It's not very deep.pstarr wrote:What is relevant (not answered to my previous question) is the depth at which all the bad stuff (steam injection) occurs. Is it above, or adjacent to, or below the water table. Kinda relevant one would think?
pstarr wrote:So wouldn't the leak stop when the steam stops? The tar is then no longer miscible.
A tug recently sank down river of Montreal, releasing almost 7,000 gallons of fuel that is still being cleaned up. Fault hasn’t been assigned, but is blame important when the fuel or the toxic cargo is already in the water and spreading?
There is a huge difference between a tug and a tanker carrying the equivalent of 300 to 600 rail cars or 1,000 to 2,500 trucks of tar sands oil. It is a difference that should concern everyone who shares the use of the St. Lawrence River. A spill of that magnitude of tar sands oil, a cargo the Coast Guard has admitted it is “not prepared to handle,” would quickly dwarf the capabilities of first responders, would devastate the river for almost any conceivable use, would lay waste to the environment of one of North America’s most significant rivers and devastate the economies of communities along its shores in two countries.
Maybe lower oil prices will temporarily reduce the intense pressure, and thus the risk to our river, that has been building to get tar sands oil to market by whatever means possible. But maybe they won’t because producers will still seek the cheapest transportation alternative without regard to environmental impacts.
The proposals for new pipelines and ship terminals are still around. History shows we frequently construct beyond our ability to mitigate. The river community needs to shape the debate about such shipments and demand that not one drop of heavy oil should be put on a ship or in a rail car on or near the St. Lawrence River until response plans have been developed and tested and the Coast Guard and local first responders have the equipment and training to effectively implement them.
Become involved. Attend our Winter Environmental Conference on Feb. 7. We will have a panel of experts from the Coast Guard, spill responders, academia and advocacy organizations discussing the issue.
Canada is trying to stop NAFTA’s environmental watchdog from taking a closer look at the environmental effects of the huge tailings ponds produced by Alberta’s oilsands, and it appears Mexico and the U.S. will go along with efforts to stop a formal investigation.
If that happens, it would be the third time in a year Canada has stopped North American Free Trade Agreement scrutiny of its environmental record.
The tailings ponds are a touchy political issue for both the Alberta and Canadian governments. They’ve become a symbol of the environmental footprint of oilsands production. The ponds cover more than 176 square kilometres and contain a toxic mixture of water, clay and chemicals, what’s left over when the oil is removed.
Evidence suggest the ponds are seeping into the nearby ground and water. Two environmental groups and three private citizens from Alberta, Saskatchewan and the N.W.T. want the Commission on Environmental Co-operation to find out whether Canada is breaking its own Federal Fisheries Act by failing to prevent tailings from leaking into the Athabasca River and nearby creeks in northern Alberta.
"It was important for us know whether this was happening and whether environmental laws were being broken and whether the government is upholding those laws or ignoring them," said Dale Marshall of Environmental Defence, one of the groups that launched the complaint in 2010.
Commission set up under NAFTA The Commission on Environmental Co-operation was in set up in 1994 as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement to resolve environmental disputes and to provide the public an outlet for environmental concerns.
Commission staff investigate public complaints in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. and can recommend an in-depth investigation, called a factual record, if they find there are grounds. But it has no power to compel the countries to do anything. The final decision to conduct an investigation is made by a council of the environment ministers from the three countries, which is about to decide whether to allow a factual record into the tailings ponds. But negotiations are already going on — and it looks as if Canada may be getting its way.
Who doesn’t love a nature documentary about some adorable critter’s heroic journey over mountains, through valleys, and across rivers to fulfill their species’ destiny? Most such films chronicle audacious quests for food, risky migrations, or traditional pilgrimages to sacred breeding grounds.
