How the West Was Drilled

From Alberta to the Brazilian Coast, a tour of the new American oil frontier that could eclipse the Middle East.

BY CHARLES HOMANS | AUGUST 17, 2011

CANADIAN OIL SANDS

In 1999, Canada surpassed Saudi Arabia as the United States' largest source of oil imports, and today a full half of the country's oil production comes from Alberta's so-called tar or oil sands: a form of petroleum found in a mixture of sand, clay, and bitumen that is either mined in pits or extracted by pumping steam into wells. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration predicts that Canada's oil sands production will double over the next five years, adding another 1.3 million barrels a day.

But producing oil sands is a messy, emissions-intensive business; according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the extraction process produces 82 percent more emissions than conventional oil drilling. Canadian officials and oil company executives have argued that these concerns are overstated -- and indeed, credible outside calculations have found far lower impacts, closer to 17 percent greater than conventional oil. But Canada's own environmental agency warns that oil sands production will cancel out the country's efforts to reduce its overall carbon emissions. Oil sands advocates have seen an opening, however, in Americans' perpetual nervousness over its reliance on oil imports from unfriendly and autocratic regimes, as well as a newly restive Middle East, and have increasingly argued for Canadian petroleum as an alternative to "conflict oil" tanked in from dodgier countries.

The proposed construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline connecting Alberta's oil sands with the Gulf of Mexico's refineries, the linchpin of Canada's oil-sands expansion plans, has become the subject of a proxy battle over the wisdom of oil sands development. In June, the U.S. Department of Transportation ordered a smaller sister pipeline to suspend operations in June following a series of leaks. But the companies involved in the project say they will export the oil with or without the pipeline, and in the meantime U.S. demand isn't going anywhere.

MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

 

Charles Homans is features editor of Foreign Policy.

ANDDINU

3:31 AM ET

August 18, 2011

interest

i think theyre a lot of interests involved in talking about a billion dollars bsiness..and such interests are... well hidden for public eye

 

AFGHANGOOD

10:43 AM ET

August 18, 2011

So why all the political bluster?!?!

So basically, all of those politicians yapping about how we are getting our oil from the Middle East are lying? Shocking!

 

KASEMAN

7:58 AM ET

August 19, 2011

Middle East a threat?

Touting the notion that importing Middled East oil from those nasty Airabs, Muslims to boot, as a threat to national "security" (undefined) says more about the ignorance and bigotry of the sources. First and foremost, the House of Saud needs us more than we need it. We are its defenders and protectors, anti freedom they be, especially now. In return it stabilizes the price of oil but above all pays us huge sums of protection money. One manifestation being the periodic procurement of tens of billion$ of second rate military equipment which the Kingdom has no use for. But nice business for our military industrial complex= corporate welfare, and an unbeatable club for the Pentagon to wave if the family gets out of line.

Now just 17% of our oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. In five years it will be 0. Why? The demand east of the Gulf is growing by leaps and bounds. Plus its cheaper to ship oil to Shanghai than to Texas. And no insults 24/7 from you know who.

The insecure and paranoid who wory about national security should define the term. And perhaps look at all the high tech stuff we buy from the Chopstick Belt. What will we do without all those chips Made in China? Insult the Chinese more.

 

FRAN6359

1:25 PM ET

August 18, 2011

Misleading stat

You're article state that the Deepwater Horizon's explosion "unleashed a three-month, 4.9 billion-barrel spill".

Let's do some math here. 4,900,000,000(bbls)/90 (days)= 54 million bbls/day.

Wow! We should be pissed at BP for not being able to produce this well, not be mad because they spilled it. That single well would have produced 62% of the worlds current oil production. Boy they blew it....If only there were more companies out there that could find great wells like that we could throw this whole peak oil argument out the window. Forget foreign oil! We'd have twice the United State's oil consumption coming from that one well.

Laying on sarcasm pretty thick if you couldn't tell. That number should read 4.9 million barrels of oil because that well only produced about 54k bbls a day. Let's do our math right and stop trying to over emphasize the traumatic effects that the spill had on our coastline.

 

CHARLES HOMANS

1:48 PM ET

August 18, 2011

Thanks for the catch--it was

Thanks for the catch--it was a typo, fixed now.

