Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.
Post a reply

National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby frankthetank » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 00:46:08

Very good read... Love NGM...

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here the trapline and the cabin once were, and the forest, there is now a large open-pit mine. Here Syncrude, Canada's largest oil producer, digs bitumen-laced sand from the ground with electric shovels five stories high, then washes the bitumen off the sand with hot water and sometimes caustic soda. Next to the mine, flames flare from the stacks of an "upgrader," which cracks the tarry bitumen and converts it into Syncrude Sweet Blend, a synthetic crude that travels down a pipeline to refineries in Edmon­ton, Alberta; Ontario, and the United States. Mildred Lake, meanwhile, is now dwarfed by its neighbor, the Mildred Lake Settling Basin, a four-square-mile lake of toxic mine tailings. The sand dike that contains it is by volume one of the largest dams in the world.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')owhere on Earth is more earth being moved these days than in the Athabasca Valley. To extract each barrel of oil from a surface mine, the industry must first cut down the forest, then remove an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then two tons of the sand itself. It must heat several barrels of water to strip the bitumen from the sand and upgrade it, and afterward it discharges contaminated water into tailings ponds like the one near Mildred Lake. They now cover around 50 square miles. Last April some 500 migrating ducks mistook one of those ponds, at a newer Syncrude mine north of Fort McKay, for a hospitable stopover, landed on its oily surface, and died. The incident stirred international attention—Greenpeace broke into the Syncrude facility and hoisted a banner of a skull over the pipe discharging tailings, along with a sign that read "World's Dirtiest Oil: Stop the Tar Sands."


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Oil sands represent a decision point for North America and the world," says Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, a moderate and widely respected Canadian environmental group. "Are we going to get serious about alternative energy, or are we going to go down the unconventional-oil track? The fact that we're willing to move four tons of earth for a single barrel really shows that the world is running out of easy oil."


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout the river, there would be no oil sands industry. It's the river that over tens of millions of years has eroded away billions of cubic yards of sediment that once covered the bitumen, thereby bringing it within reach of shovels—and in some places all the way to the surface. On a hot summer day along the Athabasca, near Fort McKay for example, bitumen oozes from the riverbank and casts an oily sheen on the water. Early fur traders reported seeing the stuff and watching natives use it to caulk their canoes. At room temperature, bitumen is like molasses, and below 50°F or so it is hard as a hockey puck, as Canadians invariably put it. Once upon a time, though, it was light crude, the same liquid that oil companies have been pumping from deep traps in southern Alberta for nearly a century. Tens of millions of years ago, geologists think, a large volume of that oil was pushed northeastward, perhaps by the rise of the Rocky Mountains. In the process it also migrated upward, along sloping layers of sediment, until eventually it reached depths shallow and cool enough for bacteria to thrive. Those bacteria degraded the oil to bitumen


HERE IS GOOD STUFF!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Getting oil from oil sands is simple but not easy. The giant electric shovels that rule the mines have hardened steel teeth that each weigh a ton, and as those teeth claw into the abrasive black sand 24/7, 365 days a year, they wear down every day or two; a welder then plays dentist to the dinosaurs, giving them new crowns. The dump trucks that rumble around the mine, hauling 400-ton loads from the shovels to a rock crusher, burn 50 gallons of diesel fuel an hour; it takes a forklift to change their tires, which wear out in six months. And every day in the Athabasca Valley, more than a million tons of sand emerges from such crushers and is mixed with more than 200,000 tons of water that must be heated, typically to 175°F, to wash out the gluey bitumen. At the upgraders, the bitumen gets heated again, to about 900°F, and compressed to more than 100 atmospheres—that's what it takes to crack the complex molecules and either subtract carbon or add back the hydrogen the bacteria removed ages ago. That's what it takes to make the light hydrocarbons we need to fill our gas tanks. It takes a stupendous amount of energy. In situ extraction, which is the only way to get at around 80 percent of those 173 billion barrels, can use up to twice as much energy as mining, because it requires so much steam.

