Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

Not due to man made global warming.


Tropical Island Fossil Clues To Polar Ice And Sea Level

10.01.2015 10:38 Age: 21 days
Seychelles fossils reveal the past and possible future of polar ice and sea level with evidence of a rapid retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet in the past driving up sea levels, according to research


Click to enlarge. Andrea Dutton: evidence for rapid retreat of ice sheet. Courtesy: Andrea Dutton
From the University of Florida

The balmy islands of Seychelles couldn’t feel farther from Antarctica, but their fossil corals could reveal much about the fate of polar ice sheets.

About 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was only slightly warmer, but sea levels rose high enough to submerge the locations of many of today’s coastal cities. Understanding what caused seas to rise then could shed light on how to protect those cities today.

By examining fossil corals found on the Indian Ocean islands, University of Florida geochemist Andrea Dutton found evidence that global mean sea level during that period peaked at 20 to 30 feet above current levels. Dutton’s team of international researchers concluded that rapid retreat of an unstable part of the Antarctic ice sheet was a major contributor to that sea-level rise.

“This occurred during a time when the average global temperature was only slightly warmer than at present,” Dutton said.

Dutton evaluated fossil corals in Seychelles because sea level in that region closely matches that of global mean sea level. Local patterns of sea-level change can differ from global trends because of variations in the Earth’s surface and gravity fields that occur when ice sheets grow and shrink.

In an article published in the January 2015 issue of Quaternary Science Reviews, the researchers concluded that while sea-level rise in the Last Interglacial period was driven by the same processes active today – thermal expansion of seawater, melting mountain glaciers and melting polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica – most was driven by polar ice sheet melt. Their study, partially funded by the National Science Foundation, also suggests the Antarctic ice sheet partially collapsed early in that period.

“Following a rapid transition to high sea levels when the last interglacial period began, sea level continued rising steadily,” Dutton said. “The collapse of Antarctic ice occurred when the polar regions were a few degrees warmer than they are now — temperatures that we are likely to reach within a matter of decades.”

Several recent studies by other researchers suggest that process may have already started.

“We could be poised for another partial collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet,” Dutton said.

Highlights

Quarternary science reviews identifyies the following highlights from this research

Peak eustatic sea level (ESL) for MIS 5e estimated at ∼7.6 ± 1.7 m above present.
Polar ice sheets contributed ∼5–8 m of ice-equivalent sea level to this peak.
Partial collapse of Antarctic ice sheet may have occurred early in MIS 5e.
Gradual sea-level rise of ∼0.2 m ka−1 recorded between ∼129 and 125 ka.
Abstract

In the search for a record of eustatic sea level change on glacial–interglacial timescales, the Seychelles ranks as one of the best places on the planet to study. Owing to its location with respect to the former margins of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets that wax and wane on orbital cycles, the local—or relative—sea level history is predicted to lie within a few meters of the globally averaged eustatic signal during the Last Interglacial period. We have surveyed and dated Last Interglacial fossil corals to ascertain peak sea level and hence infer maximum retreat of polar ice sheets during this time interval. We observe a pattern of gradually rising sea level in the Seychelles between ∼129 and 125 thousand years ago (ka), with peak eustatic sea level attained after 125 ka at 7.6 ± 1.7 m higher than present. After accounting for thermal expansion and loss of mountain glaciers, this sea-level budget would require ∼5–8 m of polar ice sheet contribution, relative to today's volume, of which only ∼2 m came from the Greenland ice sheet. This result clearly identifies the Antarctic ice sheet as a significant source of melt water, most likely derived from one of the unstable, marine-based sectors in the West and/or East Antarctic ice sheet. Furthermore, the establishment of a +5.9 ± 1.7 m eustatic sea level position by 128.6 ± 0.8 ka would require that partial AIS collapse was coincident with the onset of the sea level highstand.

Citation

Tropical tales of polar ice: evidence of Last Interglacial polar ice sheet retreat recorded by fossil reefs of the granitic Seychelles islands by Andrea Duttona, Jody M. Webster, Dan Zwartz, Kurt Lambeck and Barbara Wohlfarth published in Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 107, 1 January 2015, Pages 182–196, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.10.025

Read the abstract and get the paper here.

Source

University of Florida news release here.

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/01/3...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=310115

Cheap Oil Could Save the Planet

Sounds crazy, but analysis by financial think tank Carbon Tracker shows how it works.

By Mitchell Anderson, Today, TheTyee.ca

Cheap oil could save the planet. Sound crazy? Consider this: carbon emissions depend on extracting fossil fuels from the earth at a profit. Most of the world's cheap oil is long gone, and finding new supplies is becoming very expensive. If prices don't stay high the economics of new projects collapses, which just happened in spectacular fashion.

Posteriors are puckering throughout the petroleum sector as billions in book value disappeared in a matter of months. While prices may rebound in the future, there are reasons to believe this is part of a longer trend.

Between 2000 and 2012, capital expenditures by the 11 largest oil companies increased over five times yet their production remained flat. This declining profitability of the oil sector was masked by a four-fold increase in the price of Brent crude over the same period. But commodity prices change much faster than long-term fixed costs, leaving many investors in what seemed like a blue-chip sector wondering where their money just went.

These market forces have huge implications for climate change, far larger than any public policy intervention so far. According to the scientific community, the world can add a maximum of 900 gigatons (Gt) of additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2050 and still have about an 80 per cent chance of avoiding warming more than two degrees Celsius -- a temperature threshold considered a dangerous climate tipping point.

About 40 per cent of this global carbon budget, 360Gt, is projected to come from the oil sector. But just because oil is found under the ground doesn't mean it's profitable to go and get it. The decision to develop any given deposit is driven by capital markets, which are obviously less worried about climate change than turning a profit. And as easy oil reserves are exhausted, profit margins go down, risks go up, and billions in sunk costs chase ever more marginal projects.

A report published last year by the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) plotted remaining reserves all around the world against the global oil prices needed to develop them. The results are remarkable.

Their carbon cost curve shows that if the Brent crude price stayed below $60 per barrel, oil companies could not even cover their costs developing deposits which in total would push global emissions past the limit of 360Gt of carbon dioxide by 2050.

