http://onemansblog.com/2007/07/29/australian-comedy-the-front-fell-off/
Second video down. Funny.
It's been busy here. I haven't been slacking on blogging, per se - check out Alaska Conservation Voters' blog which is secretly maintained by yours truly - but my contributions to this blog have taken a mid-summer nosedive. No, it doesn't have to do with nonstop daylight and beautiful weather. Anchorage Daily News recently reported that this summer may be the coldest on record. It does have to do with the sense that summer's coming to a close; less than two weeks left for me and I am living up what I can. Also, my 'academic' blogwork (ie lots of research with casual delivery) has really taken place on the ACV blog since I started it.
Work:
1. The Alaska Conservation Alliance brochures I designed are about five feet away from me. There are 500 of them and I am proud of how they came out. I don't know about my future relationship with InDesign - there were many...trying moments in the creation of the brochure. I think there should be a way to just get my hands into the computer and directly move things around. But I suppose until high-tech manual collage is back in vogue/technologically possible I am pleased with my InDesign know-how and happy I had the opportunity to learn about it while designing something useful for ACA.
2. Friend to Friend has been more challenging as the summer progresses. I have a lot of 'yes' responses but an almost equal number of no-shows. Many people are on vacation. Still, we've probably sent out a grand total of 50 letters to potential donors through FtF participants. When we get new member envelopes in the mail I'm excited to see if 'FF' is marked on the donation slip and I really hope some will come back before the summer's out. I wonder if we would have a higher turnout in the winter when nobody wants to be outside/people feel more pressure to socialize and be active. I'm not sure, but I've enjoyed meeting the people who came in and I think they've been amused by me (intern, huh? From NYC? You like Alaska and want to come live here, eh? Have you heard about our winters?). Also, I have a much better way of delivering small speeches because of all the practice I had with the phone rap so thanks, Alaska - it'll be nice to have my shiny new presentation mode on hand for senior year.
3. Tabling for the Renewable Energy Fair - this will be my last day. There will be temporary tattoos, big new posters, brochures, a sign up sheet with numbers corresponding to free compact fluorescent bulbs. I would like to find a purple table cloth. I would like to find more volunteers.
NotWork:
1. Karen is away for a while and lent me her car; I've been going on all sorts of adventures (and my running's taken a subsequent hit. Will have to bounce back, carless, next week). Last weekend I went to Eagle River and Girdwood, during the week I meandered a bit around the Seward Highway - nice trails around Potter Creek, apparently they're closed all the time from the McHugh side though because of a lot of bear activity. Hmm. I went to Eklutna Lake, which is a surprisingly quiet place given how gorgeous it is. That can probably be said for much of Alaska though. This weekend I drove down to Homer and that was incredible. I think it beats Seward.
2. Pictures forthcoming.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
No Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Just a few days after the G8 summit in Japan, where President Bush agreed that the United States should reduce it's greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050--and where he also signed off by saying: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" and "then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock"--it has been announced that the EPA will not act to regulate greenhouse gases during the Bush administration.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA regulates greenhouse gases.
From the Washington Post:
"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.
...
"Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA regulates greenhouse gases.
From the Washington Post:
"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.
...
"Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
Career EPA officials argued that the global benefits of reducing carbon are worth at least $40 per ton, but Bush appointees changed the final document to say the figure is just an example, not an official estimate. They prohibited the agency from submitting a 21-page document titled "Technical Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions" as part of today's announcement.
"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
Some officials said the administration has also minimized the benefits of tighter fuel-economy standards by assuming that oil will cost $58 a barrel in the future, compared with its current price of $141.65. While the EPA calculated in a May 30 draft that stricter standards would save U.S. society $2 trillion by 2020, officials revised that figure last month -- using the $58 estimate -- to predict that they would save only between $340 billion and $830 billion.
...
Hutto, a former Cato Institute intern and Bush campaign volunteer during the Florida vote recount in 2000, whose grandfather patented at least seven piston inventions for the Ford Motor Company, has "an anti-regulatory philosophy and concern about what regulation means for the American way of life. He would talk, for example, about not wanting greenhouse gas controls to do away with the large American automobile," said the meeting participant."
------------------
I find it odd that large automobiles are more important to the American way of life, then, say, having a planet that is hospitable to life. I would think that latter would supersede the former.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Gov. Palin & Sen. Stevens: Tag Teaming
In what the Anchorage Daily News is calling: "a rare tag-team appearance with Gov. Sarah Palin", Ted Stevens has launched a "multi-pronged" (again in the words of ADN) plan to reduce energy costs in Alaska. Sounds promising, right? Multi-pronged--that probably means something other than betting on oil. I mean multi-pronged has to have multiple solutions. It has to.
Well, apparently, Stevens plan is to: 1. End oil speculation. 2. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 3. Give the state a third of off shore oil drilling revenue.
The only mention of some kind of alternative energy is that the revenue from the Arctic Refuge would go to development of alternative energy sources--which is, in some ways, interesting. It is estimated that it would be 300 billion over 30 years. However, as I pointed out earlier this week, that production would not start immediately and wouldn't peak until 2025, so that money would be a long ways off. By 2025 most technologies to harness renewable energy will not be considered "alternative". Europe, California, Japan, and even countries like China and Brazil are already funding and developing renewable energy technology. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. Portugal plans to produce 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Falling behind now would leave Alaska without a viable economy as the world begins to move from oil and gas to renewable energy. If Alaska wants to develop a sustainable economy, it must start now, not 15 years from now.
Ending oil speculation is starting to look like the new ending the gas tax. It seems that few people actually think that speculation is the leading culprit in skyrocketing prices. As the IEA points out: fast growing demand and finite resources are the driving force behind oil prices.
Number 3 has the same problem as number 2. A good idea 30 years ago, but a bit too late now.
So Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have created a multi-pronged plan that will: End speculation, which will probably do nothing. Continue the status quo of keep drilling. Begin substantial funding of alternative energy sources after they have become the new status quo 20 years down the line.
Well, apparently, Stevens plan is to: 1. End oil speculation. 2. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 3. Give the state a third of off shore oil drilling revenue.
The only mention of some kind of alternative energy is that the revenue from the Arctic Refuge would go to development of alternative energy sources--which is, in some ways, interesting. It is estimated that it would be 300 billion over 30 years. However, as I pointed out earlier this week, that production would not start immediately and wouldn't peak until 2025, so that money would be a long ways off. By 2025 most technologies to harness renewable energy will not be considered "alternative". Europe, California, Japan, and even countries like China and Brazil are already funding and developing renewable energy technology. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. Portugal plans to produce 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Falling behind now would leave Alaska without a viable economy as the world begins to move from oil and gas to renewable energy. If Alaska wants to develop a sustainable economy, it must start now, not 15 years from now.
Ending oil speculation is starting to look like the new ending the gas tax. It seems that few people actually think that speculation is the leading culprit in skyrocketing prices. As the IEA points out: fast growing demand and finite resources are the driving force behind oil prices.
Number 3 has the same problem as number 2. A good idea 30 years ago, but a bit too late now.
So Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have created a multi-pronged plan that will: End speculation, which will probably do nothing. Continue the status quo of keep drilling. Begin substantial funding of alternative energy sources after they have become the new status quo 20 years down the line.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Harry Reid: YouTube Celebrity
Harry Reid had the most popular video on YouTube yesterday--and it is still in the top 5. In the video he says that "coal makes us sick". Apparently, somehow this is being pushed by some as proof of the Democrats being out of touch on energy issues, even though it is a fact that coal does make us sick.
In fact, coal does a lot more than make us sick--coal kills us. Every year 18,700 people die just due to respiratory diseases from coal dust. Then there is the mercury poisoning that comes from coal combustion and mining.
Incredibly, though, Sen. Reid bringing up the fact that there are large externalities associated with the use of coal as an energy source puts him out of though. The cost to burn coal is larger than people assume, that is what he is pointing out. Health costs for the countless people effected by coal production, environmental and building damage due to acid rain, the increasing concentration of green house gases, steadily rising mercury levels, and a whole host of other costs need to be considered when people claim coal is a cheap energy source.
In fact, coal does a lot more than make us sick--coal kills us. Every year 18,700 people die just due to respiratory diseases from coal dust. Then there is the mercury poisoning that comes from coal combustion and mining.
Incredibly, though, Sen. Reid bringing up the fact that there are large externalities associated with the use of coal as an energy source puts him out of though. The cost to burn coal is larger than people assume, that is what he is pointing out. Health costs for the countless people effected by coal production, environmental and building damage due to acid rain, the increasing concentration of green house gases, steadily rising mercury levels, and a whole host of other costs need to be considered when people claim coal is a cheap energy source.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Alli Blogs 6/24
First, a work update. Second, a recreation update.
