Oil Sands Reclamation - the Untold Story

[waldo]

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.

being in a 'state of reclamation' is not reclaimed. You're attempting to negate the final certification step (and related standards)... the certification level that equates to reclamation meeting established standards, being accepted by the Province of Alberta, with the land returned to the Province of Alberta.

[Spiderfish]

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.

I found it interesting looking at the breakdown by year of reclaimed land in the Sustainable Resources data set that 1580 hectares of the total 5042 hectares (or almost a third of the total land reclaimed to date) was completed between 2009 and 2012.

Its unfortunate that some people don't realize that the application for certification of this reclaimed land won't even be submitted until at least 2023, and hence will refuse to accept the notion that any reclamation work of this land is complete and in a state of maturation.

[Spiderfish]

being in a 'state of reclamation' is not reclaimed. You're attempting to negate the final certification step (and related standards)... the certification level that equates to reclamation meeting established standards, being accepted by the Province of Alberta, with the land returned to the Province of Alberta.

I'm not negating anything, the land has been reclaimed and is maturing...It has not been certified. We can't "will" the plants and trees to grow faster.

[waldo]

I'm not negating anything, the land has been reclaimed and is maturing...It has not been certified. We can't "will" the plants and trees to grow faster.

no - the land, that proportionally relative minimal amount of land, is in the process of being reclaimed. It will not be certified reclaimed... until it is.

[waldo]

Its unfortunate that some people don't realize that the application for certification of this reclaimed land won't even be submitted until at least 2023, and hence will refuse to accept the notion that any reclamation work of this land is complete and in a state of maturation.

so..... maturing? For what purpose? If you're going to say the land is reclaimed, then why not apply for certification now?

[Spiderfish]

so..... maturing? For what purpose? If you're going to say the land is reclaimed, then why not apply for certification now?

From your post above:

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.

[Spiderfish]

no - the land, that proportionally relative minimal amount of land, is in the process of being reclaimed. It will not be certified reclaimed... until it is.

Correct, it won't be certified until it is, however reclamation work has been completed. A little further perspective from your post above:

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.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Spiderfish

[waldo]

From your post above:

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.

if the whole premise of reclamation is to bring the land back to a sustainable level... one predicated upon realizing an "ecological trend"... unless you've realized that trend to reflect upon a determined sustainable level... what do you have?

you can continue to play word games with the assortment of names chosen for those interim progression steps. The land will not be recognized as being reclaimed until certification has been granted.

[Spiderfish]

you can continue to play word games with the assortment of names chosen for those interim progression steps. The land will not be recognized as being reclaimed until certification has been granted.

I don't believe I'm playing word games. It's pretty self evident, you asked how much land has been reclaimed, comprehensive data showing land defined as "reclaimed" as well as land defined as "certified" was provided, as well as an explanation of definitions and certification criteria and the expected time required to achieve the criteria set out. Your inability to accept the numbers is not my problem.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Spiderfish

[waldo]

I don't believe I'm playing word games. It's pretty self evident, you asked how much land has been reclaimed, comprehensive data showing land defined as "reclaimed" as well as land defined as "certified" was provided, as well as an explanation of definitions and certification criteria and the expected time required to achieve the criteria set out. Your inability to accept the numbers is not my problem.

and it's certainly not my problem that you feel a need to play with the names and hang your hat on the progressive steps through the full cycle. The ridiculous reach on your part is self-evident. In your opening post you didn't qualify the 5042 acres as "permanent reclaimed". You simply labeled it "reclaimed". You also never answered my question; again:

"if the whole premise of reclamation is to bring the land back to a sustainable level... one predicated upon realizing an "ecological trend"... unless you've realized that trend to reflect upon a determined sustainable level... what do you have?"

[Spiderfish]

In your opening post you didn't qualify the 5042 acres as "permanent reclaimed". You simply labeled it "reclaimed".

I didn't label it as either. You asked the question "what has been reclaimed". You didn't ask what has been certified reclaimed, or what has been permanent reclaimed, or what has been temporarily reclaimed, just "what has been reclaimed", and you requested reference. I provided the requested reference. Then you went on this tangent about emphasis on "certified" and "permanent reclaimed", and if it isn't certified, it isn't reclaimed.

You also never answered my question; again:

"if the whole premise of reclamation is to bring the land back to a sustainable level... one predicated upon realizing an "ecological trend"... unless you've realized that trend to reflect upon a determined sustainable level... what do you have?"

You have land which has met the definition of permanent reclamation as per approved plans and is in a state of maturation. Soils are tested and tree and shrub growth is monitored for 15+ years, then application for certification is submitted.

I am not refuting your argument that this land is not certified or that the process is complete. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at arguing semantics. Land that has been determined by Alberta Environment as "permanent reclaimed" has not been certified, I am not suggesting that it has been.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Spiderfish

[waldo]

I didn't label it as either. You asked the question "what has been reclaimed". You didn't ask what has been certified reclaimed, or what has been permanent reclaimed, or what has been temporarily reclaimed, just "what has been reclaimed", and you requested reference. I provided the requested reference. Then you went on this tangent about emphasis on "certified" and "permanent reclaimed", and if it isn't certified, it isn't reclaimed.

You have land which has met the definition of permanent reclamation as per approved plans and is in a state of maturation. Soils are tested and tree and shrub growth is monitored for 15+ years, then application for certification is submitted.

I am not refuting your argument that this land is not certified or that the process is complete. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at arguing semantics. Land that has been determined by Alberta Environment as "permanent reclaimed" has not been certified, I am not suggesting that it has been.

you have the nerve to suggest I'm the one arguing semantics. That's you! If it hasn't quite registered with you yet, when I said reclaimed, I meant certified reclaimed.... because anything else isn't reclaimed, no matter how hard you... semantically twist. After your initial response, I immediately highlighted I was speaking to certified - a "certified emphasis". Clearly, that wasn't good enough for you. No, you had to play your silly semantic word play games.

more to the point of the question you finally answered, your state of "maturity"... waiting on that sustainable trend to prove out... means nothing. It's simply land waiting to go through a final state of progressive reclamation.

Edited January 24, 2014 by waldo

[Spiderfish]

when I said reclaimed, I meant certified reclaimed...

I was responding to what you asked, not what you meant to ask.

But no worries, figures were provided on certified reclaimed, permanent reclaimed, and even temporary reclaimed for your reference. Got you covered, buddy.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Spiderfish

[waldo]

I was responding to what you asked, not what you meant to ask.

and when I clarified what I was talking about (with the certified emphasis), you continued your walk down SemanticAlley! Of course you did.

[Keepitsimple]

Another perspective that is "untold" is the process for reclamation - as Spiderfish has alluded to. In watching a Power & Politics program recently, an eco-nut was using a microscopic number to represent land that had been reclaimed. Turns out, he was using a figure that represented only certified reclaimed land. This totally misrepresents the unprecedented environmental protection process that industry is regulated to provide by law. Here's the thumbnail sketch - I've bolded an important point:

Long-Term Planning

Before any mining project begins, industry must develop and receive approval for closure plans that outline how affected areas will be reclaimed.

Mine operators must provide reclamation security as a guarantee that reclamation work will take place. As of June 30, 2013, government held over $1 billion in reclamation security for the oil sands industry.

Monitoring

Once reclamation is complete, monitoring activities begin. It can take 15 or more years to effectively establish a successful ecosystem.

Reclamation certificates are only issued when long-term monitoring demonstrates the reclaimed land meets the objectives of equivalent land capability.

Link: Sorry - having troubles with links....

Edited January 24, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Bonam]

Sounds to me like land can realistically be considered reclaimed if most/all of the active work/intervention needed to reclaim it has been completed. Maybe you need to monitor it for 15 years before you can certify that the process was successful, but if most of the work has been done, most of the money needed to complete reclamation spent.

What really matters is how will the area look like after the oil sands extraction is complete. How much of the land will be reclaimed given current rules and trends? If the reality is that the majority of the land will be successfully reclaimed then that seems to be the key point. If, on the other hand, the reality is that most of the land will not or cannot be reclaimed, then that is problematic. In trying to extrapolate current trends forward, trying to understand how much land will end up reclaimed, I think it's very reasonable to look at land that's been "permanently reclaimed" and assume that that means in the long run, it will validly fit into the "reclaimed" category however one chooses to define it.

[waldo]

and again, none of this discussion concerning the minimal amount of "reclaimed" land area has anything to do with the practical scaled reclamation of toxic tailings ponds... that area currently ~180 sq. km in size... that area compromised of a dozen+ ponds surrounded by "retaining barriers... dam & dyke systems" reaching 300 ft into the air. That area with no practical concrete plans on what to do with the toxic contents... that area with some contemplation to manage reclamation of tailings ponds via proposed unproven design concept solutions to pump toxic tailings into old abandoned mine pits, capping them with fresh water.

more of Simple's "untold story"!

Edited January 25, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

This totally misrepresents the unprecedented environmental protection process that industry is regulated to provide by law.

