Global warming threatens alternative-oil projects

Development of oil-sand, oil-shale, and coal-to-oil projects could be slowed by a new California law.

from the July 6, 2007 edition

Page 3 of 3

Page 1 | Page 2 | 3

"The new agreement with California doesn't eliminate the promise of Alberta's vast oil-sands reserves but slows it down," says George Haley, director of the Center for International Industry Competitiveness at the University of New Haven in Connecticut. The promise might be preserved if technologies are perfected, such as the underground or undersea storage of carbon dioxide, that would trim emissions in the process. "But that will cost more and take time," he adds.

Some experts counter that Alberta's oil sands – also known as tar sands – have lost none of their promise, because there are few alternatives in the long term.

Proposals to get oil from shale rock or even coal face similar greenhouse-gas hurdles, environmental groups say. According to a just-released report by the NRDC and Western Resources Advocates (WRA) – a group active in the oil-shale issue in the American West – "tar sands, oil shale, and liquid coal all result in higher global-warming pollution emissions" with liquid coal posing "disastrous consequences" because its production creates twice as much global-warming emissions as ordinary gasoline.

"Oil-shale development is all talk and no gain," says Bob Randall, an expert with WRA. "It presents huge risks to both the economic and environmental lifeblood of this state."

Even energy-security groups, which want to reduce US dependence on imported oil from world trouble spots, are skeptical of these high-carbon energy sources.

"There is no time for false starts," says Robbie Diamond of Secure America's Future Energy.

1 | 2 | Page 3