Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Oil Patch Critics Fail To Recognize Its Green Thumb

3K views 41 replies 11 participants last post by  SINC 
#1 ·
As it turns out, oil sands naysayers and dirty oil proponents have no idea what they're griping about:



Here's the irony about Alberta's oil patch, the favoured whipping boy now among Hollywood A-listers, such as the revered film actor and director Robert Redford: The oil sands have got that green religion.

Indeed there are probably more genuine, shut-up-and-show-yourmoney environmentalists in Alberta's energy sector now than there are anywhere else in North America. Certainly, the large-scale land reclamation, water saving and carbon dioxide sequestration projects under way in Alberta put any other conservation efforts in this country - worthy though they may be - to shame.

How could Mr. Redford have missed this when he sat down recently to write a passionate, stormthe-beaches, anti-oil patch diatribe for The Globe and Mail? Perhaps he wasn't looking.

For example: There's Devon Oil's water project at Jackfish, in northern Alberta. Here, rather than use potable groundwater in bitumen extraction, engineers developed a technology for using brine, water unfit even for irrigation or livestock. Brine is heated and turned into steam, which softens the bitumen and allows it to flow for extraction. This project is not new: it was launched in 2001.

Or there's Suncor's new tailings cleanup system, which took seven years and $1.2-billion to develop. Oil sands extraction produces tailings - a blend of water, sand, clay and leftover bitumen. This takes decades to clean up using conventional methods. The new process narrows that to weeks. Suncor expects the total land area covered by its tailings ponds to drop by 80%. The resultant reclaimed land will be transformed into wetlands and other wildlife habitat.

At Cold Lake, Alta., Imperial Oil has a research project that aims to develop a means of extracting bitumen without steam - instead using solvents that could themselves afterwards be extracted. Removing heat from the process would dramatically reduce the energetic cost of extraction - and, of course, the corresponding greenhouse-gas emissions.

Dozens of similar projects are underway across the oil patch - none of which the anti-oil crowd wants to hear about, says Janet Annesley, of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, because "when you talk about these breakthroughs with them, in our experience it tends to make them mad. They don't want performance improvements from the industry. What they want is for us to shut down."

Now we get to to nub: Like it or not, the oil sands are not shutting down. The energy in the ground - all 170 billion barrels of it - will eventually be extracted and shipped to market. All that's at issue is how, and how soon. That's because global demand for crude is set to rise sharply and keep on rising - even assuming Western nations continue their pell-mell, taxpayer-subsidized rush into renewables, which is not a given. The reason is China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and the rest of the almost-developed world.

By 2035, according to the International Energy Agency, China will consume 70% more energy than the United States. In the period between 2010 and 2035, the IAE estimates, non-OECD countries together will account for 90% of global population growth, 70% of the rise in economic output and an astonishing 90% of global energy demand growth.

Now consider that the oil patch, as it works to feed this boom, which is in its infancy, produces just 6.5% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity and heat generation account for about 14%. Agriculture and forestry (industries that employ bucolic farmers and woodsy lumberjacks, and are therefore less vulnerable to Hollywood) produce 8.4%, according to data from Environment Canada.

But the lion's share of Canada's emissions - the portion no Canadian government has yet been willing or able to address - are produced by we, the people. Transportation, our collective use of the internal combustion engine, accounts for almost 30% of Canada's total greenhouse-gas production. The middle-class lifestyle is Canada's dirty little secret - not the oil patch. The numbers confirm it.

"I want to be very clear that I'm not pointing a finger at the people of Canada," Mr. Redford emoted in the Globe. " . . . we need to stand up, Canadians and Americans as one, to draw the line at the tar sands."

As one? Really? Memo to the great man, from the surface of a planet you clearly love: Albertans and their industry do not require lessons in environmental stewardship from you, or anyone.

In the real world, that is the one most of us inhabit, they're leading the way.
Oil patch critics fail to recognize its green thumb
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
that article reads like an oil company ad.

Certainly, the large-scale land reclamation, water saving and carbon dioxide sequestration projects under way in Alberta put any other conservation efforts in this country - worthy though they may be - to shame.
Given the scope of this, I would certainly hope the efforts are Herculean in proportion to other things in Canada. That line itself gives this all away.
 
#5 ·
As long as everyone like to drive, (and worse, drive their SUVs), or commutes long distances to work so they can live in their large houses in the suburbs, or flies to warmer climes in the winter, or goes on cruises, or likes to eat food that wasn't produced in their own backyard, there will be an oil industry. The retrieval of oil from the oilsands is just a natural progression of the world's insatiable demand for oil. It's not the supply. It's the demand. Change the demand if you don't like the supply.

(Personally I prefer oil from the oil sands to oil from countries where women are treated with unjustifiable inequality. I look forward to the day when an alternate form of energy is developed.)

Jackfish is an interesting development, as is the tailings recovery system at Suncor. Fascinating science, which will probably have some applications outside the industry.

Groovetube: if you'd ever been to the area, you'd know that everything there is Herculean in proportion to other things in Canada.
 
#7 ·
Yay! A heavily-polluting industry has successfully implemented small-scale "green" projects that the pro-oil crowd can point to and say "See! We care about the environment too!"

Meanwhile, as a marsh here and there is "reclaimed", the oil sands still contribute up to 20% more emissions than traditional oil extraction technologies, use up farmland and clear boreal forest area, and pollute waterways such as the Athabascan River.

Then there's the product of the sands - more oil, burned for fuel, contributing to emissions further.

Spin it all you want, but the oilsands will never be net "green".
 
#9 ·
I do have a few environmental issues with oil companies. These do not include CO2 production.

The solvent idea mentioned in the article may well be a cure worse than the disease. It may reduce CO2 emissions but perhaps at the expense of water contamination. This needs much more research and much more open research before going into production.

This one is not Oilsands related. What little I have been able to discover about Chemical Frac'ing convinces me it should be banned outright until all groundwater issues are fully addressed. Specifically if an oil company pollutes a water source they are responsible for replacing the water. If it costs more than what they make from extracting a little extra oil that's too bad. They broke it they should fix it.

As I have said many times first priority is to stop poisoning the environment.
 
#11 ·
why is everyone on Canada's case? look at India and China ( remember the olympics - they shut down factories to get rid of the pollution for the 14 days ) - they are the worst..
geeze - i believe they are upset that we are making money - that is the bottom line.
 
#12 ·
Green washing - and it doesn't even take into account the downstream emissions of the products it sells....

Climate Impacts

Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.1


  • On average, producing one barrel of synthetic crude oil from oilsands results in 111 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions.2 The greenhouse gas emissions from individual projects vary considerably because of differences in technologies, practices and oilsands quality from project to project.
  • Mining techniques of the oilsands result in 62 to 164 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions per barrel.3
  • In situ techniques result in 99 to 176 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions per barrel.4
  • Average emissions per barrel for conventional crude oil production are 35.2 kilograms of CO2 equivalent in Canada and 24.5 kilograms of CO2 equivalent in the U.S.5

About five per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions come from oilsands plants and upgraders.6


  • Oilsands plants and upgraders produced 37.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2008.7
  • The federal and provincial governments have not made emissions data publicly available for 2009 or 2010.

Oilsands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.8


  • Emissions from oilsands more than doubled, increasing by 121 per cent, between 1990 and 2008.9 Planned growth indicates greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands will continue to rise resulting in more than a doubling of emissions between 2008 and 2020, from 37.2 to 81.4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.10 While this forecast is the most current data from Environment Canada, the data reflect a significant economic slowdown (2009). Oilsands production, however, appears to have nearly returned to a pre-slowdown pace, therefore this data is likely conservative.
  • Nationally, coal generation is a relatively small and declining portion of emissions, whereas oil and gas production — and particularly oilsands production — are a large and rapidly-growing share.11
  • Environment Canada projected that oilsands operations could account for about 44 per cent of the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 to 2020. In Environment Canada's "reference case" projection, oilsands emissions would rise from four per cent of the national emissions in 2006 to 12 per cent in 2020.12

If Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.
lots more to read

Oilsands 101: Climate Impacts | Oilsands | Pembina Institute
 
#16 ·


ain't this the truth

MF you're so out of it it's hilarious - deny all you want - it's here and we've altered the climate ongoing for the next millenia and far beyond..

AGW and GHG are the foundation of modern climatology the same way evolutionary theory underlies biology and medicine ......
The chemistry of the atmosphere and the interaction of LW and SW radiation is what drives our climate and keeps the planet habitable....without it - the planet would be an ice ball.

Now we are digging up and burning millions of years of sequestered carbon - there are consequences, we are seeing them now and there are far worse to come.

Don't try and compare your disgraceful wilful ignorance with others who know and care about human induce climate change....
you are just a mouth piece for ignorance in the matter without a shred of basis in reality......pure flat wilful denial of reality....
pathological comes to mind.
Certainly as far as the planet's ecosystem is concerned....

•••

as a far as other countries go - the first world made the mess and has responsibility to clean up the sewage it left as they built their economies.

China leads the world in nuclear and solar and in no way are in denial of the reality and the threat of climate change.
You just don't want to pay the sewage - bill - it's overdue and the consequencial costs of not dealing with it now will make a loan shark rates look timid.
 
#19 · (Edited)
MacDoc, I know it hurts but support for GHG and AGW theories is dropping in populations and governments the world over. Its day is done. I note you haven't commented on any of the Climategate 2.0 releases, which clearly show the researchers whose work underpins the AGW hypothesis are frauds.
 
#21 ·
More because they said so themselves.

Still my argument all along has been that giving money to the Church of Climatology and Carbon Taxation will not have any impact on CO2 emissions. It may create additional hardships for those having trouble putting food on the table and paying their heating bills. In Canada could even cause homelessness and death for some people already on the edge. But it would not reduce CO2 emissions except through the death of some of our citizens.

Furthermore by concentrating solely on CO2 emissions the Environmental Lobby has pretty much given various industries an extended green light to continue poisoning the planet.

The Damage done by BP in the Gulf of Mexico and the Fukishima Catasstrophy should be of far greater concern to a real environmentalist than Canada's small contribution to man-made atmospheric CO2.
 
#23 ·
Quite true.

Even the Chicken Little Crowd's low balled estimates of $800/year would be devastating to seniors or anyone else on low or fixed incomes. Look at how many people in the US have had their homes repossessed in the past 4 years even without those extra expenses.

The Gore tithe is specifically designed to allow big time users to do nothing to reduce consumption. A Carbon tax is designed to divert even more money to the banksters. The only way they can possibly have an impact on CO2 production is to push a lot more people into total poverty. Both are essentially designed to steal from the poor and give to the rich. And yes in Canada thanks to our cold winters (which have been getting colder these past five years) increasing the cost of living on the poorest would almost certainly cost lives. Something MD, MF, Bryanc and yourself are comfortable with, but personally I find this sort of population cull repugnant.

If the Great Gore really believed his own propaganda, he has had more than ample time to change his own wasteful ways. Instead his spendthrift energy consumption remains spectacularly high. He is so convinced the oceans will rise catastrophically that he has bought beach front property. If he isn't buying into the BS why should the rest of us?

The real environmental disasters involve poisoning our planet and the CO2 myth continues to provide the distraction that allows the planet poisoning to continue unabated.

Of course if the temps really were to increase it would take less energy to heat our homes and energy consumption in Canada would drop accordingly.
 
#25 ·
Alternative energies are going now, to the limits of their economic viabilities. Energy choices will always be dictated by market demands and economics.

Change the demand and/or change the economics -> change the energy of choice.

It's just that simple.
 
#27 ·
'Secret' Environment Canada presentation warns of oilsands' impact on habitat



Contamination of a major western Canadian river basin from oilsands operations is a "high-profile concern" for downstream communities and wildlife, says a newly-released "secret" presentation prepared last spring by Environment Canada that highlighted numerous warnings about the industry's growing footprint on land, air, water and the climate.

The warnings from the department contrast with recent claims made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Peter Kent that the industry is being unfairly targeted by environmentalists who exaggerate its impacts on nature and people.
Alberta and other parts of Western Canada are facing a steep economic and ecological price tag for failing to crack down on the industry's collateral damage.

"Contamination of the Athabasca River is a high-profile concern," said the presentation, marked secret, but released to Postmedia News through access to information legislation.

"Recent studies suggest elevated levels of pollutants near mining sites including hydrocarbons and heavy metals . . . (It) raises questions about possible effects on health of wildlife and downstream communities."
It estimated that the industry's annual greenhouse gas emissions would rise by nearly 900 per cent from 1990 to 2020. By the end of that period, the oilsands — with an estimated annual footprint of 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gases in 2020 — would exceed the carbon footprint of all cars and SUVs on Canadian roads from 2008, according to the Environment Canada document.
(Ottawa Citizen)
 
#30 ·
The age of extreme oil: "This used to be a forest?"



If the Achuar had believed in hell, this would have been it. It made little difference to them that Block 64's oil is light crude instead of bituminous sand – the risks they saw were just as great.

Their world, unlike Alberta, is composed of running water: Block 64 is two days by river from the nearest town, and days farther from the nearest major port where barges with serious cleanup capacity can moor. A major spill would spread far and fast.

This was no idle concern: Just across the border in Ecuador, oil production by Texaco and Chevron over the 1980s and 1990s saturated local waterways with billions of gallons of toxic sludge, leading an Ecuadorean court to rule, last January, that Chevron owes $18-billion in damages. (It has so far refused to pay.)

“All human technology fails,” said another of the visitors, Ampush Ayui Chayat, his long black hair tied back. “Talisman has insisted their new technology will change everything. But if this is how Canadians let oil companies operate in their own land, how can we trust them in ours?(emphasis added)
(Globe & Mail)
 
#31 ·
Deformed Oilsands Fish Appearing In Lake Athabasca, Says First Nation

Natives downstream from the oilsands in northern Alberta say they have caught more deformed fish in Lake Athabasca and will be sending them away for testing.

Pictures of two fish, a sucker and a northern pike, were distributed by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation on Friday. The band has long called for better protection of the region's water.
The pike, .... appears to have a red lesion running down its back and more lesions on its belly. The sucker, .... was found floating near-death on the surface. It is missing a lot of its scales.

"It ain't natural, no,"
Dave Ealey with Alberta Environment noted that there are a number of different conditions that can cause abnormalities in fish from parasites to oxygen depletion.
"I wouldn't say that it's not natural," Ealey said.
(Huffington Post Canada)
 
#32 ·
I do hope they get down to the truth of the matter quickly and finally.

I'm guessing that the "deformed" fish tested will be found to suffering from an infection. Disease, yes, but not industrial.

But then, activists still wanting industry blood will complain that the fish should not have been tested in Calgary, because, after all, Calgarians are unfairly biased.
 
#33 ·
Meanwhile, we have actual wildlife deaths with direct links to so-called green energy, but this is not a concern to the people who glom onto reports like the one above. Some animal deaths are more equal than others, it appears.

A study in 2004 estimated that over 2,200 bats were killed by 63 onshore turbines in just six weeks at two sites in the eastern U.S.
In Denmark, where wind turbines generate 9% of electricity, wind turbines kill about 30,000 birds per year.[37]

In the United States, an unofficial non-peer-reviewed estimate by a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) scientist in 2009 claimed that wind turbines kill 440,000 birds per year, with future mortality expected to increase significantly as wind power generation expands by 2030 to levels about 12 times higher than 2009 levels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top