[americandream]

So what is it? Too much, too little or not enough?

from everything I have read their comments are ....we are concerned that levels are higher near the tar sands development but at the same time they do not say whether those levels are above anything thought to be dangerous. The fact that levels of mercury are much higher in and around every industrial centre in Ontario and Quebec (and no doubt the US) and there has been no ground swell movement to shut down said plants etc suggests the levels are not dangerously high but require continuous monitoring.

Not sure where mercury comes from given it isn't used in the process.

So basically, the article is pretty much a waste of media space and should not have been printed or be brought to our attention? Huh?

[yellowcanoe]

as one might expect a couple of key statements attributed to the scientists that conveniently didn't make it into that quote:

The federal scientists stress the mercury loadings around the oilsands are low compared to the contamination seen in many parts of North America, including southern Ontario and southern Quebec.

Both Muir and Kirk stressed in an interview with Postmedia News that much higher levels of mercury pollution are seen in southern Ontario and southern Quebec, which are on the receiving end of toxins created by incinerators, combustion and coal-burning power plants.

As a resident of Southern Ontario, I certainly noticed that in the news report I read. The perception of tar sands mining as a source of pollution has a lot to do with the fact that it was more or less an unspoiled wilderness area at the time mining started. It should not be a surprise that it isn't comparable to the pollution created by the large population and industry located in the Eastern US and Central Canada.

I do think the oil companies should have made more progress in reclaiming the land disturbed by mining. Even a Government of Alberta web site suggests that only around 10% of the land that has been disturbed is under active reclamation.

I expect less pollution will be generated as the mining shifts from surface strip mining to "in situ" methods such as SAGD.

[americandream]

I expect less pollution will be generated as the mining shifts from surface strip mining to "in situ" methods such as SAGD.

This chap. "I expect" expects lots of things. Problem is he isn't getting them going by the general mess the environment is falling into.

Unless of course, "I expect" has a take on the daily diet of images (some from satellites) and such like that we are getting.

[WildRose]

In the link below, it is stated:

mercury is “the number one concern” when it comes to the metal toxins generated by oilsands operations.

A concern because the mercury levels in the area have, as you would expect, increased directly related to the increase in oil sands development, and so will increase exponentially as bitumen production likely quadruples over the next 20 years. And, as stated here, methyl mercury, which is more toxic, is increasingly showing up:

The scientists also found up to 19 nanograms of methyl mercury per square metre near the oilsands, 16 times the region’s background level. It is the first report of this more “toxic” form of mercury in snow. Microbes typically convert mercury into methyl mercury when the metal enters aquatic ecosystems and begins to work its way up through the food web.

The scientists further state that emissions data from land disturbances in the excavation process in the tar sands is not available to the public, so we don't know what all is there and in what amounts.

http://o.canada.com/news/mercury-levels ... -oilsands/

Below, from a report compiled by the Pembina Institute in 2010, mercury in tailings ponds increased by 80% in just 4 years:

In 2010, 824 kg of mercury were amongst the toxic materials found in oil sands tailings ponds, according to data from the National Pollutant Release Inventory compiled by the Pembina Institute. Between 2006 and 2010 the amount of mercury added to tailings ponds rose 80 per cent.

http://www.desmog.ca/2013/10/21/new-stu ... -athabasca

Evidence of dangerous levels of mercury in predatory birds downstream from the tar sands, which implicates mercury in the fish of those birds' diets:

A study conducted by Environment Canada shows rising levels of mercury in bird eggs tested downstream from the Alberta tar sands. Some samples taken from the eggs of predatory birds showed traces of mercury that exceed the threshold of what’s considered dangerous. The findings indicate mercury levels could be rising in the fish the birds consume. The report was published online last month by the Environmental Science and Technology Journal.

http://desmog.ca/2013/10/16/Internal-Do ... ng-Program

[rockdoc123]

I do think the oil companies should have made more progress in reclaiming the land disturbed by mining. Even a Government of Alberta web site suggests that only around 10% of the land that has been disturbed is under active reclamation.

Most of the area classified as "disturbed" is still under active mining or has roads, plants etc on it. From what I've seen of the reclamation requirements in Alberta the minute a site is classified as abandoned it must undergo reclamation. The standards are pretty high and it takes a long time as being this far north the growing season is relatively short and the native flora are not fast growing. There are a long chain of inspections and approvals needed from the Gov't prior to a reclaimation certificate being awarded. This is why so little are has been officially reclaimed to this point in time.

