Oil Sands Reclamation - the Untold Story

[Keepitsimple]

Have a quick view of the three minute video contained in the article. There are always three sides to every story. In this case, one side comes from the eco-groups and the all-too-accomodating media. The other side is the government (lousy communicators) and industry. The "truth" is somewhere in between - but nowhere near as bad as the CBC and Sierra Group would have you believe.

Why doesn't the CBC report on reclamation, give them credit, and encourage them to do more faster? It's a story untold.

Fast Facts

The map to the right shows that, while the oil sands underlie a 142,200 km2 area in north and eastern Alberta, the surface mining area is limited to a 4,800 km2 region near Fort McMurray -- 767 km2 of which has been disturbed by oil sands mining (~0.2 per cent of Alberta's boreal forest)

• About 77mk2 is under active reclamation.
• Industry has planted more than 12 million tree seedlings towards reclamation efforts.

80 per cent of the oil sands are accessible by in situ methods only (bitumen is separated from the sand underground and pumped to the surface).

• In situ's land disturbance is 10 to 15 per cent of a similar sized mining operation and produces no tailings ponds.

• Link: http://oilsands.alberta.ca/reclamation.html

Edited January 14, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[PIK]

Because the truth hurts thier cause, that is why you will never hear the full story from the media party. But then if Justin becomes PM, that will change.

[waldo]

another of your recycle efforts (with a bonus!... yet another of your ongoing slams against the CBC) ... as you've done in recent days... this is at least the third recycling of the same points you've brought forward in the past. In the last couple of days, I quoted replies to 2 of your recycles - I could do the same here... but... why don't you just resurrect your old posts in the threads they exist in. If I can find them... certainly you can, hey! You were responded to in that previous thread... and more!

you might be interested in a few facts:

1) the Oil Sands lie under an area that is about 142,000 square kilometers (SK).
2) after 45 years of existance, only a little over 700 SK have been disturbed - a pinprick as seen from a sattelite.
3) the oil sands account for 7% of Canada's emissions. Canada accounts for 2% of Global emissions. The Oil Sands therefore account for less than two-tenths of 1% of Global emissions.

Should we continue to make the extraction process cleaner? Certainly. Can we speed up land reclamation? Within the reality of Mother Nature, sure. But it's hardly the armageddon that breathless eco-nuts would have us believe. Put in perspective, the rants are ludicrous.

[Accountability Now]

Have a quick view of the three minute video contained in the article. There are always three sides to every story. In this case, one side comes from the eco-groups and the all-too-accomodating media. The other side is the government (lousy communicators) and industry. The "truth" is somewhere in between - butnowhere near as bad as the CBC and Sierra Group would have you believe.

Why doesn't the CBC report on reclamation, give them credit, and encourage them to do more faster? It's a story untold.

• Link: http://oilsands.alberta.ca/reclamation.html

I live in Alberta and I have yet to visit the oil sands. I have however visited numerous drilling rigs and have been apart of the environmental reclamiation and remediation process and I can tell you that the lands in those situations are almost always restored to the same if not better conditions. I can't see why the oil sands would be any different as it garners a world audience.

[overthere]

I live in Alberta and I have yet to visit the oil sands. I have however visited numerous drilling rigs and have been apart of the environmental reclamiation and remediation process and I can tell you that the lands in those situations are almost always restored to the same if not better conditions. I can't see why the oil sands would be any different as it garners a world audience.

I have a little giggle when I hear environmentalists tales of the glorious, paradisical, pristine boreal forest.

I grew up in northern AB and live there now, spent lots of time working and playing in the bush.

Here is what was around Fort McMurray prior to development: thin stunted trees with virtually no commercial logging, poor big game hunting because there was no food for the animals, pretty good fishing though no commercial fishing except for a barely viable lake trout fishery in Lake Athabasca(200 kms north of FM), a bit of prospecting, a lot of mosquitos and black flies, very few people.

Here is what is around Ft McMurray now:thin stunted trees with virtually no commercial logging, very few people,poor big game hunting because there was no food for the animals, pretty good fishing though no commecial fishing except for a barely viable lake trout fishery in Lake Athabasca(200 kms north of FM), a bit of prospecting, a lot of mosquitos and black flies, more holes in the ground, more traffic on the highways and a lot more people.

Edyted to correct above: the trout fishery in Lake Athabasca failed long ago due to the cost of processing and shippng the fish. They're still there, some really big lake trout up to maybe 60 pounds.

Edited January 14, 2014 by overthere

[The_Squid]

CBC should be reporting tar-sands propaganda?

[ReeferMadness]

Have a quick view of the three minute video contained in the article. There are always three sides to every story. In this case, one side comes from the eco-groups and the all-too-accomodating media. The other side is the government (lousy communicators) and industry. The "truth" is somewhere in between - but nowhere near as bad as the CBC and Sierra Group would have you believe.

Why doesn't the CBC report on reclamation, give them credit, and encourage them to do more faster? It's a story untold.

• Link: http://oilsands.alberta.ca/reclamation.html

Maybe it's a story untold because it's nothing more than a blatant PR exercise. Let's balance the picture a little, shall we?

Oil Sands firms warned on tailings ponds

While some progress has been made, the ERCB – which regulates oil and gas operations across the province – says the overall volume of oil sands fluids tailings is large and growing. There are now 925 million cubic metres of fluid tailings in the province, compared to 725 million cubic metres four years ago.

Toxic Lakes may emerge from Alberta's Tar-Sands Projects

By 2022 they will be producing so much of the stuff that a month’s output of wastewater could turn an area the size of New York’s Central Park into a toxic reservoir 11 feet (3.4 meters) deep, according to the Pembina Institute, a nonprofit in Calgary that promotes sustainable energy.

Doesn't sound quite as good as that slick video, does it?

“We’re playing Russian roulette with a big part of an important ecosystem,” says David Schindler, an ecology professor at the University of Alberta. “Nothing is going to grow in that soup of toxic elements except perhaps a few hydrosulfide bacteria. And all of the unforeseen events are being downplayed.”

This summer, Syncrude began filling in a mine 30 miles north of Fort McMurray. Toxic slurry is being topped with fresh water from a dam to a depth of 16 feet, the level required to force tailings particles to remain at the bottom, according to Cheryl Robb, a company spokeswoman.

Wow, that sounds tasty. Maybe you can volunteer to drink from this pristine lake.

[westguy]

waldo - you seem to have the habit of attacking those who post that you disagree with. You would have more credibility if you dealt witht he merits of their post

[PIK]

CBC should be reporting tar-sands propaganda?

How about the truth for once.

[waldo]

waldo - you seem to have the habit of attacking those who post that you disagree with. You would have more credibility if you dealt witht he merits of their post

and you keep dropping in from afar... with these lil' drive-by gems of yours. Apparently, you have nothing else to add to the thread, hey? Do you have a particular example of a post exchange you'd like to correlate with this drive-by? C'mon, step-up... for a change!

[PIK]

and you keep dropping in from afar... with these lil' drive-by gems of yours. Apparently, you have nothing else to add to the thread, hey? Do you have a particular example of a post exchange you'd like to correlate with this drive-by? C'mon, step-up... for a change!

Do you believe neil when he says reclaimation never happened??

[waldo]

Do you believe neil when he says reclaimation never happened??

what's been reclaimed? In full and complete reference detail... what actually has been reclaimed?

to some degree, reclamation gets dismissed in terms of absolute "esthetics". In the most pointed case of relevance, the real/key focus should be on tailings ponds. Again, in that regard, what has actually been reclaimed... what volume/scaled extensions can be applied to those 'field trial prototype' tailings pond reclamation efforts?

notwithstanding, of course, this reclamation angle is simply another Simple distraction to avoid the real discussion meat concerning the tarsands.

[PIK]

In other words ,yes. Gottcha.

[waldo]

In other words ,yes. Gottcha.

if by "Gottcha" you mean you can't actually speak to reclamation and answer the question/challenge put to you... yes... Gottcha!

[westguy]

a little defensive aren't you

[jacee]

Wow, that sounds tasty. Maybe you can volunteer to drink from this pristine lake.

Ah but they have a solution to that ... "in situ" ... process the tar and leave the tailings underground ... to contaminate the ground water!

That's referred to as "no tailings ponds".

In situ's land disturbance is 10 to 15 per cent of a similar sized mining operation and produces no tailings ponds.

[gunrutz]

Ah but they have a solution to that ... "in situ" ... process the tar and leave the tailings underground ... to contaminate the ground water!

That's referred to as "no tailings ponds".

In situ's land disturbance is 10 to 15 per cent of a similar sized mining operation and produces no tailings ponds.

Yes, because we all had hopes to get our water from sand completely saturated with bitumen.

[Spiderfish]

what's been reclaimed? In full and complete reference detail... what actually has been reclaimed?

According to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development figures, its around 5,041 hectares as of Dec. 31st, 2012. An additional 1,227 hectares have been temporarily reclaimed. This represents about 8% of the total area that has been disturbed from oil sands mining to date.

http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/OSIPDL/Dataset/Details/28

This information can also be found in the link posted in the op.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Spiderfish

[waldo]

what's been reclaimed? In full and complete reference detail... what actually has been reclaimed? To some degree, reclamation gets dismissed in terms of absolute "esthetics". In the most pointed case of relevance, the real/key focus should be on tailings ponds. Again, in that regard, what has actually been reclaimed... what volume/scaled extensions can be applied to those 'field trial prototype' tailings pond reclamation efforts?

According to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development figures, its around 5,041 hectares as of Dec. 31st, 2012. An additional 1,227 hectares have been temporarily reclaimed. This represents about 8% of the total area that has been disturbed from oil sands mining to date. http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/OSIPDL/Dataset/Details/28

This information can also be found in the link posted in the op.

emphasis on certified... that minimal area you're speaking to is not yet in the "certified reclaimed" category. As below, a previous post... followed by a more recent update from the Alberta Government:

there are a few companies that seem to be taking reclamation serious... Syncrude, Suncor come to mind. However, as of Jan 2013, only 0.15% of the tarsands area disturbed by mining has been certified as reclaimed by the Alberta government. Reclamation will not bring the area back to its natural boreal forest state... there will be no semblance of the previous natural prominence of wetlands and peatlands.

the most controversial "solution" being proposed as a part of the full reclamation concerns dealing with the ginormous tailings ponds and their toxic best... a proposal, unproven, presumes to pump the tailings toxic waste into old abandoned mine pits and cap them with fresh water. Who doesn't like a new lake!

latest updates from Alberta Government: (note: it appears any reference to identifying the actual percentage of "certified reclaimed" area has been dropped)

... a total area of about 20,000 hectares was cleared of trees in preparation for oil sands mining in 2012. Slightly over 56,000 hectares was being actively used for mining or plant operations. A total of 372 hectares was no longer used for mine or plant purposes and was considered ready for reclamation, while 1,447 hectares of land had soil placed but were not yet re-vegetated. Across the mineable oil sands region, a total of 3,827 hectares (terrestrial) and 1,215 hectares (aquatic and wetlands) had met the definition of permanent reclamation - meaning that soils were placed and re-vegetation had occurred as per approved plans. Temporary reclamation covered 1,227 hectares of land.

In early 2008, a reclamation certificate was issued to Syncrude Canada for 104 hectares of reclaimed land that was then returned to the province. The total active footprint for all oil sands mining activities, including land cleared, disturbed and reclaimed was 84,395 hectares – an increase of over 8,200 hectares from the previous year.

.

[Spiderfish]

emphasis on certified... that minimal area you're speaking to is not yet in the "certified reclaimed" category.

What emphasis on certified? You never asked what has been certified, you asked what has been reclaimed, what has "actually been reclaimed". Certification will come on all reclaimed land, however the numbers referenced is the total amount that has been reclaimed to date according to the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development data set.

The attached bar graphs are presumably meant to indicate the disparity between land which has been disturbed or cleared, and the amount which has been reclaimed. They are not likely to start reclaiming land that is currently being mined or cleared. All land that is affected by oil sands development is required to be reclaimed and will be once development is complete.

[cybercoma]

There's a mine in Northern Ontario near Timmins that was closed. They put everything inside of it and blasted it shut. The chemicals are leaching into the soil and it's destroying the forests and landscape out there. Last time I was up there, many years ago, the site looked like a post-apocalyptic nightmare and the destruction was spreading. Without exaggeration, the site looks like the earth is bleeding. Standing in the middle, you feel as though you are on Mars. It certainly doesn't look like earth. The government had plots up and were trying to figure out how to reclaim the area, but nothing seemed to be working. New plots looked fresh, but after about a month everything on them withered and died. They built giant containment walls, hoping that would stop the disaster from spreading, but it was no use. Trees were already beginning to die on the other side of the containment.

I'm not sure where the mine is at today. Hopefully technology has advanced such that they could fix this mess. But the last time I was there, the forest was totally devastated and it was spreading. And this is what the free market does. Once the company packed up, the taxpayer was left with the bill of fixing the problem they created.

I hadn't thought about the place for years, but all of this talk of mining reclamation in Alberta got me thinking about it. I just looked into it. If you search for Kamiscotia Lake, Timmins, ON in Google Maps, you will see the disaster to the northeast of the lake. You can see how it has spread south towards the lake as well. It was called Kam Kotia Mine and there's an article about it HERE. There's not much other information about it anywhere else. Here's some images that are online.

Current Google Maps image:


Image from company report back in 2006:


That company was designing a way to reclaim the area. As you can see from Current Google Maps image, as compared to the image from the company report, the reclamation process has been a failure.

While this was a project on a copper mine and involves different chemicals from the bitumen extraction process in the Alberta oil fields, you have to understand that people should take any claims of being able to reclaim the land with a grain of salt. The Kam Kotia site, which has cost millions to taxpayers of Ontario, shows us that even when reclamation companies claim to have a way to clean up these sites, their processes may not actually work. We should have guarded reservation about the reclamation claims made by mining companies themselves, who obviously have a stake in making their business seem as safe and responsible as possible.

[waldo]

What emphasis on certified? You never asked what has been certified, you asked what has been reclaimed, what has "actually been reclaimed". Certification will come on all reclaimed land, however the numbers referenced is the total amount that has been reclaimed to date according to the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development data set.

The attached bar graphs are presumably meant to indicate the disparity between land which has been disturbed or cleared, and the amount which has been reclaimed. They are not likely to start reclaiming land that is currently being mined or cleared. All land that is affected by oil sands development is required to be reclaimed and will be once development is complete.

you don't get to state an area is "reclaimed" just because an oil company says it is. What do you think the last step in the reclamation process is/means? That last step in receiving certification, per the established standards, is what determines whether or not an area is reclaimed.

I trust my most recent posts have added the needed perspective! I trust Simple's "untold story" OP has now been properly told. Everything in perspective, right Simple?

Edited January 23, 2014 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

According to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development figures, its around 5,041 hectares as of Dec. 31st, 2012. An additional 1,227 hectares have been temporarily reclaimed. This represents about 8% of the total area that has been disturbed from oil sands mining to date.

http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/OSIPDL/Dataset/Details/28

This information can also be found in the link posted in the op.

There's an additional perspective in the reclamation process. Oil Sands projects last for decades and reclamation only starts at the conclusion of each project. So right now, with most of the Oil Sand projects active, not much land is ready to enter the reclamation process. In the coming decades as more projects terminate, more land will begin to undergo reclamation and the tiny percentage that we see today will grow to something more substantial. Granted, it's a process that's in its infancy and the environmentalists who are driving the process are refining it as each year passes. There seems no doubt that Alberta and the Oil industry are committed to reclamation and the initial results look pretty darn positive.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

There's an additional perspective in the reclamation process. Oil Sands projects last for decades and reclamation only starts at the conclusion of each project. So right now, with most of the Oil Sand projects active, not much land is ready to enter the reclamation process. In the coming decades as more projects terminate, more land will begin to undergo reclamation and the tiny percentage that we see today will grow to something more substantial. Granted, it's a process that's in its infancy and the environmentalists who are driving the process are refining it as each year passes. There seems no doubt that Alberta and the Oil industry are committed to reclamation and the initial results look pretty darn positive.

you presumed to start this "untold story" without adding the appropriate perspective on just how little (certified) reclamation has occurred. You also miss the point made that 'said reclamation' will not be to the original wetland/peatland state. More pointedly, none of this addresses tailings pond reclamation. If you really wanted to add something positive, something new... in your "untold story", you might try to update progress the companies have been making (if any) in tailings pond reclamation, particularly toward an ultimate massive scaled undertaking.

on edit: the 'real' reclamation "untold story"..... as of December 31, 2012

Certified Reclaimed - 104 hectares

If an area meets stringent requirements for reclamation, regulators will issue final certification and the land is returned to the Crown as public land. To date, one area called Gateway Hill is certified reclaimed.

Permanent Reclaimed - 5,042 hectares

Landform design, soil placement, and revegetation are complete (for both land and aquatic ecosystems). Companies must use local plant species to target the return of local boreal forest ecosystems. Soils are tested and tree and shrub growth is monitored for 15+ years. When ecological trends are achieved, the company can apply for reclamation certification.

Temporary Reclaimed - 1,227 hectares

Some areas are reclaimed and revegetated to grasses for the purposes of stabilization and erosion control. These areas may also see future distrubance.

Soils Placed - 1,447 hectares

Soils have been placed as directed by each facility's reclamation and soil placement plans, as approved by regulators.

Ready for Reclamation - 372 hectares

Areas that are no longer required for mine or plant purposes and are therefore available for eclamation. Reclamation activites have not begun.

Disturbed - 55,902 hectares

Land is still part of the active operations of a facility.

Cleared - 20,435 hectares

Land is cleared of vegetation, but the soil is relatively undisturbed. In forested areas, the trees are harvested and some of the smaller wood may be conserved for use in reclamation.

Edited January 24, 2014 by waldo

[Spiderfish]

you don't get to state an area is "reclaimed" just because an oil company says it is.

The figures were provided by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development data, if you reject the source or contents of the data that you requested, that's a problem you have with your own lack of acceptance of the data. It's interesting to note that you requested "full and complete reference detail to what has been reclaimed" which was provided, them promptly turned this request into what has been certified. You asked for complete referenced detail, it was provided.

What do you think the last step in the reclamation process is/means? That last step in receiving certification, per the established standards, is what determines whether or not an area is reclaimed.

Which takes 15+ years after completion of the Landform design, soil placement, and re-vegetation. Just because certification hasn't been achieved yet, doesn't mean the area is not in state of reclamation. It just means that it hasn't met the maturity level to be certified.