Tarsands 'most destructive project on Earth': report

[CBC News]

The federal government has allowed Alberta's oilsands to become the "most destructive project on Earth" by failing to impose the required environmental restrictions, an environmental group says in a report released Friday in Ottawa.
"Canada's progress on global warming is being held hostage by the tar sands," the Environmental Defence report says, adding that the tar sands are "ground zero" for global warming because of the precedent they set for the rest of Canada.
Beyond setting a precedent, the group's report says the oilsands negatively affect much of the country through polluted water and air in Alberta, acid rain in Saskatchewan and harmful emissions from refining in Ontario.
"There's nowhere else on Earth that we're talking about destroying an area the size of Florida," said Matt Price, program manager with Environmental Defence, at a news conference. "There is nowhere else on Earth where you have toxic ponds that are so big that you can now see them from space."
Full story
Is the environmental destruction worth it?


More...

 

[GreenFish66]

yes ..Dirty ol/ tar sands...TAR- SANDS..Can't get any dirtier than those two words !

 

[Risus]

Unfortunately the potential of the tar sands is incredible, and a worth while project. These environmental groups will regret it if they have their way and their future generation(s) will have to pedal a bike everywhere because oil is a thing of the past....

 

[darkbeaver]

Unfortunately the potential of the tar sands is incredible, and a worth while project. These environmental groups will regret it if they have their way and their future generation(s) will have to pedal a bike everywhere because oil is a thing of the past....

The only potential it offers at all is environmental damage that the recovered oil cannot in any way address. It is actually a complete and unmitagateable disaster that we will regret as long as Canada exists. It was forcast to be a disaster before the first shovelfull was turned but the bank slobs held sway again and there is literally nothing they won't ruin for money.

 

[Trex]

The federal government has allowed Alberta's oilsands to become the "most destructive project on Earth" by failing to impose the required environmental restrictions, an environmental group says in a report released Friday in Ottawa.
"Canada's progress on global warming is being held hostage by the tar sands," the Environmental Defence report says, adding that the tar sands are "ground zero" for global warming because of the precedent they set for the rest of Canada.
Beyond setting a precedent, the group's report says the oilsands negatively affect much of the country through polluted water and air in Alberta, acid rain in Saskatchewan and harmful emissions from refining in Ontario.
"There's nowhere else on Earth that we're talking about destroying an area the size of Florida," said Matt Price, program manager with Environmental Defence, at a news conference. "There is nowhere else on Earth where you have toxic ponds that are so big that you can now see them from space."
Full story
Is the environmental destruction worth it?


More...

Most people agree that the Tar-sands are an eyesore and require increasingly stringent clean up requirements.
I mean parts of it are a strip mine after all.
But the above post is total drivel and completely erroneous.
The author has already been forced to apologise for the errors.

Its nowhere near the "most destructive project on Earth"
The strip-mined areas are probably smaller than PEI- forget Florida.
Most of the project is underground wells utilizing SAGD.
Most of the water used is saline from underground wells and re-injected.
Having said that it certainly does need to be subject to ever increasing environmental standards.
And those settling ponds need a lot of work.

But really folks, what about the Three Gorges dam in China?
Draining lake Baikal in Russia?
Knocking the tops of complete mountain chains in Kentucky for the coal?
Draining and channeling the Everglades courtesy of the US corps of engineers?
The vast "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico?

I have seen firsthand what China, Russia and India's industrial sectors look like.
It's like the Moon. Totally sterile, its dead, nothing moves.
Except the underpaid workers, and some of those guys look like something out of a George Romano flick.
God help them.

Totally exaggerating Canada's industries environmental impact does in my opinion more harm than good.
Everyone knows about the little boy who cried wolf.
By blatantly lying about a projects impact you simply provide that particular project's PR and spinmeisters more ammunition to work with.
In other words by exaggerating the scope of the problem more harm than good is don from an environmental perspective.

IMHO

Trex

 

[Risus]

The only potential it offers at all is environmental damage that the recovered oil cannot in any way address. It is actually a complete and unmitagateable disaster that we will regret as long as Canada exists. It was forcast to be a disaster before the first shovelfull was turned but the bank slobs held sway again and there is literally nothing they won't ruin for money.

