The oil sands in Canada was in the news quite a bit as the world met in Copenhagen in December to discuss climate change and continues to be a frequent news subject. The oil sands are viewed by some as a significant source of emissions, but as is often the case in discussion of oil sands, the addition of both perspective and facts alter the conversation.
In the case of emissions, far from being a significant emissions source, the oil sands currently only accounts for approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of total global greenhouse emissions. While the oil sands industry understands its responsibility to increase energy efficiency, over-emphasis on the oil sands serves only to trivialize the challenge we all face in reducing emissions. The oil sands industry has already and will continue to make great strides in reducing the amount of emissions per barrel of oil produced.
Oil sands emissions also need to be put in the context of full cycle emissions and a global context. Independent studies show that when you factor in emissions that stem from both production and consumption, oil sands crude has about the same emissions profile as the heavy oil that would need to be imported from other foreign nations to satisfy U.S. energy needs. If not from Canada, the oil will come from jurisdictions where regulatory and stakeholder oversight is less stringent, with little net environmental improvement.
Similarly, when discussing surface disturbance from oil sands development, while the oil sands exist under an area covering about 54,000 square miles, much of the oil sands resource, about 80 percent, will be produced using in-situ processes (drillable oil sands), which have minimal surface disturbance, no mines and no tailings ponds. The remaining 20 percent, which is mineable, is concentrated in a small area and accounts for just 2.5 percent of the entire oil sands area, about 1,850 square miles. In the 40 years that projects have been under way in the oil sands, the area disturbed totals about 193 square miles, and that disturbed land is being actively reclaimed on an ongoing basis.
These are just some of the facts ignored by environmental extremists who argue that America should boycott the oil sands and halt projects connected to oil sands development. These calls are also made without consideration being given to the implications of such actions, and fail to acknowledge the importance of the oil sands to the U.S. and South Dakota.
Canada is the top supplier of crude oil to the United States. In the Midwest, the demand for Canadian crude is 1.2 million barrels per day. In addition to supplying crude oil, the Canadian oil sands, alone, promises to directly and indirectly create at least 1,000 jobs for South Dakotans between 2011 and 2015, according to the independent Canadian Energy Research Institute.
This economic contribution extends to pipelines as well, many of which carry oil sands crude and related products between Canada and the U.S. A planned pipeline expansion through South Dakota has the potential to generate thousands of jobs and significantly increase state tax contributions.
Overall, oil-sands activity currently supports approximately 110,000 jobs throughout the United States. That same oil sands activity will increase the demand for U.S. goods and services, adding an estimated $34 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2015.
What we really need is less inflammatory rhetoric and more meaningful, fact-based debate. The oil sands industry is committed to meeting expectations for responsible environmental stewardship and continuous improvement in our performance. In doing so, we will not only reduce our burden on the planet but also protect the tremendous economic benefits that accrue to South Dakota.
In the case of emissions, far from being a significant emissions source, the oil sands currently only accounts for approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of total global greenhouse emissions. While the oil sands industry understands its responsibility to increase energy efficiency, over-emphasis on the oil sands serves only to trivialize the challenge we all face in reducing emissions. The oil sands industry has already and will continue to make great strides in reducing the amount of emissions per barrel of oil produced.
Oil sands emissions also need to be put in the context of full cycle emissions and a global context. Independent studies show that when you factor in emissions that stem from both production and consumption, oil sands crude has about the same emissions profile as the heavy oil that would need to be imported from other foreign nations to satisfy U.S. energy needs. If not from Canada, the oil will come from jurisdictions where regulatory and stakeholder oversight is less stringent, with little net environmental improvement.
Similarly, when discussing surface disturbance from oil sands development, while the oil sands exist under an area covering about 54,000 square miles, much of the oil sands resource, about 80 percent, will be produced using in-situ processes (drillable oil sands), which have minimal surface disturbance, no mines and no tailings ponds. The remaining 20 percent, which is mineable, is concentrated in a small area and accounts for just 2.5 percent of the entire oil sands area, about 1,850 square miles. In the 40 years that projects have been under way in the oil sands, the area disturbed totals about 193 square miles, and that disturbed land is being actively reclaimed on an ongoing basis.
These are just some of the facts ignored by environmental extremists who argue that America should boycott the oil sands and halt projects connected to oil sands development. These calls are also made without consideration being given to the implications of such actions, and fail to acknowledge the importance of the oil sands to the U.S. and South Dakota.
Canada is the top supplier of crude oil to the United States. In the Midwest, the demand for Canadian crude is 1.2 million barrels per day. In addition to supplying crude oil, the Canadian oil sands, alone, promises to directly and indirectly create at least 1,000 jobs for South Dakotans between 2011 and 2015, according to the independent Canadian Energy Research Institute.
This economic contribution extends to pipelines as well, many of which carry oil sands crude and related products between Canada and the U.S. A planned pipeline expansion through South Dakota has the potential to generate thousands of jobs and significantly increase state tax contributions.
Overall, oil-sands activity currently supports approximately 110,000 jobs throughout the United States. That same oil sands activity will increase the demand for U.S. goods and services, adding an estimated $34 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2015.
What we really need is less inflammatory rhetoric and more meaningful, fact-based debate. The oil sands industry is committed to meeting expectations for responsible environmental stewardship and continuous improvement in our performance. In doing so, we will not only reduce our burden on the planet but also protect the tremendous economic benefits that accrue to South Dakota.
