Sign-up for Energy Action Alerts

CitizenVox: Standing Up to Corporate Power

Tar Sands: Dirtiest Fuel in the World

Tar sands are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit containing a dense form of petroleum mixed with sand, clay and water. Found in large quantities in Canada and Venezuela, tar sands once were considered too expensive to exploit, but higher oil prices and new technology have enabled them to be profitably extracted and refined by the oil industry.

While the oil industry may be reaping massive profits from the tar sands deposits in Canada, the local population and the environment are paying the price.
Making liquid fuels from tar sands requires large amounts of energy and water for steam injection and refining. This process generates two to four times more greenhouse gases per barrel than extraction of conventional oil.

In Canada, even before the oil is extracted from a surface mine, the industry first must raze large tracks of the Boreal forest, then remove an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then remove two tons of the sand itself. After the oil is processed, the toxic byproducts are discharged into tailings ponds. The toxic mine tailing ponds from Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada, now cover approximately 50 square miles.

Keystone XL Pipeline: Not in the National Interest

The Keystone pipeline, owned and operated by the TransCanada corporation, was developed to transport crude oil from the Athabasca tar sands to multiple destinations in the United States, including refineries in Illinois (the original Keystone pipeline), an oil distribution hub in Oklahoma (Keystone-Cushing Extension) and refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas (the proposed Keystone XL pipeline).

The first section of the Keystone pipeline became operational in June 2010. The Cushing-Extension was completed in February 2011. Since being proposed in 2008, the 1,700-mile Keystone XL extension has been met with strong opposition from landowners and indigenous communities in the path of the pipeline and from the environmental community.

The pipeline would carry the tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada, through the U.S. heartland, into Texas and to the Gulf of Mexico. It would run through the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for millions of Americans and provides 30 percent of the nation’s irrigation groundwater.

In November 2011, after tremendous pressure pipeline opponents, President Barack Obama postponed a decision until 2013. In response, Senate Republicans introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declared the project not in the national interest. On Jan. 18, 2012, President Obama rejected the project, stating that the arbitrary deadline made it impossible to adequately review it.

Learn more:

Report: Construction Problems Raise Questions About the Integrity of the Keystone Pipeline (PDF).

Press Release: Public Citizen Calls for Probe of Construction Problems on Keystone XL Southern Segment.

Report: America Can’t Afford The Keystone Pipeline (PDF).

Press Release: Keystone XL Would Increase Gas Prices, Reduce National Energy Security.

Fact sheet: Why America cannot afford the Keystone XL pipeline (PDF).

Letter to Senate: Reject legislation that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline (PDF).

Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.