ONe of the issues many people miss about this part of the world is it isn't the prettiest spot of land on the planet. I worked up there as a youth before the mining became a big deal and what I remember is without farmers coming in and cutting down trees over the years it would all be muskeg...now it is only about 80% muskeg (exaggerating). If you have never been through muskeg it is pretty much like a shallow version of the Louisiana bayou ....exchange alligators for hoards of mosquitoes and blackflies and moose that sneak up on you and are probably more dangerous than an alligator.....exchange salty water for muck. So the satellite images tell one story but the fact of the matter is the boreal forest in Alberta has had very, very little disturbance due to surface mining (actually less than 1%).

[rockdoc123]

Here is something about the mercury levels that puts it in proper perspective. Something worth monitoring but not something that is wildly dangerous at this point in time and certainly not something that can be exclusively tied to surface mining.

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/mercury-levels-rising-near-alberta-oil-sands-study-finds/article14855997/
[/url]

Two other studies since 2010 have shown increased levels of mercury in the oil-sands region – one in a major river, the other in lakes as far as 90 kilometres away, though the remote lakes were no more polluted than a typical urban lake. The latest study, published online Sept. 26 by the Environmental Science & Technology journal, shows the mercury level is rising in the eggs of predatory birds, which in turn suggests mercury levels could also be rising in the fish the birds eat.
In most samples, though, the levels are not considered dangerous. “The significance I think is just in terms of the trend itself. When we see mercury levels increasing in the bird eggs, that’s something that we obviously need to be aware of,” said Craig Hebert, an Environment Canada research scientist and the study’s lead author.

[WildRose]

I expect less pollution will be generated as the mining shifts from surface strip mining to "in situ" methods such as SAGD.

Two things:

Pollution can only increaseif nothing is done about the tailings ponds. Nobody knows what to do about the tailings ponds.

80% of Alberta's bitumen has to be extracted by means of SAGD because it's too deep to mine. So there'll be another 4 times the tailings ponds, 4 times the mercury and other toxins to look forward to.

[yellowcanoe]

In the link below, it is stated:

mercury is “the number one concern” when it comes to the metal toxins generated by oilsands operations.

A concern because the mercury levels in the area have, as you would expect, increased directly related to the increase in oil sands development, and so will increase exponentially as bitumen production likely quadruples over the next 20 years. And, as stated here, methyl mercury, which is more toxic, is increasingly showing up:

The scientists also found up to 19 nanograms of methyl mercury per square metre near the oilsands, 16 times the region’s background level. It is the first report of this more “toxic” form of mercury in snow. Microbes typically convert mercury into methyl mercury when the metal enters aquatic ecosystems and begins to work its way up through the food web.

boy you people really don't get it. Over half the population of Canada lives in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec and are being exposed to a level of mercury pollution significantly higher than the tar sands area in Alberta. Because it impacts so many more people this should be of much more concern to us. It's also the case that much of that mercury pollution is coming from the United States and we have no direct way to stop it. Relatively little power is generated with coal in Ontario and a complete shutdown of the remaining coal fired generators is expected in 2014.

[americandream]

rockdoc

I think we could waffle on about who is right. The corporate sector and their apologists or the increasingly suspicious public. No right answer is there until a nuke plant blows or some lake is poisoned etc, etc.

I guess we will each have to take our positions and duke it out as to who runs this planet.

[americandream]

In the link below, it is stated:

mercury is “the number one concern” when it comes to the metal toxins generated by oilsands operations.

A concern because the mercury levels in the area have, as you would expect, increased directly related to the increase in oil sands development, and so will increase exponentially as bitumen production likely quadruples over the next 20 years. And, as stated here, methyl mercury, which is more toxic, is increasingly showing up:

The scientists also found up to 19 nanograms of methyl mercury per square metre near the oilsands, 16 times the region’s background level. It is the first report of this more “toxic” form of mercury in snow. Microbes typically convert mercury into methyl mercury when the metal enters aquatic ecosystems and begins to work its way up through the food web.

boy you people really don't get it. Over half the population of Canada lives in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec and are being exposed to a level of mercury pollution significantly higher than the tar sands area in Alberta. Because it impacts so many more people this should be of much more concern to us. It's also the case that much of that mercury pollution is coming from the United States and we have no direct way to stop it. Relatively little power is generated with coal in Ontario and a complete shutdown of the remaining coal fired generators is expected in 2014.

Aaah. Mr "I expect". the voice of corporate reason. Theres no way to prove any of the hokum you have posted except in hindsight but theres so much noise surrounding these subjects, all we have to go by are results of corporate environmental mismanagement to date. Where do I start?

[yellowcanoe]

I expect less pollution will be generated as the mining shifts from surface strip mining to "in situ" methods such as SAGD.

Two things:

Pollution can only increaseif nothing is done about the tailings ponds. Nobody knows what to do about the tailings ponds.

