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.
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.
Dakota Access should be stopped immediately for a long list of reasons. But we must also stop billions of taxpayer dollars from flowing to fossil fuels.
The recently released draft five-year plan for offshore oil and gas drilling is predicated on a failure to act on stated climate policy. To remedy this, the U.S. government should act quickly to implement a climate test in order to evaluate energy decisions on the basis of our national and international climate commitments.
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.
Oil Change International joins hundreds of organizations worldwide that have written to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) board calling on global reporting standards for extractive industries to include transparency from fossil fuel companies about the future viability of their oil, coal and gas projects in a warming world.
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.
An examination of crude-by-rail data shows that the U.S. east coast has become one of the busiest regional destinations for hazardous crude-by-rail traffic. Oil Change International used publicly available Department of Energy (EIA) data as well as subscription data from Genscape to examine the growth of crude-by-rail to one of the most densely populated areas of the United States.
Today we’re releasing a new briefing, entitled “Lift the Ban, Cook the Climate: Why Eliminating the Crude Export Ban Fails the Climate Test,” detailing why Congress and the President should stand up to current efforts by the oil industry to eliminate the ban on crude oil exports.
The Canadian tar sands is among the most carbon-intensive, highest-cost sources of oil in the world. Even prior to the precipitous drop in global oil prices late last year, three major projects were cancelled in the sector with companies unable to chart a profitable path forward.
Shell is currently moving its drilling rigs to Seattle in anticipation of resuming its US offshore Arctic drilling programme in July. However, it is far from clear that Shell has adequate physical or financial plans to deal with the impacts of a major oil spill in this remote region.