1. I am working on the final drafts of the ACA brochure. Soon it will parade its pretty self around the office and then circulate; schmooze with the Anchorage conservation community. Working with InDesign was frustrating at first but we sorted out our differences and eventually, even though I didn't understand why one had to go to 'File' and select 'Place' and then usually hit 'Undo Replace' in order to freakin' add a picture, we came to an understanding. Or a sort of mutually accepted low-grade frustration that at least resulted in a nice product. But hey I don't want to speak ill of a computer program; I feel like that could karmically come back at me (probably during finals in my last semester of college, 3am in the computer lab you know).
2. Friend to Friend is difficult. I have a really hard time with calling people up; it's like if you were at a party where, even though you were constantly keeping up momentum and interest, nobody felt obliged to be nice. Face to face (Friend to Friend) people tend to listen more; at least give you the benefit of the doubt. Not over the phone. Sometimes I get a really cute kid on the other line and then mom comes on and she's friendly, but then she won't commit to a time and I have to e-mail her...who knows if I'll hear back. The good news is that despite the difficulties I'm averaging 1 person per Friend-to-Friend evening, which is 2 a week, which is about 6 sendouts to non-members. So I do think that by the end of the summer we'll have new members.
3. I'm pondering options for a blog/myspace/facebook. No, not for me. I have enough of those damn things. This is for ACA/V. But how do you blog for an organization? I've been doing some research to find out, and it turns out that lots of nonprofits do blog. Most of the ones I've looked at include events past and present, causes, pictures etc. But to be honest I haven't found any nonprofblog terribly interesting because there's no contriversy in events, causes, pictures etc... So the catch 22 seems to be that you need contriversy to get attention, but as a nonprof it's really not in our best interest to broadcast cards on the internet. There are a lot of issues out there, especially in Alaska, but it's difficult to write about them in any meaningful way if you're not taking sides. So I guess that's why most nonprof's stick to what what's already public: dates, times, snapshots.
Does that mean we have to have a dull blog/myspace/facebook? Well...maybe not dull, just more informative than subjective. For a nonprofit, the point seems more about getting the word out about upcoming events/issues than sparking meaningful discussion. A blog's just one part of that effort. But maybe something more can be done; tomorrow I have a meeting about it, we'll talk about these fine lines there.
Okay, so that's my research focus for the day: BLOGS! In the meantime, as this is my shared blog in which I'm pretty sure I know what to say, I'll post photos from the solstice weekend:
Friday 11:50pm
12am: Taking pictures of Denali from the porch at Snow Goose.
12am: Denali is that little bump over the woods on the right. This overlooks Ship Creek.
8am Saturday: Mayor's Midnight Sun Marathon start.
8:30am: Yours Truly ready to run 13.1 miles.
Saturday 9pm: Heading up Flattop for the sunset.
10pm: En route.
10:30pm: It was crowded!
10:30pm: Betsy taking photos.
10:30pm: AJ
10:30pm: David and camping stuff.
10:30pm: Me, dreaming.
Low flowers
View from the other side of Flattop
12am: Sunset (Denali again, on the right)
12am: Fourteen of us came up!!
12am
12am: gettin' down
A cab came for us at 1am. Fantastic weekend.
1. I am working on the final drafts of the ACA brochure. Soon it will parade its pretty self around the office and then circulate; schmooze with the Anchorage conservation community. Working with InDesign was frustrating at first but we sorted out our differences and eventually, even though I didn't understand why one had to go to 'File' and select 'Place' and then usually hit 'Undo Replace' in order to freakin' add a picture, we came to an understanding. Or a sort of mutually accepted low-grade frustration that at least resulted in a nice product. But hey I don't want to speak ill of a computer program; I feel like that could karmically come back at me (probably during finals in my last semester of college, 3am in the computer lab you know).
2. Friend to Friend is difficult. I have a really hard time with calling people up; it's like if you were at a party where, even though you were constantly keeping up momentum and interest, nobody felt obliged to be nice. Face to face (Friend to Friend) people tend to listen more; at least give you the benefit of the doubt. Not over the phone. Sometimes I get a really cute kid on the other line and then mom comes on and she's friendly, but then she won't commit to a time and I have to e-mail her...who knows if I'll hear back. The good news is that despite the difficulties I'm averaging 1 person per Friend-to-Friend evening, which is 2 a week, which is about 6 sendouts to non-members. So I do think that by the end of the summer we'll have new members.
3. I'm pondering options for a blog/myspace/facebook. No, not for me. I have enough of those damn things. This is for ACA/V. But how do you blog for an organization? I've been doing some research to find out, and it turns out that lots of nonprofits do blog. Most of the ones I've looked at include events past and present, causes, pictures etc. But to be honest I haven't found any nonprofblog terribly interesting because there's no contriversy in events, causes, pictures etc... So the catch 22 seems to be that you need contriversy to get attention, but as a nonprof it's really not in our best interest to broadcast cards on the internet. There are a lot of issues out there, especially in Alaska, but it's difficult to write about them in any meaningful way if you're not taking sides. So I guess that's why most nonprof's stick to what what's already public: dates, times, snapshots.
Does that mean we have to have a dull blog/myspace/facebook? Well...maybe not dull, just more informative than subjective. For a nonprofit, the point seems more about getting the word out about upcoming events/issues than sparking meaningful discussion. A blog's just one part of that effort. But maybe something more can be done; tomorrow I have a meeting about it, we'll talk about these fine lines there.
Okay, so that's my research focus for the day: BLOGS! In the meantime, as this is my shared blog in which I'm pretty sure I know what to say, I'll post photos from the solstice weekend:
Friday 11:50pm
12am: Taking pictures of Denali from the porch at Snow Goose.
12am: Denali is that little bump over the woods on the right. This overlooks Ship Creek.
8am Saturday: Mayor's Midnight Sun Marathon start.
8:30am: Yours Truly ready to run 13.1 miles.
Saturday 9pm: Heading up Flattop for the sunset.
10pm: En route.
10:30pm: It was crowded!
10:30pm: Betsy taking photos.
10:30pm: AJ
10:30pm: David and camping stuff.
10:30pm: Me, dreaming.
Low flowers
View from the other side of Flattop
12am: Sunset (Denali again, on the right)
12am: Fourteen of us came up!!
12am
12am: gettin' downA cab came for us at 1am. Fantastic weekend.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Opening up federal land and its effects on oil prices
The debate over whether or not to open up federally protected areas, such as the Arctic Refuge here in Alaska, and allowing more offshore oil drilling is really starting to pick up. Both President Bush and John McCain--though McCain has been a lifelong opponent of offshore drilling until this year--are advocating opening up anywhere that has natural gas or petroleum. Meanwhile democrats such as Harry Reid and environmentalists are questioning the value of opening up these areas. So what are the economical benefits of opening up this land?
Well according to the Energy Information Administration (which is a government agency) opening up the Arctic Refuge would lead to oil prices being 75 cents less...per barrel...in 2025. Also according to EIA is that opening up offshore drilling areas would lead to to an increase of 1.6% by 2025 in domestic oil production, which would lead to an "insignificant" price in oil prices. These are reports put out by a government agency; not environmental groups.
The only people who would benefit from opening up these areas are oil companies. There would be no significant change in cost to the consumer. I don't have the knowledge to predict what a barrel of oil will cost in 2025, but I think we can assume it will be high enough that 75 cents isn't going to make a difference to most people. In fact a general rule of thumb is that a dollar change in the price of a barrel of oil corresponds to a 2.5 cent change in a gallon of gas.
Over the past two years domestic oil and gas production has outpaced domestic consumption fourfold. There just is no correlation between domestic production and the cost of gas for Americans. Oil is an international product and its price is determined on the international market. The oil that is in American soil is sold to international companies.
Another point that needs to be made is that oil companies already have more leases to reserves than they are using. As Peter Lehner of the National Resource Defense Council points out: in the past four years the BLM has issued 10,000 more permits to oil companies than they have used. There is six times more oil currently available for drilling than is located in the Arctic Refuge. As for offshore drilling, there is currently 7,740 active leases, of which 1,655 are in production. There is four time more natural gas in those leases not in production then in the areas protected by the offshore ban.