80% of Alberta's bitumen has to be extracted by means of SAGD because it's too deep to mine. So there'll be another 4 times the tailings ponds, 4 times the mercury and other toxins to look forward to.

I agree that the tailings ponds are a huge issue. We've known for a long time that tailings ponds were not a good way to process the effluent from bitumen processing as it takes too long for the solids in the effluent to settle out. It would have been better if the government had deferred further development until the industry had come up with a better solution.

With SAGD you are separating the oil from the sand underground and just bringing what would primarily be oil to the surface. I'm sure there would be additional processing required but I would not expect it to create the same volume of effluent that processing of surface mined bitumen does.

[americandream]

It would have been better if the government had deferred further development until the industry had come up with a better solution.

"I expect" the government will. In the meantime, the local tar pits sure improve the scenery.

[rockdoc123]

I think we could waffle on about who is right. The corporate sector and their apologists or the increasingly suspicious public. No right answer is there until a nuke plant blows or some lake is poisoned etc, etc.

I guess we will each have to take our positions and duke it out as to who runs this planet.

perhaps..but I'd rather have people making decisions based on facts rather than on satellite photos that they saw on a website that is anti-development of any kind. You are aware that the oil sands deposits have been sitting at surface for at least a million years....naturally contributing hydrocarbons to the Athabasca river and its tributaries for longer than man was in North America?

I suppose you don't use any products that were produced by the "corporate sector" ?

[americandream]

I think we could waffle on about who is right. The corporate sector and their apologists or the increasingly suspicious public. No right answer is there until a nuke plant blows or some lake is poisoned etc, etc.

I guess we will each have to take our positions and duke it out as to who runs this planet.

perhaps..but I'd rather have people making decisions based on facts rather than on satellite photos that they saw on a website that is anti-development of any kind. You are aware that the oil sands deposits have been sitting at surface for at least a million years....naturally contributing hydrocarbons to the Athabasca river and its tributaries for longer than man was in North America?

I suppose you don't use any products that were produced by the "corporate sector" ?

OK bub. We know all that fine fangled stuff. But as soon as TSHTF, fellows like you skeedaddle for cover faster than a rattlesnakes rattle. That's a consistent pattern of corporate mismanagement of the environment and it includes its lackies.

If you asking me whether modernity is owned by your corporate bosses, NO. Much of anything that has any use out there has been brought to the table by socially funded reseacrh and I would rather my energy use was managed in that context, delivering me the modernity that I NEED, not what you try and guilt me into.

As for you specious reasoning generally, I'ld like to see where you are to be found if all of this turns to custard. Running for cover, I bet.

[WildRose]

I expect less pollution will be generated as the mining shifts from surface strip mining to "in situ" methods such as SAGD.

Two things:

Pollution can only increaseif nothing is done about the tailings ponds. Nobody knows what to do about the tailings ponds.

80% of Alberta's bitumen has to be extracted by means of SAGD because it's too deep to mine. So there'll be another 4 times the tailings ponds, 4 times the mercury and other toxins to look forward to.

I agree that the tailings ponds are a huge issue. We've known for a long time that tailings ponds were not a good way to process the effluent from bitumen processing as it takes too long for the solids in the effluent to settle out. It would have been better if the government had deferred further development until the industry had come up with a better solution.

With SAGD you are separating the oil from the sand underground and just bringing what would primarily be oil to the surface. I'm sure there would be additional processing required but I would not expect it to create the same volume of effluent that processing of surface mined bitumen does.

I knew there was more to SAGD, I had (briefly) forgotten some important issues with it.

Here's a good overview of SAGD, and it is no bed of roses.

This article explains the Primrose bitumen leak near Cold Lake, Alberta this past summer, actually it is ongoing, with no way of calculating just how much bitumen has made it into the groundwater. SAGD uses similar techniques to fracking in the US and southern Alberta. Read the paragraph below. In addition to the potential for bitumen to travel through natural fractures in the ground (as happened in Cold Lake), SAGD produces 3 times the greenhouse emissions of mining for tar sands:

"The one fundamental truth about all this is that the steam plants are much dirtier than the mining operations," says journalist Andrew Nikiforuk. "The assumption is that because the mining operations look God awful - these huge open pit mines, the tailing ponds and waste - somehow these steam plants in the forest are going to be much gentler operations. The mining plants will create a hole in the ground the side of Delaware or Rhode Island. The steam plants will disturb an area in the boreal forest four times larger than that, around 15,000 square kilometers of disturbance. They use three times more natural gas; they produce three times more greenhouse gas emissions. They use enormous amounts of water and have the potential to put groundwater at risk throughout the whole region."