Mine operators must provide reclamation security as a guarantee that reclamation work will take place. As of June 30, 2013, government held over $1 billion in reclamation security for the oil sands industry.

and each company provides it's own estimate to the Alberta Government as to what it anticipates the cost of reclamation to be... that figure is typically accepted and becomes the 'security held'. No actual cash is transferred from any company to the government. Each separate company's security remains isolated; if it came to it and a company couldn't, or wouldn't, complete reclamation, if the respective company's security wasn't enough to complete reclamation, the larger security complement can't be leveraged to make up any required difference... i.e., the Alberta taxpayer would be on the hook.

there is little-to-no transparency from the Alberta Government concerning the actual costs of reclamation, concerning the actual reclamation security process and related liability costs. Accordingly, sans transparency, as of today, assorted estimates put the liability shortfall for Alberta taxpayers as high as 15-fold... with suggestions the full costs of land reclamation could approach $5 billion, of tailings ponds another $10 billion on top of that.

just more of Simple's "untold story"!

.

[ReeferMadness]

What do they even mean by reclaimed anyway?

Well, for starters, the only land they've even started to reclaim in the easiest cheapest land.

First, this certificate represents a miniscule 0.2 per cent of the land disturbed for oil sands mining – almost 480 km2 as of 2006. Second, the reclaimed area was a dumping ground for "overburden," earth removed to get at the ore beneath; reclaiming tailings ponds will present a much greater—and perhaps insurmountable—challenge.

And does reclaimed mean restored? Well, in a word no.

reclamation does not mean restoration. Syncrude’s reclaimed site bears little resemblance to the original boreal forest ecosystem.

So what does reclamation even mean?

According to Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) regulations, the objective of land reclamation is to return the land to "an equivalent land capability," which means that "the ability of the land to support various land uses after conservation and reclamation is similar to the ability that existed prior to an activity being conducted on the land, but that the individual land uses will not necessarily be identical" (emphasis added). Th e vagueness of the language here is troubling, as is the absence of binding reclamation timelines in EPEA approvals.

There you have it. More smoke and mirrors from another right wing government that sees its rightful role as a cheerleader for the oil industry.

[TimG]

And does reclaimed mean restored? Well, in a word no.

This is a good example of the irrational expectations of environmentalists. There is absolutely no reason for the land to be restored to its original state after use. The only thing that is required is the land should be able to support an eco-system similar to what was there before. Edited January 25, 2014 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

This is a good example of the irrational expectations of environmentalists. There is absolutely no reason for the land to be restored to its original state after use. The only thing that is required is the land should be able to support an eco-system similar to what was there before.

You're admitting what we all know but is rarely acknowledged. Even when the original state of the ecosystem is known (and let's face it, in the rush to get to the tar, companies aren't exactly meticulous in documenting the original state), it can never be put back to the way it was. Ecosystems are unique and precious. When you say "similar to what was there before", what does that even mean? I suspect that if the companies are successful in getting some vegetation to grow on top, that's considered good enough. Never mind the ground water, never mind that a complex, intertwined ecosystem has been replaced with a trivial one, never mind anything.

It's all about the money, isn't it. And ensuring that people can toast their extra-large behinds in extra-large trucks with seat warmers. Let's all keep our priorities straight!!

[Keepitsimple]

You're admitting what we all know but is rarely acknowledged. Even when the original state of the ecosystem is known (and let's face it, in the rush to get to the tar, companies aren't exactly meticulous in documenting the original state), it can never be put back to the way it was. Ecosystems are unique and precious. When you say "similar to what was there before", what does that even mean? I suspect that if the companies are successful in getting some vegetation to grow on top, that's considered good enough. Never mind the ground water, never mind that a complex, intertwined ecosystem has been replaced with a trivial one, never mind anything.

It's all about the money, isn't it. And ensuring that people can toast their extra-large behinds in extra-large trucks with seat warmers. Let's all keep our priorities straight!!

Did you ever stop to think that maybe land that is saturated with oil is not exactly the best eco-system. You won't find huge forests that support wildlife.....in fact there is little wildlife to speak of - that's why there are little hunting and fishing - it's a wispy, desolate area where nobody lives. Taking most of the oil out of the land may actually make for a hardier environment. Having said, if left to its own devices over time, environments tend to retreat to their previous natural state. You see it all the time - roads and buildings are abandoned and natural vegetation manages to find its way back. Your jaded view of business, industry, government, and the economy - working together to reasonably address environmental concerns accomplishes nothing - except to confirm that NOTHING short of shutting down the Oil Sands - if not the entire Oil business - will satisfy some people.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

Ecosystems are unique and precious.

ROTFL. The ecosystem disrupted by the oil sands operation is hardly unique - it covers all of northern Canada. The foot print of the oil sands is tiny compared to it. To say that a random chunk of northern boreal forest is "unique" is tripe bordering on dishonesty. What we should care about is the land is not left in a state where nothing grows. To meet that objective companies should demonstrate that new self sustaining boreal forest eco-system can establish itself and that appears to be what the companies are doing.

