This presentation is a collaboration of efforts from: Meaghan, Barry, Allison, Brian, Michelle, Andrew, Jace , Tom, Wad - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

This presentation is a collaboration of efforts from: Meaghan, Barry, Allison, Brian, Michelle, Andrew, Jace, Tom, Wade, Casey, and Drew

Magic Sands

OIL

How many of you drive cars, ride in cars, Or would rather our troops be home safe instead of fighting for our freedom to do so? This is another issue altogether but may be something for you to consider.

Oils sands of Alberta, Canada is one of Americans large oil suppliers. Which also includes everything that is a byproduct from oil. A few ideas which include but aren’t limited to, Plastic(I.E. your computers, keg cups, water bottles), petroleum(I.E. your chap stick), Styrofoam, (packing/ shipping materials) these are just a few of the everyday ideas we use. Oil is imperative to our way of life, all around us we have something that contains oil or its byproduct we can not just stop production.

For this presentation we will be discussing the impacts the oil sands has on our economy, its cost efficiency, environmental problems involved, how we could be less dependant from other Dictators, alternative energy we can not yet fully rely on, the carbon emissions, the trucks effects on Moscow, and the pipeline and it’s pros and cons.

Our goal is to help give you, our audience, another prospective on how this oil distraction issue can be beneficial to our daily lives and its impact is not as bad as they make it out to be.

• 70% of 173 billion recoverable barrels in Alberta’s oil sands, worth $15.7 trillion at today’s price. (The Economist)
• Accounted for 31% of Alberta’s GDP. (The Economist)
• Every dollar invested in the oil sands creates $9 of economic activity in Canada, the U.S. and throughout the world. (Alberta Government)
• Will create $307 billion in tax revenue for Canada.(CERI)

Source: CERI

• 136,000 Albertans are directly employed in the oil and gas sector, and will require more than 400,000 people in the next 25 years (CERI)
• Oil sands are forecasted by CERI (Canadian Energy Research Institute) to require more than 450,000 work positions across Canada
• 23% of oil sands-related employment is outside the province (CERI)

Source: CERI

• Canada is the U.S.’s largest oil supplier
• By 2030 Alberta’s oil sands will provide over one third of the U.S.’s imported oil.(Economist)
• New pipeline would give $20 billion to the U.S., and $5 billion in taxes to states it would run though. (Economist)
• Jobs for U.S. citizens refining the bitumen: currently there is a $3.8 billion expansion in a BP facility in Whiting, Indiana. (PBS)

• Heavy equipment used at the Oil Sands is made at Caterpillar. (Canada’s)
• Pipelines would be made from U.S. steel. (Canada’s)
• Money spent on Canadian oil would likely be spend back in the U.S. market. (The Economist)
• Without oil from the Oil Sands, oil prices worldwide would rise. (The Economist)

$

• Not cost effective to extract oil in the Oil Sands.
• The cost of production has fallen, making the break even point at $50 a barrel. Oil prices now are over $100 per barrel.(The Economist)
• Alberta’s oil sands are closer, making transportation costs lower, and also reducing the risk of a oil tanker spill.

$

Source: Alberta Environment

Source: Alberta Environment

This stands in stark contrast to what happens if the oil is gathered from countries with less oversight (even if by conventional methods).

• Nigeria: 2,400 spills in the region … occurred as long as 20 years ago (Walker)

Source: The New York Times

Source: Government of Alberta

Source: Government of Alberta

Evidence:

Yes, the oil sands are bad for the environment because the methods for processing the oil sands emit GHG into the atmosphere. But, the emissions from other oil refineries used by the U.S create more GHG than some of the oil sand refining processes.

Anti-Oil Sands Claim: The oil sand mines and the XL Keystone pipeline are bad for the environment.Pro-Oil Sands Rebuttal: The environmental impact of the oil sand mines are not as bad as other energy sources used by the U.S. or other oil refineries. The claim about the pipelines is based on “what if” scenarios so it isn’t relevant.

(IHSCERA Special Report, 14)

Graph shows that some oil sources produce more, as well as less. But all so close, really arguing over nickels and dimes.

• “Take greenhouse gases. One of the chief objections to the oil sands is that they have a slightly higher carbon footprint than some other sources of oil. Not all other sources, mind you. Canadian oil sands oil takes less carbon to produce than heavy oil from Venezuela or California and even less than oil from Nigeria and Iraq because of all the natural gas those countries flare.” (Frum)
• “The entire oil sands combined emit about 30 megatons of carbon dioxide each year, or about 5 per cent of Canada's emissions. There are individual coal-fired plants in the United States that emit 25 megatons a year each, such as the Scherer plant in Juliette, Georgia. That is just one single power plant. Even that big plant is barely in the top 20 coal-fired high emitting power stations in the world.” (Frum)
• Concerning water usage, the oil sand operations only use 3% of the Athabasca River and 80-95% of the water used is recycle and reused.

2. The XL Keystone pipeline is not bad for the environment. Worries about spills and corrosion from the pipe have the same risk as other pipelines. The Keystone pipeline worries are not some new and pressing worrying.

• “Heavy crudes have been transported across the U.S. for decades," said Heidi Tillquist, a pipeline-risk assessor for U.S. engineering firm AECOM, which is working on the Keystone project. She said there is virtually no difference in corrosiveness between Canada's oil-sands crude and other heavy crudes. Heavy crudes produced and shipped in pipelines for decades in California are more corrosive than oil-sands blends, according to her research. Ms. Tillquist also said advances in pipeline technology, including in-line inspection techniques, alert operators to weakening pipelines that need to be replaced and have reduced pipeline spills sharply over the last decade.” (Welsch)

Dictators we have supported to get oil from.

