A very sticky situation

FUELLING DEBATE

Tar sands or oil sands?
In its consultation document, the EU refers to ‘tar sand', a term that the Canadian government argues is misleading, because tar does not occur naturally. Canada always refers to ‘oil sands'.

How much greenhouse gas do tar sands produce?
Green groups say that tar sands cause three to five times more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional oil. Alberta's Rob Renner says it is more like 5%-10% higher. Both sides are right. The greens measure the emissions caused by extracting the oil (ie, from well to tank). Alberta's claims are based on a study by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which measures the full lifecycle of emissions (from well to wheel). Alberta also points out that greenhouse-gas emissions from tar sands have fallen by 33% since 1990. But critics warn that emissions will increase, as the industry increasingly turns from open-cast mining to drilling.

How damaging are tar sands to the environment?
Critics of tar sands object to the damage they cause to forests, air and water quality (for example, four barrels of water are needed to make one barrel of oil). Growing demand for water combined with climate change could see the Athabasca river's water flow halved in winter months by 2050, according to Friends of the Earth. Alberta says that tar sands are using less fresh water despite rising production. Toxic ‘tailing' ponds – covering 130 square kilometres – are “one of the most difficult environmental challenges”, the province acknowledges, but it argues that regulation will require industry to clean up the ponds.

Are tar sands the future?
Alberta wants to position tar sands as the energy source of the future, noting the International Energy Agency's forecast that demand for fossil fuels will grow. But tar sands may have a narrow ‘price window' of competitiveness. If the price of oil falls below $110 a barrel, it will be too expensive to expand production of tar sands much further. Yet if oil goes beyond $130 a barrel, higher carbon prices – and the ensuing move to low-carbon energy - will be irresistible. This is the conclusion of CERES, a US-based group of investors and environmentalists, in a report published last week (17 May). CERES, which includes several US state pension funds, warned investors to beware of unsolved environmental problems, which could be more costly than the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “Investors need to question whether [investment in tar sands] is a wise use of resources,” said Doug Cogan, a co-author of the CERES report. “It's like the Gulf of Mexico spill, but playing out in slow motion.”