Showing posts with label fracking/tar sands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fracking/tar sands. Show all posts

Saturday, 22 February 2014

wolves killed to "restore ecological balance " compromised by tar sand extraction - 31-10-2011



Petition the Government now - 24 hours to stop UK blocking legislation that would ban Tar Sand oil from Europe - tar sand = destruction of one of the world's biggest wildernesses



The deliberate destruction of over 500 Canadian wolves, to protect caribou endangered by the extraction of tar sands is just one more chapter in a story of ecological vandalism in the name of greed and stupidity.
Avaaz have launched an urgent petition asking the Government not to block the EU's Dirty Fuels Directive. The EU measure would stop imports of the world's dirtiest and most environmentally destructive oil. Heavy lobbying from the energy industry and the Canadian government have persuaded the UK and French Governments to kill off these measures.
The exploitation of the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada is causing wholesale destruction of Canada's ancient forests, to extract a dirty, dangerous kind of oil. It comes out of the ground at a high energy cost and has the potential to derail efforts to stabilise the planet's climate.
The fate of 100's of wolves may seem like a minor detail of a major catastrophe but their slaughter in a doomed attempt to save Caribou threatened by habitat destruction highlights the ecological horror of the tar sands project
The Alberta tar sands and the associated works are one of the most serious threats to efforts to stabilise carbon and control climate change. With a reserve of carbon as big as the entire Saudi oil fields, hugely destructive extraction techniques, a high carbon cost and a dirty product its been the target of extensive campaigns in the USA by both the Keystone XL pipeline protesters and the well oiled corporate media and lobbying machines of the Koch Industries and Exxon petro-chemical empires


Last week Yale 360 – an on-line magazine published by Yale University – highlighted a very different take on the damage caused by tar sands extraction. The destruction of Alberta's ancient boral forest has restricted and damaged the habitat of woodland Caribou. According to Ed Struzik, who's been writing on the Arctic for three decades,

“ 34,773 wells, 66,489 kilometres of seismic lines, 11,591 kilometres of pipelines, and 12,283 kilometres of roads had been built in caribou country in west central and northern Alberta”

These developments have fractured the Caribou habitat and as a result:

 “three of the province’s 18 herds are at immediate risk of disappearing because of loss of habitat. Six are in decline, three are stable, and not enough is known about the remaining six to determine how well they are doing.”

The response of Alberta Sustainable Resources Department has been a campaign of extermination against the native grey wolf population - over the past five years, the government of Alberta has spent more than $1 million poisoning wolves with strychnine and shooting them from the air – killing over 500 wolves in one area alone.

Struzik goes on to explain that while wolf extermination gives short term respite to Caribou populations the primary problem is the fragmentation and loss of habitat He goes on to cite experts on wolves and wildlife conservation who are unanimous in saying that controlling wolf populations will not save the situation – restoring habitat will.

The Canadian Government claim not enough is known about the “spatial distribution” of Caribou to identify critical habitat but despite ignorance of key data the report that opened the door to wolf eradication programs said: “human-induced habitat alterations have upset the natural balance between boreal caribou and their predators,”

and acknowledged that Caribou populations could only be self sustaining if their habitat was preserved.

Meanwhile “Richard Schneider, executive director of the Alberta Center for Boreal Research; and University of Alberta natural resource economists Vic Adamowicz and Grant Hauer have estimated that it would be possible to preserve half of Alberta’s caribou habitat while giving up less than 1 percent of potential revenues from resource development.”

The fate of the timber wolves is a side issue in the context of the massive environmental threat posed by the tar sands developments but it's also a heartbreaking symbol of how little the corporate interests who stand to make trillions care. The wolf population, the essence of our wild world, are being exterminated to save a species who fate is already sealed by a reckless disregard for environmental good practice. It's probably expecting too much of businesses that are prepared to put the world's climate system on the line to care about a few hundred wolves, so these beautiful animals are just another heartbreaking piece of “collateral damage” in the quest for profit at any price.

