Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
From today's Globe and Mail:
Over the past 40 years, industry has contributed a total of $820-million to Alberta’s Environmental Protection Security Fund, which is required by the province to contain sufficient cash, bonds and letters of credit to “cover the cost of reclamation in case the operator is unable to complete reclamation on the site.”
But a lengthy analysis by the Pembina Institute, a sustainable energy research and advocacy group, finds that it will cost far more to return north-eastern Alberta’s open pit mines and lakes of mine effluent to an “equivalent land capability,” the provincially-required standard for cleanup once extraction work has finished.
Industry has an unfunded cleanup liability of $10 to $15-billion, equivalent to $4,300 to $6,300 per Alberta taxpayer, the group calculated. In total 686 square kilometres of land have been disturbed by mining, while mine effluent has been stored in lakes that now spread over 170 square kilometres.
Over the past 40 years, industry has contributed a total of $820-million to Alberta’s Environmental Protection Security Fund, which is required by the province to contain sufficient cash, bonds and letters of credit to “cover the cost of reclamation in case the operator is unable to complete reclamation on the site.”
But a lengthy analysis by the Pembina Institute, a sustainable energy research and advocacy group, finds that it will cost far more to return north-eastern Alberta’s open pit mines and lakes of mine effluent to an “equivalent land capability,” the provincially-required standard for cleanup once extraction work has finished.
Industry has an unfunded cleanup liability of $10 to $15-billion, equivalent to $4,300 to $6,300 per Alberta taxpayer, the group calculated. In total 686 square kilometres of land have been disturbed by mining, while mine effluent has been stored in lakes that now spread over 170 square kilometres.
There always seems to be money, Cliff, the boys at the mint just get a little overtime. :lol::lol:
Rhetorical comeback?.. What the pembina institute announced is entirely within it's MO. They are a lobby group Cliffy; this message may have well been delivered by Green Peace.
Read what pembina's goal is/was: "to return north-eastern Alberta’s open pit mines and lakes of mine effluent to an “equivalent land capability".. Much of that land was sparsely vegetated to begin with due to the fact that the oil sands are at surface (or very close) and is of limited use to anyone... So, it really wouldn't take much to return it useless land, would it?
Fact is, the land will be returned to better than it was before. And the money is there Cliffy, Ten Penny, Bar Sinister and Dumpthemonarchy choose to ignore it as they wouldn't have any conspiracy theories to flock towards.
Yes, rhetorical comeback. It's actually an ad hominem.
Go read (or re-read) this thread. Your assertion is not a fact. Pay attention to the studies which have found reduced fungal communities in the soil, reduced biodiversity, reduced nitrogen cycling, and reduced carbon cycling for starters. On land supposedly returned to a condition better than that of the pre-industrial use.
Better than it was before? I think not. If you think that is better than it was before, I'd like to know just what better than before means to you...
Last edited:
What can one expect when a special interest group disseminates information that is partly incorrect, partly incomplete and mostly politically motivated.
I've been through that thread before. If you have a specific post(s) that prove your claim, then let me know.
You didn't even read it. That's what makes it a logical fallacy...
I already told you which posts to look for. One of the links Kakato supplied in fact stated that the soil in a site reclaimed for 20 years was not better than it was before, not even equal to the soil before.
So, what data can you post that is any better than his, which didn't support the contention that land is left better than the condition it was in before mining?
Let's see your links. I won't hold my breath, you've proved time and again that you can't even provide links to scientific findings.
I think maybe we have to change our thinking. We should think of the world in the way we would a large city, there is a residential area, a business area, an industrial area, a utility area and an area dedicated to parks, trails and recreation. So I think it's fair to expect that part of the world (as small as possible naturally) be dedicated to the production of natural resources, with the only environmental consideration being that once the mining etc. is complete it can be put back to a pristine state- in other words don't f**k it up beyond the point of no return. I can sympathize with the philosophy of our First Nations people (keep everything pristine and in park like condition) and that worked well while the mode of travel was birch bark, or cedar canoes and means of livelihood was limited to hunting and fishing, but for some reason we don't want those limitations anymore.
Reclaiming land is a relatively new concept in the mining biz, but the problem with the oil industry is that they have drilled thousands of wells on farmland, land that is not scrub, was and is currently productive. The farmers get to live forever around the fumes that come out of these wells.
But now, as Alberta gets a bit more populated and politically active, people wonder why Big Oil gets such a free ride. So now the tar sands are targetted here. Times change and Big Oil has to get with the program. Hit and run is getting old.
Big Oil subsidies need to end so people in the McMansions pay more to heat their cheap palaces.
But now, as Alberta gets a bit more populated and politically active, people wonder why Big Oil gets such a free ride. So now the tar sands are targetted here. Times change and Big Oil has to get with the program. Hit and run is getting old.