All that said, energy independence is very valuable. However, oil and natural gas are not the answer. The easiest and most cost effective route is to be more energy efficient. Smart building practices can significantly lower energy demand, to the point that, with some small scale renewable energy systems, zero energy buildings are currently possible. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. The United States has the ability to become a leader in the renewable energies market, which as oil prices soar will become a very lucrative market. Any plan that is centered on increased oil production is bound to fail. The impact that drilling will have on the economy is minuscule, in fact oil prices will continue to sky rocket no matter what. Renewable energy sources will always be available, so why not develop them?
Well according to the Energy Information Administration (which is a government agency) opening up the Arctic Refuge would lead to oil prices being 75 cents less...per barrel...in 2025. Also according to EIA is that opening up offshore drilling areas would lead to to an increase of 1.6% by 2025 in domestic oil production, which would lead to an "insignificant" price in oil prices. These are reports put out by a government agency; not environmental groups.
The only people who would benefit from opening up these areas are oil companies. There would be no significant change in cost to the consumer. I don't have the knowledge to predict what a barrel of oil will cost in 2025, but I think we can assume it will be high enough that 75 cents isn't going to make a difference to most people. In fact a general rule of thumb is that a dollar change in the price of a barrel of oil corresponds to a 2.5 cent change in a gallon of gas.
Over the past two years domestic oil and gas production has outpaced domestic consumption fourfold. There just is no correlation between domestic production and the cost of gas for Americans. Oil is an international product and its price is determined on the international market. The oil that is in American soil is sold to international companies.
Another point that needs to be made is that oil companies already have more leases to reserves than they are using. As Peter Lehner of the National Resource Defense Council points out: in the past four years the BLM has issued 10,000 more permits to oil companies than they have used. There is six times more oil currently available for drilling than is located in the Arctic Refuge. As for offshore drilling, there is currently 7,740 active leases, of which 1,655 are in production. There is four time more natural gas in those leases not in production then in the areas protected by the offshore ban.
All that said, energy independence is very valuable. However, oil and natural gas are not the answer. The easiest and most cost effective route is to be more energy efficient. Smart building practices can significantly lower energy demand, to the point that, with some small scale renewable energy systems, zero energy buildings are currently possible. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. The United States has the ability to become a leader in the renewable energies market, which as oil prices soar will become a very lucrative market. Any plan that is centered on increased oil production is bound to fail. The impact that drilling will have on the economy is minuscule, in fact oil prices will continue to sky rocket no matter what. Renewable energy sources will always be available, so why not develop them?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Two cents for environmentalism
This is an interesting interactive map of the North Slope of Alaska once you figure out how to use it. I found the easiest way is to right click on the map and hit 'zoom', then move the map around manually with the mouse to see different parts. You can also just hit the zoom button at the base of the map and decide which features you want to enable/disable - there are wildlife layers; oil development layers. I found that with all the layers activated it's all too confusing.
Here is a primer on the discovery of oil in the North Slope - its bias is pro-development, but I figure mine is pro-conservation so between us there's a pretty solid set of facts. Remarks on the careful insulation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and housing built on permafrost are interesting to me. The article stresses that the insulation was used to prevent heat transferrence from the pipeline and homes to the foundational permafrost. The thing is, while no heat may have been lost on the ground in the early days (and it is quite impressive that the pipeline withstood a magnitude 7 earthquake) no mention is made in this article about what happens now that the earth which supports that pipeline is melting. And that it's melting because of what happens to the stuff in the pipeline later on in its lifecycle; the same oil that is so carefully insulated in its debut run down from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It's been pointed out several times before, probably in this very same blog, but one of Alaska's big ironies - kinda like an L-shaped pipeline across its forehead - is that the same resource it hustles to make a quick buck off is exactly what warms it up - and disproportionately faster than the rest of the world. This state is an oil addict and is choking on its own fumes.
Ok, so strong statement. I've had many conversations and been privy to many meetings where the topic of conversation is basically 'so now what'. Well, on a political level I think it's a tremendous problem that Alaska as a state is so reliant on oil industry for its income. A main tenet of Alaska Conservation Voters is that 'a sound economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand' and this is going to be a crucial frame of reference if any sustainable development is to happen. I do not think, given our dependence on oil, that the solution will happen overnight. I do think that given the opportunity planning/development does not always occur in forward motion, and that given insane schemes such as the Alberta Tar Sands there need to be stringent guidelines and economic incentives in place which prevent highly emissive, energy inefficient, and overall environmentally catastrophic development from taking place.
But you know, these words are almost meaningless to most people now. Even as I write them, 'environmentally catastrophic' seems like it would be best illustrated by a set of pictures, or superhot days with terrible air quality, or even being stuck in bad traffic. 'Environmentally catastrophic' means not being able to afford food, or being forced to work crappy jobs, or not having a place to live. Once you start to examine one part of our culture, such as the reliance on oil, the rest starts to unfold fast. One massive get-rich-quick scheme, such as the Alberta Tar Sands or even oil extraction in general, works for a few, but for the rest of us it causes a steady erosion of our surroundings. We can't even see that this cumulative effect of our day-to-day lives is the environment, so that if we decide to use less gas; if we decide to put our money where our mouth is, if we decide to vote/letter write/demonstrate/at least think we can make a marked difference in our personal lives that has potential to contribute to a greater whole. So, on a personal level, the reasons for getting out of oil addiction, or just bettering the world in general, have to conjur up a whole lot more personal incentive in order for the political side to work.
Now people (ok Alaskans) tend to think 'extreme environmentalists'. Well, I don't consider myself extreme. I just want a nice life for everyone...even those 'damn republicans'. When I think 'environment' I think whatever it is we all live in, day-to-day.
So, on a personal level, I think environmentalism is really just a steady consideration of what's right around you - how much effort you put into it, what feedback you get, how involved you are. Here, we're riding our bikes everywhere - bing, connection to the road and we're not paying $4.19/gallon at the pump (we run on bagels). We're nice to folks and listen and try not to cram an opinion in their ears, and hopefully then there's room for conversation. And yeah, whoever it is at the office who hasn't yet removed the plastic bag they stuck in the dish drier (that's been there since the start of my internship) could maybe be called an 'extreme environmentalist' but I think it's cute. It's better than the opposite. And I like that it's still there; it means no one else would just throw it away.
Now if only I could get myself to make my bed every morning I could certainly stop global climate change.
Ok, lovely tangent, now back to poking around the North Slope..
Here is a primer on the discovery of oil in the North Slope - its bias is pro-development, but I figure mine is pro-conservation so between us there's a pretty solid set of facts. Remarks on the careful insulation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and housing built on permafrost are interesting to me. The article stresses that the insulation was used to prevent heat transferrence from the pipeline and homes to the foundational permafrost. The thing is, while no heat may have been lost on the ground in the early days (and it is quite impressive that the pipeline withstood a magnitude 7 earthquake) no mention is made in this article about what happens now that the earth which supports that pipeline is melting. And that it's melting because of what happens to the stuff in the pipeline later on in its lifecycle; the same oil that is so carefully insulated in its debut run down from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It's been pointed out several times before, probably in this very same blog, but one of Alaska's big ironies - kinda like an L-shaped pipeline across its forehead - is that the same resource it hustles to make a quick buck off is exactly what warms it up - and disproportionately faster than the rest of the world. This state is an oil addict and is choking on its own fumes.
Ok, so strong statement. I've had many conversations and been privy to many meetings where the topic of conversation is basically 'so now what'. Well, on a political level I think it's a tremendous problem that Alaska as a state is so reliant on oil industry for its income. A main tenet of Alaska Conservation Voters is that 'a sound economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand' and this is going to be a crucial frame of reference if any sustainable development is to happen. I do not think, given our dependence on oil, that the solution will happen overnight. I do think that given the opportunity planning/development does not always occur in forward motion, and that given insane schemes such as the Alberta Tar Sands there need to be stringent guidelines and economic incentives in place which prevent highly emissive, energy inefficient, and overall environmentally catastrophic development from taking place.
But you know, these words are almost meaningless to most people now. Even as I write them, 'environmentally catastrophic' seems like it would be best illustrated by a set of pictures, or superhot days with terrible air quality, or even being stuck in bad traffic. 'Environmentally catastrophic' means not being able to afford food, or being forced to work crappy jobs, or not having a place to live. Once you start to examine one part of our culture, such as the reliance on oil, the rest starts to unfold fast. One massive get-rich-quick scheme, such as the Alberta Tar Sands or even oil extraction in general, works for a few, but for the rest of us it causes a steady erosion of our surroundings. We can't even see that this cumulative effect of our day-to-day lives is the environment, so that if we decide to use less gas; if we decide to put our money where our mouth is, if we decide to vote/letter write/demonstrate/at least think we can make a marked difference in our personal lives that has potential to contribute to a greater whole. So, on a personal level, the reasons for getting out of oil addiction, or just bettering the world in general, have to conjur up a whole lot more personal incentive in order for the political side to work.