So is this the price that could save the world? Not quite. Sixty dollars per barrel is only a break-even amount that would pay projected costs for exploration and development. Companies also need to make a profit and dispense dividends to their investors, meaning that the long-term price required to prevent potentially disastrous oil emissions appears to be anything below $75 per barrel.

While the Bank of Canada claims dropping oil prices are ''unambiguously negative'' for the Canadian economy, they appear to be unambiguously awesome for avoiding climate catastrophe.

Besting Kyoto

Just six months ago, the price of Brent crude was about $110 per barrel, a price that would profitably produce about 500Gt of carbon by 2050. Now it is less than $50, which would only produce 180Gt over the same period. If prices stayed where they are, the world would possibly avoid some 320 billion tonnes of carbon emissions by 2050 in precluded production from uneconomic oil fields.

To put this in perspective, that is 25 times larger than reductions the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to achieve if it had worked (it didn't) and 180Gt below the oil emissions limit scientists say we need to avoid a world with more than two degrees of warming. Economic turmoil aside, the global commodities market just served up massive progress on an issue in desperate need of some good news.

Seen through this lens, a key measure of our success in controlling carbon emissions should be keeping the price of oil low. And while the main driver of the current slump in prices is the current glut of supply, it's important to realize that almost every policy intervention to avert climate disaster is directly or indirectly aimed at lowering the global price (and profitability) of fossil fuels such as oil and coal.

For instance, carbon pricing is intended to prevent companies from using the atmosphere as free dumping ground for CO2, reducing global demand. Since a carbon tax was introduced in British Columbia in 2008, per capita emissions fell by 17.4 per cent while they rose in the rest of the country. Economic growth was unaffected in this period and taxpayers actually saved $500 million through other tax reductions.

Likewise, vehicle emission requirements are already significantly reducing U.S. oil demand, which peaked 10 years ago and have since fallen by almost 10 per cent. The Obama administration increased long-stagnant vehicle standards in 2009, requiring automakers to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. New standards taking effect next year will further increase fuel economy by another 50 per cent by 2025.

While carmakers fought many of these changes tooth and nail, the changes are projected to save consumers $8,000 in fuel costs over the life of a new vehicle and further reduce U.S. oil demand by more than two million barrels per day.

The coal example

But doesn't cheap gas mean that people just use more of it? Not really. While there is a weak economic link between declining prices and increasing consumption, key producers like Saudi Arabia are in fact fretting that slowing growth in Asian markets and already-peaked demand in developed countries will lead to a long-term decline in the world's appetite for oil.

And won't falling oil prices torpedo the nascent renewable energy sector? Perhaps in the past, but it's not so nascent anymore. Deutsche Bank recently released a study showing that solar generation costs will match or beat conventional fuels in 80 per cent of global markets in two years.

And because oil is primarily a transportation fuel, the bank believes ''oil prices do not have a material impact on solar demand.'' Their analyst Vishal Shah added, ''We believe the trend is clear: grid parity without subsidies is already here, increasing parity will occur, and solar penetration rates are set to ramp worldwide.''

These market changes, along with conservation efforts and air quality standards, are leading to a collapse in the global price of coal, which has dropped two-thirds since 2008. CTI released another report documenting the increasing risks to investors in this sunset industry, showing the break-even global price of thermal export coal is around $75 per ton. It is currently below $50, imperiling more than $100 billion in capital expenditures.

More than half of global coal production is now no longer profitable and the long-term prospects for investors in that sector look decidedly grim. Consumption peaked in Europe in 1987, the U.S. in 2005, and is already flat-lining in China, a country increasingly concerned about famously wretched air quality.

Meanwhile, the cost of renewable generation is dropping exponentially and recently eclipsed the economics of imported coal-fired electricity in India -- a country that has been touted as the next big growth market for the world's dirtiest fuel.

Eroding investor confidence

Like coal, the oilsands industry is looking at a hard landing according to the researchers at CTI. Of all global investments in expensive oil, nowhere is more exposed to collapsing prices than Alberta, with fully $400 billion in capital expenditures to 2025 that require market prices above $95 per barrel. But Alberta is certainly not alone. The authors calculated that risky oil investments such as deep water drilling, those in the Arctic, and shale oil will become stranded assets totaling $1.1 trillion if oil stays below $95.

Bear in mind that the fossil fuel industry still enjoys $550 billion in subsidies -- four times the support provided to the renewable sector. Should countries shift this public funding to clean energy or agree to binding global emission targets, this will only further increase the risk to fossil fuel investors.

The recent drop in oil prices is of course not entirely related to decreasing demand, and prices are bound to bounce back as more expensive supplies go offline. That said, oil and coal production are driven by investment and many of those investors are likely much more gun-shy about keeping their money in an increasingly risky sector. This might be good news for both their pocketbook and the planet.

Will cheap fossil fuels save the world? It might be the only thing that can.

Scientists believe 80 per cent of the world's coal reserves, half of the natural gas and one-third of oil deposits need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid climate catastrophe. International treaty efforts have so far been a bust. The most formidable force preventing ever more dangerous amounts of carbon from seeing the light of day might be the eroding confidence of investors that there is money to be made digging it up.

 

[GLG]

OBD can you not get off the "crazy bus"?

Seems Mitt want's off.....
Mitt said that while he hopes the deniers of global climate change are right, he believes it’s real and a major problem.
Even he can see what clearly you can not even though he is the front runner.

 

[GLG]

Not due to man made global warming.


Tropical Island Fossil Clues To Polar Ice And Sea Level

10.01.2015 10:38 Age: 21 days
Seychelles fossils reveal the past and possible future of polar ice and sea level with evidence of a rapid retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet in the past driving up sea levels, according to research


Click to enlarge. Andrea Dutton: evidence for rapid retreat of ice sheet. Courtesy: Andrea Dutton
From the University of Florida

The balmy islands of Seychelles couldn’t feel farther from Antarctica, but their fossil corals could reveal much about the fate of polar ice sheets.

About 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was only slightly warmer, but sea levels rose high enough to submerge the locations of many of today’s coastal cities. Understanding what caused seas to rise then could shed light on how to protect those cities today.

By examining fossil corals found on the Indian Ocean islands, University of Florida geochemist Andrea Dutton found evidence that global mean sea level during that period peaked at 20 to 30 feet above current levels. Dutton’s team of international researchers concluded that rapid retreat of an unstable part of the Antarctic ice sheet was a major contributor to that sea-level rise.

