years, as the article states, and oil sands production became commercially viable in 1963, then many tailing ponds could either still be in use or in the process of re-growing as we write.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

With the Keystone XL provision stalled in the federal transportation bill conference, and an environmental assessment on the newly-proposed Keystone route through Nebraska pending, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has set its sights on a brand new – and completely manufactured –controversy. They’ve found a willing audience among other fossil fuel opposition groups in New England, who joined together on Tuesday to release a “new” report entitled “Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England.”

By repurposing some old claims on pipeline safety they made back in February 2011 and loosely tying them to a pipeline that happens to connect Portland and Montreal, NRDC pieced together a report based on a national agenda, absent of the facts facing New England communities. The 24-page report hangs on an assumption that Enbridge, the owner of the Line 9 pipeline connecting terminals in Sarnia and Montreal, will extend its reach into the Portland-Montreal pipeline to export oil from the U.S. East Coast.

The not-so-secret missing piece here is that there is no such pipeline project or plans to connect Line 9 to a reversed Portland-Montreal line. Enbridge has clearly and repeatedly explained that NRDC’s claims are simply fabricated, and supporting documents have been filed with the National Energy Board of Canada (and can be found publically on their website).

OSFC took a closer look at individual claims made throughout this report and found that we’ll need to highlight some new information and repeat some other facts in order to set the record straight. If you learn nothing else from this rebuttal, at least understand that there is a big difference between reiterating facts and reprinting uninformed claims. NRDC may want to internalize that lesson before targeting yet another pipeline community.

—

p. 3: “Reversing existing pipelines is not necessary and should not be put into operation.”

FACT: Saying that all pipeline reversals are not necessary defies logic – line reversals help to optimize existing resources to respond to changing market demands. But in the case of the Portland-Montreal line (and to the detriment of NRDC’s argument), Enbridge agreed – it has no plans with the owners and operators of the Portland-Montreal line to reverse the flow of oil. That’s why Enbridge has publically expressed as recently as its May 2012 earnings call (see slide 18) how, despite considering and abandoning a proposal several years ago, there are no plans to reverse the line now. Regardless of these statements and documents filed with the National Energy Board of Canada, NRDC still decided to write a 24-page report theorizing a “what if” situation. If you can accept the fact that their entire report is premised on a theory we could stop right here. But there is too much to work with not to continue.

p. 3: “The Canadian and U.S. federal governments should complete more thorough reviews of plans to transport tar sands oil through central Canada and New England, evaluating the need for new safety regulations for tar sands pipelines.”

FACT: Pipeline reviews in both Canada and the U.S. are thorough and complete. In fact, according to the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), oil pipeline releases that occur over time were down 36 percent between 2002 and 2009. In oil pipelines installed prior to the 1950s, which includes the 62-year-old Portland-Montreal line, releases are down by 83 percent. From the AOPL: “These statistics demonstrate that operators are managing the full array of threats and are dedicated to improving the performance of older assets.”

p. 6: “[B]etween 2007 and 2010, pipelines in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan—all pipelines carrying tar sands oil—spilled almost three times more crude oil per mile of pipeline when compared to the U.S. national average.”

FACT: Except for gathering and collection lines that take oil sands to be processed, there is no such thing as an “oil sands pipeline”. Oil pipelines are designed to carry crude oil (and not tar or sand). And crude oil produced from Canada’s oil sands region, once processed, has similar characteristics to other types of crude transported throughout the United States. Let’s repeat that – oil sands crude, once processed, takes on similar characteristics as other types of crude. It travels down the same pipeline systems as oil from other parts of North America and the rest of the world.

We dug a little deeper on this assertion and checked the report’s endnotes, which reveal that NRDC doesn’t source where it gets its spill data. The statistics they use do not differentiate between conventional and oil sands crude oil … because pipelines aren’t differentiated that way. Pipelines are designed and operated based on various grades (heavy to light) of petroleum travelling through them and according to specifications designated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Crude derived from the oil sands must first be upgraded or diluted to specifications before it enters a pipeline and in so doing, takes on a gravity similar to other heavy, conventional crude oils.

p. 6: “Tar sands diluted bitumen normally has organic acid concentrations up to 20 times higher than conventional crude oil, and contains up to 10 times more sulfur.”

FACT: According to a 2011 study by Canadian energy research and technical services group Alberta Innovates, there are conventional crude oils on the market that display higher concentrations of both acid and sulfur than conventional Alberta heavy crudes, including crudes derived from the oil sands. NRDC suggests that these levels make a crude oil more corrosive and thus more dangerous to pipe. However, Alberta Innovates found that under pipeline transportation temperatures for oil sands crude, or any other crude for that matter, these compounds “are too stable to be corrosive and some may even decrease corrosion rates.”

p. 6: “Tar sands diluted bitumen flowing through pipelines creates friction, which raises the material’s temperature and amplifies its corrosive qualities. An accepted industry standard is that corrosion rates double with every 10-degree Celsius increase in temperature.”

FACT: The most likely cause of internal pipe corrosion comes from the formation of sludge or leftover particle deposits. Bacteria found in these deposits are most active between 10 deg. C and 40 deg. C. According to the Alberta Innovates study, “higher temperatures up to 70 deg.C may reduce the corrosion rate underneath sludge deposits,” and not amplify corrosive qualities. In examining accident reports from PHMSA from 2002 to early 2011, no pipelines carrying Canadian crude have experienced releases resulting from internal corrosion.

p. 6: “Tar sands diluted bitumen has suspended in its mixture abrasive materials like quartz and pyrite sand particles.”

FACT: When Alberta Innovates conducted the research to inform its corrosivity study, it compared particle levels of heavy to light sour crudes, light sweet crude, and oil sands-derived diluted bitumen (dilbit) and diluted synthetic bitumen (dilsynbit). Researchers discovered that sediment levels of dilbit crudes were “comparable or lower than the conventional crudes.” The dilsynbit registered higher levels of sediment than most other crude, however, they were still “well below the limit set by regulatory agencies and the industry.”

p. 6: Tar sands diluted bitumen is 40 to 70 times more viscous than North American conventional crude oil. This high viscosity requires tar sands pipelines to operate at higher pressures than conventional pipelines.

FACT: Alberta Innovates found that dilbit crudes have similar degrees of viscosities to conventional heavy crudes. Diluent can be adjusted to control viscosity in order to keep operating temperatures within normal temperatures set by pipeline operators and approved by federal regulatory agencies in both Canada and the U.S.

p. 7: “[O]lder pipelines were not designed to carry a heavy crude like diluted bitumen.”

FACT: Claims like this one do a disservice to thousands of engineers who study the integrity of pipelines as they age, just as any industrial engineer inspects bridges, tunnels and railways to ensure they are keeping up with inspections, maintenance and technology. According to the AOPL, “Pipelines are built to have long lives …Pipeline operators are required under federal statute to develop an Integrity Management Plan (IMP) for pipelines that could affect high consequence areas (HCAs) such as population centers, commercially navigable waters and environmentally sensitive areas.” The Department of Transportation, which oversees pipeline safety, agrees: “Pipelines, in short, are practical and safe.” But most of this is lost on NRDC – they don’t approve of any pipelines. Not aging pipelines with demonstrated track records, or state-of-the-art pipelines like the Keystone XL, as they pointed out in their report from last month.

p. 9: “Enbridge is likely seeking to transport tar sands oil to the East Coast because tar sands crude is increasingly oversupplied locally and producers now receive $30 less per barrel than the average global price for crude oil. …The oil industry wants access to other markets like the Gulf coast and markets abroad, to increase their per-barrel tar sands profits.”

FACT: If we haven’t said it enough before, NRDC is opposed to a proposal that doesn’t exist – there are no plans by either Enbridge or Portland Pipeline to reverse the Portland-Montreal line. The decision to transport resources to any location is based on demand, which, according to elementary economics, is one factor that affects the price of a barrel of oil. The oil industry is seeking to satisfy demand – something the U.S. has plenty of. According to projections from the Energy Information Administration, petroleum products will make up more than 30 percent of our energy consumption into 2035.

p. 12: “The landscape left behind after tar sands oil extraction is one of extreme industrial devastation.”

FACT: Alberta law requires full reclamation of every mining site – a law put into place to ensure that “extreme industrial devastation” would not even be possible. All companies developing the oil sands must establish a reclamation plan that spans the life of the project. Thus far, over 67 square kilometers have been reclaimed.

p. 12: “From its extraction in Alberta to its final use in a car, tar sands oil is, on average, 14 to 20 percent more carbon intensive than other imported crudes to the United States.”

FACT: First of all, NRDC lists as its reference for this stat a MarketWatch article that doesn’t even mention the 14 to 20 percent figure. Putting general research standards aside, we stand by the results of an IHS CERA report that concludes, “The average oil sands import to the United States has well-to-wheels life-cycle GHG emissions about 6 percent higher than the average crude refined in the United States.” And according to the Government of Alberta, GHG emissions per barrel of oil produced was reduced by an average of 29 percent between 1990 and 2009.

