The Alberta Tar Sands And The Environment: Does Canada Set the Agenda or will the U.S. Determine our Fate?
Tar sands oil refinery
Even before acid rain, Canada and the United States have long been at odds over the issue of inter-continental pollution. The debilitating fact that our individual and shared industrial waste respects no physical boundary has become an increasingly destructive and contentious issue, which is matched only by the often impenetrable political boundaries which have prevented substantive policy initiatives from curbing the fundamentally devastating environmental impact this has wrought.
Chief among these transgressors are the Alberta tar sands.
Since 1966, development of these vast areas of petroleum manufacturing has gone full steam ahead, despite persistent and troubling data from environmental protection groups that the massively intrusive and destructive footprint of this endeavour has had disastrously long term effects on native plant, animal and human life in the region and beyond.
The effects of open pit mining
Centered in Canada’s western province of Alberta, the tar sands has been an unquestionable boon for the region, producing tens of thousands of jobs and generating billions of dollars of revenue.
Yet equally indisputable has been the enormous environmental impact this has created, a direct result of the tremendously destructive, long lasting effects of the process.
The term ‘tar sands’ refers to a combination of water, sand, clay and bitumen, which is a thick, black, sticky oil compound that must be removed from the soil before being processed into commercial grade oil. This is achieved by two methods which both involve extraction of the raw materials and then separating and refining them into a viable and highly profitable product. Both the extraction and separation stages involve not only tremendous costs but serious environmental impact as well.
Extracting the bitumen can be done in two ways. The first method is known as ‘open pit mining’ or ‘strip mining.’ This entails vast tracts of land literally being scraped clean in order to dig out the precious bitumen, leaving the area completely devoid of animal and plant life to a depth of 60 meters or more. Critics have decried this technique as nothing short of environmental rape, and it’s impossible to see an open pit mining operation and not get a sense of horror at the sight of an enormous gaping wound in the Earth, dotted with gigantic extractors and dump trucks running 24/7/365 for the express purpose of making money.
If the bitumen is embedded too deeply in the soil for open pit mining, an alternate technique is to inject chemically laced steam into the ground in order to soften and melt the bitumen and separate it from the sand and then pump it to the surface. The resulting water vapor released into the soil and air is extremely toxic even prior to the bitumen being treated with a variety of additional chemicals before finally piping it to a refinery.
Bitumen extraction facility
Both methods disgorge huge volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, greatly contributing to global climate change.
Aboriginal peoples in the Tabasco River basin, the main area of production for the Alberta tar sands industry, have long cited increasingly disturbing statistics for elevated levels of toxins in the soil and air which have contributed to rising rates of cancer in their communities, and for the permanent loss of indigenous animal and plant species. Native groups have consistently received assurances from the mining and petroleum industries that they take great care to ensure their practices are as environmentally sensitive as possible, and that any impact to the environment is merely temporary.
Working in conjunction with a succession of provincial governments, these industries have spent vast sums in order to revitalize and reclaim the land they have mined, but to date, of the tens of thousands of square kilometers of land damaged by tar sands operations, less than 2% of the area has been cleansed and environmentally refurbished.
The effects of refining the extracted bitumen are of equal concern. Once the raw material reaches the refinery, it is subjected to further chemical treatments to purify the bitumen into oil. The resulting runoff waste material is often pumped into what are known as ‘toxic lakes’ – vast pits of chemically noxious pools which simply lay open in the environment collecting millions of litres of hazardous liquids.
It has been estimated that the production of tar sand or ‘heavy’ oil is over three times more environmentally damaging as the production of light, crude oil.
Then there is the matter of the enormous expense of producing oil from tar sands. Whereas it costs as little as $5 per barrel to produce crude oil in the Middle East, or $15 per barrel from the Gulf of Mexico, it costs as much as $25 per barrel from oil sands production, which includes the cost of extraction and refinement. With a barrel of oil currently priced at $80 per barrel, however, this still allows for a considerable profit margin.
The Alberta tar sands deposits have been conservatively projected to contain as much as 300 billion barrels worth of oil, which makes the financial incentive for the government impossible to ignore, no matter the environmental costs to the region.
Tar sands protesters
Premier Ed Stelmach and his Environment Minister Rob Renner have recently suggested that they are awaiting a decision by their American counterparts as to what emissions caps should be adopted in order to stem the growing tide of environmental concerns regarding the tar sands industry, before setting their own agenda on balancing the enormous profits driven by production versus the serious implications of long term damage to the region and its inhabitants.
This position has drawn harsh criticism for lacking any perceived independence relating to Alberta’s (and by extension Canada’s) interest or ability to monitor and address its own environmental concerns, and for the very real sense it displays that we are still willing to allow the United States to set the parameters for what drives environmental policy; profit or pragmatism.
Canada can either be a leader when it comes to sound environmental practices, setting an exemplary mark for others to strive for, or it can be merely a follower of the United States’ model, which has been consistently resistant to the idea of hindering industries from producing wealth, no matter how unsound and potentially dangerous the ramifications of that policy have proven to be.
In a world increasingly concerned about the long term environmental impact of the petroleum industry and the very need for our perpetual reliance on oil itself, this seems to be a choice which should be easy to make, but with such vast sums of money in the equation, it appears the final decision will have very little to do with altruism.
Related posts:
- Should Canada Invent Itself as a Leader in Producing Clean Oil From Oil Sands or Say Bye to Oil Sands? The petroleum sector in Canada has developed into a vibrant...
- Federal Government Aims to Help Alberta Carbon Capture Technology Using Clean Energy Fund The Federal Government is dipping into the Clean Energy Fund...
- Ever Heard of Lubicon? How About Systematic Exploitation? It’s an oil rich area in Alberta, and apparently a...
- Canadian Government Lacks Serious Leadership When it Comes to the Environment Just as I was starting to panic and think...
- Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary, Alberta To Be Tried For International Crimes? The most serious failures connected to the events of 9/11...
Tags: alberta, einvironment, oil, tar sands
Loading ...
November 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I can’t help but feel extreme disappointment in the country I love in situations like this. I spent 7 years in the States convinced that my country was so much better than the one I was living in but more and more I am finding this opinion almost impossible to hold onto. I think, perhaps, it is time for Canada to step away from (in fact ahead of) the United States and Britain and become a leader. We are always championing our respect for native people and using their culture and symbolism as our decorative face to the world, especially with the Olympics on the way, perhaps it’s time we finally turned that supposed respect into action.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
A.R.,
Your viewpoint certainly does have value, but what are we to do with the 300 billion barrels of oil the tar sands could potentially produce? There is just way too money at stake for our government to do anything about this issue. That’s just the way I see it.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
A.R. – One thing that might encourage you is the grassroots efforts of some First Nations to tackle this issue head-on. The Beaver Lake Cree Nation, led by Chief Al Lameman, has launched a ground-breaking legal action – suing the Alberta and federal governments – to protect their constitutionally-guaranteed treaty rights and way of life, and in so doing, stop the expansion of the tar sands. It’s a plucky move, and it will take time and considerable funds, but even the Co-operative Bank in Manchester, UK has recognized their efforts as having the potential to be ‘the real tar sands stopper.’ You can read more about their case on the BLCN website or on http://www.raventrust.com .
November 19th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
There’s no decision to make, we dig it up, we sell it, we reclaim the land for better use.
The US has to consider the fact that if we open the Free Trade pact up for renegotiation, the Chinese will cheerfully buy everything we can produce, so it’s a double edge sword for the US.
This sort of circumstance makes the Prince Rupert deep harbour project even more important.
Our reliance on single source markets for our resources has to end, otherwise we have little leverage.
Besides, we have no choice in the matter, the land need to be reclaimed, and that can’t happen without removing the tarsands.
In the end, it isn’t really a choice of whether we are pulling it out of the ground, but more a matter of who we will sell it to. If the Americans make it to expensive, there are plenty of other markets.
A trade pact is only as good as the participants, and if the US wants to screw us on carbon emmissions, then let them. They only hurt themselves further.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
We are not reluctant to engage in open and honest dialogue about the impact of oil sands development and what we can and will do to minimize and mitigate that impact.
In response to this post, however, I think it best if I offer a weblink so some readers may discover for themselves where the author’s sources have apparently misled him, on matters of fact, not opinion, to be clear.
I would only add that the idea that the Government of Alberta or Albertans would exploit our beautiful province’s resources regardless of environmental cost is misguided.
http://www.alberta.oilsands.ca
Thank you,
David Sands, Government of Alberta
November 20th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I am not weighing in (yet) but I was reading along and the above link sucks ( it’s a popup and ad inundated wannabe hub).
LOL this link is better: http://oilsands.alberta.ca/ .