Most of the energy to heat the water or make steam comes from burning natural gas, which also supplies the hydrogen for upgrading. Precisely because it is hydrogen rich and mostly free of impurities, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, the one that puts the least amount of carbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Critics thus say the oil sands industry is wasting the cleanest fuel to make the dirtiest—that it turns gold into lead. The argument makes environmental but not economic sense, says David Keith, a physicist and energy expert at the University of Calgary. Each barrel of synthetic crude contains about five times more energy than the natural gas used to make it, and in much more valuable liquid form. "In economic terms it's a slam dunk," says Keith. "This whole thing about turning gold into lead—it's the other way around. The gold in our society is liquid transportation fuels."


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/ ... unzig-text



Video in this link

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video ... 01&catID=1
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Schmuto » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 01:35:59

Tar sands are a disaster, and should be stopped, but let's be a bit rational about it.

"4 tons of earth" sounds like a lot, but it's not.

A medium sized excavator, such as those used to dig house basements, can probably dig 1ton of earth per scoop, so 4 scoops with a regular old excavator is all you need - not very much.

Also, Nat Gas doesn't really release less "carbon" into the atmosphere compared to other FFs, if you look at CO2. Maybe less other crap, but that other crap really isn't the problem anyway.

Further, a 5 square mile lake and a few dead birds are nothing in the big scheme of things.

The real problem with Tar Sands is that the EROEI is horrible, and the fact that NG is being used probably hides how bad the EROEI actually is.

Time will show that, like ethanol, syncrude from tar sands is a disaster.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby hardtootell » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 01:58:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ar sands are a disaster, and should be stopped, but let's be a bit rational about it.


I agree that we should stop, but we can't...
See we have this little problem called overpopulation and it has led to resource depletion. We have pumped most of the easy oil already. And besides, we are too greedy to give a F&%K about the earth. Humanity is entering the end game (IMHO) where we choke on our own filth. Our oversize brains do more to decrease than improve the collective good at this stage... :cry:
User avatar
hardtootell
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat 24 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: 12th dimension
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby WildRose » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 02:56:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'T')ar sands are a disaster, and should be stopped, but let's be a bit rational about it.

"4 tons of earth" sounds like a lot, but it's not.

A medium sized excavator, such as those used to dig house basements, can probably dig 1ton of earth per scoop, so 4 scoops with a regular old excavator is all you need - not very much.

Also, Nat Gas doesn't really release less "carbon" into the atmosphere compared to other FFs, if you look at CO2. Maybe less other crap, but that other crap really isn't the problem anyway.

Further, a 5 square mile lake and a few dead birds are nothing in the big scheme of things.

The real problem with Tar Sands is that the EROEI is horrible, and the fact that NG is being used probably hides how bad the EROEI actually is.

Time will show that, like ethanol, syncrude from tar sands is a disaster.


It's hard to overstate the damage being done by tar sands production.

For example, the amount of tailings, as stated in the article below, is currently 130 sq km, projected to grow to 220 sq km, or 5 times the size of Alberta's Sylvan Lake. 1.8 billion liters of toxic tailings are produced every day.

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/dir ... lings.html

The tailings ponds are vast, not just a 5-square-mile lake. That's just one of them. Many more birds have died than the 500 we heard about last year. Not only that, but many species of birds are in danger because of the loss of habitat caused by tar sands excavation, and also because of the danger to migratory birds just because their routes take them over the tar sands region.

See below:

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/borealbirdsfs.pdf

Also, pollution of water both locally and downstream of the Fort MacMurray area is disastrous:

http://arctic.pembina.org/

We already know that residents of Fort Chipewyan are experiencing significant health problems due to pollution from oil sands development. The number of people affected by polluted water and air will only increase as oil sands activity moves further south, close to the Edmonton area, within a few years because of "Upgrader Alley":

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Upgrader_Alley-FS.pdf

Those projects are on hold for the moment, but when they get going air quality will suffer, the North Saskatchewan River and surrounding ecosystems will suffer and Canada will be further from meeting C02 emissions protocols than ever before.

