|
Green protestors turn red over oil sands Environmentalists use map on TransCanada Web site to bolster case that Mackenzie natural gas will be diverted to the Alberta oil sands, aiding and abetting production of 'dirty' fuel Gary Park For Petroleum News
With the Alberta oil sands being painted as Canada’s leading greenhouse gas ogre, environmentalists seized another chance Feb. 26 to tar the resource. (See related story on page 13.)
Appearing before a Mackenzie Gas Project session of the Joint Review Panel in Edmonton, they urged the Canadian government to prevent the use of northern gas to fuel oil sands operations.
The panel is examining the environmental and social impacts of the project. Its recommendations go to the National Energy Board, which will submit a final decision to the Canadian government.
The Sierra Club, the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development and the World Wildlife Fund’s Canadian chapter all challenged the possible use of gas from the Mackenzie Delta to generate the power needed to extract and process raw bitumen.
They drew special attention to a map available on TransCanada’s Web site showing possible links from the Mackenzie pipeline to the oil sands, providing new ammunition to their argument over recent years that introducing northern gas will only accelerate the pace of oil sands expansion.
Imperial: oil sands development would continue without gas But Imperial Oil executive Randy Ottenbreit told the hearing that oil sands development will continue apace regardless of whether the sector can gain access to Arctic gas.
He said what is driving the Mackenzie project is the North American hunger for gas, which he said is forecast to increase by one-third over the next 25 years to 100 billion cubic feet per day, while the oil sands will consume only about 2 bcf per day.
Ottenbreit said Mackenzie gas will have far wider uses than those suggested by the opponents.
He said it will enter the North American pipeline grid to reach homes and businesses, to generate power and to serve as feedstock for petrochemicals and plastics.
However, environmentalists have been unwavering in making the argument that because the Mackenzie consortium’s gas owners — Imperial, Shell Canada, ConocoPhillips Canada and ExxonMobil Canada — also have major stakes in the oil sands they plan to divert gas from the Mackenzie pipeline to northern Alberta.
Rules for end-use of gas suggested Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, suggested to the Globe and Mail that the National Energy Board should use its authority to set some rules covering the end-use of Mackenzie gas.
“Why not try to make this a green pipeline rather than just feeding Canada’s greenhouse gas emission by fueling the tar sands?” he asked.
Hazell said the regulators must assess global warming and other impacts associated with using Mackenzie gas to produce the most carbon intensive oil on the planet.
He said the major problems with the review panel and National Energy Board hearings is that they did not put enough emphasis on the questions of global climate change by ignoring how gas from the north would be used.
Hazell urged the board to impose regulations limiting the end use of Arctic gas, arguing that it is time for unusual remedies to tackle climate change.
Julia Langer, of the World Wildlife Fund, said that assessing the impact of the Mackenzie pipeline without assessing the global warming impact of the gas carried by the pipeline “is like trying to pretend cake doesn’t have calories.”
She said “consideration of a massive project that will increase greenhouse gas emissions all the way from Arctic wells to California wheels — without a rational, continental, sustainable energy strategy to guide it — is totally unacceptable.”
| 