Gulf Coast vs. Tar Sands: Environmental Deathmatch

Written by Brant Olson

Topics: Finance, Oil

share this story
facebook twitter email stumble upon
Get Energy Alerts

Photos by BP and National Geographic

Last week, we reported that Canada’s tar sands have just become the biggest source of oil imports to the US. This week we compare tar sands to the other big source of US oil–the Gulf of Mexico.

Industry backers are trying hard to spin differences between tar sands and the Gulf. During a cheerleading trip to DC Germany last month Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach Environment Minister Jim Prentice speculated that the risk of tar sands development in Alberta is “probably less than the kind of risks associated with offshore drilling.” Stelmach, choosing his words a more carfefully on a simmilar mission to DC used the word “safer” when he made the same comparison.

We see more similarities. As more conventional supplies of oil dry up, deep water drilling in the Gulf and strip mining for oil in the tar sands represent the dirty, dangerous future of our oil addiction unless we break the habit.

Both regions represent a large and growing supply of oil the US. Canada’s tar sands just became the top source of imported oil (about 1 M barrels/day or just over 8%), and the Gulf of Mexico has long been the top supply of domestic production (1.6 M barrels/day or just over 30%). Analysts expect expect double digit growth in production from both regions over the next decade or so.

Both are an expensive fix too, requiring sky-high oil prices to turn a profit. Profitable production from Canada’s tar sands requires oil prices at around $100/barrel. Deep water production requires oil prices of at least $70/barrel. Despite the costs, analysts expect investors to pour more than $167 billion into deep water drilling  and more than $120 billion into Canada’s tar sands by 2014.

And then there’s the environment. There’s no doubt that the Gulf spill is a catastrophe. But Stelmach’s cynical pitch last month ignores the devastating ecological harms of strip mining for oil. A recent report from CERES concluded that the millions of gallons of toxins leaking from giant tailings ponds every year are “like the Gulf of Mexico spill, but playing out in slow motion.” For evidence, he need only look to thousand of animals that have perished in these pits, and the unusually high rates of cancer in native communities living downstream.

So who wins the Deathmatch?  Big Oil. Everybody else loses.

5 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. J Winter says:

    “So who wins the Deathmatch? Big Oil. Everybody else loses.”

    Hadn’t thought about it that way, nice framing Brant.

  2. Brant, I do not beleive you are quoting the Premier of Alberta at all in this blog post. Please check your sources. The Government of Alberta has repeatedly expressed its concern and sympathy over the situation in the Gulf and not just our reluctance but our outright refusal to make comparisons where none are possible. Again, please check your sources, our Premier has not made the comment you attribute to him.
    - David Sands, Government of Alberta

  3. Brant says:

    David, I pulled misread the quote from the linked article by Jason Kirby in Macleans, have you asked for a retraction sorry for the error. I’ve corrected the attribution to federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice. Stelmach just said “safer”, according to Heather McRobbie at the Guardian.

  4. Brant, I thank you for the adjustment and especially commend your use of the “strikethrough” style that social media types tell me reflects the most honest approach by bloggers. Believe me, it’s not a courtesy extended by some bloggers with whom we have raised concerns. If I may push the issue a bit, McRobbie is not quoting the premier, I believe she’s using quotation marks liberally. That would be the same way she treated the Premier’s mission to Chicago and DC, planned months and months prior to Deepwater Horizon, as I think reasonable persons would assume a sub-state visit would be.
    Bottom line, Brant, while perhaps others have made comparisons between the Gulf and the oil sands – and I do not speak for them – I assure you my Government has not:
    Again, thank you for the adjustment to your blog post.
    - David Sands, Government of Alberta

  5. DM says:

    The fact of the matter is, both forms of oil extraction are horrendous. The amount of money we are investing into ever dirtier forms of energy — $200 billion committed to the tar sands alone — could and should be put to clean energy. Being in Chicago, on the border of the largest U.S. tar sands refinery (owned by BP), our water supply is directly impacted by tar sands as the waste is dumped into Lake Michigan.

Trackbacks For This Post

  1. “Gulf Coast vs. Tar Sands: Environmental Deathmatch” « Climate Justice Links

Leave a Comment Here's Your Chance to Be Heard!

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.