[calgaryeng]

You should be aware that there are a number of oil sources that are far more carbon-intensive than the Canadian Oil Sands.

Many of which ship direct to the United States. One is even produced IN the United States (Bakersfield, CA).

On a wells-to-wheels basis, Canadian oil sands are only 6-8% more carbon-intensive than typical light crude (e.g. Saudi), and it comes from a politically-friendly country that supports female rights, human rights in general, and is not bombing their neighbours.

What you say regarding disruption of large areas of wilderness is true when it comes to tailings ponds, but you should also be aware that the vast majority of recent development (and probably most go-forward) is via in-situ extraction that does not require those tailings ponds.

Source: I am a chemical engineer and work directly in this industry.

[Boothroid]

Alternative opinion:

'Strip-mining the boreal to extract the tar sands and processing the oil makes the sands much more damaging to the climate than conventional oil.

“I believe the carbon intensity of extraction and processing for the oil sands is about double that of conventional oil,” Homer-Dixon said.'

http://grist.org/article/this-could-be-the-end-of-canadian-t...

I guess this is an inconvenient truth based on the downvoting.

[ajarmst]

Thankfully, neither petroleum extraction nor climate science need be faith-based, so Homer-Dixon's personal beliefs aren't all that relevant. There are multiple studies (not funded by petroleum companies) that document why he's wrong (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/0140... is a good metastudy). Grist.org is hardly a neutral source on the issue.

By all means, advocate for wide-scale reduction and elimination of the use of petroleum products. Demand that your representatives fight for carbon-neutral energy production. But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela over supporting an allied liberal democracy with a strong (at least in comparison) record of environmental stewardship and oversight on corporate activity.

[Boothroid]

Again the straw man, second time in this thread. And ask native Canadians about their experience in tar sands areas.

[ajarmst]

I don't have to. They're pretty vocal about it, and it is widely reported in the media (because liberal democracy with free press). Not all 'natives' necessarily agree (quite a few work in the industry). There are also a wide variety other Canadians who live and work in the area who have strong opinions, on multiple sides of the argument. This is hardly surprising, as it is a controversial issue, and it certainly won't stop being one.

I bet that if I asked people (native or otherwise) about local fracking operations, coal mines, tailing ponds, power plants, refineries, offload and storage facilities, etc, etc, in any country I will find a bunch who would really rather they were somewhere else. I'm not sure why that's important to the discussion.

As for the reported "straw man", you seem to be under the impression that I argued that tar sands were wonderful and that Canadians truly enjoy living near them. Which is, of course, a straw man. I made three points: (1) The assertion that Alberta bitumen mining has twice the C02 impact of other sources of petroleum is provably false and (2) If you do not change the demand for petroleum products and do not want to source them in Canada, you have to source them somewhere else. (3) Other sources aren't necessarily much more palatable, especially if you include factors like support of the economy of the country of origin and the source producer.

Where's the straw man?

[Boothroid]

Here: 'But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela'

I never said any of what you refute above. Also you set up a false dichotomy by implying that we either choose to use tar sands or are forced to support corrupt regimes - there are of course other alternatives scenarios - I note you avoid mention of LNG.

Bottom line though: tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind as being environmentally disastrous, far worse than the alternatives, but I'm guessing that's not in your corporate refutation manual.

[ajarmst]

(1) The top 10 oil exporters: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Canada, Nigeria, Kuwait, Angola, Venezuela, Kazakhstan. I don't think my assertion that replacing Canada with another source might involve some political issues runs contrary to the facts. You didn't say that was required, but it was implied by what you did say.

(2) I did mention LNG. I just spelled it 'fracking'. Currently, two thirds of US-produced natural gas is retrieved by hydraulic formation fracturing, and that fraction has been steadily growing.

(3) Arguing that "tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind..." is inaccurate and sloppy goal-post moving. I'm also not claiming that petroleum production isn't a serious and global environmental problem, I'm arguing that a belief that Canadian bitumen is the heart of the problem is dangerously misinformed. I'd much rather we shut it down and invested heavily in molten salt reactors, but until that happens the problem isn't tar sands: it's global demand and dependence on burning petroleum.

(4) I don't even know why I'm writing this---when you implied I'm a corporate shill and claimed that the only people who disagree with you are those who have a stake of some kind in tar sands, you conceded the argument. Have a good day.