Oil Change International publishes upwards of 20 reports and briefings every year focused on supporting the movement for a just phase-out of fossil fuels.
A new report exposes the huge financial risks behind three major Canadian tar sands pipeline project proposals: Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion, TransCanada’s Keystone XL and Enbridge’s Line 3 expansion.
The Alberta tar sands are among the world’s largest oil reserves. While investment and expected growth in the industry have been high for the last decade, new industry data paints a dramatically different picture of the sector moving forward.
Big banks’ business as usual is killing the climate. From 2014 to 2016, big banks around the world poured $290 billion into extreme fossil fuel companies and failed to respect human rights.
New analysis finds that Canada will be the world’s second highest contributor of new oil production globally over the next twenty years if action isn’t taken to halt new tar sands pipelines and production growth. Once extracted, much of this oil will be burned, pushing global temperature limits over the brink.
Canada does not need new pipelines, in spite of repeated misleading claims by the oil industry. That’s the conclusion of a new Oil Change International (OCI) analysis showing that Canada has ample pipeline Capacity to export all existing and under construction oil production to market from western Canada.
A report for investors on why Shell's and BP's tar sands plans are a bad bet
The idea that greater pipeline capacity and access to tidewater would maximize the value Alberta receives for its tar sands crude is a standard talking point for industry, politicians, and other commentators in the ongoing oil price-induced recession in Alberta.
With Shell in the Arctic, the scale and volume of the blowback from the environmental community has clearly caught the Administration flat footed. When confronted, they usually first mumble something about highest standards (which is completely irrelevant to the climate argument) but if pressed, the Administration and its defenders invoke a sober, scolding tone to explain: 1) We need oil and we will need oil for a long time. While we’re all concerned about climate, we’re still going to need oil and gas in the future and we might as well make as much of it as possible right here at home. 2) U.S. oil production is essentially irrelevant for climate, because “more oil production in one place generally means less oil production elsewhere – that’s how markets and prices work”. Together, these two arguments form what we can think of as the Convenient Lie that we can be serious about fighting climate change and also approve virtually all new fossil fuel infrastructure in the U.S. It’s the Convenient Lie that keeps us from dealing with the Inconvenient Truth.
A new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and Oil Change International quantifies for the first time the financial and carbon impact of public opposition to pipelines and other expanded investment in tar sands production.
Oil Change International has launched a new online tool today that tracks the flow of Canadian tar sands crude oil to North America’s refineries.
