Report: Oil Sands Certified Reclamation at 0.2%, Toxic Tailings Production of 1.8 Billion Liters a Day
30 May 2008
After 41 years of oil sands mining operations in northern Alberta, only 0.2%—one square kilometer—of disturbed land is certified as reclaimed, according to a new report by environmental group the Pembina Institute.
Oil sands mining is transforming northeastern Alberta. By the end of 2007, oil sands companies had cleared or mined more than 470 square kilometers of boreal forest. More than 3,000 square kilometers of boreal forest is already leased for mine development. Toxic tailings lakes, currently an aggregate 50 square kilometers in size, are projected to grow to 220 square kilometers.
When hundreds of waterfowl died in a toxic oil sands tailings lake a few weeks ago, government and industry ignored the real issue: the daily production of 1.8 billion litres of toxic tailings waste. Industry has never demonstrated it is able to clean up tailings lakes.
—Simon Dyer, Oil Sands Program Director at the Pembina Institute
The authors of the report—Fact or Fiction: Oil Sands Reclamation— authors found that the security deposits made by companies to guarantee reclamation may be inadequate, forcing Canadians eventually to foot the bill for reclaiming vast areas of mined and disturbed boreal forest.
The report makes a set of seven recommendation to the Government of Alberta to improve oil sands reclamation:
Require restoration of oil sands mines to self-sustaining boreal forest.
Establish a set of transparent reclamation standards.
Prohibit the creation of liquid tailings.
Reform the reclamation security policy to protect Canadians.
Institute a total disturbance area cap for each project to ensure reclamation occurs at the same time as development.
Increase public transparency of corporate reclamation performance.
Require environmental compensation to offset mining impacts.
Resources
As a nuclear power enthusiast, I wonder how many parts per million of uranium and thorium there are in tailings created from oil sands and shales. The uranium and thorium, especially when used in breeder reactors, probably can produce more energy than there is in the hydrocarbons.
And with no carbon dioxide production.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 30 May 2008 at 05:33 AM
"And with no carbon dioxide production."
It is still astounding these jokers are burning massive amounts of perfectly good natural gas to help shake the oil out of the sand. Simmons is dead on accurate when he says this is "turning gold into lead".
Posted by: | 30 May 2008 at 06:10 AM
I might point out, in response to the above, that if you need hydrocarbons from oil sands you could still use a nuclear reactor to supply the heat instead of creating more carbon dioxide by burning natural gas (or worse, coal!)
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 30 May 2008 at 07:42 AM
It is astonishing to find out that, we the people, let the oil producers pollute, damage, mutilate and ruin the land we live on for so long without raising our voice.
We must find ways to force them to repair all ravages done and to stop them from doing more before it is too late.
One way to do it would be to raise the current royalties from about 2% to at least 10% or even 20% and use part of those resources to fix the damages done and to compensate people living in those areas.
The barrel of oil may have to go up another $20 but it would be for a good cause.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 May 2008 at 07:43 AM
So, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a barrel of algal derived biodiesel somewhere around eighty dollars a barrel? Doesn't it cost like four or five cents a mile for an electric vehicle? Doesn't every home in North America have electrical service?
Am I missing something here?
Posted by: The Scoot | 30 May 2008 at 10:04 AM
Nuclear power - that's just for the steam to melt/ soften the tar. Natural gas, lots of it, still needed to hydrogenate the bitumen into Synthetic Crude Oil. Tar sands are not oil. Canadian nat gas insufficient to produce meaningful quantities of SCO. Nuclear power is the worst poison ever conceived - at least use its electricity to charge EVs.
Posted by: Emphyrio | 30 May 2008 at 10:25 AM
The Scoot:
One KWh of electricity @ 8 cents/KWh can drive an electric car as far as 4 miles = about 2 cents per mile in direct energy cost with a lot less pollution and wear on the vehicle.
Recent solar power stations can also produce electricity at about that price. Some even claim 5 to 6 cents/KWh for more advanced higher efficiency panels.
God may know what will be the real cost/price of algae derived fuel but nobody else seems to know. Eight dollars/barrel would compete with other sources.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 May 2008 at 10:26 AM
Emphyrio:
Check out the other post earlier. Ivanhoe figured out how to upgrade the bitumen to mostly reduce the need for dilutents to make it flow. And the added bonus is that it's 20% less CO2 intensive.
North America has also had some major new natural gas discoveries now made economical and technically recoverable via horizontal drilling techniques. Something like 500 trillion cubic feet in Pennsylvania alone.
Posted by: Cervus | 30 May 2008 at 04:25 PM
Alex:
I have heard that Total was considering usinga anuclear reactor to develop tar sands, but apparently the project was never implemented
Posted by: | 30 May 2008 at 05:06 PM
Canada needs their Governments to be looking out for people long term, not to be pandering to oil interests in the short term.
Posted by: John Taylor | 30 May 2008 at 07:55 PM
Emphyrio:
Nuclear power is the worst poison ever conceived...
I read on this site that coal is the worst poison ever created.
Posted by: Berserker | 30 May 2008 at 10:59 PM
The northern countries like Canada stand to benefit greatly from Global Warming. There will be an ice free Northern Passage, balmy weather in Toronto, a long growing season for the bread basket of the country, in fact, mid west U.S. climate will migrate north here. The forests will eventually reestablish. If the world can recover from an asteroid strike, what lasting harm can man do here.
Take a wider view.
TheLastWord
Posted by: TheLastWord | 31 May 2008 at 12:32 PM