The landscape of northern Alberta is changed, permanently. Boreal forest, which in its healthy state is an excellent carbon sink in addition to being home to many species of animals and birds, is replaced by a moonscape. We are told that it will be restored, but to date only a couple of km of land have been "restored" and not anything like the way the land was before:

http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2009/ ... eclaim.php

The National Geographic article tells it like it is. The Pembina Institute, mentioned in the article, is indeed a moderate environmental group and they have worked hard to get their message out to the Alberta government and the general public. The government, however, has continued to approve oil sands projects without instituting adequate environmental management.
User avatar
WildRose
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Schmuto » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 03:43:19

Look - we agree on the main thing.

I'm just saying that, in the big picture of how screwed we are, this . . .
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That's just one of them. Many more birds have died than the 500 we heard about last year. Not only that, but many species of birds are in danger because of the loss of habitat caused by tar sands excavation, and also because of the danger to migratory birds just because their routes take them over the tar sands region.


. . . is immaterial.

It's not that I don't care - I do. But it's going to get a whole lot worse for animals and people in the near future, and birds getting killed by sludge runnoff isn't going to mean birdie poop to most people.

Remember Condor/Redford?

"They won't ask - they'll just want us to get it."

That's a reference to mideast oil.

When gas goes to 10 bucks a gallon, nobody will care about a 200 square mile polluted lake somewhere up in the middle of nowhere Canada and a bunch of dead birds or threatened species.

It's sad, but that's the way it is.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby frankthetank » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 10:48:33

Most of it is too deep underground to get by surface mining...so i bet the EROEI on that stuff is even worse.


I think they could clean the place up pretty good when they are done, or so i would hope so. In a million years it will be covered by a giant sheet of ice anyways :)
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby WildRose » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 11:28:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'L')ook - we agree on the main thing.

I'm just saying that, in the big picture of how screwed we are, this . . .
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That's just one of them. Many more birds have died than the 500 we heard about last year. Not only that, but many species of birds are in danger because of the loss of habitat caused by tar sands excavation, and also because of the danger to migratory birds just because their routes take them over the tar sands region.


. . . is immaterial.

It's not that I don't care - I do. But it's going to get a whole lot worse for animals and people in the near future, and birds getting killed by sludge runnoff isn't going to mean birdie poop to most people.

Remember Condor/Redford?

"They won't ask - they'll just want us to get it."

That's a reference to mideast oil.

When gas goes to 10 bucks a gallon, nobody will care about a 200 square mile polluted lake somewhere up in the middle of nowhere Canada and a bunch of dead birds or threatened species.

It's sad, but that's the way it is.


Maybe if gas is $10/gallon and more and more of the population are aware or affected by all the oil sands activity,
not so many people will brush it off so easily. :)
User avatar
WildRose
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Schmuto » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 11:49:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '
')Maybe if gas is $10/gallon [i]and[i] more and more of the population are aware or affected by all the oil sands activity,
not so many people will brush it off so easily. :)


I wish you were right, but I have no faith that people will ever care about the environment around them.

As the Standard of Living of the average American drops off the table, the degree of caring about other species will drop with it.

Greenpeace, at the end of the day, is a as much a product of, and dependent on, the oil age as the SUV.

You want to know why there was no Greenpeace in London in 1500?

Because 99% of the people were too busy trying to feed themselves to care.

We're heading back there.

As the era of cheap oil ends, so too will the era of societal environmental consciousness.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby WildRose » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 12:50:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', '
')
I think they could clean the place up pretty good when they are done, or so i would hope so.


Based on their track record so far, Frank?
User avatar
WildRose
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby WildRose » Tue 24 Feb 2009, 20:04:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', '
')
I think they could clean the place up pretty good when they are done, or so i would hope so.


Based on their track record so far, Frank?


My hope is that it will soon become clear that we (humans) need a healthy environment to survive, then we'll put pressure on our
governments to protect our environment and then industry will clean up their act. I'm not holding my breath, but I have some faith
that people will value nature enough to help it survive, especially if their own survival is in the balance!
User avatar
WildRose
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Schmuto » Wed 25 Feb 2009, 09:02:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', '
')
I think they could clean the place up pretty good when they are done, or so i would hope so.


Based on their track record so far, Frank?


My hope is that it will soon become clear that we (humans) need a healthy environment to survive, then we'll put pressure on our
governments to protect our environment and then industry will clean up their act. I'm not holding my breath, but I have some faith
that people will value nature enough to help it survive, especially if their own survival is in the balance!