 Update

Greenpeace have launched an e-mail campaign to lobby Nick Clegg over the UK's refusal to support the EU's Fuel Quality Directive.

Full article: Killing Wolves: A Product of Alberta’s Big Oil and Gas Boom. Ed Struzic Environment 360
Wolf images via wikipedi creative commons - from UK Wolf Conservation Trust




tar sands - keystone xl survey compromised - 10-10-2011

The New York Times reports a clear conflict of interest. Key surveys for controversial Keystone XL pipeline were conducted by a contractor for the company building the project.

The New York Times reports that key surveys for the Keystone XL pipeline were carried out by a contractor for TransCanada, the company seeking to build the project.
 Cardino Entrix, a Houston based environmental contractor has previously worked on projects for TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a "major client".
 Their report said the project, one of the most complex pipelines ever proposed, would have "limited adverse environmental impacts", removing one of the last obstacles to approval. Professor Oliver Houck, a professor of law says that Cardno Entrix should never have been selected for the study as it has "a financial interest in the project"
Concerns about the impact of the vast fossil carbon reserves in the oil sands on climate aside, there are deep concerns about local environmental impacts. The oil mixture that Keystone XL will carry is especially thick, corrosive and unstable.  TransCanada predicted its smaller Keystone 1 pipeline would suffer a 2000 gallon + oil spill only once every 7 years. In just over 1 year it has leaked at least 14 times including one spill of 21,000 gallons.

Tyndale Centre warns fracking plans could put UK decarbonisation at risk - 13-01201

A new Tyndall Climate Change Research unit appraisal of shale gas warns that fracked gas could put the UK's plans to decarbonise at risk - potentially displacing between 10 and 20GW of renewables

New Scientist On-line (11-01-12) led a story following the British Geological Survey launch of new web pages and videos about shale gas with the byline: Frack away – there's no reason not too – two of the main objections to fracking have been blown out of proportion”. 

In fairness to the BGS they make the point that shale gas is an important energy resource and stress that if it's to be used it's use should be combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – possibly a vain hope. CCS is still a largely hypothetical technology and it's reckoned that implementing it could represent 40% of the energy costs of thermal power. By chance, the government withdrew a £1 billion fund to develop CCS the day before the first ever sizeable CCS pilot was opened at Ferrybridge Power Station in Yorkshire – hardly a vote of confidence in the technology.


New Scientist really deserve a slap on the wrist for introducing an important technical study in such a flippant way, but it gives a great opportunity to set out the real concerns about shale gas exploitation. The principle objections to fracking are not the risk of earthquakes or the risk of water contamination but the long term impact of low cost gas on carbon emissions and investments in low carbon technology.

Coincidently the Tyndall Climate Change Research unit in Manchester published a 133 page appraisal of shale gas on the same day as the NS piece: “Shale Gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts”. It makes the real issue very clear. Only 20% of potential shale gas reserves in the UK would use 15% of the UK's carbon budget up to 2050. Kevin Anderson, Professor of energy and climate change, who wrote the report, believes shale gas should be left in the ground saying;

"In an energy hungry world any new fossil fuel resource will only lead to additional carbon emissions. In the case of shale gas there is also a significant risk its use will delay the introduction of renewable energy alternatives."

Cheap gas creates a “double whammy”. It certainly produces less carbon than coal but it still but still has a big impact on carbon emissions. What's more, fossil fuels operate with a covert subsidy, the cost of the pollution they create is socialised, distorting the energy market. In turn, the availability of cheap gas tends to discourage investment in genuine low carbon options by lowering energy costs to a point where renewables can't compete. The Tyndall Centre Report argues that a £32 billion investment in shale gas could potentially displace 12 GW of offshore or 21GW of onshore capacity – raising the prospect of the UK not meeting it's renewables obligations.

Quite apart from impacts on emissions and treaty obligations there are other economic impacts of staking future energy strategies on gas. The IEA's “World Energy Outlook 2011” (Executive summary - page 2)  launched in November 2011 warns of the cost of locking the country into a high carbon economy long term.

The long lifetime of capital stock in the power sector means that the sector accounts for half the emissions lock-in to 2035. If action were to be delayed until 2015 around 45% of the fossil fuel capacity installed by then would have to be retired early or refurbished by 2035. Delaying action (on decarbonisation) is a false economy. For every $1 dollar of investment in the power sector avoided before 2020 an additional $4-30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for higher emissions.

The real danger of shale gas is this process of locking our energy infrastructure into fossil fuels long into the future. With a struggling economy the debate about energy is moving away from the imperative to cut carbon and towards the need to deliver it cheaply. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate impacts we really don't need headlines like "Frack away – there's no reason not too" - especially from New Scientist.

fear about emissions and impact on development of renewables 19-06-2011

The oil industry's efforts to re-profile “unconventional gas” as a “green” alternative to coal poses a new threat to the development of low carbon power.


Last week the IEA (International Energy Agency) published a special report (summary) highlighting the potential for natural gas in the energy mix.

Conventional natural gas is far less carbon unfriendly than coal and while the original dash for gas played a significant role in reducing the carbon emissions from electricity generation it is still a fossil fuel. To have any hope of keeping warming to less 2oC - widely accepted as the most global temperatures can rise without risk of catastrophic climate change, all fossil fuel emissions need to be phased out over the next 50 years.

The “Golden Age of Gas Strategy” depends on exploiting vast reserves of "unconventional gas" extracted by processes such as fracking and coal gasification, processes that, according to research by RW Howarth et al produces methane emissions at least 30% and possibly double that of conventional gas wells. Far from being a "greener alternative", emissions on this scale would make unconventional gas more harmful than coal.

Emissions and direct environmental harm aside, there's a far more worrying aspect any new "dash for gas". Exploitation of abundant unconventional natural gas could stop development of renewables and politically difficult low carbon energy sources like nuclear power dead in their tracks. Michael Lind, writing in "War Room" talks of a "new age of fossil fuels". The article gives a chilling insight into the extent to which the dangers of climate change and the potential of low carbon energy are ignored USA. Lind argues that shale and tar sand oil remove the need to develop low carbon options as climate science presents only "worst case scenarios that can easily be ignored". A view as far from the truth as its possible to be - the science tells us with a high degree of confidence that doing nothing risks catastrophe.

The message for anyone concerned with sustainability is "keep unconventional hydrocarbons in the ground". If the oil industry exploits vast carbon reserves locked away in geological formations like shale gas and tar sand environmental disaster is inevitable.

early signs of the toxicity of fracking fluid - 11-07-2011

The Shale gas industry strongly resists allegations that fluids used in the fracking process are harmful. New research published in the US "Journal of Environmental Quality" suggests they may be underplaying the dangers of fracking fluids


 Dr Mary Beth Adams, a supervisory scientist with the US forestry service, monitored the effects of fracking fluids on a quarter acre plot of forest over a two year period. Among the observed effects of exposure
  •  Within two days all ground plants were dead;
  • Within 10 days, leaves of trees began to turn brown.  Within two years more than half of the approximately 150 trees were dead; and
  • “Surface soil concentrations of sodium and chloride increased 50-fold as a result of the land application of hydrofracturing fluids…”  These elevated levels eventually declined as chemical leached off-site.  The exact chemical composition of these fluids is not known because the chemical formula is classified as confidential proprietary information
  • "The explosion of shale gas drilling in the East has the potential to turn large stretches of public lands into lifeless moonscapes,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that land disposal of fracking fluids is common and in the case of the Fernow was done pursuant to a state permit.  “This study suggests that these fluids should be treated as toxic waste.
Concerns about gas released by fracking are widespread. Some reserchers believe so much methane is relased from their extraction they have a bigger carbon footprint that coal - a recent "New York Times" investigation raises questions about the economic viability of fracked gas