 

AL200

3:18 PM ET

August 18, 2011

Venezuela's Orinoco oil belt

Surprising that your report misses the other largest source of energy in the Americas (perhaps even bigger than any of the ones you mentioned)... Is this article naming country's resources only relative to their willingness to export to the U.S. which Venezuela does anyway so its makes no sense you would leave it... childish

 

INDIANMUNZZANI

4:57 AM ET

August 19, 2011

Oil reserves

Not only is it BP that are guilty of mass spills, Shell is now guily, although on a smaller scale with a pipe leak which will slowly infiltrate northern Scotland and damage the wildlife and ecostructure there, when will these companies learn that they need to take further precautions when dealing with oil, its not as if they do not make enough profits from selling it on to us the consumer at a ballooned rate, while these fatcats are getting rich, we are suffering from no pass on reductions when the oil price goes down, in Britain within the last two years petrol has risen by at leased a third, I have had to give up my seo kent lessons now because I cannot afford them.

 

PDLANE

8:22 AM ET

August 19, 2011

Saudi Oil

One must keep in mind that Big Oil has not invested in increasing refining capacity... preferring to give senior management excessive bonuses Thus approximately 1/3 of refined gasoline consumed in the U.S. is imported from the Saudi refinery complex at Yanbo.

 

TEOC2

11:16 AM ET

August 19, 2011

four barrels of water to refine one barrel of oil

four barrels of water to refine one barrel of oil from tar sands

now there is a recipe for global peace, economic harmony and environmental bliss

 

TEOC2

11:40 AM ET

August 19, 2011

"...credible outside calculations..." certainly you jest!

"But producing oil sands is a messy, emissions-intensive business; according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the extraction process produces 82 percent more emissions than conventional oil drilling. Canadian officials and oil company executives have argued that these concerns are overstated -- and indeed, credible outside calculations have found far lower impacts..."

and follow the link—from the phrase "credible outside calculations" no less— and you find...wait for it... ... ..a Council on Foreign Relations Special Report; No. 47; May 2009; Michael A. Levi
The Canadian Oil Sands; Energy Security vs. Climate Change!

Credible?

Outside?

Calculation?...undoubtedly but not credible or outside.

all time new best for the CFR's capacity for insulting our intelligence

really folks, I mean come on...if you are going to shill for the petroleum industrial complex don't be bashful—be proud of who you are!

 

ORMONDOTVOS

5:44 PM ET

August 19, 2011

Goodbye, world. We hardly knew ye!

Foreign Policy is scraping the bottom of the trust barrel here. The general sense is that there is plenty of oil.,. but never a word about the climate all that carbon fuel is going to disrupt.

So there's lots of oil. The global climate can't handle a dump of carbon that big in that short (decades) a time. It took millions of years to extract all that carbon from the atmosphere, and we're putting it back rapidly.

Nuclear would solve the problem, but we're panicking like cockroaches when the light is turned on about Japan. Really, how many people will die per Kwh from nuclear, compared to coal, oil, gas fracking, resource wars, and pollution?

You can't answer that, so you read this garbage and think every thing's all right.

 

MADCLIVE

12:26 PM ET

September 15, 2011

A n interesting read

Nice article. Some really good points made about How the West Was Drilled, I agree with some of them too. Thanks for the article. Kindest regards, Mad DJ Clive

 

RANDALLPI

12:08 PM ET

September 16, 2011

How the West Was Drilled

From Alberta to the Brazilian Coast, a tour of the new American oil frontier that could eclipse the Middle East. "But producing oil sands is a messy, emissions-intensive business; according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the extraction process produces 82 percent more emissions than conventional oil drilling. Canadian officials and oil company executives have argued that these concerns are overstated -- and indeed, credible outside calculations have found far lower impacts..." and follow the li tattoo designs Surprising that your report misses the other largest source of energy in the Americas (perhaps even bigger than any of the ones you mentioned)... Is this article naming country's resources only relative to their willingness to export to the U.S. which Venezuela does anyway so its makes no sense you would leave it... childish.

 

PETERBEXLEY

11:52 AM ET

September 17, 2011

Interesting

Just read the article. I found it very informative and agree with posts and points made above. Peter.