Hugo Chavez

Saddam Hussein

• Momar Gaddafi

Less Dependant on Middle East and other Dictators

The United States uses oil. Where we get our oil from is the issue we are discussing. Three of the last Military conflicts that the United States involved itself in were coincidentally in places which are rich with oil. The Canadian OIL sands are a good alternative to always supporting brutal regimes that violate their citizens human rights.

Less Dependant on Middle East and other Dictators Cont’d

That is why the question must be asked where should the United States get it's oil from places with positive human rights or places where the citizens can be exploited by their leaders? The other question to be asked is, should people die to get our oil or should we get oil in an easy to buy from place?

“Heavy crudes have been transported across the U.S. for decades”,

said Heidi Tillquist, a pipeline-risk assessor for U.S. engineering firm AECOM, which is working on the Keystone project. She said there is virtually no difference in corrosiveness between Canada's oil-sands crude and other heavy crudes. Heavy crudes produced and shipped in pipelines for decades in California are more corrosive than oil-sands blends, according to her research. Ms. Tillquist also said advances in pipeline technology, including in-line inspection techniques, alert operators to weakening pipelines that need to be replaced and have reduced pipeline spills sharply over the last decade.

Alternative Energy Not Yet Available

• 80,000 birds in the US and 30,000 in Denmark were killed by wind farms (Robert Mac Kay Author of "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.“)
• Natural Gas carbon footprint 20% greater than coal per unit of energy which far greater then oil.
• "greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas can be as much as 20% greater than, and perhaps twice as high as, coal per unit energy." Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University

The Carbon emissions to extract oil in this manner counter projected price.

• Californian and Venezuela high Carbon Oil
• 30 megatons of CO2 from entire sands while each US coal fired plants put out 25 megatons of CO2
• Oil sands are only 5% dirtier than the other production, most CO2 comes from burning oil and not from digging it. (Linda Frum)
• Tar sands create about $500 of added value per ton as compared to $20 to $30 from coal fired power stations. (economist article)

Cont’d…

• Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is the process of capturing CO2 before its emitted into the air....Endorsements have come from environmental groups, the energy industry, a national advisory council, and a UN panel that won a Noble Peace Prize for its report on climate change. (Ablerta.ca)
• Of the 100% of greenhouse gasses 19% of them are oil and gas production, oil sands are only 4% of total greenhouse gas production (alberta.ca)

• The truck effects on Moscow are not bad:
• Going through at night (roughly 2am)
• Will be driving no faster than 12 mph
• All have inspected braking systems on the axles
• The noise decibels will be no louder than a normal semi-truck
• Any damages to the road will be dealt with by the State of Idaho, NOT the city of Moscow, and paid for by the haulers
• Trucks will fit on the roads, even with parked cars on both sides

Source: YouTube video of live town meeting

• Can't be denied that piping is a risky process due to its nature, HOWEVER, it is the quickest and most efficient way
• What are alternatives to piping?

Weight is spread equally across points of contact.

Man laying on a bed of nails

Truck headed to oil Sands Location

AND THAT IS A LOGGING TRUCK

Magic Sands

Magic Sands

Magic Sands

Magic Sands

• “Alberta’s Oil Sands: The Facts.“ Government of Alberta. Web. 15 April 2011. <http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/FactSheets/The_Facts_v5_FINAL.pdf >
• “Alberta’s Oil Sands Opportunity Balance.“ Alberta Environment. Government of Alberta., Mar, 2008. Web. 16 April 2011. <http://www.environment.alberta.ca/documents/Oil_Sands_Opportunity_Balance.pdf >
• “Alberta’s Oil Sands Provincial Action.“ The Royal Society of Canada. Government of Alberta., 17 Dec., 2010. Web. 17 April 2011. <http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/Oilsands_provincial_action_December17_2010.pdf>
• Gardner, Timothy. "Canada oil sands emit more CO2 than average: report.“ Reuters. Reuters Group Limited., 18 May, 2009. Web. 17 April 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/18/us-oilsands-carbon-idUSTRE54H6C220090518>

• Jamail, Dahr. "Alberta's Tar Sands Nighmare: Environmental Catastrophe Looms.“ GlobalResearch.ca. Centre for Research on Globalisation., 22 May, 2010. Web. 17 April 2011. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19284>
• “Muck and Brass” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 14 April 2011. <http://www.economist.com/node/17959688?story_id=17959688>
• Schneider, Keith. " Tar sands pipeline poses health risks, campaigners claim.“ guardian.co.uk. The Guardian., 17 Feb, 2011. Web. 17 April 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/17/tar-sands-pipeline-pollution >
• Walker, Tamsin. “The oil disaster the world prefers to ignore” Deutsche Welle. Deutsche Welle, 27 Jun. 2010. Web. 16 April 2011. <http://www.economist.com/node/17959688?story_id=17959688>

• http://www2.ihscera.com/docs/Oil_Sands_Energy_Dialogue_0810.pdf
• http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/063db_2010-11-03-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3#35
• http://worldnewsdaily.us/news/read/1984/OilSands_Pipeline_Fuels_Concern/7