http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_oil_sands
Debate stirred over 1st major US tar sands mine
By CHI-CHI ZHANG, Associated Press Chi-chi Zhang, Associated Press - Sun Apr
10, 4:42 pm ET
SALT LAKE CITY - Beneath the lush, green hills of eastern Utah's Uinta
Basin, where elk, bear and bison outnumber people, the soil is saturated
with a sticky tar that may soon provide a new domestic source of petroleum
for the United States. It would be a first-of-its kind project in the
country that some fear could be a slippery slope toward widespread
wilderness destruction.
With crude prices surging beyond $100 a barrel, and politicians preaching
the need to reduce America's reliance on foreign supplies, companies are now
looking for more local sources. One Canadian firm says it's found it in the
tar sands of Utah's Book Cliffs.
Alberta-based Earth Energy Resources Inc. aims to start with a roughly
62-acre mine here to produce bitumen, a tar-like form of petroleum, from
oil-soaked sands. For decades, other Utah operators have used oil sands as a
poor-man's asphalt, and Canada has been wringing oil from the ground for
years, but nobody has yet tried to produce petroleum from U.S. soil on such
a scale.
And it could be just the beginning. The company has over 7,800 acres of Utah
state land under lease, with plans to acquire more, and estimates its
current holdings contain more than 250 million barrels of recoverable oil.
"This is not just a 62-acre project that will last seven years. We are
looking at a 30,000-acre project that will destroy the environment in this
area over many years," said John Weisheit, a Colorado River guide and
founder of the Moab, Utah-based environmental group Living Rivers.
Weisheit worries that shortsightedness and the rush to feed America's
insatiable appetite for oil could trump reason at the expense of other
precious natural resources.
The Bureau of Land Management says Utah has an estimated 12 to 19 billion
barrels of oil buried in its tar sands, mostly in the eastern part of the
state, though not all of that would be accessible.
Weisheit says if Earth Energy is allowed to mine the land, he fears others
may not be far behind.
"We used hear that it's not lucrative to extract oil from tar sands unless
oil prices were above $60 barrel," he said. "But now that prices have risen,
we're definitely seeing companies take advantage of the situation."
Living Rivers is challenging this project's approval and contends it would
dig up fragile topsoil, destroy limestone plateaus formed over thousands of
years and pollute groundwater downstream that flows into the Colorado River.
The group claims the Utah Division of Water Quality didn't accurately assess
the potential for widespread environmental damage from the PR Springs mine.
A hearing is set for May 25.
While tar sands projects are relatively new in the U.S., Canada has been a
major producer for years, and in doing so, has become the No. 1 foreign
supplier of oil to America. Alberta's sprawling oil sands deposits are the
second largest oil reserves in the world outside of Saudi Arabia. The region
produces about 1.2 million barrels of oil a day with an estimated 174
billion barrels in reserve.
But it comes at a cost. The oil sands operations, including extraction and
processing, are responsible for up to 4 percent of Canada's greenhouse gas
emissions, and that's expected to triple to 12 percent by 2020.
Unconventional oil - petroleum in any form other than fluid - has been eyed
by the industry for years but largely considered not economically viable
until recently. The major source of unconventional oil in the U.S. is shale,
rock with all the necessary ingredients that wasn't buried under the right
conditions to produce oil. But it's all getting a fresh look now as the
untapped reserves are being seen as part of the future of domestic supplies.
And while companies are still determining whether shale production makes
economic sense, Canada's booming oil sands industry has eyebrows raised and
wallets open. Generally, oil from oil sand costs roughly $20 a barrel to
produce, about a few dollars more than pumping liquid oil.
The initial Utah mine would be Earth Energy's first commercial effort at
extracting oil from sands. It's unclear why the company chose Utah instead
of staying closer to home where oil sands are bountiful. The company
declined to say, but officials insist the project won't pollute anything and
will leave Utah's oil sands as clean as beach sand after processing with a
citrus-based solvent.
"We are insuring that we won't pollute by complying with the regulations and
as indicated with the project being approved," said company CFO Glen Snarr.
Environmentalists aren't buying it and don't want any part of it in this
country.
They've been fighting a 1,900-mile pipeline proposed by another Canadian
company that would carry crude extracted from Alberta's tar sands to
refineries in Texas. The Keystone XL pipeline would double the capacity of
an existing pipeline from Canada, delivering more than 500,000 barrels a
day. According to a report commissioned by the Obama administration, the
pipeline, coupled with a reduction in overall U.S. oil demand, "could
essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term."
Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the International Program at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, says the rewards simply aren't worth the risks.
"Refining the oil (from tar sands) creates more greenhouse gases than
traditional crude," said Casey-Lefkowitz. "With projects such as Keystone,
we have concerns such as pipeline leaks due to the corrosive nature of the
bitumen and the high temperatures in which it would be transported."
Oil sand is like black tar melded onto sand and clay. Reserves are found in
Utah and a few other U.S. states, but America's neighbor to the north has by
far the continent's largest deposits.
And while most oil sands are easy to get to by strip mining similar to
digging out coal, separating the oil from the sand takes a lot of water and
energy. In Canada, there's even been talk of building a nuclear power plant
simply to supply the industry, a move conservationists there have been
fighting.
Environmentalists in the U.S. say they don't want to see a Canadian-style
oil sands industry crop up here, and are concerned that water pollution
generated in the process could poison underground aquifers and wildlife in
the region.
In 2008, more than 1,600 ducks died after landing on a northern Alberta
toxic waste pond that contained pollution generated in the oil sands
separation process. Dozens of such toxic pools have been building up over 40
years in the region.
Earth Energy says it will deploy a "revolutionary" new extraction process in
Utah using a citrus-based solvent that "leaves behind no toxic chemicals" or
the need for retention ponds, ensuring it doesn't harm wildlife or other
natural resources.
Still, environmentalists fighting the project believe the strip mining could
cause just as much harm.
Rob Dubuc, a lawyer working with Living Rivers, said the group is concerned
about groundwater and downstream pollution.
"Rain will ... wash pollution from the sands into the ground further
tainting the porous soil and groundwater," Weisheit said.
The state Division of Water Quality hasn't yet responded to the group's
appeal. But Rob Herbert, a manager in the agency's Ground Water Protection
unit, said the project qualified for a permit, in large part, because of the
citrus-based solvent the company says it will use. He said the area also
lacks substantial groundwater, meaning there would be little risk of aquifer
pollution.
"They are still obligated to protect groundwater and it does not absolve
Earth Energy Resources from that responsibility," Herbert said.
In the end, despite all the debate, experts say projects like the proposed
Utah mine are an afterthought when it comes to satisfying the U.S. demand
for oil.
"If this project only produces 2,000 barrels of oil a day, it's irrelevant
in terms of the 19 million barrels the U.S. consumes a day. It's not
contributing anything to national security," said Richard Fineberg, a
pipeline analyst with Ester, Alaska-based Research Associates. "With the
cost, energy and amount of water that is used, it does not seem economically
feasible, whereas investment into conservation and alternative energy is
renewable each year."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