Big Oil subsidies need to end so people in the McMansions pay more to heat their cheap palaces.
Reclamation companies have been operating strongly in AB for in excess of 20 years... The concept isn't new in the oil/gas industry.
You're a shill for The Pembina Institute, aren't you?
Nat gas is very abundant in AB... There is no risk in the cost rising too much for heating your 10,000 sqft house... It's one of the Alberta Advantages.
Supporting the corporate agenda of private profit and public profit is old old old.
Big Oil needs a kick in the butt about reclamation. They and the govt will do as little as possible unless their asses are kicked.
I'm no shill for anyone.
Natural gas is abundant many say. Fracking is evidence that this may not be so. But then some don't mind the tradeoff of damaging groundwater forever for some gas. This is a sign of peak oil, trying to get some really tough hydrocarbons.
Big Oil needs a kick in the butt about reclamation. They and the govt will do as little as possible unless their asses are kicked.
I'm no shill for anyone.
Natural gas is abundant many say. Fracking is evidence that this may not be so. But then some don't mind the tradeoff of damaging groundwater forever for some gas. This is a sign of peak oil, trying to get some really tough hydrocarbons.
Yeah, rriiight.. You're not a shill for Pembina
Drive around Brooks AB, the stuff is very shallow and very abundent.
the water you speak of is deep and saline. It is not potable... You guys at pembina institute know that.
Yeah, I'm a shill for those who want a cleaner environment and and an end to subsidies to Big Oil. There are thousands of abandoned wells in Alta, and they reek.
Some areas have relatively easy access to gas, but not everywhere. It is a fact that fracking causes much more damage than drilling on its own.
And you contend they are leaving the land in better condition. I disagree.
Since you refuse to look for yourself, I've made an image from a screen capture of the study Kakato submitted to us in the other thread I informed you of.
The study analyzed the microbial activity in the soil and the nitrogen mineralization in the soil of reclaimed sites at the Syncrude Midred Lake mine site.
I've included their Table 1 as an attachment to this post.
If you look at it, you'll see that the reclaimed sites are characterized by:
- more dense soil than undisturbed boreal soil, which will have consequences on soil gas exchanges and penetration of surface water;
- warmer soil temperature than the undisturbed boreal soil;
- soil which is less acidic than the undisturbed boreal soil,
- soil with far less total carbon and nitrogen than the undisturbed boreal soil,
- soil with far less dissolved organic nitrogen and carbon than undisturbed boreal soil.
In no way can that reclaimed land be called better than the condition it was found.
This is the study that Kakato thought is evidence of improved land left by companies like Syncrude.
So, sure companies have been reclaiming land for 20 years. But what they have left behind is not better than what was found there before. It's arrogant in the extreme to think we can engineer wilderness better than nature has already provided. It's ignorant in the extreme to think that what is left behind is "better".
The Pembina institute has an agenda,too bad they have to exagerrate so bad on what clean up costs,no wonder they have no credibility to those who know what it costs.Suncor's huge coke piles will be gone in a year and a bit at a fraction of the cost the pembina institute said it would cost,thats 2 tailings ponds,one coke pile and another tailings pond in a couple years,quite an achievement actually and sorry but it didnt cost billions like some keep saying it would.
Maybe look up the directive the govt. put out for cleanup,cant remember which one it is but it will not only be achieved but it will be surpassed.
I cant understand why the people that keep whining about the cleanup of the oilsands are so ignorant about what is actually going on concerning clean up.
Some folks should do more research and not biased research either.
I think it mostly boils down to jelousy sometimes or just a hate on for Alberta.
Yet the wildlife are thriving at mildred better then the land that is undisturbed by mining.
The microbes will come back on their own,like thats going to harm anything anyway.
So ya,as far as wildlife and the well being of the wildlife,it is good reclamation and considering how long ago it happenned and the technology they didnt have that we have now I think they did a pretty good job.
Try do a study of pond1 at suncor bud,then you will be in the future as reclamation of it was just completed this summer and trees are allready growing along with native grass where it was just sand in june.
And Gerry sells and installs furnaces,wonder if they use gas and where it comes from.
It must be GreenPeace approved, eco-methane... bJust lke the same nat gas, gasoline and oil that the rest of the hypocrites use.
and, of course, Suncor doesn't.
riiiiiiiiight.:roll:
What does what I do for a living have to do with me feeling that a better job could and should be done by the oil company's and the Alberta government. You and cappy seem to think that if one criticizes the mighty oil company's and/or the Alberta government and the environmental job they are doing then that person should be willing to forgo all gas and oil products and go live in the bush. A very simplistic outlook from a pair of simpletons.