Oil Sands Myths/Discussion

[derpderp]

As an Albertan among Albertans here on Beyond, I can obviously say I'm not alone with my annoyance towards all the alarmist rhetoric that surrounds the Oil projects in this province.

Books titled Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care)

This one makes me laugh, should have just named it "If you don't buy this book, the world is going to end tomorrow"

Alarmist campaigns with facts that are stretched truths and lies.

And people blindly jumping on the "Anti-Oil Sands" feel good bandwagon, just after they finish pumping the gas in their SUV.

Although I find most people are simply not bothered to actually pay attention to the negative attention we are getting, which is fine, but I think this attitude needs to be shift because the more we can spread our stroy, the less likely people are going to eat up all the garbage spewing from the mouth piece of alarmist environmental groups like Corporate Ethics and Greenpeace.

I plan on writing a small paper in the next few months (just want to give myself lots of time) on what I feel are the biggest myths around the Oil Sands and why they are false or stretched truths. I plan on writing it like a proper academic paper with sources, references and intend to allow it to be freely distributed.

Beyond, what do you think are the biggest myths around the Oil sands projects?

I have come up with these ones on my own so far:

1) The Oil Sands are causing bird Armageddon.

2) The Oil Sands is all Open-pit mining and that all of North Alberta is going to be a giant strip mine.

3) American corporations control the whole project and are looting Canada.

4) Mining companies are permitted to operate with extremely relaxed environmental controls.

I know we have a number of people on here who work in the Oil field so I hope to hear their perspective.

Please say whatever you feel on this subject, for or against the oil and to help me with writing this right now.

Also, I wanted to just mention, I am not a Student, so no this isn't me trying to trick Beyond in helping me write a paper. :D

[msommers]

Myths or no myths, it still boils down money and the need for oil. Oil sands aren't going anywhere any time soon. America needs our oil, getting it from the Middle East isn't consistent enough and they've pissed off people south of them.

From an environmental standpoint, I'd speculate we are top-tier. Millions of dollars goes to reclaimation and even research to minimize impact. Compare that to anywhere else in the world.

Oils sands is just the latest thing to jump on. What's more interesting is how 'The Shield' open-pit mines and large tailing ponds are not even mentioned. Oil is just a hot topic that people without a clue can get emotional about. It's like climate change and polar bears. What people really should be concerned about are the micro-fauna being irradicated because of an increase in acidity of the oceans. I just found this out recently, it's just not big news.

While I don't condone what the activists are saying, it does reiterate that we aren't exactly, "doing nothing" to the environment. Disposal wells, wildlife being affected, people being affected all in the name of a (at this point) vital resource. What's the alternative? Right now I don't see one. I do think we can do things cleaner. However, I'm doubtful that researchers are sitting idly by. After all, a new technology could mean big bucks for them.

It's all in the name of the mighty dollar, so get used to it.

[AndyL]

I just shake my head... Like last years global warming thread...Where a picture of the LNG Steam generators was used to show "the impact". Still trying to figure that one out - the impact of steam eh?

Sure made a pretty picture - tons of emmisions... of water vapour - but little else...

People seriously need to take the tour - get some vague understanding of the plants and operations before jumping to baseless conclusions.

I spent 5 years crawling all over syncrude, suncor, at all hours of the day and night... It's great fun to point out stuff like the picture of the power plant - all those nasty emissions from natural gas fed steam turbines...

[Canmorite]

Isn't there a panel of scientists/researchers up there right now? I'd like to see what the results of that study are.

I don't believe the Oil Sands are going away anytime soon, but environmental protections need to be in place, and in some areas they could be bolstered. The tailings ponds, and the amount of fresh water that becomes polluted in the separation process, are both fairly alarming factors.

[Boat]

Do some research on water use, specifically the Athabasca river. Everyone says the oil companies are draining it dry etc etc, but I think the usage is something like 1% of the total flow, all of which is regulated by the government.

Don't quote me on my numbers though. And send me a copy when you finish!

[AndyL]

They don't use much fresh water at all - just to replenish for evaporation. Process water is reused over and over and over.

1% number is based on the oilsands plants water leases - they could suck that much water out if needed - but they don't; standard operating procedure is to remove only what is lost when the rivers are high; unless critically low.

No fresh water is used in extraction - and poluted, this is why they have huge ponds of process water - every drop of water is recycled. This is why the tailings ponds exist - sediment settles out - refills the old mine, water is pumped back to the process water ponds and the cycle begins anew.

Back 10 years ago - they were all about water and making sure it wasn't being wasted. Nothings changed - in fact they've gotten even more anal retentive about water since...

[D. Dub]

The biggest issue for me is all the energy required to create the energy produced. It just seems illogical.

[googe]

Ah, the ignorance of the rednecks knows no bounds :rofl:

[texasnick]

Originally posted by AndyL
They don't use much fresh water at all - just to replenish for evaporation. Process water is reused over and over and over.

1% number is based on the oilsands plants water leases - they could suck that much water out if needed - but they don't; standard operating procedure is to remove only what is lost when the rivers are high; unless critically low.

No fresh water is used in extraction - and poluted, this is why they have huge ponds of process water - every drop of water is recycled. This is why the tailings ponds exist - sediment settles out - refills the old mine, water is pumped back to the process water ponds and the cycle begins anew.

Back 10 years ago - they were all about water and making sure it wasn't being wasted. Nothings changed - in fact they've gotten even more anal retentive about water since...

There is at least 1 operation I can think of off of the top of my head that doesn't re-use their water in their tailings stream. But yeah, vast majority do.....

I think my biggest pet peave about anti-oilsands rhetoric is when they show pictures of oil slicks on rivers/creeks, show the muskeg and how nasty it is etc., and then proceed to make everyone believe that (a) this is somehow a dead environment where no cuddly creatures could possibly live, and (b), that mining operations are what made the area look like that.

You guys really want to know what the alternative to Ft. Mac is (in terms of selling to the US)? Niger Delta.....That place makes Ft. McMurray look like Fern Gulley and I guarantee it didn't look like that before decades of 300+ ruptures or spills per year.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by googe
Ah, the ignorance of the rednecks knows no bounds :rofl:

care to enlighten us?:guns:

[FraserB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by D. Dub
The biggest issue for me is all the energy required to create the energy produced. It just seems illogical. [/QUOTE

There is actually a significant gain from input to output. for example, one barrel of oil takes 1200 cubic feet of natural gas to produce. The energy out put of that barrel of oil is 4.83 times greater than natural gas.

[derpderp]

Originally posted by googe
Ah, the ignorance of the rednecks knows no bounds :rofl:

lol enjoy your ban :nut:

[AndyL]

Originally posted by texasnick


There is at least 1 operation I can think of off of the top of my head that doesn't re-use their water in their tailings stream. But yeah, vast majority do.....

Which one is that? Kinda curious now... Can't remember ever being in a tailings pump house at albian, but the rest of the plants - spent more time than I care to think about in those damn pump houses...

[ZenOps]

Well. I can say that if the world has a problem with oil sands, they are going to be doubly noisy about oil shale.

If you thought trying to squeeze some oil from loose sand was bad - just wait until we are trying to squeeze oil out of solid rock.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by FraserB
[QUOTE]Originally posted by D. Dub
The biggest issue for me is all the energy required to create the energy produced. It just seems illogical. [/QUOTE

There is actually a significant gain from input to output. for example, one barrel of oil takes 1200 cubic feet of natural gas to produce. The energy out put of that barrel of oil is 4.83 times greater than natural gas.

Why not just burn the NG in the first place?

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by AndyL

Which one is that? Kinda curious now... Can't remember ever being in a tailings pump house at albian, but the rest of the plants - spent more time than I care to think about in those damn pump houses...

Horizon pumps alot of stuff back into the ground, i designed part of the system haha...

[Darkane]

Originally posted by D. Dub


Why not just burn the NG in the first place?

Becoming more scarce.

[msommers]

Originally posted by derpderp


lol enjoy your ban :nut:

:rofl: I see you haven't been around here much.


Originally posted by ZenOps
If you thought trying to squeeze some oil from loose sand was bad - just wait until we are trying to squeeze oil out of solid rock.

:rofl:

[derpderp]

Originally posted by msommers


:rofl: I see you haven't been around here much.


no :cry:

[texasnick]

Originally posted by AndyL

Which one is that? Kinda curious now... Can't remember ever being in a tailings pump house at albian, but the rest of the plants - spent more time than I care to think about in those damn pump houses...

Actually, I am slightly off......From what I know though, Syncrude doesn't recycle the water from the sand they pump. IIRC they just spread it out like peanut butter over hell's half-acre. But this is an exception. I haven't worked on a project where most, if not all of the water isn't recycled since I started 4 years ago.

Isn't Horizon CNRL's in-situ operation? It would make sense that they're pumping steam into the ground then.

:poosie:

I've done design work for 1 oil shale project, and the amount of $$$ required to extract crude from the shale is borderline ludacris. The plant was estimated as costing something like 100x what the mine infrastructure would cost.

[JfuckinC]

Originally posted by texasnick


Actually, I am slightly off......From what I know though, Syncrude doesn't recycle the water from the sand they pump. IIRC they just spread it out like peanut butter over hell's half-acre. But this is an exception. I haven't worked on a project where most, if not all of the water isn't recycled since I started 4 years ago.

Isn't Horizon CNRL's in-situ operation? It would make sense that they're pumping steam into the ground then.

:poosie:

I've done design work for 1 oil shale project, and the amount of $$$ required to extract crude from the shale is borderline ludacris. The plant was estimated as costing something like 100x what the mine infrastructure would cost.

Ya but alot of the produced water is just pumped straight back into the ground at horizon, not as steam, because there is no filtartion process worth trying to filter it. They have a pretty crazy amount of Injection and depresssurization wells north of the main site..

[atgilchrist]

Originally posted by D. Dub


Why not just burn the NG in the first place?

Because our whole infrastructure is set up to burn oil. If NG cars, power plants, etc were more common, gas wouldn't be so damn cheap right now.

[jazzyb]

Myth: the existance of the Oil Sands

[Aleks]

Originally posted by D. Dub


Why not just burn the NG in the first place?

Because there is lots of NG around, and its price differential to oil right now is best it's been in a long time.

[AndyL]

Erm - no syncrude has been recycling tailings water since the plant was first built. Thats what all those big vertical pipes out in the tailings ponds are...

[texasnick]

Originally posted by AndyL
Erm - no syncrude has been recycling tailings water since the plant was first built. Thats what all those big vertical pipes out in the tailings ponds are...

you're right. I'm talking about the sand they spread to dry out, not the ponds. I made a mistake in my first post.

edit:: pre-directive 074 fines disposal.

[AndyL]

Sand they spread to dry out? What are you talking about? All the sands are moved via hydrotransport; overburden is trucked and spread around - but that's got nothing to do with tailings (other than the fact it's later used to cover for reclamation).

[no_joke]

Originally posted by texasnick


you're right. I'm talking about the sand they spread to dry out, not the ponds. I made a mistake in my first post.

edit:: pre-directive 074 fines disposal.

Thought that was just MRM?

[texasnick]

It was Syncrude's TT circuit, I thought......maybe I'm mistaken, will find out.

edit: splitting hairs at this point, but this is all I found on Syncrude's site. I think the TT peanut butter spread is what they refer to as water "placed back into the landscape"



Syncrude does not inject any water into reservoirs, an action that permanently removes water from the hydrologic cycle. Water that we do not recycle is either evaporated as steam or placed back into the landscape. Syncrude also does not discharge any process-affected water into river systems.


http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=1430

also, I need to point out that Syncrude does recycle the vast majority of it's water. My first post was misleading, if not incorrect.



Currently over 85 per cent of process affected water is recycled and total water recycled from all uses, including process affected water, is about 80 per cent of all water used. Toward continued gains, a tailings steering committee is working to identify and implement additional re-use opportunities. Three projects underway at the Mildred Lake site to recover condensate and cooling water are expected to reduce fresh water intake by 2.1 million cubic metres per year when fully implemented in 2009. At the Aurora site, diversion projects to prevent entry of fresh water into the mine pit and settling basins are expected to preserve the integrity of about 6.5 million cubic metres of water per year.

http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/sustainability2006/environmental/water.html

[ZEDGE]

Originally posted by googe
Ah, the ignorance of the rednecks knows no bounds :rofl:

You an expert on the subject? Or just a d bag?

:D

[Dycker]

Nexen has put in a request to use fresh water.