It's all about the money, isn't it. And ensuring that people can toast their extra-large behinds in extra-large trucks with seat warmers. Let's all keep our priorities straight!!

So if it was about keeping people fed and housed you would be OK with it? You only object because you have invented this fantasy in your head that oil is only used for frivolous purposes? It is kind of pathetic that you talk oh so much about the interconnected web of ecosystems but you fail to understand the equally complex interconnected web which creates the economy. The foreign currency that the oil sands brings is a essential to our economic web and without it there would be a lot more people living in poverty in this country. But I guess you don't care about those people because black flies and spruce trees are more important than people in your twisted morality. Edited January 25, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Tailing Ponds are one of the final obstacles to full reclamation of the land. Someone mentioned centrifuges in another thread so I thought I'd expand on it here. A huge $1.9 billion, 18 centrifuge operation is due to start operating in 2015. As many have already said, given money and motivation - technology is soon to follow. We got a man on the moon the same way.

The environmental benefit of centrifugation is immediate as it speeds the release of water from FFT and leaves behind a clay material that is dense enough and strong enough to meet the Alberta government regulations for tailings materials that can be used as a base for landform design and reclamation. This means the clay material can be transported via truck and placed in an area slated for reclamation. Once the clay material has consolidated and settled, it is capped with sand and reclamation soils, and then planted with trees, shrubs and other native plants.

Over the long-term, speeding release of process water means more is available for recycle, and being able to reclaim over condensed fine tailings clay material reduces the size of tailing ponds needed for future continued operations.

Link: http://www.cosia.ca/initiatives/tailings/tailings-centrifuge

[waldo]

As below, a previous post...

...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!

Tailing Ponds are one of the final obstacles to full reclamation of the land. Someone mentioned centrifuges in another thread so I thought I'd expand on it here.

your and other references simply reflect upon lab level and limited small-scale pilot undertakings... nothing even remotely approaching an all-encompassing commercial scale undertaking. A scale which, of course, would presume on an available pond - one no longer active. Accordingly, at this stage industry has no idea what costs associate to real-world commercial tailings pond reclamation.

anything industry has done in this regard has not been on a voluntary basis. The most recent actions taken by industry are in direct response to the forced directive order the Alberta Government issued... an order that reflects directly on the cumulative raised concerns of scientists, First Nation peoples, environmental groups, etc. Most pointedly, from the most recent ERCB regulatory assessment report:

Industry performance over the 2010/2012 reporting period has not met the original expectations of Directive 074.

The fines capture performance indicates that the expectations of the ERCB and industry were optimistic. The commercial implementation of tailings management technologies will take longer than expected and performance will be lower than expected until operational problems are resolved.

Given the issues that industry has encountered, the ERCB does not believe that it would be appropriate to enforce compliance measures at this time. The ERCB has noted its concerns with operators’ performance in this report and expects operators to take appropriate measures, as some have begun to do. If operators do not meet their tailings management performance expectations the ERCB will assess enforcement options at that time

further to my point about industry having no idea on tailing pond reclamation costs and my earlier reference to the most controversial alternative reclamation approach to pump the tailings toxic waste into old abandoned mine pits and cap them with fresh water..... tarsands oil companies have shown exactly what they'll do when they don't like significant imposed costs. The oil industry turned its back on the much-hyped joint venture with the Alberta Government to deploy CCS technologies to reduce tarsands emissions. In that same manner we should expect tarsands oil companies to do the same in regards anticipated costs for commercial level tailings ponds reclamations... particularly when the Alberta Government is giving industry that 'alternative reclamation out':

March 2013: Province approves ‘contentious’ method for cleaning up Alberta oilsands tailings

Alberta Environment approved new guidelines for constructing large artificial lakes in the northeast to store toxic tailings and close off old oilsands mine sites, though the technology remains “contentious.”

The department’s endorsement of so-far unproven technology was welcomed by Syncrude, the first oilsands operator trying out the technology to transform a 20-year-old tailings pond into a clean lake.

About 30 artificial lakes are planned as an alternative to reforesting some of thousands of hectares of boreal forest dug up to get at the oilsands — as well as to store tailings or waste from the open-pit mines. Called “end pit lakes,” they are constructed in the last pit of a mine

prior to his recent retirement, respected UofA scientist David Schindler raised concerns on the unproven nature of the "instant lakes" approach... the 30 proposed end-pit lakes, covering more than 100 sq. km., spread over an area of 2500 sq. km.:

"There is to date no evidence to support their (end pit lakes) viability, or the modelled results suggesting that outflow from the lakes will be non-toxic."

Simple... just more of your 'untold story'.

Edited January 30, 2014 by waldo