November 20th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Thank you Fraser Nelund. TGIF
- ds
November 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
My uncle, Larry Pratt, has been a leading voice in the campaign against the “Oil Sands” (not the Tar Sands) since the 1970s. When he published a controversial work about this issue, back in the 1970s, he was the target of a very upset provincial government. The CBC broadcasted a program based loosely on my uncle’s book, The Oil Sands, in 1977 and the Lougheed government successfully sued the corporation for libel.
Despite this, he has continued to speak out against this issue ( http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAND/post/Vol-I-No2/09pratt.html ) to little avail.
My sister has a more hands-on approach to this issue, as she is an Enviromental Conservation – Land Reclamation scientist, and in light of the recent economic crisis, she noticed that funding for land rec projects involving land exploited by oil companies was the first thing to receive cutbacks.
For me, I’ve witnessed first-hand the damage the oil sands have done to our local wildlife, and I have spent many hours working at WRSE’s (Wildlife Rehabilitation Society of Edmonton) shelter bathing and taking care of ducks harmed in the 1998 Syncrude tailing pond incident. Regardless of our efforts, hundreds of ducks died.
And let’s not forget about the Lubicon Cree either!
So, what does this teach us folks?
That we can protest and raise awareness all that we want, BUT money and instant gratification speaks louder.
The answer has always seemed simple in my mind: why can’t we use a small percentage of the oil sand profits to develop renewable and enviromentally friendly sources of energy?
It would allow us to have a system in place when the oil sands are no longer viable, and we could refrain from harming our ecosystems any further.
But, again, speaking out on this issue is like speaking to the wall.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Please excuse the following typo: 2008 tailing pond incident, not 1998
November 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Gina, you’re not talking to a wall. Alberta is investing in renewable and lower impact fuels. Here, for example: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/News/bioenergy.asp
Right now, hydro, wind and biomass (energy from organic sources such as wood waste and garbage) are about 10 per cent of Alberta’s electricity supply, and we want to increase that.
In our provincial energy strategy (here: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Initiatives/strategy.asp) “Clean Energy Production” is the first outcome we’re seeking.
- ds
November 20th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Duly noted, David.
The progress made seems impressive, and distracting no less, on the surface, yet I wonder if the meager 10 %, which the government has had decades to implement, is really something to be proud of?
Or, is it just a smoke screen to placate the opposition? Like, as in: “Hey. Look here. We’re really doing something. It’s not much, yet. But we’ll get there, boy and girls. Have faith in your government!”
Now don’t get me wrong, David, I like the government for the most part. I’m just pointing out the fact that we’ve had less than responsible governments in the past.
Who’s going to pay the land reclamation bills anyway? The oil companies, that’s who. Hence, the cutbacks. We all know how responsible the oil companies have been, too.
How long will it take to reclaim our land? How much will it cost in the end?
November 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Mr. Sands,
That’s a complete crock. The Government of Alberta, the Electrical Distributors, and the Generators, are completely ignoring the obvious in a very misguided effort to defend that which is, vs that which could be.
Firstly, Wind Generation is a non-starter. It’s already been proven to be too costly as a result of tower and rotor maintenance vs the power generation to fully invest in Wind Generation. That’s a sop for the environmentalists, and you know it. The symbol of it’s success off the coast of Scotland has been almost completely shut down because it’s too expensive to maintain.
Secondly, while carbon sequestering, clean coal technologies etc… are definately worth the R&D and exploitation, they are in the end a finite product, and essential more so to our export revenue and job creation resulting from it.
Solar power is or should be the primary target of the province. Unfortunately, Enmax, and Epcor, and the cronies who are paid off through patronage in your party, are too short sited to see the writing on the wall.
This province enjoys an average of 6.5 hours of sunshine per day, and solar technologies are now readily available.
Instead of allocating $20 or $30 million per annum towards conversion of households to electrical power, upgrading of the grid, and replacement of meters, they are too busy protecting something they don’t even own.
Enmax, and Epcor, don’t own their source power. They buy it from electrical generators, and resell it. No business that doesn’t own it’s product can survive long term.
Meanwhile somewhere in the neighborhood of 650,000 homes in Calgary and Edmonton alone have an average of 400 to 800 square feet of rooftop quite capable of being converted to solar generation, thereby freeing the consumers from the grid, Enmax and Epcor from single source supply, and generating new revenue to sell onto the west coast grid, free from fossil fuel dependance.
What have they done about it… nothing, natta. Nothing more than excuses and foot dragging, which will only force us to spend more money in the long run, for less return.
Get off your ass’ and start investing in the one source of power that is free.
Conversion of homes in the province should be the first priority of our resource agenda. Let the American and Asians suck on our oil and gas, while we create a generation source completely removed from the market.