You're dreaming. When people become hungry, they will dump radioactive waste and mercury in their own drinking water if it means getting food.

PO means that FF use will decline, but have no doubt that the decline of the oil age will also be the decline of the age of caring about the world.

Just my opinion.

But I like your dream.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby rangerone314 » Wed 25 Feb 2009, 09:09:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hardtootell', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ar sands are a disaster, and should be stopped, but let's be a bit rational about it.


I agree that we should stop, but we can't...
See we have this little problem called overpopulation and it has led to resource depletion. We have pumped most of the easy oil already. And besides, we are too greedy to give a F&%K about the earth. Humanity is entering the end game (IMHO) where we choke on our own filth. Our oversize brains do more to decrease than improve the collective good at this stage... :cry:


Overpopulation really is the root of the problem. Just imagine if someone released a genetically-engineered virus that made 80% of people sterile...
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Maddog78 » Wed 25 Feb 2009, 20:10:22

Plenty of fretting in the National Post today about this magazine being the "baby seal moment" for the oil sands industry.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/24/don-martin-national-geographic-delivers-a-pr-hell-to-alberta.aspx


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on Martin: National Geographic delivers a PR hell to Alberta
Posted: February 24, 2009, 9:58 PM by Ron Nurwisah
Don Martin, Canadian politics, oil sands
It opens to a three-page aerial spread of pristine boreal forest dotted with lakes beaming through the trees as a luminescent robin-egg blue. This is the “before” picture.

Flip over the foldout at the front of next month’s National Geographic magazine and the reader is confronted by the “after” photo, a ground zero of environmental devastation with sickly grey ponds bisected by slick roadways prowled by mammoth trucks carrying black gold.


This photo shoot for the magazine’s influential global audience is described as the “baby-seal moment” for Alberta’s oil sands, a public relations hell that will be very difficult to overcome, no matter how reasoned the argument.


Alberta’s man in Washington, D.C., received an advance copy of the article earlier this month. He rushed it to Premier Ed Stelmach’s office.


The government spin doctors in Edmonton searched the 24-page spread, entitled “Scraping Bottom,” for a glimmer of positive coverage, but the only rainbows they found were caused by oil slicks.


snip
User avatar
Maddog78
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon 14 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Dreamtwister » Thu 26 Feb 2009, 01:46:58

Don't worry, the politicians have made their decision.

[url="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090225/na_canada_oil_sands.html?.v=1"]Canada brushes off oil sands article
[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ORONTO (AP) -- Canada's Conservative government and the country's main opposition party defended Alberta's massive oil sands operations on Wednesday following the release of a 20-page critical photo-essay in this month's National Geographic magazine.


More at link.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Dreamtwister
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 26 Feb 2009, 08:37:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', 'D')on't worry, the politicians have made their decision.

[url="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090225/na_canada_oil_sands.html?.v=1"]Canada brushes off oil sands article
[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ORONTO (AP) -- Canada's Conservative government and the country's main opposition party defended Alberta's massive oil sands operations on Wednesday following the release of a 20-page critical photo-essay in this month's National Geographic magazine.


More at link.


Predictible given that the only ones who really sufered from the baby seal campaign were the indigenous hunters who made extra income from selling the furs. In the case of the Tar Sands surface mining thousands of workers and Billions of dollars are at stake, which is a far different league than the seal campaign was played in.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: National Geographic: Canadian Oil Sands

Unread postby timmatoil » Fri 27 Feb 2009, 12:24:15

Where there’s muck, there’s money, and nowhere is that more true today than the Alberta oil sands. Albertans love the money, but (especially in Northern Alberta) they’re not so keen on the muck. In response, the Alberta government has pledged “to be a leader in finding innovative ways to ensure both economic growth and greater environmental protection.”

Simon Dyer, director of the Pembina Institute’s oil sands program, isn’t persuaded, however, saying Alberta’s pledge “lacks substance, so I don’t think it will stand up to the increased scrutiny we’re getting”.

Via Stock Research Portal Blog (http://www.stockresearchportalblog.com/ ... commentary)
User avatar
timmatoil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu 29 Jan 2009, 04:00:00
Top
Post a reply

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron