Canadian Oil: At What Price?
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 12. 9.05
Most of you are already aware of the damage caused by the burning and the extraction of oil (like the apprehended damage caused by extraction in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, for example). But what about the famous Canadian tar sands? After only two years of digging for bitumen near Fort McMurray in Alberta, Shell has already dug up a pit that is as much as three miles wide and 200 feet deep. 400-ton trucks, said to be the largest in the world, are used to move around all that dirt, and it takes a lot of it since on average 2 tons of tar sand are required to make 1 barrel of oil.
The oil operation has been a boon for Fort McMurray and its people. But some observers are worried about the facility's impact on the environment.After processing the sand to extract its oily component, the gigantic holes dug in the earth are refilled and planted with trees. But the refilled mine pits rarely match the original terrain, and replanting programs so far have resulted in forests that resemble Christmas tree farms.
So much for repairing the damage done.
But companies are now moving away from these huge pits; a new technique allows them to inject steam directly into the soil to melt the tar enough so that it can be pumped back to the surface.
Whatever the process used, it takes a great deal of energy to recover bitumen and turn it into oil. An enormous amount of greenhouse gases are released in the process.In fact, making oil from tar sands produces two or three times more greenhouse gases than producing conventional oil.
How do they produce so much energy? With natural gas, of course. It is one of the main reasons why Canada has so much trouble meeting its obligations under the Kyoto treaty.
Because the cost of natural gas has quadrupled in recent times and with the coming of peak natural gas, the Canadian tar sands should become more and more expensive as time goes on (most companies there have already run way over their predicted costs), both in monetary and environmental costs.
Photos credit: Martin Kaste, NPR
I have heard there are two plans to get more energy to process the Tar Sands. First I believe the Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline is one of the proposed solutions. The other is to use coal. Also the process uses tremendous amounts of water.
Check out the Pembina Institute (http://pembina.org/) for more environmental information on the Tar Sands.
The Tar Sands are a horrible legacy for the world and they plan to make it much bigger. We in Canada should be ashamed of ourselves.
Something related, from the Pembina Institute here in Alberta.
I have blogged about their latest video here:
http://www.grandinite.com/2005/12/08/oil-sands-fever/
It's a very well done piece. You should link to it in this blog post because it's totally related.
ok before anything let me just tell you (TH) that commenting in this untreehugger category is really gross... you haveta scroll over all tehse awful pictures oil, disposables, hurt turtles, throwaway instantly heating cups... seriously that hurt just to write this down (woudlnt hav ebeen the case if i was commenting in a nice fluffy part of TH i know)
ok on the Tar Sands. everyone ought to read what Pembina has to say on the issue. It has got to be the most wasteful way of getting energy. The water needs and electricity need make any gains negligble...
beyond that there's the economics of it. FOrt MacMurray, Syncrude (get it Sin + Crude) and the rest woudln't even be there if it weren't for the fact that the previous government (thanks Jean, for all you.. er, gifts) gave 'em a $5BN Tax break. That's right no taxes for the forst 5 Billion dollars in revenues (if/when...)
wouldn't you like to see a $5Bn tax break for wind or wave or passive solar? Sheesh!
...biggest mistake we ever made as Canadians since kicking the Rocket out of the last game in the Stanley Cup
"ok before anything let me just tell you (TH) that commenting in this untreehugger category is really gross... you haveta scroll over all tehse awful pictures oil, disposables, hurt turtles, throwaway instantly heating cups... seriously that hurt just to write this down (woudlnt hav ebeen the case if i was commenting in a nice fluffy part of TH i know)"
I know what you're saying. If it makes you feel better, at the end of the post there are two buttons called "jump to read comments" and "jump to post" that will get you directly down there, without having to scroll.
Having watched a program on the oilsands on I think the National Geographic channel I am greatly bothered by all the damage that goes into extracting oil this way. Clear cutting forests, digging huge open pit mines and they also showed the huge tailing pond. It is a real shame what they are doing.
Building a nuclear power plant nearby the tar sands has been suggested as a replacement for natural gas. This would provide the steam needed to extract the oil from the bitumen and electricity to operate machinery. Also, Deffeyes has a good section about Canada's tar sands and the nuclear option in his book _Beyond Oil_.
Canadian Neighbors: I often get myself in trouble with my fellow US environmentalist friends when I argue that development of the Alaska Nat. Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)is far from the most important environmental problem we have, even though it seems to be getting all the publicity and fervor. My favorite argument is to compare ANWR with the much, much worse environmental damage caused by Canadian tar sands. US citizens know nothing about it, and really do not care. They think they can win this minor environmental struggle to preserve ANWR in its pristine state, and who cares if 1000 times more environmental damage is done by developing Canada's tar sands instead of ANWR? Meanwhile, species are going extinct to provide us cheap beef, global warming is set to collapse entire ecosystems and flood others, and mercury is being emitted into the atmosphere from our coal plants. Lets turn up the AC and go for a ride in the Lincoln Navigator. I think Canada ought to start challanging US environmentalists to explain why they are so worried about a few ice roads, gravel pads, and pipelines spread thinly over a huge distance in Alaska, while they ignore an entire landscape being strip mined in your country. Anyhow, it will all be moot once gasoline reaches $4/gallon, because in the end, Americans really care more about cheap gas than a bunch of carabou.
JPW