We meet our environmental concerns, our power concerns, and our export concerns all within 50 years by starting now. Enmax and Epcor end up owning the technologies and the footprint, with no dependance from fossil fuels, and it costs less than $20K per household.
Even if the grid isn’t ready, freeing households from it should be the first goal. $20 million a year is 1000 households a year not drawing from the grid, and with bulk conversion the prices get even cheaper.
You can purchase conversion kits in China, capable of supply 60% to 70% of an average households needs daily, for less than $2500.00. Installed around $7000.00. That’s close to 3000 households per annum.
Enmax could easily afford $20,000.000 per annum, hell they could shovel $50 million per year in with no discernable effect on profit ratios.
Leveraging a cost/purchase subsidy program could increase those numbers by a factor of 10 easily.
So saying the PC’s are taking a hand in renewable energy is specious at best, and just plain insulting at worst.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
With all due respect to Mr. Sands, the government of Alberta, like all major petroleum investors, has a great deal to gain in the oil sands production industry as it stands, and a great deal to lose by recognizing the serious environmental costs of their business, and thereby lead them to make serious adjustments to the process. The idea that they have and will continue to maintain the same level of concern for the aftereffects of their business to the environment as they do in maintaining the current levels of production and profit, simply have not been borne out by the history of the project.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Having worked in oil sands development for the past 3 years and having a chance to see some of the reclamation work being done I feel that the tar sands are viewed in such a skewed manner. I agree that it isn’t the most environmentally friendly thing that we as Canadians are doing to our environment, however I think that the fact that only 2% of area mined to date has been reclaimed needs to be looked at in context. A large majority of the area mined out is still being used, old mine pits are currently being used for tailings storage and reclamation is a 20 year process not a 2 year process. Certificates of reclamation are not issued the minute that trees have been planted, but rather once it can be proven that the reclamimed area is self-sustaining.
Oil sands companies spend billions of dollars developing replacement habitat for mining areas (notable the Suncor Wetland project), on revegetating the sides of waste dumps, above ground tailings ponds, and on developing new forms of tailings that can be reclaimed easier.
The second image shown above (of what I believe is the Syncrude Mine) states that this is the result of open pit mining – it is not the result, it is an intermediate stage. That pit will be filled with sand and tailings and eventually reclaimed onces mining is completed. The result of this mine will be muskeg, swamp and boreal forests that naturally covered the landscape there. In the mean time the most valuable resource that Alberta has is being mined and is generating much needed revenues for this province and this country.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Ms. Regan,
I appreciate your attempts to place my article in perspective, but I would respectfully suggest that even if reclamation is a 20 year process, the very small amount of land successfully re-established in the over 40 year period of the industry cannot be considered substantial by any means.
The caption of the second image in the piece is actually ‘The effects of open pit mining,’ and was meant to illustrate the environmental impact during ongoing mining operations, and not to imply that the mined area would look thus during or after reclamation efforts.
The theme of the article was whether or not the current state of tar sands production is as environmentally conscious as it should be, whether Canada should allow the United States to influence how our resources are managed and to draw attention to the shrinking resource of petroleum consumption as a whole.
Obviously for yourself or Mr. Sands who have a vested interest in maintaining the current production methodology and the oil business itself, as well as those not associated with the industry such as indigenous peoples and other populations in proximity to the oil sands, these are issues of great concern, not only for Albertans but for all Canadians.
There is also no denying that a growing body of people around the globe are increasingly concerned about the sustainability of our fundamental reliance on the ever shrinking resource of fossil fuels, and the very real effects on our planet of producing a non renewable commodity that is expensive to harness and destructive to use.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The 20 year process just simply isn’t good enough, Ms. Regan.
Saying that the tar sands are viewed in a skewed manner when it comes to the enviromental effects vs. the economic benefits just demonstrates the kind of incredible negligence we have to overcome. It’s the inability to accept what the future stores that disables us from seeing past the profit of oil and moving forward.
Our finite oil resources aren’t our most valuable resource, our land is.
In regards to innovation and ingenuity on this matter, you can find valuable information on actual mobilized ideas at this link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_hopkins_transition_to_a_world_without_oil.html
November 30th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
[...] Birk presents The Alberta Tar Sands And The Environment: Does Canada Set the Agenda or will the U.S. Determine our… posted at [...]
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:13 am
This is a great site, I love the theme you are using. I Stumbled it for you and bookmarked it on Digg.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:01 am
Thanks for your efforts Study; there’s nothing like free advertising.