“This occurred during a time when the average global temperature was only slightly warmer than at present,” Dutton said.

Dutton evaluated fossil corals in Seychelles because sea level in that region closely matches that of global mean sea level. Local patterns of sea-level change can differ from global trends because of variations in the Earth’s surface and gravity fields that occur when ice sheets grow and shrink.

In an article published in the January 2015 issue of Quaternary Science Reviews, the researchers concluded that while sea-level rise in the Last Interglacial period was driven by the same processes active today – thermal expansion of seawater, melting mountain glaciers and melting polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica – most was driven by polar ice sheet melt. Their study, partially funded by the National Science Foundation, also suggests the Antarctic ice sheet partially collapsed early in that period.

“Following a rapid transition to high sea levels when the last interglacial period began, sea level continued rising steadily,” Dutton said. “The collapse of Antarctic ice occurred when the polar regions were a few degrees warmer than they are now — temperatures that we are likely to reach within a matter of decades.”

Several recent studies by other researchers suggest that process may have already started.

“We could be poised for another partial collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet,” Dutton said.

Highlights

Quarternary science reviews identifyies the following highlights from this research

Peak eustatic sea level (ESL) for MIS 5e estimated at ∼7.6 ± 1.7 m above present.
Polar ice sheets contributed ∼5–8 m of ice-equivalent sea level to this peak.
Partial collapse of Antarctic ice sheet may have occurred early in MIS 5e.
Gradual sea-level rise of ∼0.2 m ka−1 recorded between ∼129 and 125 ka.
Abstract

In the search for a record of eustatic sea level change on glacial–interglacial timescales, the Seychelles ranks as one of the best places on the planet to study. Owing to its location with respect to the former margins of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets that wax and wane on orbital cycles, the local—or relative—sea level history is predicted to lie within a few meters of the globally averaged eustatic signal during the Last Interglacial period. We have surveyed and dated Last Interglacial fossil corals to ascertain peak sea level and hence infer maximum retreat of polar ice sheets during this time interval. We observe a pattern of gradually rising sea level in the Seychelles between ∼129 and 125 thousand years ago (ka), with peak eustatic sea level attained after 125 ka at 7.6 ± 1.7 m higher than present. After accounting for thermal expansion and loss of mountain glaciers, this sea-level budget would require ∼5–8 m of polar ice sheet contribution, relative to today's volume, of which only ∼2 m came from the Greenland ice sheet. This result clearly identifies the Antarctic ice sheet as a significant source of melt water, most likely derived from one of the unstable, marine-based sectors in the West and/or East Antarctic ice sheet. Furthermore, the establishment of a +5.9 ± 1.7 m eustatic sea level position by 128.6 ± 0.8 ka would require that partial AIS collapse was coincident with the onset of the sea level highstand.

Citation

Tropical tales of polar ice: evidence of Last Interglacial polar ice sheet retreat recorded by fossil reefs of the granitic Seychelles islands by Andrea Duttona, Jody M. Webster, Dan Zwartz, Kurt Lambeck and Barbara Wohlfarth published in Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 107, 1 January 2015, Pages 182–196, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.10.025

Read the abstract and get the paper here.

Source

University of Florida news release here.

You have no idea what this paper means do you....... typical of you isn't it...
Get off the "crazy bus" it's too late for your team....

 

[OldBlackDog]

Not man made , says it all.
I see your team of scientists really knows how things work, LOL.

You have no idea what this paper means do you....... typical of you isn't it...
Get off the "crazy bus" it's too late for your team....

 

[GLG]

Not man made , says it all.
I see your team of scientists really knows how things work, LOL.

Could the paper mean that if we warm the world a couple of degrees we will lock in sea level rise? That's not going to be good for cities on the coast. I truly pity you and your complete lack of understanding and critical thinking.
You have shown the community your skills... is that how you want to be remembered when it's time to go?

 

[GLG]

OBD I see your team is at it again....
[F0UkH81NMTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UkH81NMTo

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-poll-to-battle-oil-sands-pr/article19475437/

Environmental group uses poll to battle oil sands PR
SHAWN MCCARTHY - GLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jul. 04 2014, 6:34 PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Jul. 04 2014, 6:38 PM EDT

A Toronto-based environmental group is challenging the aggressive messaging from the federal government and industry on the economic benefits of the oil sands with the release of a poll that suggests Canadians are ill-informed about the impact of the sector.

In a survey released Friday, Environmental Defence said 57 per cent of respondents overestimated the contribution of the oil sands to the national economy. According to Statistics Canada, oil sands production accounts for 2 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product, but more than 40 per cent of respondents pegged the figure at 12 per cent of GDP or higher.

VIDEO
Video: 'The odds are stacked against them,' Globe's energy reporter says of Northern Gateway
The environmental group focused on the value of production from existing oil sands projects, but it did not account for current growth and new jobs that result from the construction of new projects or the pipelines and other infrastructure needed to get higher volumes of crude to market.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers have routinely characterized the oil sands specifically – the the resource sector generally – as the engine of economic growth for Canada, and warn against any action that would slow down development.

“We are routinely told our economy will sputter, governments won’t be able to balance budgets and social services will have to be sacrificed if we don’t triple the size of the tar sands as fast as possible,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence.

“But this simply isn’t true. The tar sands are not the primary driver of our economy; their contribution is relatively small and certainly not sufficient to justify the risks of planned massive expansion.”

Mr. Gray said the Harper government and the oil industry have persuaded Canadians into believing that the oil sands represents the economic engine of the country in order to justify new pipeline construction across British Columbia and to Eastern Canada, and new extraction projects in Alberta. And they have painted opponents of those projects as radicals who are determined to undermine the Canadian economy.

Some 75 per cent of respondents to the survey – an online poll of 1,011 adults conducted by Environics – agreed with the statement that, given concerns about climate change, Canada should shift its energy strategy away from reliance on fossil fuels and toward cleaner fuel.

“Governments and industry have succeeded in articulating an importance for the tar sands that greatly exceeds its place in the economy. But despite that, the public still would like to see a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels,” Mr. Gray said.

Officials at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers were not available for comment, as the office was closed for the opening of the Calgary Stampede.

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach said he also has found that Canadians tend to overestimate the relative size of the oil sands as a percentage of the economy – especially staunch proponents and opponents of the industry. But he added that the impact of production on GDP is only one gauge of the sector’s relative importance. The construction side of the industry is large and important.

“The big issue for Canada now is that a lot of what we classify as oil sands activity is actually construction of oil sands facilities – that’s where a lot of the employment growth is, and a lot of the investment is going,” he said. It is that new activity that is more vulnerable to a slump in prices or high-cost environmental regulations.

Royal Bank of Canada economist Paul Ferley said that, even at 2 per cent of the economy, oil sands extraction is twice as large as the auto sector, and that it is growing quickly. He noted that figure does not include indirect impacts, such as spending by workers or capital investment.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/02/green-energy-jobs-canada-oilsands_n_6252910.html

Clean Energy Jobs Now Exceed Oilsands Jobs In Canada: Report
CP/HuffPost Canada
Posted: 12/02/2014 4:30 am EST Updated: 02/01/2015 5:59 am EST WINDMILL WORKER

Which industry employs more Canadians? The oilsands or clean energy?

Guess again.

Employment in Canada's clean energy sector has jumped 37 per cent in the past five years, says a new report from the think tank Clean Energy Canada, and now exceeds employment in the oilsands.

There were 23,700 people directly employed by the clean energy industry in 2013, compared to 22,340 jobs in the oilsands, the report found. Those green jobs include people employed in clean power production, energy efficiency, biofuels and manufacturing of green energy technologies.

Those job gains were the result of about $25 billion in new investment over the past five years, the report said. It singled out Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia as the three provinces leading the way in clean energy investment.

The report said that the federal government has helped lay the groundwork for green energy, "but has done very little to build on it."

The Canadian Press reports:

OTTAWA - Canadian investments in clean energy totalled $6.5 billion last year, a 45 per cent increase from 2012, according to a new study released Tuesday.

More than half the Canadian investment — $3.6 billion — went into wind power, with another $2.5 billion invested in the solar sector, says Clean Energy Canada, an advocacy and research organization.

The investment spike moved Canada up to seventh place among the Group of 20 industrialized nations, from 12th spot a year earlier.

"We hear a lot of talk about pipelines and the oil and gas sector," Merran Smith, the director of Clean Energy Canada, said in an interview.

"What we don't hear is that Canada's actually gone from a boutique clean energy industry to really big business."

Over the past five years, $24 billion has been invested in clean energy, and the sector now accounts for almost 24,000 direct jobs, a total that includes manufacturing but not construction employment.

The report comes as Canadian officials begin two weeks of meetings in Lima, Peru, on the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

Greenhouse gas emissions are rising again in Canada, according to Environment Canada projections, and the country will not come close to meeting its 2020 international target for curbing emissions under the 2009 Copenhagen accord. The talks in Lima are part of negotiations for a post-2020 international agreement that is supposed to be completed next December.

The UN talks were given a jolt of adrenalin last month when the United States and China, the world's two biggest emitters, announced a bilateral deal to curb emissions through 2030.

Both the Chinese and U.S. governments are investing heavily in renewables.

"There's a clean energy transition underway globally already, and they're backing their clean energy industries," said Smith.

What makes the Canadian investment story more compelling is that it's happening without much federal government interest.

Private sector financiers — many from abroad — and provincial governments are driving the investment boom.

Of the top five financiers of clean energy in Canada over the past five years, investing $3.44 billion among them, two are Japanese, two are German and just one is Canadian, says the study.

Clean Energy Canada would like to see a federal industrial policy, based on tax and research incentives, like the one that helped Canada's aerospace and oil sands industries in their infancy.

"If the federal government got engaged we could be a real world leader in clean energy," said Smith. "But the federal government is really missing in action."
-- Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-provides-once-generation-opportunity-fix-bad

Seize the day
The fall in the price of oil and gas provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix bad energy policies
Jan 17th 2015 | From the print edition
Timekeeper

MOST of the time, economic policymaking is about tinkering at the edges. Politicians argue furiously about modest changes to taxes or spending. Once in a while, however, momentous shifts are possible. From Deng Xiaoping’s market opening in 1978 to Poland’s adoption of “shock therapy” in 1990, bold politicians have seized propitious circumstances to push through reforms that transformed their countries. Such a once-in-a-generation opportunity exists today.

The plunging price of oil, coupled with advances in clean energy and conservation, offers politicians around the world the chance to rationalise energy policy. They can get rid of billions of dollars of distorting subsidies, especially for dirty fuels, whilst shifting taxes towards carbon use. A cheaper, greener and more reliable energy future could be within reach.

The most obvious reason for optimism is the plunge in energy costs. Not only has the price of oil halved in the past six months, but natural gas is the cheapest it has been in a decade, bar a few panicked months after Lehman Brothers collapsed, when the world economy appeared to be imploding. There are growing signs that low prices are here to stay: the rising chatter of megamergers in the oil industry (see article) is a sure sign that oilmen are bracing for a shake-out. Less noticed, the price of cleaner forms of energy is also falling, as our special report this week explains. And new technology is allowing better management of the consumption of energy, especially electricity. That should help cut waste and thus lower costs still further. For decades the big question about energy was whether the world could produce enough of it, in any form and at any cost. Now, suddenly, the challenge should be one of managing abundance.

Clean up a dirty business
That abundance provides the potential for reform. Far too many economies are littered with the detritus of daft energy policies, based on fears about supply. Even though fracking has boosted America’s oil output by two-thirds in just four years, the country still bans the export of oil and restricts exports of natural gas, a legacy of the oil shocks of the 1970s—and a boondoggle for American refiners and petrochemical firms. Congress also keeps handing out money to Iowa’s already coddled corn farmers to produce ethanol and has not reviewed generous subsidies for nuclear power despite the Fukushima disaster and ruinous cost over-runs at new Western plants. Instead, it has spent four long years bickering about whether to allow the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Canada’s tar sands. In Europe the giveaways are a little different—billions have gone to wind and solar projects—but the same madness often prevails: Germany’s rushed exit from nuclear power ended up helping boost American coal and Russian gas.

The most straightforward piece of reform, pretty much everywhere, is simply to remove all the subsidies for producing or consuming fossil fuels. Last year governments around the world threw $550 billion down that rathole—on everything from holding down the price of petrol in poor countries to encouraging companies to search for oil. By one count, such handouts led to extra consumption that was responsible for 36% of global carbon emissions in 1980-2010.

Falling prices provide an opportunity to rethink this nonsense. Cash-strapped developing countries such as India and Indonesia have bravely begun to cut fuel subsidies, freeing up money to spend on hospitals and schools (see article). But the big oil exporters in the poor world, which tend to be the most egregious subsidisers of domestic fuel prices, have not followed their lead. Venezuela is close to default, yet petrol still costs a few cents a litre in Caracas. And rich countries still underwrite the production of oil and gas. Why should American taxpayers pay for Exxon to find hydrocarbons? All these subsidies should be binned.

What a better policy would look like
That should be just the beginning. Politicians, for the most part, have refused to raise taxes on fossil fuels in recent years, on the grounds that making driving or heating homes more expensive would not only annoy voters but also hurt the economy. With petrol and natural gas getting cheaper by the day, that excuse has gone. Higher taxes would encourage conservation, dampen future price swings and provide a more sensible way for governments to raise money.

An obvious starting point is to target petrol. America’s federal government levies a tax of just 18 cents a gallon (five cents a litre)—a figure that it has not dared change since 1993. Even better would be a tax on carbon. Burning fossil fuels harms the health of both the planet and its inhabitants. Taxing carbon would nudge energy firms and consumers towards using cleaner fuels. As fuel prices fall, a carbon tax is becoming less politically daunting.

That points to the biggest blessing cheaper energy brings: the chance to inject some coherence into the world’s energy policies. Governments have a legitimate role in making sure that energy is abundant, clean and secure. But they need to learn the difference between picking goals and deciding how to reach them. Broad incentives are fine; second-guessing scientists and investors is not. A carbon tax, in other words, is a much better way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases than subsidies for windmills and nuclear plants.

By the same token, in the name of security of supply, governments should be encouraging the growth of seamless global energy markets. Scrapping unfair obstacles to energy investments is just as important as dispensing with subsidies. The more cross-border pipelines and power cables the better. America should approve Keystone XL and lift its export restrictions, while European politicians should make it much easier to exploit the oil and gas in the shale beneath their feet.

This ambitious to-do list will drive regiments of energy lobbyists potty. But for the first time in years it is within the realm of the politically possible. And it would plainly lead to a more efficient and greener energy future. So our message to politicians is a simple one. Seize the day.

 

[agentaqua]

OBD I see your team is at it again....
[F0UkH81NMTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UkH81NMTo

Woman says: "OMG - kids could drink this water and get wind in it!!!" I really don't know what to say about how bizarrely stupid that comment is. OBD - if that jpg is the best retort you could come up with - I'd have to say that the attempt to provide evidence that global warming is a hoax is truly - over.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-farmers-cautious-about-low-fuel-prices-1.2939589

Alberta farmers cautious about low fuel prices
Low fuel prices mean larger farms could spend a third less on fuel this year compared to last year
By Bill Graveland, Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 01, 2015 9:45 AM MT Last Updated: Feb 01, 2015 9:48 AM MT

One of the biggest costs on the farm is fuel for farm equipment. In the prairies, diesel fuel has dropped significantly to less than $1 a litre. (Jeff MacIntosh/Canadian Press)

Decades of boom-and-bust commodity prices, worker shortages and being at the mercy of the weather has virtually removed the word optimism from the vocabulary of many Canadian farmers.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that many are looking at the current run of low fuel costs with a certain degree of suspicion.

"At the moment things are good right now," said Lynn Jacobson, president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, who also farms 600 hectares near Enchant in southern Alberta.

"If it lasts into spring is going to be another question. In the long run, though, you've got to think about all the infrastructure that relies on that fuel price and if some of that stuff is delayed or not done that could hurt us in the future too."

The recent plunge in fuel prices has been a welcome relief across the agricultural sector, helping ease the pain of low grain prices for growers and boosting profits for cattle ranchers.

One of the biggest costs on the farm is fuel for farm equipment.

Diesel fuel has dropped significantly to less than $1 a litre on the Prairies.

"It's significant on a larger farm if you can lower your fuel costs by a third," said Gary Stanford, who farms 2,000 hectares southwest of Lethbridge.

Farmers cautious

But there is doubt.

"If the oil price stays down too low, and the federal government can't afford to keep their budgets going, and they start looking for revenue, I'm hoping they're not going to try and put this on the back of farmers and raise our taxes," Stanford said.

"The oil seems like it's a real benefit when it's low but there could be some harm in the long term."

Joel Jackson is an analyst with BMO Capital Markets who focuses on fertilizer companies. He said fuel prices aren't what will make or break a farmer's bottom line. Fertilizer and seeds are among the biggest expenses.

"There's some tailwind from lower energy prices, but it's easily offset by weather and yield volatility."

In addition, the price of some crops, such as corn, have historically risen and fallen in tandem with oil prices, Jackson said.

Stanford would like to see lower fuel costs reduce the cost of transporting grain to market by rail and truck.

Jacobson said the savings could be substantial if low prices continue. He spent between $50,000 and $60,000 on fuel last year.

"With fuel prices down where they are, for our farm it will probably result in a 20 or 25 per cent reduction in the price of what we paid for gas and fuel last year. It's a major saving," he said.

"We could save potentially $10,000 this year."

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.bowenislandundercurrent.com/news/lng-101-salmon-and-hot-seawater-don-t-mix-1.1749397

LNG 101 - Salmon and Hot Seawater don’t mix
EOIN FINN / BOWEN ISLAND UNDERCURRENT
FEBRUARY 1, 2015 10:54 AM

For all of us, and for the First Nations in particular, is there anything in BC more sacred and iconic than salmon? The wild kind, that is. Nature’s amazing bounty - salmon is one of the planet’s four great food fish species that have sustained coastal and riverine communities for millennia.

The development of LNG plants on our coast should be of major concern to everyone in BC. If these developments follow easier and cheaper design options of using seawater to cool the liquefaction process, millions of juvenile salmon will be at risk. The invisible culprit? Elevated ocean water temperatures caused by the release of massive amounts of unnaturally warm, chlorinated, virtually dead seawater back into the marine environment.

Most of BC’s proposed LNG plants plan to use seawater cooling systems. It is the cheapest option. But with this we risk a mismanagement scenario on the Pacific coast akin to the Atlantic cod debacle. We have lessons to learn from other jurisdictions.

Until 2010, the 21 power generation plants along California’s coastline pulled in nearly 17 billion gallons of seawater each day in a practice called “once-through” cooling. This is where ocean water is used as a kind of radiator fluid to help cool the gas-turbine and nuclear power plants generating 40 percent of California’s electricity.

But this “once-through” cooling practice has killed billions of fish eggs, larvae and other marine life. Eighty square miles of California’s coastal habitat was affected on a daily basis. The Ocean Unit of the California Water Resources Control Board estimated that once-through cooling systems used in their coastal power plants killed 2.6 million fish, 19 billion fish larvae, and 57 seals, sea lions and sea turtles every year. This depletion of the ocean food chain has continued for decades.

In once-through systems, these organisms are sucked into the water intakes, gassed with chlorine and barbecued in the cooling towers. Their corpses are then expelled back into the ocean to decay and deplete life-giving oxygen in the water column. Scientists, environmentalists, First Nations and fishers all agree - once-through cooling systems are seriously damaging to coastal ecosystems, especially in bays and estuaries, which are critical nursery habitats for fish. According to the California Energy Commission, once-through cooling represents “the single greatest and unaddressed environmental issue associated with power plant operation in the state”.

A prominent marine biologist puts it like this: “Seawater is not just water. It is actually a community of living organisms, some of which spend their whole lives in that water. They… produce eggs and larvae that grow up in that water.”

New cooling regulations were adopted by California’s Water Resources Control board in 2010. By 2015, 19 coastal power plants will stop using once-through cooling, and start using a modern cooling alternative.

You may ask– how does this concern BC? The answer: most of BC’s 18 proposed oceanside LNG plants plan to use to use cheaper, destructive once-through seawater cooling to cool the gas to a liquid state. In their use of cooling systems, LNG plants and power generation plants are quite similar.

The “Kitimat LNG” 24 MTPA plant in Kitimat/Douglas Channel would suck in millions of tonnes of fresh water from the Kitimat River and discharge it, warm and chlorinated, into Kitimat Arm. The WCC (Exxon) plant in Prince Rupert’s Tuck Cove may use either air-cooling or seawater-cooling.

In contrast, to reduce damage to the salmon-rich Skeena and Naas rivers near Prince Rupert, the 20 MTPA Petronas “Northwest LNG” plant is instead proposing air cooling for the plant. That change came after much pressure from First Nations, commercial fishermen and environmentalists.

The controversial 2.4 MTPA (and potentially much larger ) Woodfibre LNG plant in Howe Sound plans to spew some 17,000 tonnes (3.8 million gallons) of hot, chlorinated seawater every hour into the Sound. The plant is directly in the path of the recovering Cheakamus/ Squamish salmon run in Howe Sound. The potential for again destroying this run should be of great concern– Howe Sound is only now recovering from the marine dead-zone it became over the last century.

Our Federal and Provincial governments do not have a clear and principled commitment to safeguarding marine ecosystems and BC’s iconic wild salmon resource. We need to adopt our Premier’s “world-leading practices” for cooling systems and enforce more robust regulatory oversight, else these LNG plants will utilize the cheapest option - with “invisible” consequences slipping under the radar. There are alternatives to cooking the environment with waste heat from industrial activity.

Eoin Finn is a seasonal resident of Bowyer Island in Howe Sound, a retired partner of a major accounting firm, and holds Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) and MBA (International Business) degrees.

- See more at: http://www.bowenislandundercurrent....ater-don-t-mix-1.1749397#sthash.91InreRr.dpuf

 

[Clint r]

Copied from Castanets news service this morning:

2014 hottest year ever: UN
Photo: Contributed
The Canadian Press - Feb 2 6:11 am
The U.N. weather agency says 2014 was the warmest year on record, though the temperature difference with 2010 and 2005 is so small that it's impossible to say for sure which of the three years was the hottest.
The World Meteorological Organization's analysis Monday mirrored findings two weeks ago by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and also included data from the Met Office in Britain.
The Geneva-based WMO said surface temperatures were 0.57 C (1.03 F) above average last year. That's slightly warmer than 2010 and 2005, but the difference was within the uncertainty margin of 0.10 C (0.18 F).
With 14 of the 15 hottest years recorded this century, WMO chief Michel Jarraud said warming is expected to continue as atmospheric levels of heat-trapping CO2 rise.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-up-1-as-wti-takes-aim-at-50-1.2940135

Oil price up $1 as WTI takes aim at $50
West Texas Intermediate briefly over $50 in early Monday trading as rigs start to close up shop
Thomson Reuters Posted: Feb 02, 2015 9:18 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 02, 2015 10:09 AM ET

The price of WTI is gaining towards $50, a level it hasn't hit since the start of the year. (Hasan Jamali/Associated Press)

Crude oil prices rose on Monday as investors shrugged off a U.S. refinery strike and focused on a falling U.S. rig count that signalled lower production down the line.

"There were a lot of people on the sidelines waiting for an opportunity to buy," said Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodity analyst at SEB.

"Brent has struggled sideways for a long time but it closed above the 20-day moving average on Friday for the first time since July, and the rig count is falling sharply. So now they think, maybe this is the time to buy."

Biggest refinery strike since 1980

At 6:49 a.m. ET Brent crude futures were up $2.05 at $55.04 a barrel, after leaping as high as $55.62 and dipping as low as $51.41, as the bulls battled with the bears.

U.S. crude was up $1.50 at $49.74 a barrel, after touching an intraday high of $50.56 and slumping to $46.67.

Both contracts had rallied about 8 per cent on Friday, fueled by month-end short-covering and a record weekly drop in the number of U.S. oil rigs employed, according to industry data from Baker Hughes. The count is now down 24 per cent from its October peak.

Oil patch earnings: How bad will they be?
DON PITTIS: Loonie oil could fall much further
"Most market observers have been surprised by the scale of the decrease, and expectations of U.S. oil output this year will no doubt be lowered accordingly," analysts at Commerzbank said in a note. "The foundation for a steady price recovery in the second half of the year has thus been laid."

However, in the short term the price increase has been exaggerated, as there is still considerable oversupply, they added.

Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodity markets strategy at BNP Paribas, said the bounce was mainly due to technical factors rather than any fundamental reason.

"I wouldn't be surprised if this afternoon we sell into (the rally) because the global fundamentals in oil and the economy haven't really changed much since last week," he said.

On Sunday, workers at nine U.S. refineries and chemical plants went on strike in an effort to pressure oil companies to agree to a new national contract.

"So far only a handful of refineries have been affected, but the last time they went on strike like this, in 1980, it lasted for three months," said Ole Hansen, senior commodity strategist at Saxo Bank.

Last week U.S. crude inventories hit a record high, and any dampening of refinery demand would likely push stocks higher as the slowdown in drilling has still not affected U.S. production, analysts said.

"The market is likely too excited about falling rig counts," analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note on Monday. "The most productive rigs will likely remain as long as possible."

© Thomson Reuters, 2015

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ys-ottawa-that-s-not-alberta-s-view-1.2937042

Oil matters until it doesn't, says Ottawa. That's not Alberta's view
Alberta's not delaying its budget, so why is Ottawa?
By Kathleen Petty, CBC News Posted: Feb 02, 2015 7:00 AM MT Last Updated: Feb 02, 2015 7:00 AM MT

This man, Alberta Premier Jim Prentice, is not delaying his budget. (The Canadian Press)
Kathleen Petty
The West

Kathleen Petty is the former host of CBC Radio's The House, and is currently executive producer of CBC News in Calgary.

Oil matters — until it doesn't. It mattered a lot in June of last year, a short seven months ago.

Joe Oliver, the federal finance minister stood at a podium in Montreal and issued an ominous warning, admonishing those gathered not to kid themselves about the importance of getting Alberta's oil to tidewater.

"So the choice is stark," he stated. "Head down the path of economic decline, higher unemployment, limited funds for social programs like health care, continuing deficits and growing debt, or achieve prosperity and security now and for future generations through the responsible development of our resources."

Contrast that with "the oil industry isn't remotely the entire Canadian economy," the message from Prime Minister Stephen Harper just last week.

The prime minister did acknowledge that the contribution of the energy industry to the national economy is "significant," but his emphasis was clear. Plummeting oil revenues are a much bigger problem for Alberta.

Stephen Harper's fixation on a balanced budget
Yet the federal finance minister is delaying his budget, saying he needs more time to let the situation stabilize. And we're seeing nothing of that timidity here in Alberta.

The new federal timing is imprecise at best. Oliver says it won't be "earlier than April." That of course doesn't mean April. It only means it won't be February or March, the usual time (current fiscal year) for a federal budget.

Beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

Commons 20150126
This man, federal Finance Minister Joe Oliver, isn't going to unveil a budget until April at the earliest. (The Canadian Press)

Another question worth asking: why is Jim Prentice not delaying Alberta's provincial budget for the same reasons?

The Alberta government certainly isn't in any hurry, but it has committed to finalizing a budget before the end of the fiscal year.

The premier is musing about raising taxes, cutting spending and running a deficit.

Predicting the price of oil is a mug's game, but the province has managed to quantify the many billions that have evaporated for this year, next year and the year after that. So why can't the feds?

In Ottawa's case, it apparently understands enough about the impact of plunging oil on the national economy to know that increased taxes, spending cuts and deficits aren't necessary, according to an assortment of federal ministers.

But it doesn't know enough to detail a spending plan during the usual time-frame.

Oil and gas, along with mining, is roughly eight per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. But that doesn't really capture the true economic impact.

The energy industry also touches on so many other sectors of the economy like manufacturing, construction and transportation.

In Alberta, the conversation is about ending the madness of living beyond our means — of constantly trying to rely on unreliable revenue.

In fact, how we go about doing that will likely be the ballot box question in the next provincial election (an election many expect in late April — despite Alberta's fixed election date legislation).

Conventional wisdom seems to be that a similar inclination to debate the relative value of the oil industry is not gripping Ottawa.

Although the common mantra is that "markets don't like uncertainty," the other reality is that politicians like it even less.

In other words, the economy could get a whole lot worse and the federal Conservatives might also well want to pull the plug before that happens.

Oil does matter. How much depends not just on who is talking — but when.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/b...s-unknown-draft-federal-report-says-1.2940083

Bitumen spill effects on waterways, oceans unknown, draft federal report says
2013 report commissioned in response to Northern Gateway, never released
By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 02, 2015 9:21 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 02, 2015 9:21 AM ET

Enbridge Inc plans to build its Northern Gateway pipeline terminal in the Kitimat Arm of the Douglas Channel in northern British Columbia. Opponents of the pipeline have raised concerns about what might happen in case of a spill. (Julie Gordon/Reuters)

An unpublished federal report on environmental threats from oil and bitumen pipelines says little is known about the potential toxic effects of oilsands products in oceans, lakes or rivers.

"In particular, research on the toxicology of bitumen is lacking," says the draft report, commissioned in response to concerns raised at the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings.

'Research on the biological effects of oilsands-related products on aquatic organisms is lacking.'
- Draft federal government report from 2013
The document comes as Canada debates pipeline proposals for moving large amounts of diluted bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to refineries and ports on both coasts and into the United States. It was obtained by Greenpeace under freedom-of-information legislation.

Although it has been through several versions, the 2013 report has never been released.

More complete report expected

"A more complete, peer-reviewed report was produced by (Fisheries and Oceans), and will be published in the coming months," wrote department spokesman David Walters in an email.

Northern Gateway
Raw bitumen and diluted bitumen are displayed in jars during a news conference in Vancouver in 2012. A draft federal government report says the effects of a spill of bitumen are largely unknown. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

All drafts of the report warn that the behaviour and effects of bitumen remain largely unknown.

"Research on the biological effects of oilsands-related products on aquatic organisms is lacking," it says.

An early draft lays out 10 specific "knowledge gaps" about bitumen and the various substances used to dilute it when it's pumped through pipelines.

"Very little information is available on the physical and chemical characteristics of oilsands-related products following a spill into water," it says.

"A better understanding of the fate and behaviour of these products is critical for assessing the potential risk to aquatic organisms."

More research is needed on what would happens to heavy metals in bitumen in the case of a spill. There is a "lack of information" on how condensate — a lighter hydrocarbon used to dilute bitumen for pumping — would behave in water.

The understanding of how chemicals in bitumen would interact with fish should be improved, the report says. Specific research on possible oil impacts on the Pacific, Arctic and Great Lakes is needed.

The impact of sunlight, which can make some chemicals in bitumen vastly more harmful, is also unknown, says the report. The combined effect of bitumen and dispersants — chemical agents used to break up oil spilled in water — hasn't been studied.

As well, little is known about the potential impacts of a spill in the Arctic.

The early draft of the report examines research on Orimulsion, a Venezuelan product about two-thirds bitumen and one-third water.

Studies say Orimulsion tends to sink in fresh water, but remain suspended throughout the water column in salt water. It is also "highly toxic to fish" — 300 times more toxic to embryos than heavy fuel oil.

The 61-page draft includes 14 pages of references to peer-reviewed academic studies as well as government and industry publications. They date from 1976 to 2013 and include articles from a wide variety of scientific journals.

New research underway

Walters said new research is already underway.

"The information collected during this exercise has already resulted in (the department) providing Canadian universities with funding for five projects related to the effects on fish and shellfish," he said.

The government also recently released research that found bitumen tends to float on sea water, but responds poorly to dispersants and shows "significant" differences from conventional crude.

Prominent ecologist David Schindler, whose work is cited in the review, said the real state of knowledge about the potential effects of a bitumen spill is even sketchier than the review suggests.

The report adopts a piecemeal, substance-by-substance approach instead of considering the combined effect of all chemicals, he said. It also doesn't ask what happens if a spill gets under river ice, which has already happened on Alberta's Athabasca River.

"The recommended list of new activities will not solve these shortcomings," Schindler said in an email. "They are simply recommending more of the same deficient tests, fine for initial screening, not for protecting ecosystems."

© The Canadian Press, 2015

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129143030.htm
Public and scientists express strikingly different views about science-related issues
Date: January 29, 2015
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Summary: Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys.

There is agreement between the public and scientists on one core issue: Both groups believe that science, technology, engineering and math education (STEM) in America's elementary and secondary schools is not performing well. Only 16% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the general public rank U.S. K-12 STEM education as above average or the best in the world. And three-quarters of AAAS scientists say too little STEM education is a major factor in the public's limited knowledge about science--which an overwhelming majority of scientists see as a problem for science in general.

Most scientists believe that policy choices about land use and clean air and water are not often guided by the best scientific findings. Only 15% of AAAS scientists say they believe the best science guides policy regulations about land use most of the time or more often; 27% think the best science frequently guides decisions about clean air and water; 46% think the best science is frequently used in food safety policies and 58% say the same when it comes to regulations about new drug and medical treatments.

Journal Reference: A. I. Leshner. Bridging the opinion gap. Science, 2015; 347 (6221): 459 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa7477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477

 

[agentaqua]

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PGmk-4bpIVs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Climate Change - The Elevator Pitch: Katharine Hayhoe

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20...s-bitumen-spill-effects-unknown/#.VM-pDP54py-

Draft federal government report says bitumen spill effects unknown
By Bob Weber — The Canadian Press — Feb 2 2015Share on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on email
An unpublished federal report on environmental threats from oil and bitumen pipelines says little is known about the potential toxic effects of oilsands products in oceans, lakes or rivers.

"In particular, research on the toxicology of bitumen is lacking," says the draft report, commissioned in response to concerns raised at the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings.

The document comes as Canada debates pipeline proposals for moving large amounts of diluted bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to refineries and ports on both coasts and into the United States. It was obtained by Greenpeace under freedom-of-information legislation.

Although it has been through several versions, the 2013 report has never been released.

"A more complete, peer-reviewed report was produced by (Fisheries and Oceans), and will be published in the coming months," wrote department spokesman David Walters in an email.

All drafts of the report warn that the behaviour and effects of bitumen remain largely unknown.

"Research on the biological effects of oilsands-related products on aquatic organisms is lacking," it says.

An early draft lays out 10 specific "knowledge gaps" about bitumen and the various substances used to dilute it when it's pumped through pipelines.

"Very little information is available on the physical and chemical characteristics of oilsands-related products following a spill into water," it says.

"A better understanding of the fate and behaviour of these products is critical for assessing the potential risk to aquatic organisms."

More research is needed on what would happens to heavy metals in bitumen in the case of a spill. There is a "lack of information" on how condensate — a lighter hydrocarbon used to dilute bitumen for pumping — would behave in water.

The understanding of how chemicals in bitumen would interact with fish should be improved, the report says. Specific research on possible oil impacts on the Pacific, Arctic and Great Lakes is needed.

The impact of sunlight, which can make some chemicals in bitumen vastly more harmful, is also unknown, says the report. The combined effect of bitumen and dispersants — chemical agents used to break up oil spilled in water — hasn't been studied.

As well, little is known about the potential impacts of a spill in the Arctic.

The early draft of the report examines research on Orimulsion, a Venezuelan product about two-thirds bitumen and one-third water.

Studies say Orimulsion tends to sink in fresh water, but remain suspended throughout the water column in salt water. It is also "highly toxic to fish" — 300 times more toxic to embryos than heavy fuel oil.

The 61-page draft includes 14 pages of references to peer-reviewed academic studies as well as government and industry publications. They date from 1976 to 2013 and include articles from a wide variety of scientific journals.

Walters said new research is already underway.

"The information collected during this exercise has already resulted in (the department) providing Canadian universities with funding for five projects related to the effects on fish and shellfish," he said.

The government also recently released research that found bitumen tends to float on sea water, but responds poorly to dispersants and shows "significant" differences from conventional crude.

Prominent ecologist David Schindler, whose work is cited in the review, said the real state of knowledge about the potential effects of a bitumen spill is even sketchier than the review suggests.

The report adopts a piecemeal, substance-by-substance approach instead of considering the combined effect of all chemicals, he said. It also doesn't ask what happens if a spill gets under river ice, which has already happened on Alberta's Athabasca River.

"The recommended list of new activities will not solve these shortcomings," Schindler said in an email. "They are simply recommending more of the same deficient tests, fine for initial screening, not for protecting ecosystems."