Diverse group calls for moratorium on new oil sands development projects in Canada

Jun 26, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Diverse group calls for moratorium on new oil sands development projects in Canada
Operational and proposed route of the Keystone Pipeline System. Credit: Meclee/Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 3.0

(Phys.org) —A group that describes itself as "scientists spanning diverse disciplines" has published a Comment piece in the journal Nature, denouncing current policies surrounding extractions from oil sands in Canada that result in sending partially refined bitumen to other countries—mainly the U.S. via proposed pipelines. They are calling for an immediate moratorium on new sands-development until new processes and policies are put into place. At issue is the lack, the team claims, of policies that take into consideration more than just the costs or benefits of a single operation, or pipeline—what's needed is a global view that takes into consideration the impact of carbon emissions and the global warming that is occurring as a result.

Extracting oil from sand fields is a dirty business, on that, virtually everyone agrees. It causes clear , such as destruction of boreal landscapes, elevated waterways, and concentration of contaminants that can harm people or animals. But it also destroys a valuable carbon sink, and worse, the oil that is extracted is eventually burned causing the release of more carbon into the atmosphere. The team of authors involved with the Comment piece suggest that those involved in the oil sand business take a look at the bigger picture or have regulators force them to do so. They note that what happens in Canada now, may have international implications as oil companies and policy makers in other parts of the world consider setting up similar operations.

The team notes that currently issues such as pipe construction costs, i.e. the Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway, tend to be ignored in the battle between and environmental groups. What's not being heard is that because pipes cost so much to build, it takes a long time to recoup the money invested, which means the pipes represent future pressure to continue sending oil, even if it's no longer needed, for many years to come.

Extracting oil in Canada is not just a Canadian issue, of course, with the U.S. as its biggest customer. Policies that impact such oil production face heavy pressure from politicians and big corporations in Canada's southern neighbor and therefore, they must be made a part of the process the authors acknowledge—but the ultimate objective, they insist, is that the policies that are created benefit the world at large, rather than business people and oil customers. Citing Canada's stated commitment to reducing , they suggest that "anything less demonstrates flawed policies and failed leadership."

Explore further: Canada approves pipeline to Pacific Ocean, with conditions

More information: Energy: Consider the global impacts of oil pipelines, Nature 510, 465–467 (26 June 2014) DOI: 10.1038/510465a

Press release

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US judge blocks Keystone pipeline route in Nebraska

Feb 19, 2014

The controversial Keystone XL pipeline met with another hurdle Wednesday when a Nebraska judge ruled that a state law granting approval to a proposed route was unconstitutional, court records showed.

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

2 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aksdad
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
what's needed is a global view that takes into consideration the impact of carbon emissions and the global warming that is occurring as a result

What's needed is fewer alarmists making mountains out of molehills and more rational people who are willing to talk louder than the alarmists.

Despite a couple decades of "research" we still don't have a good grasp of how much human carbon emissions may be contributing to global warming. The evidence so far shows that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is quite a bit less than the global climate models assume.

Despite a couple decades of fear-mongering by climate activists it has yet to be proved that the projected increase in carbon dioxide will have a negative net effect.

Despite a couple decades of monitoring and measurements it has yet to be shown that human carbon emissions--about 4% of the total versus 96% from natural sources--are the primary reason for the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.