Personal tools
You are here: home   Green Justice   A Just West   Representatives ask Obama to examine impacts of tar sands pipeline
Log in


Forgot your password?
New user?
 
A Just West

Representatives ask Obama to examine impacts of tar sands pipeline

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Enter amount:

$
Caitlin Sislin | Jul 06, 2010 11:55 AM

In late June, the Obama Administration received a letter [PDF] from fifty members of the U.S. House of Representatives, demanding that the President take a hard look at the climate change impacts of a proposed oil pipeline that would more than double the United States’ consumption of Canadian tar sands oil. This 1,600-mile oil pipeline, called Keystone XL, would transport 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, impacting natural resources, indigenous nations, and agricultural activity along the route.

Stop the Tar SandsIn the wake of the BP disaster, the signatories to the letter expressed their concerns over the “significant energy and environment implications for our nation for many years to come” that would result if the Department of State issued the Presidential Permit for the pipeline. The authors cautioned that the pipeline “has the potential to undermine America’s clean energy future and international leadership on climate change.” At this critical moment in our nation’s energy consumption trajectory, will the Obama Administration heed this call?

These representatives called the President’s attention to the environmental devastation that would result from this pipeline, including the damage that would occur before the oil even reached the pipeline itself. Tar sands, a mixture of sand, clay and bitumen, lie preserved beneath the boreal forests of Canada; development of these oil sands entails dire environmental consequences. Thousands of tons of subterranean oil sands are extracted from the ground each day in Alberta, destroying the land above it – which accounts for about half of the world’s remaining boreal forest.

To process the oil sands requires vast amounts of water and energy: more than two barrels of water per barrel of oil, and 30 percent of the energy within a barrel of oil to produce it. And oil sands extraction and processing results in three times greater carbon emissions than does conventional oil production.

Indigenous Canadian tribal nations such as the Mikisew Cree First Nation and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation at Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray First Nation, Fort McKay First Nation, and the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation experience severe negative health and environmental impacts resulting from the oil sands operations. Most of these communities still maintain a subsistence diet of wild fish and fowl, and so come into close contact with extractive industry’s toxic detritus in the water, soil and animals. For example, 100 of Fort Chipewyan’s 1,200 residents have died from cancer because of the increased presence of toxic pollutants due to tar sands extraction.

The pipeline itself would cause further environmental and cultural damage – with dubious benefits. Crossing natural, agrarian, and populated environments across eight states, including significant and fragile natural resources such as the already-threatened Ogallala Aquifer and Nebraska’s Sand Hills, the proposed pipeline may not even operate close to its capacity. Moreover, the project proponents seek to build the pipeline using thinner and potentially substandard [PDF] steel, and to pump oil at a higher-than-usual pressure at the source, further exacerbating the potential for seeps and spills on land and in water.

Tribe members throughout every state along the pipeline route still conduct traditional hunting, fishing, cultivation and harvesting activities on public and tribal lands. The pipeline could impact these traditional hunting and subsistence areas, by creating new access and multiple rights-of-way to these areas, and through pipeline construction, operation, and especially any potential spill incidents.

The authors of the June 23 letter strongly cautioned the Obama Administration against approving the pipeline without a full and fair review of its climate change impacts. This pipeline represents an opportunity for this Administration to make good on its climate promises by weighing the true, comprehensive costs of the pipeline against its purported benefits – and then disapproving the project.

Caitlin Sislin, Esq. is the Advocacy Director for Women's Earth Alliance, where she coordinates the Sacred Earth Advocacy Network -- a network of pro bono legal and policy advocates in collaboration with indigenous women environmental justice leaders.  For more information about participating in the Advocacy Network as a pro bono advocate, or our three 2010 Advocacy Delegations, please contact Caitlin at Caitlin@womensearthalliance.org.

Tar Sand protest photo from Flickr user Diane Worth, used via a Creative Commons license.