Now people (ok Alaskans) tend to think 'extreme environmentalists'. Well, I don't consider myself extreme. I just want a nice life for everyone...even those 'damn republicans'. When I think 'environment' I think whatever it is we all live in, day-to-day.
So, on a personal level, I think environmentalism is really just a steady consideration of what's right around you - how much effort you put into it, what feedback you get, how involved you are. Here, we're riding our bikes everywhere - bing, connection to the road and we're not paying $4.19/gallon at the pump (we run on bagels). We're nice to folks and listen and try not to cram an opinion in their ears, and hopefully then there's room for conversation. And yeah, whoever it is at the office who hasn't yet removed the plastic bag they stuck in the dish drier (that's been there since the start of my internship) could maybe be called an 'extreme environmentalist' but I think it's cute. It's better than the opposite. And I like that it's still there; it means no one else would just throw it away.
Now if only I could get myself to make my bed every morning I could certainly stop global climate change.
Ok, lovely tangent, now back to poking around the North Slope..
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Alli + Alaska ?
So I want to come back here. To live. After one more year of living it up in the urban jungle - and I will live it up, leaping hurdles such as my best friend's wedding, a 26.2-mile skip through NYC, and, like, graduation - I am sure I want to declare residency in this fine state. Probably in Anchorage.
"Winter in Downtown Anchorage". This daylight could last maybe three hours. And it's probably somewhat chilly, like in the negative somethin' somethings. Depressing? Well, what about: 
See, that looks nice! A full moon gives you enough light to do all sorts of fun stuff, like cross-country ski, snowmobile, snowshoe...
and the winter doesn't prevent people from biking either. Just Add Spikes.
However, in the name of weighing my options (a process I rarely go through because I find it boring and time-consuming), I am posting a little photo-journey through some pros and cons of moving to Alaska. Your input is welcome. Loudly cheering and/or angrily protesting especially encouraged.
Okay, so first a potential con:
"Winter in Downtown Anchorage". This daylight could last maybe three hours. And it's probably somewhat chilly, like in the negative somethin' somethings. Depressing? Well, what about:See, that looks nice! A full moon gives you enough light to do all sorts of fun stuff, like cross-country ski, snowmobile, snowshoe...and the winter doesn't prevent people from biking either. Just Add Spikes.
AND IN THE SUMMER THERE ARE ENORMOUS VEGETABLES. This is cabbage.
+ road trips. This man is, as the postcard highlights, on the road to Tok.
Downtown has some pretty cool hangouts as well.
Hmmmmmm.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Brief this, hit on that, it's a rap.
Other than writing up info on Alberta Tar Sands (which I hope I cleverly duped you into at least skimming) and connecting the dots (well, pipelines) 'tween Alaska and there, I've been working on Friend to Friend this week. I go to work between 9-3, take a 2 hour break, then call Anchorage residents legislative district by district in the evening. It's a nice schedule and of course getting out in the evening here has no bearing on my post-work planning at all seeing as it's basically light all the time. The other night I biked home at 12:45am without breaking out so much as a squint. And to think I brought my headlamp to Alaska...
Anyway, the idea behind my making all these phone calls is that at least some of these folks will come in, scan lists of other voters in the area, recognize a couple and write them a note telling them about ACV. Then we can expand our membership and have a more solid constituent base for big elections this year. I think it's a compelling reason/argument so it's not too hard for me to try and sell people on it (unlike those times when I was 18 and, say, peddling eyeliner at the Body Shop. So glad times have changed).
A quote from my phone rap:
"Hi, is ___________ there? Hi, this is Alli from Alaska Conservation Voters, how are you tonight? Great! First, this is not a fundraising call, I'm calling because 2008 is going to be a critical year for conservation, and to prepare we need your help. Is this a good time, I can be brief...
...I’m calling to see what times you can come in and take a quick look at some of our lists of voters and ID friends and family who support conservation in Alaska. We have several times during the evening next week when other voters from your district will be here, and of course we’ll provide snacks and refreshment. Are you available next Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday between 5 and 7pm?"
Then when they come in, I'll deliver a spiel:
"...As you are undoubtedly, unfortunately aware, the political corruption scandal has been long and difficult, and it’s opened up an intense examination of Alaska’s politicians and their relationship with industry. It has felt like every other week someone new is under investigation. As always in politics, opinions on who is responsible and what should be done vary however there seems to be one major consensus – change is necessary. More and more Alaskans are recognizing that a healthy environment and strong economy go hand in hand and that value needs to be reflected in our public officials so that more bills, like HB 125 [a bill that will provide $250 million a year in renewable energy support], can be passed. This year we have a unique opportunity to draw from this sentiment and elect ethical candidates. ACV is doing everything we can to put such candidates in office, and a major part of this work is based on expanding our voter network.
Questions?
The Friend-to-Friend program is based on studies that have shown the most effective way to get people involved with a group or to vote is to have their friends contact them. Think about how often you respond to solicitation from a group you don’t know. If we e-mail, call, meet it’s one thing, but if you write your friend a letter and let them know that ACV is doing great work and they should get involved, the number of respondents is much greater. That’s why we asked you to come in today!
On the table you’ll find lists of registered voters from your district. Take a few minutes and look over the lists, identify anyone you know who you think should be involved with Alaska Conservation Voters. Make a note of this person’s name and write him/her a letter letting them know about ACV and encouraging them to join. Even if you wouldn’t classify them as a conservationist, maybe they like to hunt or fish, you could tell them about ACV’s work on protecting clean water and wildlife habitat. That’s just an example, but ACV’s activities can connect with just about anybody. We’ve provided envelopes, paper, pens etc..."
I have a lot of respect for what this organization does as far as coordinating what are often portrayed as conflicting interests (basically, development vs. conservation) in order to establish common ground. So, luckily, I believe in what I'm saying.
That said, maybe I could benefit from acting lessons. It's kinda hard to cold-call anybody, even if it's not a fundraising call. However I feel myself getting more confident in the whole rap-delivery thing as I go along, and tonight is the first night I actually play host. I have a feeling there won't be a big turnout but it'll be good practice (this will be going on for the rest of the summer and I expect that as I get better at the 'rap' and call more people, we'll have higher turnouts).
IN other news, I am officially accepted into the NYC Marathon (!!!) but in the meantime I am extremely tempted to do this and just call it a long run. Extremely tempted. It could be a really bad idea (recent injury, tight budget). But it could be really fun...
I've perfected the balance of groceries and/or beverages that clink, on handlebars. And I saw a moose this morning (they are very nonchalant, knobby lookin' creatures...well, when they're not angry, like David's moose). Also, I wonder should I purchase bear bells for trail running? I don't want to be one of those morons who I used to make fun of up in N.H. But I don't want to be one of those morons who got attacked by an ornery grizzly, either.
FINALLY, here's a great link for those of us who are car-less and looking to go hiking/kayaking/what-have-youing: Anchorage Adventurers Meetup Group. Carpooling with Alaskans. Takers?
Anyway, the idea behind my making all these phone calls is that at least some of these folks will come in, scan lists of other voters in the area, recognize a couple and write them a note telling them about ACV. Then we can expand our membership and have a more solid constituent base for big elections this year. I think it's a compelling reason/argument so it's not too hard for me to try and sell people on it (unlike those times when I was 18 and, say, peddling eyeliner at the Body Shop. So glad times have changed).
A quote from my phone rap:
"Hi, is ___________ there? Hi, this is Alli from Alaska Conservation Voters, how are you tonight? Great! First, this is not a fundraising call, I'm calling because 2008 is going to be a critical year for conservation, and to prepare we need your help. Is this a good time, I can be brief...
...I’m calling to see what times you can come in and take a quick look at some of our lists of voters and ID friends and family who support conservation in Alaska. We have several times during the evening next week when other voters from your district will be here, and of course we’ll provide snacks and refreshment. Are you available next Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday between 5 and 7pm?"
Then when they come in, I'll deliver a spiel:
"...As you are undoubtedly, unfortunately aware, the political corruption scandal has been long and difficult, and it’s opened up an intense examination of Alaska’s politicians and their relationship with industry. It has felt like every other week someone new is under investigation. As always in politics, opinions on who is responsible and what should be done vary however there seems to be one major consensus – change is necessary. More and more Alaskans are recognizing that a healthy environment and strong economy go hand in hand and that value needs to be reflected in our public officials so that more bills, like HB 125 [a bill that will provide $250 million a year in renewable energy support], can be passed. This year we have a unique opportunity to draw from this sentiment and elect ethical candidates. ACV is doing everything we can to put such candidates in office, and a major part of this work is based on expanding our voter network.
Questions?
The Friend-to-Friend program is based on studies that have shown the most effective way to get people involved with a group or to vote is to have their friends contact them. Think about how often you respond to solicitation from a group you don’t know. If we e-mail, call, meet it’s one thing, but if you write your friend a letter and let them know that ACV is doing great work and they should get involved, the number of respondents is much greater. That’s why we asked you to come in today!
On the table you’ll find lists of registered voters from your district. Take a few minutes and look over the lists, identify anyone you know who you think should be involved with Alaska Conservation Voters. Make a note of this person’s name and write him/her a letter letting them know about ACV and encouraging them to join. Even if you wouldn’t classify them as a conservationist, maybe they like to hunt or fish, you could tell them about ACV’s work on protecting clean water and wildlife habitat. That’s just an example, but ACV’s activities can connect with just about anybody. We’ve provided envelopes, paper, pens etc..."
I have a lot of respect for what this organization does as far as coordinating what are often portrayed as conflicting interests (basically, development vs. conservation) in order to establish common ground. So, luckily, I believe in what I'm saying.
That said, maybe I could benefit from acting lessons. It's kinda hard to cold-call anybody, even if it's not a fundraising call. However I feel myself getting more confident in the whole rap-delivery thing as I go along, and tonight is the first night I actually play host. I have a feeling there won't be a big turnout but it'll be good practice (this will be going on for the rest of the summer and I expect that as I get better at the 'rap' and call more people, we'll have higher turnouts).
IN other news, I am officially accepted into the NYC Marathon (!!!) but in the meantime I am extremely tempted to do this and just call it a long run. Extremely tempted. It could be a really bad idea (recent injury, tight budget). But it could be really fun...
I've perfected the balance of groceries and/or beverages that clink, on handlebars. And I saw a moose this morning (they are very nonchalant, knobby lookin' creatures...well, when they're not angry, like David's moose). Also, I wonder should I purchase bear bells for trail running? I don't want to be one of those morons who I used to make fun of up in N.H. But I don't want to be one of those morons who got attacked by an ornery grizzly, either.
FINALLY, here's a great link for those of us who are car-less and looking to go hiking/kayaking/what-have-youing: Anchorage Adventurers Meetup Group. Carpooling with Alaskans. Takers?
Pretty pictures from Alaska!!
Just kidding.
This is just a little somethin' I've been working on.
http://randsco.com/_img/blog/0602/tarSandMap.jpg
Alberta Tar Sands Fact Sheet
Definition:
Alberta’s Tar Sands (also known as Oil Sands) are found primarily in northeast Alberta, Canada. Altogether the sands occupy 140,000 square kilometers, a land mass a) three times the size of Switzerland; b) the size of Florida.
The sands are a mixture of sand/clay, water, and a very heavy, viscous, tar-like substance called bitumen. Bitumen is extracted from the sand through processes that are extremely water and energy intensive.
The bitumen can be removed from the sand one of two ways. If the sands are close to the surface of the earth then strip mining is used. Basically, the top layer of the landscape is removed in order to dig up the sands underneath. “Great machines mow down trees (and all their supporting creatures such as boreal songbirds and woodland caribou), roll up acres of muskeg, drain entire wetlands, and reroute rivers” (http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell). Then enormous shovels dig and transfer the sand into massive trucks which bring it to cleaning facilities.
However, 82% of the tar sands are too deep to strip mine. In these cases industries use a technique they call in situ mining. In Situ is latin for ‘in place’. The bitumen is heated up while it’s still underground by steam drills so wells can be dug and it can be extracted in a manner more closely resembling the techniques used for conventional oil.
Overall, ‘oil sand producers move enough overburden [layers of sand, gravel, and shale which covered oil sands before mining began] and shallow oil sands every two days to fill Yankee Stadium’ (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/790.asp).
There is an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen in the sands. If this figure in fact represents a viable oil reserve, Canada comes in second only to Saudi Arabia as the country with the most oil. In fact, Canada is the only place worldwide with large scale oil sand development (oil sands in Utah and Venezuela have not been developed due to political setbacks). Production of bitumen-derived oil comprises 40% of Canada’s oil output now; this figure is expected to increase very quickly.
History:
Natives first used tar sands to fix their canoes by warming the asphalt-like substance then applying it as a patch. However commercial development of tar sands through strip mining didn’t begin until the 1960’s near Fort McMurray. Such development grew minimally through the ‘90’s. It was, and is, universally recognized that the tar sands are one of the dirtiest forms of oil so large scale development was never deemed economically viable until recently. Then, under increasing pressure to develop oil, the National Oil Sands Task Force, a partnership between Canadian government and oil industries, developed a 25 year plan to mine the sands. Part of this effort included ‘re-branding’ the tar sands as oil sands to eliminate negative connotation. “Production
of oil from Alberta’s tar sands has doubled over the last 10 years to approximately 1.1 million barrels per day in 2005.” (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf). This output is expected to reach 3 million barrels per day by 2015. (http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=306539)
Subsequently, Fort McMurray’s population has grown from 36,000 to 64,000 in ten years. The overall cost of living is the highest in Canada and the population spike is often cited as the cause of drastic increases in housing prices and crime. The market has been flooded by the 30,000 workers mining bitumen, and infrastructure hasn’t had the chance to catch up. Long term residents describe the difference of the landscape now vs. then as staggering. One example of the change is that since mining the tar sands is very water intensive, river and lake levels have decreased noticeably. Moreover, highly toxic tailings ponds – manmade ponds where post-mined sand and refuse water is deposited – are located on migratory bird paths and have already killed 500 geese who landed there (http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm). The health implications of living downstream from the Tar Sand Mine residue doesn’t bode well for humans either - “residents of Fort Chipewyan, a community of about 1,200 people 300 kilometers downstream of Fort McMurray, have been diagnosed with a high number of illnesses, including leukemia, lymphomas, lupus, and autoimmune diseases” (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf).
Today, $125 billion in U.S. dollars is committed to developing the sands in the next decade through multi-national oil industries. Additionally, U.S. reliance on Albertan oil is fairly outstanding; amounting to about 16% of our total oil consumption. However, the 2007 Energy Bill contains a highly contested section stating that the U.S. may not use any oil derived from a ‘non-conventional petroleum source’. The provision was initially written because the U.S. Air Force was intending on using coal-to-liquid fuel for its fleet. However, oil derived from tar sands also falls indisputably into the category of ‘non-conventional petroleum’. This restriction against U.S. ‘non conventional’ oil purchases, which will arguably disproportionately affect Canada, raises questions about whether these circumstances violate WTO guidelines. For more information: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58310
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=50551&sn=Detail
Ownership:
Alberta owns the tar sands; industry purchases mineral rights to own bitumen. Industries that are currently mining and developing bitumen include Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd., Albian Sands Energy Inc, and several others (for a complete list of these companies as well as others which have proposed projects, see http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/pdfs/projects.pdf).
Energy Usage:
The open-pit mining process – otherwise known as strip mining – accounts for 18% of tar sand development. Strip mining employs large hydraulic and electric powered shovels to transfer oil sands into trucks, each of which weighs 400 tons and stands one and a half stories tall. The wheels alone are 14 feet wide.
The bitumen composition in the sands accounts for only 10-12%, and a mere 75% of this is recoverable through processing. Once the sand is transferred to a facility it’s washed with hot water to isolate the bitumen. It takes two tons of sand to produce one barrel of oil.
Natural gas fuels the bitumen extraction process. The amount of natural gas needed per barrel depends on whether the bitumen has been extracted via strip or in situ mining. In strip mining each barrel of oil requires 250 cubic feet of natural gas. The remaining 82% of the time 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas is needed per barrel of bitumen steamed up from the ground. “Altogether, the tar sands industry consumes enough natural gas every day to heat roughly 4 million American homes.” (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf)
Plans for a Mackenzie Natural Gas Pipeline, running 758 miles from the Mackenzie Valley in Northwest Canada, are in the works. Nuclear energy has also been proposed as a way to fuel the tar sand development. The Canadian government recently estimated it might take 20 nuclear reactors to replace natural gas as the fuel source by 2015 (http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell?page=2).
Producing oil from tar sands creates three times more carbon emissions per barrel than the process of extracting traditional oil.
Water Usage:
During strip mining each barrel of bitumen extracted from the sands requires 2-5 barrels of water. In situ mining uses 2 ½ - 4 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen.
“About 90 percent of the water withdrawn from the Athabasca River for mining ends up behind massive tailings dams or dykes. Covering an area of 30 square miles, nearly a dozen man-made impoundments line both sides of the Athabasca; the largest of them covers more than 7,400 acres.
“Every year the tar-sands operations withdraw 250,000 Olympic-size pools of water from the Athabasca [River]. That's enough water to service a city of two million people.” (http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell?page=3).
“As the Alberta government continues to approve all proposed tar sands projects (no proposal to date has ever been rejected), Alberta is looking at having tar sands tailings lakes which combined will cover an area greater than five Sylvan Lakes (a lake the size 42.8 square kilometers)” (http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm).
Net Carbon Emissions:
“In 2000, the tar sands industry released 23.3 MT of GHG emissions (3 per cent of Canada's total). By 2015, tar sands GHG emissions are expected to rise to between 57 and 97 MT--which would make it the single largest contributor to GHG emissions growth in Canada. This would also virtually guarantee that Canada would fail to achieve its Kyoto Protocol targets” (http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm).
(Potential) Relationship to Alaska:
TransCanada, whose proposal for the Natural Gas Pipeline in Alaska is supported by Governor Palin, has already constructed all of the major pipelines tied into the Tar Sands. The Mackenzie Gas Project, which is the natural gas pipeline slated to run from Northwest Territories in Canada directly to the Tar Sand region of Alberta, is a TransCanada project. The Keystone oil pipeline (currently under construction), which is also TransCanada, is what will bring both Tar Sand-derived oil and natural gas to Midwest Markets. Given the planned pipelines and the projected energy needs of the Tar Sands, the potential connection between Alaska’s natural gas and Alberta’s Tar Sands is significant.
http://www.environment.alberta.ca/documents/Oil_Sands_Opportunity_Balance.pdf Alberta-commissioned fact sheet published by ‘JWP Publishing’ ie ‘Canada’s Oil and Gas Publisher’.
http://www.junewarren.com/publications/oilsands.asp a magazine devoted to covering the ‘issues, challenges, and triumphs of the unconventional oil industry’
http://oilsands.alberta.ca/
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/photos/index.cfm#tarsandphotos some pictures
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm primer on ‘tar sands’
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=306539 Canada is the US’s top oil/natural gas provider.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article2148631.ece July, 2007 article on Shell’s huge profits off oil sands
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=50551&sn=Detail April 2008 article about a 5-month-old ban (Section 526 that was added to the 2007 Energy Bill) that prohibits, among other fuels, tar sand-derived oil sales in the US. Repeal was made by the US Air Force and the Canadian Gov’t – Air Force argues that we should be buying oil from our neighbor instead of potential terrorists, Canada argues that they don’t label tar-sand derived oil as an alternative fuel. ‘Radical’ environmentalists say that carbon output of tar sand oil is double that of traditional petroleum.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58310 March 2008 article detailing the bill and its caveats.
http://www.cos-trust.com/news/news12140701.aspx 2008 projected budget for Canada Oil Sands.
http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/pdfs/projects.pdf Projects/companies invested in development.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/790.asp Fact sheet.
http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/pdfs/enviro_protection.pdf Claims that, post-mining, regions can be re-established as wildlife areas.
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/threats/water-depletion Environmental concerns.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm Calls on Canadian residents to take action.
http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell Great article from National Resource Defense Council’s magazine On Earth detailing the whole Tar Sand process. Scary pictures.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf NRDC report on US consumption of petroleum products, includes a detailed section on the Tar Sands.
http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/2008/04/alaska-gas-canadian-tar-sands-do-math.html Tar Sand blog.
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/alaska-gears-its-own-royalty-battle tar sands watch
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=f4919288-4301-4d48-af9c-ebb0ea5f71e7 Keystone Oil Pipeline construction begins.
http://oilsandstruth.org/2030-proposed-pipelines Maps of proposed pipelines.
This is just a little somethin' I've been working on.
http://randsco.com/_img/blog/0602/tarSandMap.jpgAlberta Tar Sands Fact Sheet
Definition:
Alberta’s Tar Sands (also known as Oil Sands) are found primarily in northeast Alberta, Canada. Altogether the sands occupy 140,000 square kilometers, a land mass a) three times the size of Switzerland; b) the size of Florida.
The sands are a mixture of sand/clay, water, and a very heavy, viscous, tar-like substance called bitumen. Bitumen is extracted from the sand through processes that are extremely water and energy intensive.
The bitumen can be removed from the sand one of two ways. If the sands are close to the surface of the earth then strip mining is used. Basically, the top layer of the landscape is removed in order to dig up the sands underneath. “Great machines mow down trees (and all their supporting creatures such as boreal songbirds and woodland caribou), roll up acres of muskeg, drain entire wetlands, and reroute rivers” (http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell). Then enormous shovels dig and transfer the sand into massive trucks which bring it to cleaning facilities.
However, 82% of the tar sands are too deep to strip mine. In these cases industries use a technique they call in situ mining. In Situ is latin for ‘in place’. The bitumen is heated up while it’s still underground by steam drills so wells can be dug and it can be extracted in a manner more closely resembling the techniques used for conventional oil.
Overall, ‘oil sand producers move enough overburden [layers of sand, gravel, and shale which covered oil sands before mining began] and shallow oil sands every two days to fill Yankee Stadium’ (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/790.asp).
There is an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen in the sands. If this figure in fact represents a viable oil reserve, Canada comes in second only to Saudi Arabia as the country with the most oil. In fact, Canada is the only place worldwide with large scale oil sand development (oil sands in Utah and Venezuela have not been developed due to political setbacks). Production of bitumen-derived oil comprises 40% of Canada’s oil output now; this figure is expected to increase very quickly.
History:
Natives first used tar sands to fix their canoes by warming the asphalt-like substance then applying it as a patch. However commercial development of tar sands through strip mining didn’t begin until the 1960’s near Fort McMurray. Such development grew minimally through the ‘90’s. It was, and is, universally recognized that the tar sands are one of the dirtiest forms of oil so large scale development was never deemed economically viable until recently. Then, under increasing pressure to develop oil, the National Oil Sands Task Force, a partnership between Canadian government and oil industries, developed a 25 year plan to mine the sands. Part of this effort included ‘re-branding’ the tar sands as oil sands to eliminate negative connotation. “Production
of oil from Alberta’s tar sands has doubled over the last 10 years to approximately 1.1 million barrels per day in 2005.” (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf). This output is expected to reach 3 million barrels per day by 2015. (http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=306539)
Subsequently, Fort McMurray’s population has grown from 36,000 to 64,000 in ten years. The overall cost of living is the highest in Canada and the population spike is often cited as the cause of drastic increases in housing prices and crime. The market has been flooded by the 30,000 workers mining bitumen, and infrastructure hasn’t had the chance to catch up. Long term residents describe the difference of the landscape now vs. then as staggering. One example of the change is that since mining the tar sands is very water intensive, river and lake levels have decreased noticeably. Moreover, highly toxic tailings ponds – manmade ponds where post-mined sand and refuse water is deposited – are located on migratory bird paths and have already killed 500 geese who landed there (http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm). The health implications of living downstream from the Tar Sand Mine residue doesn’t bode well for humans either - “residents of Fort Chipewyan, a community of about 1,200 people 300 kilometers downstream of Fort McMurray, have been diagnosed with a high number of illnesses, including leukemia, lymphomas, lupus, and autoimmune diseases” (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf).
Today, $125 billion in U.S. dollars is committed to developing the sands in the next decade through multi-national oil industries. Additionally, U.S. reliance on Albertan oil is fairly outstanding; amounting to about 16% of our total oil consumption. However, the 2007 Energy Bill contains a highly contested section stating that the U.S. may not use any oil derived from a ‘non-conventional petroleum source’. The provision was initially written because the U.S. Air Force was intending on using coal-to-liquid fuel for its fleet. However, oil derived from tar sands also falls indisputably into the category of ‘non-conventional petroleum’. This restriction against U.S. ‘non conventional’ oil purchases, which will arguably disproportionately affect Canada, raises questions about whether these circumstances violate WTO guidelines. For more information: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58310
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=50551&sn=Detail
Ownership:
Alberta owns the tar sands; industry purchases mineral rights to own bitumen. Industries that are currently mining and developing bitumen include Suncor Energy Inc., Syncrude Canada Ltd., Albian Sands Energy Inc, and several others (for a complete list of these companies as well as others which have proposed projects, see http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/pdfs/projects.pdf).