But this spin-off of National Geographic Channel’s Great Migrations miniseries tells the story of an unexpected creature: The Tar Sands Pipeline. Watch for a classic tale of symbiosis — the Environmental Defence video points out the mutually beneficial relationship between migrating tar-sands oil and the bank accounts of transnational oil companies and their wealthy executives. Our appropriately accented host introduces The Tar Sands Pipeline’s journey thusly:
In today’s episode, we follow the path of the majestic, and misunderstood, Canadian tar-sands oil, as it makes its way from the idyllic shrouds of the Athabasca River over 4,000 kilometers across the breadth of Canada, to an oil tanker in the Atlantic Ocean.
However, this brief broadcast reminds us that many barrels will fail to complete this “epic and harrowing journey” — and not only those that spill into rivers, lakes, and suburban environments. According to the narrator, “Others still will be stopped by ordinary people who care about their planet and their children’s future.”
An independent study has concluded that the Athabasca River contains elevated levels of pollution downstream of the Athabasca oil sands. Testing has shown this portion of the river contains mercury, lead and 11 other toxic elements.[9]
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
An pipeline spill in Alberta, Canada has leaked some 1,320,000 gallons, or 31,000 barrels, of emulsion — a mixture of bitumen, produced water, and sand — south of Fort McMurray, a hub for Canada’s tar sands mining and refining industry.
The leak, which was discovered Wednesday afternoon, is the largest pipeline spill in the province in 35 years, when a 54,000 barrel oil spill became Canada’s worst-ever pipeline incident.
Nexen Energy, the pipeline operator, and the Alberta Energy Regulator, have not yet identified the cause of the leak, which has been contained. At this point there are no reports of injuries to wildlife or contamination of nearby bodies of water. The spill covered some 170,000 square feet, of four acres, mostly along the path of the pipeline.
Bitumen is a combination of viscous tar sands crude oil and liquid chemicals like benzene that dilute the crude so it can be piped to refineries. Produced water is water used during the process of oil or gas extraction that can contain hydraulic fracturing chemical additives and naturally occurring substances and is not suitable for irrigation or drinking. It must be stored in tanks or pits before being treated and disposed.
In a statement about the spill, Greenpeace communications officer Peter Louwe said the leak is “a good reminder that Alberta has a long way to go to address its pipeline problems, and that communities have good reasons to fear having more built.”
“New pipelines would also facilitate the expansion of the tarsands — Canada’s fastest-growing source of carbon emissions — and accelerate the climate crisis even more,” he said.
Graeme wrote:Pipeline Spill In The Heart Of Canada’s Tar Sands Industry Leaks 1.3 Million Gallons Of Oily EmulsionBTW:Nexen Energy, the pipeline operator, and the Alberta Energy Regulator, have not yet identified the cause of the leak, which has been contained. At this point there are no reports of injuries to wildlife or contamination of nearby bodies of water.Nexen - A global energy leader with an exciting future
www.nexencnoocltd.com/
A wholly-owned subsidiary of CNOOC Limited, Nexen is an upstream oil & gas company. Our three principal businesses: conventional oil & gas, oil sands and ...
Five years ago, a pipeline carrying crude oil from Canadian tar sands ruptured in Michigan, spilling over 1 million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in what would become the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Now, as oil companies attempt to expand pipelines across the upper Midwest, and as the Keystone Pipeline that would carry similar crude waits for approval from the State Department, activists and residents are gathering to remember the historic spill — and add their voices to a groundswell of local pipeline opposition that began five years ago.
“It’s telling that when we have been citing pipelines, even in Minnesota, the Kalamazoo spill is brought up an awful lot,” Andy Pearson, Midwest tar sands coordinator for MN350.org told ThinkProgress. “Kalamazoo is not in the past. It’s still really in the present for the people on the ground there. It’s something that shows how wrong it can go.”
When the pipeline — an aging structure owned by Canadian oil company Enbridge Inc. — first ruptured, it was the middle of the night on July 25, 2010. It took more than 17 hours for Enbridge to cut off the pipeline’s flow, a delayed response compounded by the company’s dismissal of alarms as a malfunction and attempts to fix the problem by pumping more oil into the pipeline. By the time the pipeline had been shut off, more than 1 million gallons of tar sands crude oil had spilled into the Kalamazoo River, impacting nearly 40 miles of the river and 4,435 acres of shoreline.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests