hmmm.... Green Energy, not so Green?

I'm going to say yes, simply due to the fact I had to clean up spills there.

The reality of it is, no matter if it is green or not, if we want to continue to live in an age of electricity, motors, food you don't grow in your own garden, etc. we have to accept the fact of undesirable waste products.

It's just a matter of using whatever method produces the least / or less nasty wastes.

Ah yes, the oil/tar sands......

Anebel, a few ducks is not the issue with the tar sands. It is the perfect example of dirty energy. The oil coming out of the sands is horrible quality. It is so corrosive, it has caused damage and the closure of the much "loved" oil pipelines. And, this is what people have to live with in the way of lovely ....






There's a reason they built this refinery on a river, beuatiful river at that. Do you want to drink the water downstream?



What makes me think bison aren't grazing there anymore?




And, this is what the oil companies SAID it would be like. Understand why people distrust them now? Now we are dealing with the same feces from the same type of people about fracking under my own house.




So, Anebel, there are just a few more "issues" involved in being against the tar/oil sands than just a few little duckies.

Allison, please don't delve into things you know nothing about.
SAGD is FAR more detrimental to the environment than traditional mining. The mining companies just don't want you to know that. It takes the equivalent to 1.2 or more barrels of oil or energy to extract one barrel of oil with SAGD. And that's neglecting all of the overpressure blowouts and other things that have happened that have created large craters. But somehow that gets covered up?? Hmm by who I wonder, but SAGD proponents.
Mining using clean technology is far better for the environment than SAGD. Just because SAGD doesn't immediately affect the land above it doesn't mean that toxins are not being released.


Also might I add that the ONLY mining property EVER to have received it's environmental bond back was a part of Syncrude's reclained boreal forest. It was later revoked because some of the trees were planted in rows... but I digress. MOST mining properties do not live up to half or what the Oilsands do. It is not dirty oil. There is more research money being put into reclamation in the oilsands than dare I say the rest of the mining industry world wide. Hundreds of millions of dollars go into research and development of reclamation in the sands.
There are places in the world where tailings are dumped into rivers.
The coal industry alone is responsible for far more environmental damage from ARD. Then look to places with less environmental regulation like Indonesia, South America and India and there are literally yellow and red rivers from toxic mine waste coming from unreclaimed sites.
And this is without mentioning tailings dam failures in Europe and world wide that directly kill hundreds and thousands of people every year.


So, please don't call the oil sands dirty without doing your research. In the Athabasca region oil actually drips into the river naturally from outcrops of the oilsands formations.
Is there disruption of the ecosystems from mining, yes. I do truly believe that it can be temporary and that the boreal forest can be reclaimed and turned back into a working ecosystem. Open pit mining is way better for the environment (and world energy balance) than SAGD. And let's also remember that the oilsands have been actively mined for over 100 years. They are not a "new thing".
So take it from someone who is in academia researching new reclamation techniques, beyond even what is being employed in the oilsands and who has probably done more academic research into energy balance and safe mine reclamation processes in undergrad, industry and graduate/research level work than you. The oil sands are not dirty oil and actually produce far less environmental impact than the materials in the watch you wear, the phone you use, the computer you are typing on and especially the coal that is powering your home. Google "Acid Rock Drainage". That is the number one problem in mining, not some blip on the radar oilsands deposit in the middle of nowhere.


And I will say again, for emphasis. SAGD is the devil's extraction process. So little research has been put into it that overpressure of wells and literally blowing 2 mile wide craters into the boreal forest is almost normal. Open pit mining has hundreds of years of research put into it and the extraction method in the oil sands has been perfected all that time. They used to use BWEs to get the sands out, now they are into truck/shovel and are developing ways to just pipeline the sands straight from the face. The water removal systems for the tailings are absolutely unparalleled world wide as far as research and development, costs to implement and ingenuity. They have the worlds best working there year round to develop the best in mining technology. And as far as toxic tailings go - their tailings are actually quite benign. Once the water is removed from the sand, it is just plain sand. And I've stuck my fingers in their tails more than once and am still alive. The only issue with the tails is that they can't be reclaimed immediately because of the high water content (ie the ground is not stable enough to walk on). IMO the most toxic things in those tailings piles are the drowned dozers.

OK, here's Tar Sands 101

Tar Sands Basics

If you think open pit mining is just fine and hunky dory, we will agree to disagree. The fact that the Alberta Environment has issued Environmental Protection Orders to address unacceptable levels of H2S emissions at oil sands site near Fort McMurray is a bit concerning for some. Tell me waht they are doing with the vanadium, nickel, lead, cobalt, mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, copper, manganese, iron and zinc are naturally present in oil sands and may be concentrated by the extraction process? Why is the European Union considering labeling this product as "highly polluting". Yes, I know that the consultant hired by the oil companies, Jacobs Consulting, is claiming the EU used poor info, but they have not come up with the particulars, to my knowledge. However, even THEY admit that carbon emissions from this process emits 12% higher emissions than from regular crude.

Let's talk about the HUGE amount of water needed for this process. Even with recycling, almost all of it ends up in tailings ponds. As of 2007, tailing ponds in Canada covered an area of approximately 50 square kilometres (19 sq mi). However, in SAGD operations, 90–95% of the water is recycled and only about 0.2 volume units of water is used per volume unit of bitumen produced. This does NOT mean I support SAGD, but it serves to show that open pit mining is just not as "low impact" as you are claiming. They are STILL unable to track the release of the napthenic acids, to my knowledge.

How about the growing higher than normal cancer rate in the residents of Fort Chipewyan? In August 2011, the Alberta government initiated a provincial health study of the link between the higher rates of cancer and the oil sands. The fact that moose in the area now have 33 times the acceptable ARSENIC levels (one of the byproducts of this process), making it unsafe for human consumption, is worrying.

As for reclaiming the lands destroyed by open pit mining, I have done little delving into. I am not sure how many areas have actually had restoration attempted, other than some "showplace areas" that are meant for public viewing. However, some articles I have read make it sound a bit gloomy.

Rebuilding land destroyed by oil-sands may not restore it, researchers say - The Globe and Mail

Good luck with your work in this area.

Gosh I could go on. Anebel, while I am not viewing this from the "inside" as you are, I am absolutely not unaware of this problem. In conclusion, I am not against the refining of oil from the sands. Do I think they are doing a poorer job than they could ($$$)? Yes, but the oil WILL be mined regardless. But to come here and trivialize the impact by saying it is all about little duckies is sad.

Man, I am really having to bite my tongue here.

Suffice it to say that I put little credence in "academia" when it comes to "real world" issues. Academia is just that - academia...it serves its purpose providing research and advancing theories, but the real world is where the rubber meets the road...what some would call reality.

Some or most of you know that I was a Geophysicist in the oil business, from which I retired many years ago, having worked for both oil companies and contractors to oil companies, primarily in the area of exploration and well site selection, and to a much lesser degree, production.

I cannot address the Canadian "tar sands" directly as I have no experience working there - or with crude bitumen at all for that matter. However I can tell you that the activites and methods of oil companies and their contractors are often far removed from what one gleans from a textbook or from academia.

The oil business was good to me -- enabling me to retire at age 38, so I have nothing against the industry from a personal standpoint. However when you work in an industry (any industry if you occupy a position of responsibility) you participate in the inner workings and business side of the industry. Like many industries, the oil and gas industries do what it takes to make the highest possible profit for their owners or shareholders. They lie, cheat, cut corners, violate regulations, and anything else they can do to increase their profit. Invariably they put forth leaving a pristine environment to obtain permits and coiuple that with high paying jobs to win the support of the local people, who are those most affected by their environmental polution and destruction. It happens time after time after time, and has been particularly of note in the US in the last 20 years because of the poor financial condition of our state governments, who, hungry for the revenue provided by exploration, drilling, and production, join the industry in painting a rosey picture to their state residents of better roads and schools, and a better state economy due to the increased state revenues and (relatively) high paying jobs. States such as Pennsylvania and Arkansas, among others, have found out too late they have been sold a bill of goods. Most of the revenue has to be used to repair roads and infrastructure damaged by oil and gas company activities, and within a couple of years it becomes obvious that the "pristine" environment they promise turns out to be a fairy tale. The reality is they destroy the environment, affect ecological balances, and create Earth, air, water, and noise polution.

Now don't misunderstand me - I generally support drilling and production activities. But I get a bit miffed when people refer to particular activities as clean or minimally destructive. There is no method of oil or gas drilling and extraction that is not destructive. And careless and covert operations by the oil and gas companies makes it worse than it has to be. It is what it is, and it should be considered a trade-off for the benefits we derive. I do not subscribe to arguments of the relativity of environmental destruction - the environment is left as is or it isn't...there is an ecological affect or there isn't. The argument is whether we are willing to cause damage to our environment in exchange for our perceived needs and desires - not the relativity of the damage.

I have been in academia, and I have been in the real world, and can assure you there is a large difference between theory and reality - as there is in virtually any industry or profession...

I totally agree with you, Face. Anebels response sounds like it came right out of an oil company's press release.

She says;


The bolded statements simply made my jaw drop to the ground. Anyone who thinks you can replace peat covered fens by planting a few plants just to make it look nice has no idea how to replace the original FUNCTIONALITY as opposed to trying to make it look pretty. Peat fens are fragile and not so easily replaced. Their loss will have huge and unknown effects.

Face - IMO O&G has not been subject to the scrutiny of mining.
Let's face it (and Allison's pictures show it) mining is ugly. SAGD is underground, not visible, drilling is underground and not visible, etc.. and these are all things which the public assume is "safe" or "safer" when in reality they might not be (like SAGD).

There was a large debate in my area about a new high voltage power line going in. The public consensus was that if the line was buried, it would be OK, but it's dangerous if the lines were up in the air, a hundred feet overhead. When in reality, burying the lines brings the "dangerous" EMR waves closer to people and their families. But try to explain this to the public and NOPE, you're wrong. Because if it's buried you can't see it and therefore it's safe.
This is the attitude of the public and it is wrong. Therefore things which make big ugly holes in the ground, like mining, and especially something like oil sands, get put under tons (excuse the pun) of scrutiny.
In reality, unless you are mining something like Uranium, in general, close to surface deposits are far more safely mined with open pit or strip methods. Old close to surface coal mines (which are unmapped) are collapsing and causing subsidence sink holes and related damage all over the US and Europe. Not to mention the vast amounts of water in these old works being exposed to ARD and becoming acid and toxic.
And we think that won't happen in SAGD? Because it has been happening.

Yes, mining is meant to make money. However, they are under more legislation and regulation and far more closely monitored that O&G. As I stated before, Oilsands companies pour hundreds of millions of dollars into environmental R&D. And no, not just for tourist areas. The whole thing. The reason much of the oilsands hasn't been reclaimed is because of aforementioned tailings which cannot have stuff on top of them because it will sink. But as dewatering technologies are better, more is able to be reclaimed faster.
Allison, you might be aware of the Copper Cliff mine - aka Sudbury. There is a lot of reclaimed land there using a similar technology to the one I am working with, a precursor if you will. The tails in the oilsands will eventually have a similar cover system (once they are solidified) and that is where all these toxic minerals are contained, is within the cover system. Much like all the toxic things underneath Sudbury. This is not a fancy new technology. There has again, been tens of millions of dollars put into cover research. There's a whole damn conference on them held every year.

Most of the research into mining is funded by industry, and not selectively to things which benefit companies, due to programs like MEND and USBM. I do lots of work directly with companies looking for solutions to environmental issues. Academia in mining is different than other types of academia. There are real life solutions being developed, researched and implemented by professors and their research staff. Mining has such a tarnished image (and especially the oilsands) that they can't afford to make screw ups or cut corners. And this IMO is a widely held belief amongst North American, European and Australian mining companies. I've worked in ops at a relatively low key mine that's again, been operating for tens of years on a deposit that's been mined for over a hundred years, and they give a ****. Their reclaimed land is very fertile and produces unpolluted crops. They are right near the shore of a recreational lake and the lake has fishable fish (is that a word?). And in NA, this is not an anomaly for modern mines.

And you sound like the only website you read is Greenpeace and othe env. Act. Sites. There is a balance.

I do agree that peat bogs are not easily replaced, however, SAGD is not a solution and IMO will cause more long term damage. Mining is a proven technology and while our reclamation practices are not perfect and we can't recreate a landscape, contrary to your beliefs, there are millions upon millions of dollars poured into these issues and papers written 3-5 years ago are already considered to be obsolete in terms of reclamation technology.

Convenient answer. They will not be reclaimed any time in the near future, I suspect, because they have created a totally unsustainable landscape.

Can you post before and after shots. And, are the after shots more than just "replanted" ground? Are they functioning as the wetlands fuctioned before?

Having lived with tailings from Molly mines in Colorado for 11 years, you are foolish to believe that these toxic chemicals will remain conveniently confined forever. Nature has a nasty way of creating massive releases, as we have seen in Co. As you state, this land will take more than a few decades to become "settled". We have seen tailings "mudslides" that revealed what they believed was forever buried and sealed.

And I doubt little more needs to be said on that account.

Your vision of the differences in academia is a little unsettling. You make it sound like the difference is really where their FUNDING come from. Hmmm....maybe there IS a difference after all. They "can't afford to cut corners? You really believe they haven't? Wow.

I'd need to see details on the contaminant studies with such crops...and not ones done by that company. But, the issue is with the wetlands being replaced, not just being turned into croplands. These wetlands have a big impact on the CONTROL of water held in these lands affecting drought control. How is this "sponge effect" that the destroyed layers of soil/peat laying on top of the sands, going to be reinvented?


This is just another example of toxic energy. It is certainly no better than our country's attempts at growing the technology for improved renewable energy to replace it.

A few responses...

I think you perhaps underestimate the extent to which oil and gas companies are regulated - at least here in the US...again, I can't speak to Canada.

Public attitude, and we have to assume the public is basically ignorant (no offense to anyone - not everyone is a scientist), is normally based upon their personal observations, experience, and the media. It is the responsibility of the oil and gas companies to convince the public - it is not the responsibility of the public to educate itself.

Academia is academia - the discipline is irrelevant. Academia is a bubble, insulated from the real world...it always has been, and always will be. Although it is, of course, a comedy, I am reminded of the movie "Back to School", where Rodney Dangerfield tried to no avail to interject real world issues into a discussion about operating a business to a stuffy business professor. Exaggeration? Of course, but it makes a point nonetheless.

I am well aware of the involvement of private industry with Universities and research. One of the colleges I attended was University of Missouri and I participated in an academic/research program with 5 other students under the guidance of Union Carbide my Freshman and Sophomore years in the Biology Department, performing research on gibberellins and thalidomide, among other things. However, that is quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. R & D departments or divisions at large corporations are themselves as isolated and removed from practical applications as academia is. I have worked for Chevron Geophysical and Exxon Production Research Company, and am well aware of corporate structures.

Lastly, it is naive to conclude that oil and gas companies perform R & D becasue they are concerned with the environment. They do so to minimally meet government regulations - otherwise called "show". If they truly cared about the environment, they would fix the destruction they have caused in the last 100 years - which is substantial. One does not have to go far to see the destruction that has been caused by mining and oil and gas production in the last 20, 50, or 100 years, and the companies are still here - as is their legacy...