Energy Usage:
The open-pit mining process – otherwise known as strip mining – accounts for 18% of tar sand development. Strip mining employs large hydraulic and electric powered shovels to transfer oil sands into trucks, each of which weighs 400 tons and stands one and a half stories tall. The wheels alone are 14 feet wide.
The bitumen composition in the sands accounts for only 10-12%, and a mere 75% of this is recoverable through processing. Once the sand is transferred to a facility it’s washed with hot water to isolate the bitumen. It takes two tons of sand to produce one barrel of oil.
Natural gas fuels the bitumen extraction process. The amount of natural gas needed per barrel depends on whether the bitumen has been extracted via strip or in situ mining. In strip mining each barrel of oil requires 250 cubic feet of natural gas. The remaining 82% of the time 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas is needed per barrel of bitumen steamed up from the ground. “Altogether, the tar sands industry consumes enough natural gas every day to heat roughly 4 million American homes.” (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf)
Plans for a Mackenzie Natural Gas Pipeline, running 758 miles from the Mackenzie Valley in Northwest Canada, are in the works. Nuclear energy has also been proposed as a way to fuel the tar sand development. The Canadian government recently estimated it might take 20 nuclear reactors to replace natural gas as the fuel source by 2015 (http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell?page=2).
Producing oil from tar sands creates three times more carbon emissions per barrel than the process of extracting traditional oil.
Water Usage:
During strip mining each barrel of bitumen extracted from the sands requires 2-5 barrels of water. In situ mining uses 2 ½ - 4 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen.
“About 90 percent of the water withdrawn from the Athabasca River for mining ends up behind massive tailings dams or dykes. Covering an area of 30 square miles, nearly a dozen man-made impoundments line both sides of the Athabasca; the largest of them covers more than 7,400 acres.
“Every year the tar-sands operations withdraw 250,000 Olympic-size pools of water from the Athabasca [River]. That's enough water to service a city of two million people.” (http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell?page=3).
“As the Alberta government continues to approve all proposed tar sands projects (no proposal to date has ever been rejected), Alberta is looking at having tar sands tailings lakes which combined will cover an area greater than five Sylvan Lakes (a lake the size 42.8 square kilometers)” (http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm).
Net Carbon Emissions:
“In 2000, the tar sands industry released 23.3 MT of GHG emissions (3 per cent of Canada's total). By 2015, tar sands GHG emissions are expected to rise to between 57 and 97 MT--which would make it the single largest contributor to GHG emissions growth in Canada. This would also virtually guarantee that Canada would fail to achieve its Kyoto Protocol targets” (http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm).
(Potential) Relationship to Alaska:
TransCanada, whose proposal for the Natural Gas Pipeline in Alaska is supported by Governor Palin, has already constructed all of the major pipelines tied into the Tar Sands. The Mackenzie Gas Project, which is the natural gas pipeline slated to run from Northwest Territories in Canada directly to the Tar Sand region of Alberta, is a TransCanada project. The Keystone oil pipeline (currently under construction), which is also TransCanada, is what will bring both Tar Sand-derived oil and natural gas to Midwest Markets. Given the planned pipelines and the projected energy needs of the Tar Sands, the potential connection between Alaska’s natural gas and Alberta’s Tar Sands is significant.
for a bigger version:
http://oilsandstruth.org/2030-proposed-pipelines
‘Proposed, existing and conceived infrastructure related to the Tar Sands gigaproject set to exist as of 2030’ (http://oilsandstruth.org/2030-proposed-pipelines).
‘Proposed, existing and conceived infrastructure related to the Tar Sands gigaproject set to exist as of 2030’ (http://oilsandstruth.org/2030-proposed-pipelines).
http://www.environment.alberta.ca/documents/Oil_Sands_Opportunity_Balance.pdf Alberta-commissioned fact sheet published by ‘JWP Publishing’ ie ‘Canada’s Oil and Gas Publisher’.
http://www.junewarren.com/publications/oilsands.asp a magazine devoted to covering the ‘issues, challenges, and triumphs of the unconventional oil industry’
http://oilsands.alberta.ca/
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/photos/index.cfm#tarsandphotos some pictures
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm primer on ‘tar sands’
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=306539 Canada is the US’s top oil/natural gas provider.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article2148631.ece July, 2007 article on Shell’s huge profits off oil sands
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=50551&sn=Detail April 2008 article about a 5-month-old ban (Section 526 that was added to the 2007 Energy Bill) that prohibits, among other fuels, tar sand-derived oil sales in the US. Repeal was made by the US Air Force and the Canadian Gov’t – Air Force argues that we should be buying oil from our neighbor instead of potential terrorists, Canada argues that they don’t label tar-sand derived oil as an alternative fuel. ‘Radical’ environmentalists say that carbon output of tar sand oil is double that of traditional petroleum.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58310 March 2008 article detailing the bill and its caveats.
http://www.cos-trust.com/news/news12140701.aspx 2008 projected budget for Canada Oil Sands.
http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/pdfs/projects.pdf Projects/companies invested in development.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/790.asp Fact sheet.
http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/pdfs/enviro_protection.pdf Claims that, post-mining, regions can be re-established as wildlife areas.
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/threats/water-depletion Environmental concerns.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/prairie/tarnation.htm Calls on Canadian residents to take action.
http://www.onearth.org/article/canadas-highway-to-hell Great article from National Resource Defense Council’s magazine On Earth detailing the whole Tar Sand process. Scary pictures.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drivingithome/drivingithome.pdf NRDC report on US consumption of petroleum products, includes a detailed section on the Tar Sands.
http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/2008/04/alaska-gas-canadian-tar-sands-do-math.html Tar Sand blog.
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/alaska-gears-its-own-royalty-battle tar sands watch
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=f4919288-4301-4d48-af9c-ebb0ea5f71e7 Keystone Oil Pipeline construction begins.
http://oilsandstruth.org/2030-proposed-pipelines Maps of proposed pipelines.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Moose are big and frightening creatures
Yesterday fellow intern Winnie and I came across this moose (whom we have decided to call "Groucho"). It was the first bull moose I have seen and was quite large. Now here's a fun fact about moose: More people are injured and killed by moose in Alaska than they are bears. Obviously no one is getting eaten by moose, but they can be temperamental and have bad eye-sight. This leads to them charging at people--especially dumb tourists who think they are cute and want to pet them. Now I've already told you that we decided to call the moose "Groucho" and mentioned that moose can be temperamental, so you may see where this is going...
"Groucho the Moose"
As you can see in the picture Groucho was taking a swim in a pond along a bike trail, and eventually he exited the water on the opposite shore from us. At this point we figured the moose was gone and headed a little further down the path to a little hill. At the hill we pulled out a map from my back to figure out where we were, and then suddenly a moose that was very, very large and running very fast directly at us rounded the bend. I was a bit tangled up with my book bag, so I quickly through it to the ground, jumped over my bike, and headed toward some bushes across the path, all the while hearing an angry snorting sound and loud hoof stumps. Luckily the moose decided not to chase us, but it was more than a little frightening.
Anywho, here are some other random photos that I've taken over the past week.
Sunsets here happen real late at night. The start at about 11:15 and don't finish until nearly midnight. It never really gets any darker than twilight as the Sun just dips below the horizon.
Here are two eagles that I saw a few mornings ago sitting on the mudflats. I've seen three bald eagles in total.
"Groucho the Moose"As you can see in the picture Groucho was taking a swim in a pond along a bike trail, and eventually he exited the water on the opposite shore from us. At this point we figured the moose was gone and headed a little further down the path to a little hill. At the hill we pulled out a map from my back to figure out where we were, and then suddenly a moose that was very, very large and running very fast directly at us rounded the bend. I was a bit tangled up with my book bag, so I quickly through it to the ground, jumped over my bike, and headed toward some bushes across the path, all the while hearing an angry snorting sound and loud hoof stumps. Luckily the moose decided not to chase us, but it was more than a little frightening.
Anywho, here are some other random photos that I've taken over the past week.
Sunsets here happen real late at night. The start at about 11:15 and don't finish until nearly midnight. It never really gets any darker than twilight as the Sun just dips below the horizon.
Here are two eagles that I saw a few mornings ago sitting on the mudflats. I've seen three bald eagles in total.