Oil Sands environmental impacts
Government of Alberta
Government of Alberta
Jul 08, 2010 07:24 AM
Oil sands development, like all energy development, has an environmental impact. As it is the responsibility of the Government of Alberta to mitigate the environmental impact of oil sands development, it also falls to us to accurately and carefully measure that impact - and it is not what is described in this blog post. For example, processing of oil sands can require as little as less than half a barrel of fresh water per barrel of oil – and 90% of the water used is recycled repeatedly. And, emissions from oil sands derived fuels are within the range of other crude oil sources used in the United States, not three times higher. Readers can check that assertion here: http://www.cfr.org/[…]/canadian_oil_sands.html And here: http://www.albertainnovates[…]se%20and%20backgrounder.pdf
And here:
 http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9404/index1.html And here: http://www.cera.com/[…]/serviceDescription.aspx?KID=228#43260

Finally, this blog also makes the statement that “100 of Fort Chipewyan’s 1,200 residents have died from cancer because of the increased presence of toxic pollutants due to tar sands extraction.” We very strongly urge anyone who would rely on that statement to examine the findings of a peer-reviewed study called “Cancer Incidence in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta,” which can be found here: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/500.asp

- David Sands, for the Government of Alberta
Extreme Measures
Lawrence Axil Comras
Lawrence Axil Comras
Jul 08, 2010 10:32 AM
The claim by reactionary pundits such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh that liberals are forcing deep well drilling and tar sands extraction because of their resistance to easier and more conventional mining methods ignores the underlying premise that existing energy demands are 1) not worthy of scrutiny and 2) cannot be met through sustainable energy means, not to mention that the "easier" often transfers an environmental cost for a social justice cost (i.e., most of the "easy" oil is in indigenous lands whose inhabitants never benefit from the profit taking). The solution is going to require at least 5 different politics (such as the new ban on drilling, and other laws to protect our planet), economics (subsidies to help alternative energy better compete), activism (as much and as creative as possible), communications marketing (all the media we can muster), and, ultimately, enlightenment on all of our part that this is not the way forward. I don't know exactly what all that spells but I'm sure it's something better than what we now have.
another dig at the reactionary pundits
Sarah Gilman
Sarah Gilman
Jul 08, 2010 11:14 AM
It should also be noted that Palin and Limbaugh ignore that fact that conventional reserves of things like oil and gas are getting harder and harder to find. Our thirst for oil and natural has driven us to find ways to exploit resources that would have been considered uneconomic decades ago, and that require much more intensive methods of extraction: see oil shale, tight sands gas, shale gas, tar sands, etc.

Kind of a sign that we're running lower and lower on this stuff as far as production meeting demand, isn't it?

Food for thought, anyway.
 

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. From gust to gale | So-called "grass-roots" opposition to wind may be ...
  2. Frack fricasee | Election-year politics (partially) hijack Interior...
  3. A Mexican rancher struggles to shift from cattle to conservation | In Northwest Mexico, rancher Carlos Robles Elías ...
  4. L.A. activists try to stop woodlands from becoming sediment dumps | When Camron Stone realized that an oak forest was ...
  5. Make anglers allies for endangered species | The Endangered Species Act is more flexible than i...
  1. Micah True, born to run | Remembering Micah True – known as “Caballo Bla...
  2. A final hats off to rancher Doc Hatfield | With the help of his wife, Connie, and a bunch of ...
  3. Balancing fish and farms on a Washington estuary | A restoration effort at Fisher Slough in Washingto...
  4. Retirees join environmentalists in fighting Arizona copper mine | The conservative, golf-playing retirees of Queen V...
  5. The truth about wolves is hard to find | Some hunters claim wolves are killing too many dee...
Special coverage
HCN Classifieds
More from Energy
It’s the pits New Mexico’s conservative pols rage against one of the nation's strictest oil and gas rules
From gust to gale So-called "grass-roots" opposition to wind may be centrally organized by powerful conservative think tanks and funded by oil and gas
The Pawnee Buttes oversee a changing landscape Eastern Colorado’s Pawnee Buttes have witnessed so many historical changes that they’re likely to survive the current energy-development boom.
All Energy
 
© 2012 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone | site by Groundwire | design by Ryan Foster

HCN Logo High Country News in your inbox!


Sign up now to receive our weekly email newsletter!

- The best weekly collection of Western environmental news

- An at-a-glance look at our latest news and analysis