*Read more about the well-to-wheels debate in one of our previous issue alerts.

p. 13: “It is estimated that switching from refining lighter crude oils to heavier tar sands crude oils could double or even triple refinery emissions of greenhouse gasses.”

FACT: Refining of crude oil from the oil sands results in similar emissions to other conventional heavy oils refined in the U.S. According to an IHS CERA report on well-to-wheels greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions among different crude oils, GHG emissions for Californian, Middle Eastern and Venezuelan heavy crude oils, all considered to be conventional by U.S. standards, are comparable to that of the oil sands. And refining isn’t the largest source of emissions in the life cycle of a fuel anyway. As reported by IHS CERA, 70 to 80 percent of GHG emissions for all sources of crude, including oil sands, occur during combustion.

p. 15: “According to a 2010 report by the Michigan Department of Community Health, in the weeks after the spill, health officials identified 145 patients who reported illness or symptoms associated with the leak.”

FACT: The Michigan Department’s 2010 report was a survey of verbally reported illnesses in the area surrounding the Marshall, Mich. spill site. The Department took this study one step further in 2011 and concluded that “[c]ontact with chemicals in the submerged oil will not cause long-term health effects or cause a larger-than-normal risk of cancer.” And then in a report dated May 23, 2012, which had been reviewed by the U.S. EPA and had been subject to a public comment period, the Department concluded yet again that contact with the oil “will not result in long-lasting health effects” or a “higher than normal risk of cancer.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To hear it from environmental activist James Hansen, development of the oil sands in Canada will usher in the apocalypse, “game over for the climate,” as he wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed.

It’s a frightening thought, but unfortunately for Mr. Hansen, it’s not grounded in realistic assumptions.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Hansen has proclaimed “game over” if the oil sands are developed. In June 2011, Hansen penned a letter calling the oil sands a “monster,” the development of which would mean “game over” in the global effort to control carbon emissions. Hansen wrote that the oil sands contain “at least” 400 gigatons of carbon, which would equate to adding about 200 parts per million (ppm) to the atmosphere.

But in his recent op-ed, Hansen now states that the oil sands contain 240 gigatons of carbon. What changed?

The reasons are likely numerous, but a significant one came from Andrew Leach, who pointed out last summer (right after Hansen published his letter) that to get the carbon content Hansen claimed, you’d have to burn 2.4 trillion barrels of oil – or about 40 percent more oil than the total in-place resources found in the Canadian oil sands. It’s worth noting that the new figure Hansen uses – 240 gigatons – is 40 percent lower than his original claim. Leach also noted that it would take until the year 3316 to get the amount of oil out of the ground that Hansen is referencing.

Moreover, total oil in place does not indicate how much oil will be produced. Although technologies are constantly evolving to allow for greater recovery rates, the oil sands in Canada are estimated to hold about 170 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, with as-yet undiscovered, technically recoverable resources being pegged at about 320 billion barrels, or about 86 percent less oil than what Hansen suggested in his original “game over” model.

What’s even worse about Hansen’s doomsday scenario is the “solution” he offers to rectify it: a new tax on carbon that could raise energy costs for consumers, who might not be able to purchase as much, decreasing demand. Hansen specifically references “the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price” as something that would, somehow, “stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners and losers.”

How a new tax to be collected and distributed by the federal government will “avoid enlarging government” is anyone’s guess.

Finally, Hansen assumes that efficiencies have completely flatlined and will not improve – a hypothesis that doesn’t even pass the laugh test, much less empirical evidence. As just one example, congressionally mandated increases in fuel economy through 2025 will substantially reduce U.S. gasoline consumption. This, combined with increased oil supplies from Canada through the Keystone XL pipeline, would allow the U.S. to reduce oil imports from unfriendly countries like Venezuela – with the added advantage of the environmental benefits pipelines offer over other forms of transportation.

In short, Hansen’s “game over” scenario suffers from significant flaws in its assumptions, and the fix he proposes for his wild projection could actually create additional and unnecessary economic pain to American consumers.

The truth is that development of the oil sands – and the approval of the Keystone XL – will create tens of thousands of new jobs, significantly grow the economy and further enhance America’s energy security. And as U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has said, companies developing the oil sands are “making great strides in improving the environmental impact of the extraction of this oil and will continue to do so.”

Not so frightening now, is it?