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

June 26, 2014 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org 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

Related Stories

US judge blocks Keystone pipeline route in Nebraska

February 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

Wood pellets: Renewable, but not carbon neutral

March 22, 2018

A return to firewood is bad for forests and the climate. So reports William Schlesinger, President Emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in an Insights article published today in the journal Science.

Pacific plastic dump far larger than feared: study

March 22, 2018

The vast dump of plastic waste swirling in the Pacific ocean is now bigger than France, Germany and Spain combined—far larger than previously feared—and is growing rapidly, a study published Thursday warned.

The tradeoffs inherent in earthquake early warning systems

March 22, 2018

A team of researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Institute of Technology has found that modern earthquake early warning (EEW) systems require those interpreting their messages to take into consideration ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.