Monday, June 9, 2008
David is overwhelmed with awesome
So here's the problem with having a really awesome week and blogging: When having a lot of fun there is little time for blogging. Later, when it comes time to blog, you become overwhelmed with all of the amazing things that have happened and can't really condense everything into one post without writing a short book. I'm not in the mood to write a short book, so I'm going to try to condense the past week as much as possible.
Wednesday morning I saw not only my first moose, but my first moose family:
Wednesday was also the first internship orientation day, which meant that I got to meet all of the other ACF interns--all of which are super cool. Later in the day we went to a potluck hosted by Nick Harding, who is the director of ACF, where we ate such Alaskan cuisine as salmon, halibut, and moose. On my way home from this event I actually managed to see two more moose, bringing my daily total to five!
Thursday was hiking day! If you've read Alli's blog entry you know about this already, and if you haven't read Alli's entry you should. Honestly though, this was an amazing day. It was just so much fun and while I was the first to the top, proving that people from NYC can indeed climb mountains (which might have something to do with my dislike of elevators...), I felt it was necessary to stop every ten steps to take everything in. The view from the top was stunning, though Anchorage is not the most well laid out or designed city, which truly is a shame since it has the potential to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
Some fellow hikers cresting the ridge.
More fellow hikers climbing the last snow patch.
A view from little O'Mally
One the way back another intern, Pat from Wisconsin, and I decided to veer a bit further up the slope:
Those little dots are fellow interns
There's Pat.
A view from the upper ridge.
Wednesday morning I saw not only my first moose, but my first moose family:
Wednesday was also the first internship orientation day, which meant that I got to meet all of the other ACF interns--all of which are super cool. Later in the day we went to a potluck hosted by Nick Harding, who is the director of ACF, where we ate such Alaskan cuisine as salmon, halibut, and moose. On my way home from this event I actually managed to see two more moose, bringing my daily total to five!
Thursday was hiking day! If you've read Alli's blog entry you know about this already, and if you haven't read Alli's entry you should. Honestly though, this was an amazing day. It was just so much fun and while I was the first to the top, proving that people from NYC can indeed climb mountains (which might have something to do with my dislike of elevators...), I felt it was necessary to stop every ten steps to take everything in. The view from the top was stunning, though Anchorage is not the most well laid out or designed city, which truly is a shame since it has the potential to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
Some fellow hikers cresting the ridge.
More fellow hikers climbing the last snow patch.
A view from little O'MallyOne the way back another intern, Pat from Wisconsin, and I decided to veer a bit further up the slope:
Those little dots are fellow interns
There's Pat.
A view from the upper ridge.Pat actually is working in Homer this summer and makes it seem like a real great area, so one of my hopes this summer is to get a chance to get there.
Friday was some more orientating, which included leadership training! Also it was the first sunny day in over a week so I laid in a park for a large amount of the afternoon, after being in the office for a bit counting Denali Green Tags (only about 1,ooo of them) and getting a little sick from the glue fumes. Friday was also the kick off of the Salmon in the City Festival, which was kind of tacky and involved a band called the Carhartt Brothers--who weren't actually brothers, but were all named Bob.
After a bit of watching a band of interns, which included me, began to roam in search of food. This led us to discover First Friday, which is where local restaurants and galleries serve free food and display local artwork. After going to about 6 of these events we were filled up on hummus, spinach dip, cheese, crackers, and various forms of Alaskan art.
Saturday was the Oceans Festival, where REAP has tabling. I helped man the table from noon to 8, and was pleasantly surprised by the positive response to our cause. A lot of people were interested in buying our T-shirts as well. Once everything was packed up alt-country band Son Volt took the stage and performed to the crowd of Alaskans who were willing to get a little wet in the rain. Mercifully the rain ended just before the show was finished and right when Son Volt really started to rock out to a know super enthused audience and some dancing was had by ACF interns.
Of course the after party started afterwards around 10:45 and was held at the Organic Oasis. The food was really tasty, and even more so because it was free, while the local band was a lot of fun and much more dancing took place. I was a little sad when everyone had to clear out at 2.
Now it's back to the office for me, which means I'm back to looking up some LEED stuff. I actually have just discovered that the expansion of the Anchorage Museum is going to be LEED certified, which is exciting, but more on that later.
Friday was some more orientating, which included leadership training! Also it was the first sunny day in over a week so I laid in a park for a large amount of the afternoon, after being in the office for a bit counting Denali Green Tags (only about 1,ooo of them) and getting a little sick from the glue fumes. Friday was also the kick off of the Salmon in the City Festival, which was kind of tacky and involved a band called the Carhartt Brothers--who weren't actually brothers, but were all named Bob.
After a bit of watching a band of interns, which included me, began to roam in search of food. This led us to discover First Friday, which is where local restaurants and galleries serve free food and display local artwork. After going to about 6 of these events we were filled up on hummus, spinach dip, cheese, crackers, and various forms of Alaskan art.
Saturday was the Oceans Festival, where REAP has tabling. I helped man the table from noon to 8, and was pleasantly surprised by the positive response to our cause. A lot of people were interested in buying our T-shirts as well. Once everything was packed up alt-country band Son Volt took the stage and performed to the crowd of Alaskans who were willing to get a little wet in the rain. Mercifully the rain ended just before the show was finished and right when Son Volt really started to rock out to a know super enthused audience and some dancing was had by ACF interns.
Of course the after party started afterwards around 10:45 and was held at the Organic Oasis. The food was really tasty, and even more so because it was free, while the local band was a lot of fun and much more dancing took place. I was a little sad when everyone had to clear out at 2.
Now it's back to the office for me, which means I'm back to looking up some LEED stuff. I actually have just discovered that the expansion of the Anchorage Museum is going to be LEED certified, which is exciting, but more on that later.
Friday, June 6, 2008
I Am Not a Motor Vehicle
What did the Alaskan sourdough in a beatup pickup truck with a cigarette wagglin' around in his mouth say to the bleary-eyed Northeast-born cheechako squeaking along on her bicycle at 7:30am this morning?YOU ARE NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE. Get off the road!
Hey, I'm glad he decided to use his words (and not wheels) to make his point. Me n' old bones...hardy a pair though we may be...are probably no match for angry old Alaskans in big cars.
IN OTHER NEWS: David and I have been dutifully attending what is probably the most kickass series of orientation events we'll ever have the privilege of participating in. There were great speakers, there was free food, really cool other interns AND WE GOT TO GO HIKING. Some photodocumentation: 
We walked up the middle where the snow is and hung a left, onto Little O'Malley.
We walked up the middle where the snow is and hung a left, onto Little O'Malley.
Anna, Anchorage native, is interning with Alaska Youth for Environmental Action (AYEA). We went to their fundraising event after hiking, which was a hoot and a holler and a whole lotta wet/smelly interns socializing, eating salmon and having fun.Anyway here we are, starting our hike at Glen Alps trailhead (also gets you to Flattop) on the Power Line Trail.
David, with his 'I'MA BE FIRST ON TOP OF THAT BIG HILL' grin (he was first GO NEW YORK).
They say when you're attacked by mud you're supposed to raise your hands up high and yell in a low voice and move around and otherwise make yourself as big as you can. Here, I show off my madd mud survival skillz.
This is one of the dogs who bravely hiked with us, and also the 800-ft hill we later cruised down. Apparently the fancy French word for sliding down on one's butt is 'glicade' (pictures later!). 
Congregated at the top of the hill - notice the tiny hikers in the background hiking along the ridge, that's the way we went.
David, with his 'I'MA BE FIRST ON TOP OF THAT BIG HILL' grin (he was first GO NEW YORK).They say when you're attacked by mud you're supposed to raise your hands up high and yell in a low voice and move around and otherwise make yourself as big as you can. Here, I show off my madd mud survival skillz. This is one of the dogs who bravely hiked with us, and also the 800-ft hill we later cruised down. Apparently the fancy French word for sliding down on one's butt is 'glicade' (pictures later!). Congregated at the top of the hill - notice the tiny hikers in the background hiking along the ridge, that's the way we went.
A view of the dog crew from the ridge toward Little O'Malley. Amazing perspective up here.
You can see Anchorage in the middle right, and Mt. Susitna across the sound. 
Le Intern Mountaintop Luncheon.
That island out on the sound is Fire Island where the wind energy is at. 
Here we are playing a game called 'Big Booty'. Yes. Yes, we did.
Here we are preparing to glicade.
HERE WE ARE GLICADING.
Here is Jess, post-glicade.
Aaand, in case there was any doubt, this is brown bear country.
More updates later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)