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2 ... -the-world

[americandream]

This article explains the Primrose bitumen leak near Cold Lake, Alberta this past summer, actually it is ongoing, with no way of calculating just how much bitumen has made it into the groundwater.

This is precisely why I am increasingly saying, "No more." Despite all these reassurances, the cockups when they emerge and emerge they do, leave the public increasingly dismayed and suspicious.

[yellowcanoe]

I knew there was more to SAGD, I had (briefly) forgotten some important issues with it.

Here's a good overview of SAGD, and it is no bed of roses.

That's a good point that SAGD uses more energy per barrel than the older open pit mines and that as all the energy comes from burning natural gas the carbon emissions are higher too.

I don't think I've seen it mentioned on this thread, but there is some question as to the longer term financial viability of producing the tar sands. The cost of producing oil from the tar sands has been increasing at a rate well beyond the inflation rate but there seems to be a limit as to how high the price of oil can go. There are some who believe that oil prices cannot go much beyond $120 per barrel because at that point a lot of consumers have to cut back their usage of oil. If this theory is true we could reach the point where producing the tar sands is not economically viable.

[dissident]

So there is over one ton of Hg in the tailings ponds. Don't expect it to stay there. It is not likely to be in particulate sorbant form in the acidic (and hence reducing) environment of the ponds. So it will outgas on a continuous basis. It will then get into the watershed and a large fraction of it will be methylated by bacteria. Mercury is highly mobile and will not stay in this part of Alberta. So it is not just about restoring some forest cover to make it pretty for the tree huggers.

Those tailings ponds are an epic failure of the whole operation.

[americandream]

I knew there was more to SAGD, I had (briefly) forgotten some important issues with it.

Here's a good overview of SAGD, and it is no bed of roses.

That's a good point that SAGD uses more energy per barrel than the older open pit mines and that as all the energy comes from burning natural gas the carbon emissions are higher too.

I don't think I've seen it mentioned on this thread, but there is some question as to the longer term financial viability of producing the tar sands. The cost of producing oil from the tar sands has been increasing at a rate well beyond the inflation rate but there seems to be a limit as to how high the price of oil can go. There are some who believe that oil prices cannot go much beyond $120 per barrel because at that point a lot of consumers have to cut back their usage of oil. If this theory is true we could reach the point where producing the tar sands is not economically viable.

Manufacturing uses oil extensively. The scanario you are contemplating (costs destroying profit) would be pretty much a pre-collapse point in the system but the issue here is do we want to be opening up another source of substantial environmental damage, not whether its cost effctive or not.

[yellowcanoe]

Manufacturing uses oil extensively. The scenario you are contemplating (costs destroying profit) would be pretty much a pre-collapse point in the system but the issue here is do we want to be opening up another source of substantial environmental damage, not whether its cost effctive or not.

Without tar sands production Canada would be a net oil importer (consumption of 1.6Mbbd versus conventional oil production of 1.3Mbbd) so the economic cost of not developing the tar sands would have been significant. Production has been going on now for over 30 years and has left a legacy of open pit mines that have not been reclaimed and large areas of tailing ponds. A huge cleanup job would be needed even if mining was completely stopped today.

Peter Loughheed, the premier of Alberta at the time development of the tar sands started, believed that the tar sands should be developed slowly to maximize the benefits to Albertans. An eminently sensible idea that unfortunately was totally forgotten by his successors. We now have a situation where the province and federal government are trying to develop the tar sands as quickly as possible. Development rights have been sold to quite a few companies and there would be no easy or cheap way to rescind those rights. When the priority is on fast development environmental concerns are likely to take a back seat.

Why isn't the Alberta government making more of an effort to get the oil companies to clean up the mess they have created and reduce pollution? I think that is because they want the current development boom to continue but the reality is that a lot of the new players are not making a profit. The transportation bottleneck is one reason for that -- tar sands oil is selling at a substantial discount to the world price for oil. It's not the only reason companies are not making money -- I believe the cost of developing and operating new mines has been higher than they expected.

If the transportation bottleneck was eliminated and mining became more profitable it is conceivable the province would apply more pressure on the oil companies to clean up their act. Then again, it might not make any difference. If the transportation bottleneck remains, I would expect that some companies would shutdown their operations. Everyone is continuing to produce right now because they expect the transportation bottleneck to be eliminated but no company can operate a mining operation at a loss indefinitely. So I would say that anyone who is opposed to tar sands mining should focus on the various projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline that are intended to alleviate the transportation bottleneck.

We certainly have a legacy of mining in Ontario with many abandoned mine sites, some of which were not properly cleaned up after mining ceased. However, there is no question that the tar sands mining is impacting an area at least 2 or 3 magnitudes larger than any mining operation we've had here!