What is it they say? One man's meat is another man's poison? One's trash is another's treasure? Something like that, or something about lemons and lemonade, must fit a Forbes report from Ottawa this week by Theophilos Argitis. The reporter interviewed the premier of the Northwest Territories that abuts the top of Alberta, which in turn is churning out buckets by the millions of heavy bitumen crude liberated from its famed oil sands (or tar sands, take your pick). Export pipelines came up in the interview. The NWT leader says that if his southern neighbors cannot find a good export pipeline route to the west, east, or south into the US (think Keystone XL), they are welcome to lay pipe north past Yellowknife to port terminals sure to be buildable soon along the Beaufort Sea and its seasonally thawing Arctic shipping lanes.
There is something delicious, or troubling, about this news story. It delivers the potential routing solution with straight face. Left unsaid in this account is any mention of the automatic self-maintenance and self-improvement angle for such a scheme. Think of it. The more oil Canada can deliver to customers through the Arctic means the more crude it can profitably bake from those oil sands, belching carbon from both the vast production fields as well as from the ultimate users of the fuel they generate. That means the world warms even faster than its otherwise pace. The shipping season through a Northwest Passage, that eventually becomes a full bore northpole criss cross money maker, gets longer and longer and shipping grows apace. Talk about your positive feedback.
The oil industry's push to explore the Arctic for more fields bears the same self-propelling loop, of course. But this is a new version.
Argitis may have asked his source about the irony of this 'benefit' of a summertime open Arctic. Why not ask, "What about global warming?" Perhaps his source snorted. His home territory has energy resources too, he notes, and would be happy to use such a pipeline itself and to ease the financing of such a thing. As it is, the story provides a service by reporting a specific illustration of the practical effects of a warming Arctic. But I would like to hear the premier's thoughts on the climate change angle. I have e-mailed Mr. Argitis. If he provides some info to share, I shall.
For some for-sure snorting, go to Grist and its 'gristmill' where writer Philip Bump pumps up the dismayed cynicism. Bump rides the Forbes news openly, using several pull quotes from Argitis's story with full attribution. He puts the proposed export solution quite well:
"Ah, yes, the long-anticipated Northern Coast of North America. As Arctic ice reaches new lows during the summer months, ships have increasingly been able to navigate the Northwest passage. The changing climate for which we can thank the consumption of fossil fuels could finally allow us to bring the pollution-intensive tar sands to market. It’s the circle of life."
…."There’s one catch, though, which McLeod (the premier) may not have considered. The pipeline would have to be built across a stretch of permafrost — an increasingly unstable foundation as temperatures warm and frozen earth transforms into soft muck. Not to mention the challenge of building a port for ships that won’t shortly be inundated with ocean water from higher sea levels. What climate change giveth, climate change taketh away."
Bump closes by speculating that chances of this northern pipeline are exceedingly slim. But should Canada manage to drain all its sandlocked carbon into the sky the result on the Arctic and the Beaufort seaports of the future will be the same.
Leave a Reply