[ue]

Alberta oilsands not a horror flick: enviro minister
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 | 3:58 PM MT Comments58Recommend22
The Canadian Press

Alberta's environment minister has invited James Cameron to a personal screening of the province's oilsands operations after the Hollywood director called them a "black eye" on Canada's image.

Environment Minister Rob Renner says the director of the blockbuster filmAvatar, whose plot can be read as a warning against environmental degradation and resource exploitation, will learn the oilsands aren't a horror flick so much as a work in progress.

"We would welcome an opportunity for him to come visit us, talk to our experts and see for himself," Renner said Wednesday.

(...)

"For us to be doing greater and greater environmental damage, pursuing a dead-end paradigm, which is fossil fuels, instead of spending those billions ... on building wind turbines — those same areas are a great wind belt, and we could be generating ... wind energy out of the same place. Why aren't we doing that?" Cameron said.

Renner said wind turbines are one solution but can't be the only one.

"Wind turbines don't drive our transportation industry, and they don't work when the wind doesn't blow," he said.

"Wind is certainly a critical and important component to put into that toolbox of energy, but there's still going to have to be a degree of dependence on fossil fuels, at least for the foreseeable future."





http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/04/21/alberta-oilsands-avatar-cameron-renner-environment.html

[duper]

Seriously. This topic on Earth Day?

[ue]

What's wrong with it?

[Canadian Mind]

Good call from the Environment Minister IMO. Look forward to seeing Cameron's reaction.

[Calgarian]

How many windmills would it take to equal the amount of energy in the Oil Sands I wonder? a hell of a lot I bet.

[ue]

^there's also solar energy, considering we're a pretty sunny province, i think that'd be even more successful.

cameron has some good points, though. "and they don't work when the wind doesnt blow" ... well the oil/tar sands industry won't work either when it won't be there anymore.

[Calgarian]

^there's also solar energy, considering we're a pretty sunny province, i think that'd be even more successful.

cameron has some good points, though. "and they don't work when the wind doesnt blow" ... well the oil/tar sands industry won't work either when it won't be there anymore.

They are building a solar energy collector down by Medicine Hat.

[ue]

^Didn't hear about that, thanks, but way more than 1 would be nice. Would be nice to have less coal power in this province. Alberta could also look into Nuclear (it has I believe).

[vid]

^there's also solar energy, considering we're a pretty sunny province, i think that'd be even more successful.

Yes, especially when the sun is shining on it obliquely during the 6 months of the year when you're basically on top of the planet. :koko:

Wind and solar are good on a small scale but as a large capacity generator, they're inefficient and destroy as much land if not more than coal or oil. To power Manhattan Island with solar energy, you could have to cover Long Island entirely in solar panels, or run thousands of wind turbines along the coast.

Unfortunately for the greenies, Nuclear is the least disruptive energy source. Unfortunately for reality, nuclear is the most expensive energy source. I'm sure there is a middle ground somewhere...

Ultimately, generating energy with no negative impact on the environment is practically impossible.

[youngregina]

Well, solar panels could use up almost zero usable space if they were to be installed on peoples roofs. i mean a city could turn into a provincial power plant. just by using the energy that shingles deflect/absorb. And especially on the roofs of warehouses.

[vid]

That's the middle ground. Solar panels on peoples roofs, little wind turbine's in parking lots or in back yards, to generate energy for those homes and businesses, leaving the power plants for large users that can't generate all of their own energy like skyscrapers or factories, or for people who use more than they consume. I'd like to see things like that incorporated into the building code as soon as possible.

[scumtoes]

Major challenges.

How much damage would be done to the Earth by the manufacturing and distribution of millions upon millions of solar panels, wind/water turbines and other so called "green" technologies? Your car gets 51mpg - great! To bad a large swath of Northern Ontario was taken out to supply your car with those fancy Ni-MH batteries.

What about the economics of it all? If there is a major shift towards these types of technologies, how are the poorer countries going to afford something already expensive now but in high demand in the future?

I think oil/gas/coal/nuclear will still be powering our world until some MAJOR breath through in energy generation is discovered.

[Aylmer]

I'm pretty sure that it takes a bigger swath of Northern Alberta to produce a tank of gas than a swath of Norther Ontario to make a Ni-MH.
__

Though wind and solar can't replace gasoline (yet), we can change our habits to use less of it: walk, bike, public transit...

:)

[Aylmer]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10460151-64.html?tag=mncol

[Bigtime]

Well, solar panels could use up almost zero usable space if they were to be installed on peoples roofs. i mean a city could turn into a provincial power plant. just by using the energy that shingles deflect/absorb. And especially on the roofs of warehouses.

I've always wondered why this hasn't been done more. I'm pretty sure Calgary has some ass-backwards bylaw that doesn't allow homes to have panels on the roof right now (perhaps someone has more detail on the matter?). Just south of us in Okotoks there is a community that I believe has solar panels on all roofs.

When you fly into any city and get that view of big box retailers, warehouses, and malls you can't help but wonder why those big flat roofs don't have solar panels on them.

[MichaelS]

I've always wondered why this hasn't been done more. I'm pretty sure Calgary has some ass-backwards bylaw that doesn't allow homes to have panels on the roof right now (perhaps someone has more detail on the matter?). Just south of us in Okotoks there is a community that I believe has solar panels on all roofs.

When you fly into any city and get that view of big box retailers, warehouses, and malls you can't help but wonder why those big flat roofs don't have solar panels on them.

I don't think there is any bylaw preventing it, but the reason it hasn't been done is because the economics just simply don't make sense. Solar panels are still just too inefficient to have any sort of reasonable payback in terms of the energy they produce compared to the cost of installing them. Hopefully this will change with time, and The City is looking to help encourage this by piloting a few projects. There are solar panels on the roof of the muni building parkade, with a little kiosk showing the amount of energy they are generating in the +15 connection next to the parking desk.

As more and more organizations invest in this technology, the hope is the investments will be made to improve efficiency and eventually the cost/benefit will make more sense. But for now, it is just not practical for home owners to put panels up on their roof.

[Calgarian]

There are quite a few buildings and homes in Calgary with solar panels.

I think the solution is that every home should have solar panels on the roof, and in a windy city like Calgary, a wind turbine in the back, you should be able to generate most of your daily energy needs this way for a small building like a house.

[MalcolmTucker]

^there's also solar energy, considering we're a pretty sunny province, i think that'd be even more successful.

cameron has some good points, though. "and they don't work when the wind doesnt blow" ... well the oil/tar sands industry won't work either when it won't be there anymore.

I've always wondered why this hasn't been done more. I'm pretty sure Calgary has some ass-backwards bylaw that doesn't allow homes to have panels on the roof right now (perhaps someone has more detail on the matter?). Just south of us in Okotoks there is a community that I believe has solar panels on all roofs.

When you fly into any city and get that view of big box retailers, warehouses, and malls you can't help but wonder why those big flat roofs don't have solar panels on them.

Solar power (electricity) is pretty uneconomic in Alberta. It isn't really economic anywhere, but much less so in Alberta. It doesn't help that Alberta's peak power use is in the winter after the sun has set on top of that.

Even if all of Alberta's power came from natural gas, gas would have to be worth around $50 a GJ for the cost of production to come even close.

As you can see: http://www.oksolar.com/abctech/images/world_solar_radiation_large.gif
This map shows the amount of solar energy in hours, received each day on an optimally tilted surface during the worst month of the year. {Source (http://www.oksolar.com/abctech/solar-radiation.htm)}
Given Calgary is in the 2.9 or less zone, and that our highest consumption comes in winter when this number of hours really wouldn't help much. In the winter, sunlight reaching Calgary also has to pass through alot more atmosphere, and hits the ground at a much more acute angle.

Even in the sunniest places solar is no where near competitive. In the future we might figure out how to build really cheap solar cells - but we aren't there yet. Until we are, putting up expensive light collectors that don't reduce pollution because there is far to little of it, so we can;t shut down any hydro carbon power plants because of it.

Alberta is already building pointless wind farms (at least they don't have a guaranteed price in Alberta, only a guaranteed purchase at spot price, which is still a pretty bum deal for the power consumer), we don't need even more pointless solar plants.

A neat thing to look at if your really interested is this: the live report on supply and demand in Alberta's electricity system (http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/docroot/index.html).

As I look right now you can see things like:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8676/powerc.jpg

Which shows that in Alberta of the clean electricity the province is consuming right now 59% is being imported from BC. What happens is Alberta produces coal power through the night and sends it to BC, and BC shuts off some dams. Then during the day we buy back that in theory 'stored' electricity. (except all the transactions are due to market forces, and not some predetermined political agreement that might make it look enlightened)

[MalcolmTucker]

There are quite a few buildings and homes in Calgary with solar panels.

I think the solution is that every home should have solar panels on the roof, and in a windy city like Calgary, a wind turbine in the back, you should be able to generate most of your daily energy needs this way for a small building like a house.

Solar heating hot water makes much more sense than PV (electricity) in Calgary. Most of the panels in Calgary are water heaters. Why? They are economic!

And yeah - distributed grids seem for some reason to be a new panecea, which doesn't really help unless the consumer is willing to take the trade off that power might not always be there when they want. If fuel cell technology or large batteries get cheap enough in conjunction with huge jumps in efficiencies from PV, it might make sense.

The economies of scale for large plants are just so great. There is a reason we don't all have a small gas turbine power plant in our basements for heating, water, and electricity (and you can buy them if you wanted). The same reasons prevail for renewals.

[240glt]

Net zero home in Edmonton with solar power & heating components

http://www.riverdalenetzero.ca/Home.html

[MalcolmTucker]

^ that they use electric heat in the winter is a true waste.
Edit:
Also, it is worth noting that the capital cost of their PV system was likely north of $60k depending on the exchange rate at the time. Most of the net cost savings comes from their solar heating and insulation, not the electrical system. You can consume a lot of electricity for 60k.

[MolsonExport]

http://www.oksolar.com/abctech/images/world_solar_radiation_large.gif


And, wouldn't you know it, Germany is the leading solar power nation.

[Calgarian]

Geothermal heating is a way to reduce your carbon footprint in the winter, though it's pretty expensive.

[MalcolmTucker]

And, wouldn't you know it, Germany is the leading solar power nation.

And Germany pays a huge subsidy for that privledge, and produces close to the least amount of electricity per installed kw in the world.

At one point Germany was consuming so much of the worlds PV production that places where it might actually make sense to put them in couldn't buy them.

Alberta could become number 1 in the world too, but it doesn't mean it would make any logical sense to. We couldn't close any of our other power plants (and that is what Germany has found aswell).

[MrOilers]

One problem with building solar or wind farms is that all kinds of new power lines will need to be constructed to distribute the energy. And as a general observation, people don't like new power lines.

The only way we will move away from fossil fuels is if (when?) alternative energy sources become more reliable, economical, and available.

[Doug]

My house in Perth relies entirely on solar for hot water and PV cells provide satisfy most of the daytime power requirements. Perth is extremely sunny and temperate (ex. a properly insulated house will never require heating). We don't use A/C ever and tolerate luke warm showers during extended periods of overcast skies. There aren't many locales where this would be possible.

[240glt]

^ that they use electric heat in the winter is a true waste.
Edit:
Also, it is worth noting that the capital cost of their PV system was likely north of $60k depending on the exchange rate at the time. Most of the net cost savings comes from their solar heating and insulation, not the electrical system. You can consume a lot of electricity for 60k.

You're not taking into account where the grid electricity comes from. Solar electric vs. Gas is much cleaner, & that was the point of the home.

It's a really neat project, some impractical components but it is a huge step in the right direction.

[someone123]

Maybe we can also power vehicles with rooftop wind turbines.

[MichaelS]

Maybe we can also power vehicles with rooftop wind turbines.

If they are plug in hybrids (or full electric vehicles) who get their charging from that source, why not?

[Riise]

How many windmills would it take to equal the amount of energy in the Oil Sands I wonder? a hell of a lot I bet.

Total energy generating capacity or annual production?

That's the middle ground. Solar panels on peoples roofs, little wind turbine's in parking lots or in back yards, to generate energy for those homes and businesses, leaving the power plants for large users that can't generate all of their own energy like skyscrapers or factories, or for people who use more than they consume. I'd like to see things like that incorporated into the building code as soon as possible.

Over here the Merton Rule (http://www.icax.co.uk/The_Merton_Rule.html) ensures that at least 10% of the energy need in new developments is generated on-site and with the new Code For Sustainable Homes by 2016 all new homes in the UK will need to be zero carbon.


We couldn't close any of our other power plants (and that is what Germany has found aswell).

So are we judging success in the ability to permanently close these plants or use them less? Also, aren't the subsidies the German government handing out kind of an investment? Aren't they cutting the feed-in tariffs to spur innovation (e.g. increase the efficiency of PVs) in the industry?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ You can't really use the large scale industrial plants 'less', coal plants take hours to start up. As for using natural gas plants less, if it happens that would be some of the most expensive saved gas ever. (it would take a lot of production to be able to shut down a plant - considering 100 megawatts is on the small side for a gas turbine.)

[Metro-One]

There are quite a few buildings and homes in Calgary with solar panels.

I think the solution is that every home should have solar panels on the roof, and in a windy city like Calgary, a wind turbine in the back, you should be able to generate most of your daily energy needs this way for a small building like a house.

This is what I have thought for a long time. Geothermal should also be a part of any major structure.

Also, to those who re saying these technologies will not solve all of our current energy needs, you are probably right.

But if these alternate technologies were implemented to the level many of us are suggesting, than a major chunk of our energy needs would be solved.

Currently wind, solar and geo-thermal are contributing far less of a percentage than they easily can be if implemented to their current full potential, that is the problem.

Also, as for these alternate technologies being expensive and inefficient, implementation is how technologies evolves.

For example, compare modern internal combustion engines to those 80, 50 or even 20 years ago. Fossil fuel engines and generators today are extremely more efficient and clean, and the same will be true for solar and wind if we actual implement them on larger scales.

[someone123]

The reality is that it's a very complicated problem and needs to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. If there are good renewable energy sources then they should be used. Ideally, there will also be more and more emphasis placed on initial planning to minimize things like automobile use.

My problem with a lot of policies relating to renewal energy is that they are fundamentally irrational and are based on an emotional aversion to oil rather than any kind of analysis of costs and benefit. Getting everybody to place a little wind turbine on top of their house is not terribly likely to be an efficient way to provide energy because of poor economies of scale. Having each individual house or development generate its own electricity is not inherently useful.

The other big risk is that a lot of people want to push to change the whole economy overnight, which would have unnecessary negative consequences. The people who read an article about peak oil and then declare that we should all revert to growing beans in our backyards are really tiresome and unhelpful.

[Riise]

^ You can't really use the large scale industrial plants 'less', coal plants take hours to start up. As for using natural gas plants less, if it happens that would be some of the most expensive saved gas ever. (it would take a lot of production to be able to shut down a plant - considering 100 megawatts is on the small side for a gas turbine.)

Okay, I see. However, I still think we could have all new homes be zero carbon.

[240glt]

Having each individual house or development generate its own electricity is not inherently useful.

I would strongly disagree with that. I'd argue that micro-generation wil be critical to getting a handle on energy useage, much moreso than large scale solar or wind installations.

[Metro-One]

I would strongly disagree with that. I'd argue that micro-generation wil be critical to getting a handle on energy useage, much moreso than large scale solar or wind installations.

Not to mention that there is relatively little transfer loss of such energy produced when compared to mega energy production sites, where huge amounts of the energy created is lost during its long journeys (sometimes thousands of kilometers) to where the energy is used.

A perfect example of this loss are the Peace River dams supplying Vancouver's power needs. There would likely be no need for a new site C dam (which is going to flood another 80km stretch of the Peace River, displacing farms and people in province that is already 85 to 90% uninhabitable due to rough terrain and mountain climates) if such micro-generating were common place throughout the province

[MalcolmTucker]

^ haha, that isn't true. Site C as a hydro peaking plant will help avoid gas turbine plants being built in the lower mainland. Unless your micro-generation is going to be small gas turbines in people's houses, you still need the reliable backup from somewhere.

Due to provincial boundaries Site Cs power won't be used in the most effective environmental way (selling it to Alberta to displace coal, then building natural gas plants to supply Vancouver), but that is the world we live in.

[Metro-One]

:previous: I think you missed the concept of micro-generating: solar, wind and geothermal.

The point of these would be to produce enough energy locally that building a new dam regionally would not be necessary.

The pre-existing dams could them become our peaking plants ;)

Get it?

I also love this idea that flooding 80+ kilometers of a river valley is green energy.

The fact that the Peace River is thousands of kilometers away from any major urban center in BC is the only reason it can be approved so easily.

I am sure if they proposed the flooding of 80+ kilometers of any river near the Vancouver, Victoria or Kelowna areas, even if such a theoretical project would flood far less agricultural land, it would meet mass protest and probably be stopped.

I think people today in BC don't understand just how many valleys have already been lost due to dams and flooding. We have simply grown up now thinking of those areas as "lakes."

But i guess if we just keep chipping away relatively small portions at a time no one will notice. just like putting the old frog in the cold water and turning up the heat process.

To me this is not different than the slowly chipping away of the ALR near Vancouver. Sure, each little piece lost seems insignificant in the short term, but soon all those little pieces turn into big losses :tup:

Also you failed to address the energy lost in the excessively long transfer distances of the energy produced from these projects. In fact building a site C sized dam close to Vancouver would be far more efficient than its location in the Peace River. But that would be far to close to where the true impacts and loss of land would be seen by the masses.

I am also surprised that tidal power has not been given more consideration, especially for our coastal cities.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the peak hits when there are no renewalables on stream, then you're up the creek. You design the grid for the worst case scenario, not the normal case.

[Metro-One]

:previous: Then if we are just building for the worst case scenario, than maybe BC should simply build a coal plant that it would likely never be used instead of permanently flooding 80+ kilometers of a fertile valley for something we may never use ;)

That would be building for a worst case scenario.

You have failed to counter point all I said above.

[MalcolmTucker]

It all depends if you value the land or not, more than you do a continual free supply of zero emissions electricity at less than 10c a kwh. They are paying full market value for the land.

I would much rather there be dams in Alberta in the couple places that can support them than the current coal power plants.

Life is all about tradeoffs, and unless you are willing to pay 20 c/kwh or more for electricity then you have the traditional technologies to make a choice with: hydro, nuclear, gas and coal. I think to most people it is a pretty easy choice which one comes out on top.

[Metro-One]

:previous: First of all the 0 emissions for hydro is a myth.

First there is the major construction of the project (lots of emissions)
The clearing and construction of thousands of acres of forest for new hydro lines.
The rotting organic matter now below the water table in the flooded valley also creates considerable amounts of carbon emissions

etc...

Also, in province such as Alberta where the majority of the land can be used for agriculture the flooding of a river valley may not seem as damaging, but again in BC, where only 10 to 15% of our land is useful for agriculture, the loss of another 80km segment of a river valley is damaging, and yes, in my opinion, the cons out weight the pros in this scenario.

Again, you failed to counterpoint the fact that immense amounts of energy is lost in transmission from such far away from anywhere power generation projects.

And the fact that micro-generating would not have this side effect and would help reduce the demand for such mega projects. I have no idea why you are so against such sustainable energy resources.

If all new structures were built with high geo-thermal, wind and solar power guidelines. there are a lot of empty roofs out there in this country.....not to mention the potential for geo-thermal heating and cooling on larger structures, vastly reducing the need to power heaters and air conditioners, which are major energy suckers.......

[ue]

Hydro is definitely better than the coal that we keep burning in Alberta, but for large scale use by the mass, it isn't the best not totally harmful energy source. Wind and solar would be good (and I agree it'd have to be on all roofs and in backyards) on larger scales though. We still havent found the "perfect" environmentally friendly option, but at least solar/hydro/wind/geothermal/nuclear is a giant leap in the right direction compared to coal/natural gas/oil.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ The economics just aren't there for solar and small scale wind. (large scale wind works in Alberta with only a moderate subsidy, a forced purchase agreement).

As for line loss, a 10 or 15% line loss is still more than economic compared to the cost of solar. Hydro installed should be sub 6c a kwh, whereas the subsidized rate put in in Ontario for solar on a house is 90.2c a kwh.

To replace Site C using distributed solar, using the German average of 20% up time, would take:
Site C Potential 900,000 kw
Average Solar Distributed generation, 6.4 kw (what they put up on the Edmonton solar house)
Simple math says 140,625 houses if you have the same up time on each. 703,125 houses if you use the average amount produced per year installed for the Germany average.

Even at the low end 140,625 houses at $60,000 a house (solar PV and inverter only) is $8,437,500,000. Already 28% more expensive than the high estimate for Site C, and that is only for the equivalent amount of installed maximum capacity, not GWh of production. Add to that that even modern panels need to be replaced every 30 years where dams commonly get refitted at 100 years and the solar option for equivalent GWh of production is $126 billion vs $6.6 billion for the dam in todays dollars (assuming the solar panels that we use to replace the old ones at 30 and 60 years are the same price as today).

[vid]

How much energy is used by low density housing and businesses?

How much energy would those low density houses and businesses use if they had solar panels, geothermal heating, and wind turbines to meet some of their energy needs?

OPG is only converting the coal plants in Northwestern Ontario to wood pellets because Thunder Bay and Atikokan don't want to lose any more tax revenue. Neither plant is needed anymore. Thunder Bay Generating Station is shut down 85% of the time, it's basically only running in winter or during drought.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the problem is what kind of energy, or how much energy, then it is a simple economics problem. If you want people to use less, raise the price. No reason for prescriptive expensive solutions. People respond to price signals more than anything.

Why is this better than mandates you might ask? Well, for one you could end up with unintended consequences, like lets say energy department mandates geothermal for new houses. Well now new houses need bigger yards, which means lower density. Who is to know whether lower density but higher energy efficiency is better? If you require solar panels, you might end up limiting the future construction of high towers as they would block the panels sun light.

Letting pure economics make the choice will always be better and in fact is what BC has done with the carbon tax.

[bob1954]

I don't think people are against Oil sands developement. It's the arrogance of the oil companies saying they're not responsible for the clean-up or using different techniuqes for developing this rescource, that use less water in particular! That's what get's people angry!

[shreddog]

It's the arrogance of the oil companies saying they're not responsible for the clean-up or using different techniuqes for developing this rescource, that use less water in particular!
Bob, can you provide examples of these accusations? You may not be aware, but each company must put millions a year into a government trust fund for land rehabilitation. And every company operating in the Sands has spent millions (aggregate = 100's millions) in clean-up and land rehabilitation. I have posted here numerous times what the rehabilitation sites look like and they certainly are impressive - much better than what industry has done elsewhere. FYI, the amount each companyt pays is based on the amount of oil extracted, the technique used and the amount of land disturbed. E

As for improving the extraction technologies, it is patently false to say that the companies have been relucatant to improving their extraction or cleanup techniques. Every facility built uses the latest in technological advances, hell Nexen and OPTI just spent over 6 BILLION deploying the latest SAGD technology (Long Lake) such that they could reduce their water used by nearly 30% (a massive improvement). The reality of the situation though is that these technological leaps of faith can be very risky. While Long Lake is using the newest technology it is also experiencing the pain of being on the bleeding edge - production has been nearly 50% below expectations - and the shareholders are pissed.

And that is the rub - I have had the opportunity to meet many senior people working in the Patch and none were arrogant or flippant wrt to what they were doing, however in the end they do have to answer to shareholders. If you really want to get "angry" at someone, get pissed at all the big pension funds (Teachers, Caisse, etc) that prevent the oil companies from investing more in protecting the environment and cuting into their returns.

That's what get's people angry!Actually, my experience has been ignorance and arrogance are normally associated with those "angry" at the Sands and less so the oil companies.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't think people are against Oil sands developement. It's the arrogance of the oil companies saying they're not responsible for the clean-up or using different techniuqes for developing this rescource, that use less water in particular! That's what get's people angry!

Umm, what world are you living on? As said above, these companies have to remediate the land once they are done industrial activity on it. As for not putting money into using less water, I believe the average barrel uses about a 10th the amount of water as one 30 years ago? And Suncor last year announced they solved the settling ponds problem - they say they can get a pond settled in 6 months now!

[shreddog]

Since this topic comes up on a regular basis - but on 6+ month intervals, I'll repost this such that Bob and others can see what happens after the mining is done ...
Well, except that unlike many other jurisdictions, Alberta makes the big bad oil companies clean up their mess. Here is a picture of that same plant but from a different angle showing the overburden that is placed back over a mined out area.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~anaeth/images/Research_images/Looking%20Over%20W1%20To%20Syncrude.jpg

Which eventually grows into this
http://www.ualberta.ca/~anaeth/images/Research_images/Inside%20Natural%20Recovery.jpg.
(all pictures from U of A researchers)

Further - here are details on what is required for land disturbed by mining to be declared as being reclaimed ... http://environment.alberta.ca/695.html

To date only Syncrude's Gateway Hills (~65 sq kms) has been certified as reclaimed since it takes about 25 years from the date when mining ceases to when the land is in a state to be declared "reclaimed". Details on the certification process can be found here: (http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235929728-alberta-issues-firstever-oil-sands-land-reclamation-certificate)

The area certified currently looks like this:
http://www.capp.ca/PublishingImages/270W/Syncrude-Gateway-Hill-270.jpg

Going foward there are hunders of sq kms under rehabilitation - as significant portions of land saw mining activities conclude in the early 90's through to today. As such over the next 20 years a significant portion of the currently mined areas will be reclaimed. And an FYI most of all the new mining is done underground via SAGD with very little impact to the surface.

Finally, as bad as the Sands are, the environmental damage that is being done is no worse than that done by humans all of over the world (E.g. changing the natural flora and fauna, air pollution, habitat displacement, etc) from nature's perspective. The total amount of land to be disturbed during all mining extraction, ever, will be less than the footprint of the many Canadian CMA's. And within 100 years that land will be returned to a state where nature can florish - unlike our cities which will be in an unnatural state for a very long time (hopefully!)

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[kel]

Alberta accounts for 8% of all of Canada's man made co2 emissions, the oilsands account for 21% of all of Alberta's man made co2 emissions. Man made co2 accounts for 6% of all co2 in Canada. Cattle make up over 35% alone.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ yeah, about that... Alberta doesn't do as well as you think....
http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/EE80A69C-2B1C-4054-9BC6-B3B8E8CDF22B/GHG4_enLG.gif

Alberta produces more in total than Ontario.

[Doug]

Letting pure economics make the choice will always be better and in fact is what BC has done with the carbon tax.


But it hasn't done it with hydro. Would Site C be required if BC Hydro charged market rates (the same as customers pay in WA and AB minus transportation costs) to in-province customers? Off course doing so would be political suicide. Along the same lines, wouldn't the easiest solution to GHG be to add a substantial amount to fuel taxes (ex. $1 extra per litre) and rebate businesses the taxes paid on exports so that they remain competitive?

[ue]

Replanted forest lack the biodiversity the area did before we turned it into a black hole.

[Bigtime]

Replanted forest lack the biodiversity the area did before we turned it into a black hole.

Better than leaving it a black hole though, and won't biodiversity start to creep back in over time?

[SHOFEAR]

Better than leaving it a black hole though, and won't biodiversity start to creep back in over time?

Lets just slash siesmic lines through it so animals and plants can creep faster. :tup:

[shreddog]

Replanted forest lack the biodiversity the area did before we turned it into a black hole.
Partially true. Again, before any reclaimed land is certified as being "reclaimed" it has to go through 25 years of rehabilitation including biodiversity introduction.

I have actually visited Gateway hill with a number of biologists (not in the pay of industry and gov't) and seen their review of the site. Is it as good as the virgin landscape? Their answer was basically yes.

It is very hard to gauge how diverse the fixed up sites are since it is still a pretty small area and whether some exotic frog that once lived there is now back again (possible, but unlikely if not previously catalouged) however I believe from my research the lands certified as reclaimed in up the Sands (to date) are as diverse as any land reclaimed by humans in the world anywhere in the past 50 years. I am not aware of any land used for human purposes that has been returned to a natural state that has been studied, analysed or scrutinized more than Gateway.

BTW, this includes all human uses, so until we get rid of the humans we will always be "detroying" nature. Last time I checked, none of our cities represented the biodiversity found in nature prior to their founding?

PS. Edmontonenthusiast, have you ever been to the Sands or Fort Muck? Reclaimation is more than just placing some topsoil onto the mined out areas and planting a few poplars. A legion of people are involved to ensure that all forms of flora and fauna are established before the land is deemed reclaimed. Unfortunately not enough detailed inventories were taken on the sites disturbed by mining 30 years, however through work inventoring adjacent eco and biosystems, the people working there generally believe that they're close to recreating the previous habitat. Again, the work done up there is more than just how foresty companies replant clear cuts.

[feepa]

^ yeah, about that... Alberta doesn't do as well as you think....
http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/EE80A69C-2B1C-4054-9BC6-B3B8E8CDF22B/GHG4_enLG.gif

Alberta produces more in total than Ontario.

Alot of that has to do with Coal power versus hydro power though- from my understanding... ?

[ue]

Partially true. Again, before any reclaimed land is certified as being "reclaimed" it has to go through 25 years of rehabilitation including biodiversity introduction.

I have actually visited Gateway hill with a number of biologists (not in the pay of industry and gov't) and seen their review of the site. Is it as good as the virgin landscape? Their answer was basically yes.

It is very hard to gauge how diverse the fixed up sites are since it is still a pretty small area and whether some exotic frog that once lived there is now back again (possible, but unlikely if not previously catalouged) however I believe from my research the lands certified as reclaimed in up the Sands (to date) are as diverse as any land reclaimed by humans in the world anywhere in the past 50 years. I am not aware of any land used for human purposes that has been returned to a natural state that has been studied, analysed or scrutinized more than Gateway.

BTW, this includes all human uses, so until we get rid of the humans we will always be "detroying" nature. Last time I checked, none of our cities represented the biodiversity found in nature prior to their founding?

PS. Edmontonenthusiast, have you ever been to the Sands or Fort Muck?

No, I haven't personally. But I have read that replanting forests in general (be it in Alberta, South Africa, Ukraine, Australia, China, whereever) does not restore the large amount of biodiversity that was once in place.

And no, cities aren't the best culprits either overall. They continue to rip up land for human use and disrupt migration patterns and the lights at night can mess up certain animals. But this is one of the compelling arguments against continuing suburbia. Unless you're literally bursting at the seams with no where to go and are filled with high rises upon high rises (which no North American city has), there is no need for the power centres, McMansions, tract housing, and megaboulevards that plague suburban life.

Every animal is going to have some impact on the Earth, but we as humans go above and beyond any other species currently alive today (maybe in all history) and can have an enormous (versus localized) effect on the whole planet. Reducing this is always better as it has a profound and greatly higher influence on the life of this planet than any other animal.

So, we can easily reduce our footprint by buying up a condo in the city. This building will use less energy per person (less room per person) and increase demand to build more condos in the city instead of tract housing and instead we will use existing urbanized land that can easily be built up instead of brand new land to expand upon. This means we would stop destroying existing natural habitat or farmland and instead focus growth in our existing urban boundaries. We'd still have an effect on nature in some ways, but at least we wouldn't be expanding that effect and localizing it to a smaller area. Also, we can use way way less oil and coal and other fossil fuels easily reducing the demand to rip up natural habitat for black holes in places such as Northern Alberta.

Obviously re-planting is a step in the right direction as it returns the area back to it's natural use and will eventually have the same diversity, much like how wind or solar or hydro are a step (rather leap!) in the right direction, but far from perfect.

[waterloowarrior]

I did an oil sands tour while at a conference and really enjoyed it... the scale is massive, just like a James Cameron movie. I think he'd think it was pretty impressive, even if he was opposed to the energy use and landscape destruction.

[MalcolmTucker]

Alot of that has to do with Coal power versus hydro power though- from my understanding... ?

Yeah. Closing coal plants and replacing with anything will make a huge dent in Alberta's GHG problem. Even just replacing with gas you would get a 50-60 megatonne decrease.

[vid]

No, I haven't personally. But I have read that replanting forests in general (be it in Alberta, South Africa, Ukraine, Australia, China, whereever) does not restore the large amount of biodiversity that was once in place.

Not right away it doesn't. Except for the reserve, almost all of the forest around Thunder Bay was clearcut at some time. Does this look lacking in biodiversity (http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=48.433187,-89.330692&spn=0,0.087547&z=14&layer=c&cbll=48.442554,-89.34078&panoid=7sdjRwtgCQQ2UwETVjmitg&cbp=12,189.4,,0,-1.62)?

You can't call something a failure just because it hasn't produced instant results.

[Metro-One]

It looks like those forest were allowed to regenerate naturally, but many of the plantings in BC are not forests but crops. They simply plant one species, all of the same age. That is not a forest and it indeed does lack much diversity.

Some species require young trees, others older trees, and others yet dying and dead trees. A natural forest along the south west coast of BC will be a mix of Douglas Fir, Red Cedar, Hemlock, Big Leaf Maple, Vine Maple, Red Alder (young disturbed sites), dogwood, cascara, arbutus, white pine, shore pine, grand fir, etc... But many replanted "forests" are simply pure stands of red cedar, Douglas fir or hemlock (of course what if fund where also depends on the topography / site). Planting is also bad because after a disturbance it is natural for red alder, cotton wood and birch to be the first succession of tree species. This stage lasts about 30 to 50 years, building strong soils, then they are slowly replaced by big leaf maple, red cedar and Douglas fir. Then Hemlock joins the mix and a proper climax forest will be a mix of Hemlock, red cedar, Douglas fir and big leaf maple (and arbutus and Gary Oak along the Georgia Straight). Clearing an area and then planting pure stands of a single climax species it 100% unnatural and does lack great diversity.

Yes, some areas have come back rather well after logging, but those areas are usually left to return naturally.

[vid]

The replantings done by the forestry companies are basically farms of their preferred tree species so that they can cut them down again.

[lubicon]

Yeah. Closing coal plants and replacing with anything will make a huge dent in Alberta's GHG problem. Even just replacing with gas you would get a 50-60 megatonne decrease.

Correct. And TransAlta has done just that. The Wabamun generating plant was just decomissioned a few weeks ago. While relatively small, it was the original plant that was built out there and likely was one of the bigger emitters due to it's old age (guess on my part). Things are changing in Alberta - even if it's slowly.

How many coal fired plans has Ontario decomissioned recently? I know there were promises made to do so but I don't know if they have been followed through on.

[vid]

Aside from Thunder Bay and Atikokan, there are two small coal plants in Kenora District near the Manitoba border, which I'm pretty sure are still running with no plans to shut them down. Lakeview in Mississauga was recently demolished, Naticoke is "too necessary", and the shutdown date for all of them has gone from 2007 to 2011 to 2014 and will likely be extended again. McGuinty is pretty gung-ho about getting rid of them but he is placing all his hopes on wind generation and that isn't a very viable solution to the problem.

[RTD]

Good!!!!!! :cheers:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Judge+rejects+Syncrude+have+duck+charges+dropped/2966169/story.html


Judge rejects Syncrude bid to have duck charges dropped
Trial for duck deaths at Alberta oilsands tailings pond will proceed
By Darcy Henton, edmontonjournal.comApril 29, 2010


ST. ALBERT — A Provincial Court judge has rejected arguments by Syncrude Canada that the provincial and federal charges against it stemming from the deaths of more than 1,600 ducks in 2008 should be dismissed.

Provincial Court Judge Ken Tjosvold said Thursday the Crown has presented sufficient evidence for the trial to proceed.

Tjosvold said the company has a defence to the charges and the defence is that if it took all reasonable steps to prevent the duck deaths it would be acquitted.

He rejected Syncrude lawyer Robert White’s argument that the statutes didn’t apply because Syncrude was licensed to operate the ponds and the ponds didn’t leak. He also argued that it is not possible to prevent all ducks from landing on the ponds.

But Tjosvold said it is not necessary for the substance “to come to the animals” for the charge to apply.

“I do not accept the interpretation that so long as the animal moves into the hazardous substance it has contaminated itself.” he said.

The judge also rejected the claim that migratory birds didn’t frequent the area, saying the area includes the space above the ponds and evidence was provided that the pond is under a major North American migration route.

He also commented on White’s argument that the industry will have to shut down if it is convicted for operating its tailings pond.

“Provincial law does not require that Syncrude perform the impossible,” he said.

Tjosvold said that if Syncrude took reasonable steps to deter birds from landing on the ponds, it cannot be convicted even if birds are contaminated in the pond.

White had told reporters after court Wednesday that the oilsands industry might have to shut down if Syncrude was convicted because the industry cannot extract bitumen from the oilsands without the use of the massive settling basins.

White told reporters that’s why Syncrude went to court to fight the charges.

“I am not sure everyone has understood those are the stakes in this case,” he said. “It’s because first of all we didn’t let anything loose into the environment and second, if the Crown can make this statute say what it doesn’t, we’re done ... If by having a tailings pond we’re guilty of this charge, we have to stop having tailings ponds.”

White said the industry is “alarmed” by the charges because oilsands producers require settling basins to operate and won’t know where it stands if Syncrude is convicted.

“The oilsands industry will have to decide, one, what good is a permit and two, can we risk continuing to operate knowing that one of the companies in the industry has been convicted of a crime for doing so,” White said.

dhenton@thejournal.canwest.com

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Not dropped doesn't mean there will be a conviction, or that a conviction wouldn't be overturned either by another court. If it is upheld, then unless there is a government that wants to stop basically everything with even a modicum of risk to the environment, legislation would be changed to end the interpretation of the law that would make this a criminal offense.

[shreddog]

Good!!!!!! :cheers:
Not that I disagree, but why do you think this is good?

[RTD]

Not that I disagree, but why do you think this is good?

Because they are proceeding with a trial, instead of completely dismissing it altogether. Big business needs to be accountable for their actions.

[MalcolmTucker]

What actions? The pond was approved by the government. Unless the company consciously took an action that caused the ducks to land there that was unreasonable (ie: a different company in the same situation would have had noise canons in operation despite the weather at the time) there is no crime.

[240glt]

^ Totoally incorrect. The measures that the company was supposed to take were not functioning. The company is accountable for damages due to negilgence.

And the posturing by their shyster lawyer is nothing short of shameful. THey could have done the right thing, paid the fine and made a donation to Ducks unlimited or something, but no.

As always, the greedy, unethical face of the oil industry rears itself.

[MalcolmTucker]

The measures weren't functioning yeah, but the question is whether that alone is negligence. Would having 2 backup noise cannons be negligence if they all failed and ducks landed? 5?

The government can't go around and blame people or corporations for doing things that were approved by the government. If the building code causes a fire to spread more quickly than in an optimal case is it the builders or engineers fault? No! It is the government's fault. That is one of the reasons the government was partially responsible in the leaky condos affair in BC.

[240glt]

The measures weren't functioning yeah, but the question is whether that alone is negligence

I'm sure Syncrude can afford to find out the migratory bird patterns and have appropriate measures (and backup measures) in place. It has been proven that their measures were not operational. The reasons for that don't matter.

And your building argument is not necessarily true either. If the codes were not followed to spec then yes the builder or engineer can be found at fault.

The bottom line is that Syncrude failed in their obligations, and need to make reparations for their negligence. This lawsuit is not going to get them any public support (most people hate oil companies anyways) and the sheer arrogance and contempt being illustrated by Syncrude and their lawyers is really disgusting.

[jawagord]

Looks like the "penny has dropped" for the Canadian business media, wonder how long it will take for the eco-nazi's and the Jean Charest's of the world to realize the days of exclusively bashing the Alberta oilsands as "dirty oil" are over? The mainstream media and National Geographic now have a new villian (actually an old forgotten villian), offshore drilling/BP to tar and feather. Let's hope the containment crew can get a funnel over the well this week before this disaster becomes the worst oil spill in US history.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2985672

CALGARY - The environmental evils of the oil sands, whether real or perceived, have been largely forgotten since thousands of barrels of oil began oozing out of the seafloor in the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana's tragedy at the hands of the exploded Deepwater Horizon oil rig, experts argue, could be Alberta's advantage.

These observers do not mean to sound flip considering 11 people died, several more are injured, and the ecological and economic fallout in the Gulf will be harsh and linger for decades. Further, the entire energy industry could be damaged as people consider the consequences of relying so heavily on fossil fuels. But in the meantime, images of gigantic ponds of toxic waste and dead ducks have given way pictures of a moving slick of crude -- one that is growing and is not bound by barriers.

"Without a doubt it takes the heat off [the oil sands] from within the [United States]," Tyler Priest, an oil historian at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business, said. "Everyone is now focused on the Gulf of Mexico right now."

Oil has been leaking into the Gulf since April 22, two days after a rig leased by BP PLC, the British energy powerhouse, suffered an explosion and fire. An estimated 5,000 barrels of oil per day are escaping after emergency systems designed to shut off the well failed. Officials do not know when they will be able to stop the leaks. It could be months.

Alberta's oil sands, which hold the world's second-largest proven reserves behind Saudi Arabia, have been pummeled by international backlash recently. Seventeen members of the European Parliament last month asked the European climate commissioner to solidify rules which would keep oil sands crude out of the EU; state and federal lawmakers in the United States have been lobbying against the industry; and institutional investors are publicly demanding more information related to financial risk from companies operating in the oil sands, BP included. Green groups have made the 1,606 ducks that died in a bitumen-coated tailings pond in April 2008 famous as they use them to illustrate the oil sands' danger.

"I'm hopeful in the face of this real big disaster [in the Gulf of Mexico], people start realizing the oil sands are pretty benign operations," Garth Parker, the leader of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP's oil sands group, said. "The more that people are aware of how production operations in the oil sands are conducted in Alberta, the more they will realize it is less likely this kind of situation is going to happen."

Location – offshore Louisiana versus the interior of northern Alberta – makes a big difference. "Oil sands risk is typically more localized and manageable," Arnold Olyan, a senior member of Gowlings' oil sands group, said. Bitumen, after all, is too thick leak out of control, and if a refinery blows up, there would be a finite amount of oil involved.

That said, Alberta is stuck with tailings ponds, which host the toxic by-products tied to bitumen mines; ground and river water contamination problems; the destruction of wetlands and forest; and other problems.

Rick George, Suncor Energy Inc.'s chief executive, said he reviewed his company's offshore "procedures and processes" after the BP disaster. While the spill prompted U.S. president Barack Obama put a halt on any new offshore drilling and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to yank plans to expand his state's offshore activity, Mr. George thinks the industry will carry on.

"What it may require is more regulations," he told reporters after Suncor's annual meeting yesterday.

And that, too, could work in Alberta's favour. Should political pressure and public anger translate into extensive offshore drilling rules, the landlocked oil sands could become financially favourable, said Brad MacKay, a professor in the University of Edinburgh Business School's MBA program.

That advantage, however, won't last. The oil sands will suffer along with the rest of the energy industry as people -- scared by the images and consequences of the BP spill -- make a better effort to go green, Mr. MacKay said.

But until then, the cries against the oil sands will quiet.

"A lot of Americans have been demonizing the oil sands and have been ignoring the dangers in their own backyard," said Alastair Sweeny, who has written a history book on the oil sands called Black Bonanza. "I think the more radical environmentalists will jump on this, and take their eyes off the Athabasca for a while."



Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2985672#ixzz0n1CnQE7S

[Slug]

Wow the EU wants to source oil from other areas besides the oil sands; makes me wonder how many more of their weaker states will be pushed to default by that decision. I guess they could get their energy from the Middle East, Russia, or Venezuela and trade the suffering of fowl to people.

Also, take in to account that most of the oil extracted in North America is mixed in the refining process effectively forcing the Americans to ban oil sands going into their system to appease the Europeans. Ultimately, all this will be to shorten global supply and trigger another energy crisis which can be all traced back to soon to be ex-elected officials.