We disagree... get your bike ready...

 

[scratch]

Whatever is done with it, it is still a resource.

 

[#juan]

Most people agree that the Tar-sands are an eyesore and require increasingly stringent clean up requirements.
I mean parts of it are a strip mine after all.
But the above post is total drivel and completely erroneous.
The author has already been forced to apologise for the errors.
I have been there and I have worked there and the Tar Sands are not just an eyesore, they are a threat to anyone living within a hundred and fifty miles or more of that bloody debacle, where on most days just the smell gives you a headache.

Its nowhere near the "most destructive project on Earth"
The strip-mined areas are probably smaller than PEI- forget Florida.

Oh come on. Where do you get your mis-information? The strip-mined area will be larger than Florida.
Most of the project is underground wells utilizing SAGD.
Most of the water used is saline from underground wells and re-injected.

Most of the water used is from the increasingly polluted Athabaska River.
Having said that it certainly does need to be subject to ever increasing environmental standards. They have no standards at the moment, anything would be better.
And those settling ponds need a lot of work. Calling them settling ponds is very kind. A few months back a few hundred geese landed on one of those "settling ponds" and none of them survived.

 

[#juan]

 

[Trex]

Most people agree that the Tar-sands are an eyesore and require increasingly stringent clean up requirements.
I mean parts of it are a strip mine after all.
But the above post is total drivel and completely erroneous.
The author has already been forced to apologise for the errors.
I have been there and I have worked there and the Tar Sands are not just an eyesore, they are a threat to anyone living within a hundred and fifty miles or more of that bloody debacle, where on most days just the smell gives you a headache.
I have been there as well.
I say they are no great threat at all, just another open pit strip mine.
An eyesore just like all the others.
The "industrial " smell there is nothing compared to the "red air" in the developing worlds construction zones.
So its your opinion against mine.

Its nowhere near the "most destructive project on Earth"
The strip-mined areas are probably smaller than PEI- forget Florida.
Oh come on. Where do you get your mis-information? The strip-mined area will be larger than Florida.
Oh come yourself and do a little research for heavens sake, quit being so lazy.
Misinformation my tush.
"quote"
Pembina institute:

❚​

​

​

​

Area of boreal forest leased for oil sands​

mining development: 3,000 km2
"unquote"
That's from the Pembina Institute a completely anti-development green institution.
And that's just leased land not developed land.
So its the maximum possible, future size.

The area of Florida is 45,153 sq miles.
The author of that erroneous report apologized live on the news for his errors.


Most of the project is underground wells utilizing SAGD.
Most of the water used is saline from underground wells and re-injected.
Most of the water used is from the increasingly polluted Athabasca River.
I disagree although they are using roughly the same amount of water from the Athabasca as Calgary uses from the Bow.
I do not believe any further draw-down from the Athabasca will be permitted ( however I am not sure about the Governments future plans)
Currently (and for years) they are drilling saline water wells and re-injecting into porous reservoirs.
Been there, done that.

Having said that it certainly does need to be subject to ever increasing environmental standards. They have no standards at the moment, anything would be better.
Once again you make things up as you go along.
The tar sand s are governed by the same Municipal, Provincial and Federal rules and regulations as any other industrial site in Canada. Just because you don't like the standards set by the Municipality, Province or Federal Government certainly doesn't mean they magically cease to exist

And those settling ponds need a lot of work. Calling them settling ponds is very kind. A few months back a few hundred geese landed on one of those "settling ponds" and none of them survived.

They were ducks

Trex

 

[#juan]

Trex

Yeah they were ducks and it was five hundred of them........All dead.

The area of Florida is 45,153 sq. miles and the area covered by the tar sands is 54,000 sq. miles.

How many more toxic tailing ponds will we see over the next ten years and who will clean them up. The existing "ponds" are already leaching into the river.

You say the tar sands are governed by the same municipal, Provincial, and federal regulation as any other industrial site but we both know that is BS. If someone made a quarter of the mess within twenty miles of Cagary, they would be shut down immediately.

 

[scratch]

B.S.

 

[Trex]

Juan,
I beseech you, please learn to read BEFORE you cut and paste.
Everything you said was wrong and verifiable so and everything I said was pretty much correct.
What I wonder is why you cant be bothered to check it out before you re-post.
Google is your friend Juan.

Quote
" Juan
Yeah they were ducks and it was five hundred of them........All dead.

The area of Florida is 45,153 sq. miles and the area covered by the tar sands is 54,000 sq. miles.

How many more toxic tailing ponds will we see over the next ten years and who will clean them up. The existing "ponds" are already leaching into the river.

You say the tar sands are governed by the same municipal, Provincial, and federal regulation as any other industrial site but we both know that is BS. If someone made a quarter of the mess within twenty miles of Cagary, they would be shut down immediately.
"
Unquote

Yes I know they were ducks , I told you that, and I also know 500 of them died.
And granted it is no excuse but about 10,000 of em get killed every fall by the old Wing-master 870.

The article in question says they were going to "destroy-(hence mine) and area the size of Florida"
Total BS Juan.
Just because you WANT to believe it Juan just doesn't make it so.
The Author has apologized for the error in public Juan.
The Environmental Defence organization has removed that statement from their website.

Here is a link from the Canadian Atlas Juan.

The Canadian Atlas Online - Central Plains

It says the size of the underground deposit geologically speaking is located in 4 provinces.
And the geological deposit as surveyed to date is the size of New Brunswick.
What a coincidence....that's what I said.

The maximum are set aside to strip mine, and this means the overburden depth is thin enough to run a truck and shovel or drag line operation.
Is once again as follows:
Quote
Pembina institute:
Area of boreal forest leased for oil sands
mining development: 3,000 km2
Unquote.
That's from the Pembina institute Juan the foremost and most public enemy of the Tar sands development.
Personally I would think they would tend to over-exaggerated not under-exaggerate.

Juan do you really believe that Municipal, Provincial and Federal environmental regulations vary by geographic location?
Can you imagine working for the department of energy and natural resources or the biologists and environmentalists working for fish and wildlife?
Every quarter mile or so a whole new set of rules and regulations?
You really think that's how it works Juan?

I'm pretty sure you know what you posted is completely out to lunch Juan.
You just don't want to admit it.

I am not defending to Tar sands extraction.
I just wish people would more or less stick to the truth so that we all can make a slightly more informed opinion of the subject in question.

Trex

 

[scratch]

Trex,
With all due respect to you.
Make your comment shorter and to the point.
Verbosity does not impress anyone smart enough to know that you keep writing to try and make a `very simple point`.
One way or the other.

 

[darkbeaver]

So what is the most destructive project on earth Trex? And how do we measure that?

 

[darkbeaver]

Trex,
With all due respect to you.
Make your comment shorter and to the point.
Verbosity does not impress anyone smart enough to know that you keep writing to try and make a `very simple point`.
One way or the other.

Be nice scratch, it was a very nicely done post, rich in information and very nice to read. I don't see no problem.:smile:

 

[scratch]

Well, d.b.,
I does see a problem.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well, d.b.,
I does see a problem.

Yu does?

 

[Trex]

Trex,
With all due respect to you.
Make your comment shorter and to the point.
Verbosity does not impress anyone smart enough to know that you keep writing to try and make a `very simple point`.
One way or the other.

Well Scratch that may be true.
And I'll consider your point of view.
But keep in mind I tend to post links and very short quotes as versus pages of cut-n-paste.
I'll grant you I may drone on endlessly,
but at least its more or less my own thoughts and opinions.
Trex

 

[Trex]

So what is the most destructive project on earth Trex? And how do we measure that?

I certainly don't know DB but its an excellent question.
I guess they are all bad and its really a case of the worst of the worst.

Perhaps the worst project is the one that's planned to go into your own back yard.
We are all NIMBY's.
And we all contribute to sucking up the resources.

I am no apologist for corporations that take and take and then walk away from the damage that remains.
I just think we should be realistic and factually correct in our assessments.

As to how to measure the worst of the worst?
No clue.
But it will probably be to late and after the fact.

Trex