Let's not play three card monte with our fossil fuels
Posted June 21, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Moving Beyond Oil
This week, I traveled with staff and members of the NRDC Board and Global Leadership Council to see and hear for ourselves the impacts of tar sands oil extraction in northeastern Alberta. I had read about the tar sands and seen photographs. But it was not until I flew over them from Ft. McMurray to Ft. Chipewyan that I began to understand the vast scale of what we are doing to Canada’s boreal forests and wetlands to get tar sands oil. From the air, I could see that not only did the mines stretch for miles, but they reached deep into the Earth, disturbing hundreds of feet of boreal peatlands that have been a carbon storehouse for centuries.
The tar sands, aerial view.
This fundamental changing of a landscape from delicate bogs, fens, and marshes to open wounds is symptomatic of what oil companies are willing to do to feed our dependence on fossil fuels.
The tar sands operations are far away from their main consumers in the United States. Located in the far northeastern part of Alberta in Canada, they are far away from most Canadians as well. (Indeed, even the people in the area working on the tar sands almost all live or grew up far away.) Most people filling up their car with gasoline have no idea what went into extracting that fuel from deep under the forest. (Just a few impacts, according to Andrew Nikiforuk’s “Tar Sands” book, from filling up with 20 gallons include well over 60 gallons of fresh water diverted from the rivers and wetlands through the process and ending in toxic tailings ponds, at least about 30 gallons of toxic “fine tailings,” and both toxic and climate changing air pollution.)
The reach of the impacts of the tar sands extends far beyond the immediate area impacts of destruction of land that I saw, plumes of air pollution I smelled, and water pollution I witnessed on this trip. After visiting the tar sands on the ground and flying over them, we flew north (downwind and downstream) and listened to stories from Ft. Chipewyan, Ft. Smith and other First Nation communities. They told us about what the tar sands pollution and use of water are doing to the health of the people, land, animals, fish and water – they have been told not to drink the water anymore, to limit their fish intake, that even the animals they hunt may be contaminated. It was shocking beyond words to be so far north in an area that seemed so far away from industrial development and not be able to trust the cleanliness of the environment. I’ve often canoed in areas in Ontario that, although closer to communities and roads, are cleaner because there are no developments on the scale of the tar sands.
Entering the Peace-Athabasca Delta.
This trip allowed me to travel from source (tar sands) to victim (downstream communities and NRDC’s Peace-Athabasca Delta BioGem). Seeing and hearing the devastation caused by melting oil from the tar sands, brought me back to what is now needed more than ever: fuel efficiency and cleaner transportation solutions that do not depend on fossil fuels. When people go to fuel their cars, they should know the scope and scale of what it took to get that oil.
Our first day in the tar sands, NRDC’s President Frances Beinecke was appointed to the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Commission. We all already had the tragedy of the Gulf disaster in our minds, but this brought it more forcibly home: our dependence on oil has outstripped rational behavior and good oversight when it comes to fossil fuels. While viewing the tar sands, we had in our minds, the specter of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf, oil shale excavation in the U.S. Rockies, mountain-top removal for coal in Appalachia, and irresponsible gas flaring in the excavation of oil in Nigeria. All this suggests that so long as we play three card monte, shifting our use from one source of oil to another, we are using vastly more resources than our planet can support. Is there any real answer but much greater efficiency and conservation?
Clearly, the answer is no. The only chance for the boreal, for the First Nations, for the planet, for the Gulf is reducing the demand for oil. And that can be done by more efficient vehicles, cleaner fuels, and redesigning our communities so we are not so car dependent. More later on those solutions.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
David MacLean — Jun 21 2010 12:42 PM
The oil sands aren't particularly deep -- 90 meters at the very deepest. But that's neither here nor there because 80 per cent of energy from oil sand in the future will be extracted without mines at all, via in situ technologies. The ecological footprint from these operations is similar to conventional oil and gas seen around the world.
The mines are large, similar to other mines around the world, but will be 100 per cent reclaimed to a natural state in 30 years or so.
Fort Chip is not "down wind" of the oil sands, but it is downstream. While certain elements of the Fort Chip tribal council are adamantly anti-oil sands development, there are many more who are very positive. For example, the hundreds of Fort Chip residents who have worked regular shifts, very successfully, in oil sands mining operations for decades.
As for water and fish contamination near Fort Chip -- this would probably be a surprise to the COMMERCIAL FISHING OPERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATING ON LAKE ATHABASCA FOR DECADES.
In fact, Fort Chip is only one aboriginal community in the area -- there are many. But NRDC people like Peter Lehner never talk to the Fort McKay residents -- who live right next door to the mines and can see the tailings burms from their doorsteps.
If Peter did talk to them he'd find out that the community overwhelmingly supports oil sands development and is a partner in said development. In fact, Fort McKay aboriginal people have been lifted out of poverty by harvesting the resources that are abundant on their land. Hundreds of their people work in aboriginal-owned businesses that have partnered with mining companies since the 1970s.
http://www.fortmckay.com/Independent%20Business.html
But what do I know, Peter? I only grew up there. I worked there. I fished within sight of those ghastly stacks that spew mostly steam. I canoed those rivers and cooked walleye for shore lunches. I went to school with the aboriginal kids who live on those reserves.
What do I know?
TOMCOGroup — Jun 21 2010 02:39 PM
Well said, David. More people need to research the "whole story" before passing judgement on oilsands development, or any other energy resource. There are always many aspects of research and development that are not obvious to the public eye, especially in an industry that is changing daily and investing millions in doing it better.
Adam Albright — Jun 22 2010 03:59 AM
As far as researching the "whole story" goes, in situ development is a good place to start. SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) is by far the most prevalent form of in situ development and is based on drilling two parallel horizontal pipes in to the tar sand layer, heating water with the gold of natural gas (the lowest carbon fossil fuel on the planet) to make steam and to then melt the lead of bitumen to the point it flows down into the lower pipe to be sucked to the surface. To make steam you also need to turn the gold of clean, potable water into the lead of contaminated ground water. From a climate and environmental perspective we know that conventional oil clearly has serious problems, but just as clearly we know that tar sands oil is worse, whether it is comes from mining or in situ development.