[basil_hayden]

There's no cap, pstarr, hence the liquid oil takes the path of least resistance to the surface.

[Keith_McClary]

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?

It's not very deep.

(This is highly schematic.)

[WildRose]

pstarr, this is what happened at the Primrose site:

The incident occurred at an in situ oilsands site that uses a process called high-pressure cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) to extract bitumen from underground, deep beneath a layer of cap rock that is supposed to be strong enough to contain the pressure of the injected steam. In the report, CNRL acknowledges for the first time that the cap rock could have been breached, either through natural fractures or fractures that were induced by the injection of steam to the point where the bitumen-containing formation fractured under intense pressure.

This is a critical admission, since the entire design of the project is based on the premise that the Clearwater capping shale does not contain natural fractures and will not fracture in response to the kinds of pressure created by CNRL’s activities. This expectation is the basis upon which the project received its regulatory approval.

http://www.pembina.org/blog/cnrl-admits ... umen-leaks

So, as basilhayden said, effectively no cap.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - From what I can tell the existing heat/pressure is still driving the system. The latest report I could find is below. The latest thought is that the leaks are coming up thru a previous drilled and abandoned wells and not directly thru the cap rock. The latest volume is 20 bbls per day. Not good but not like BP's Macondo blowout. Apparently with the recovery effort in place it appears what can be done is being done.

From 24 Sept: "A Canadian energy company said on Wednesday that a 10-week-old series of tar sands leaks in Alberta had slowed. But the company, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., acknowledged that it still doesn't have a way to stop the spill. Its plan? Wait it out. The announcement came after Canadian regulators said Monday that the leaks were ongoing, stating that "[t]here is no control on this incident." The first leaks were reported on May 20, with two more appearing in mid and late June. On Wednesday morning, the company said in a conference call that it had identified a few older, inactive wells—one of which dates back to 1997—as probable culprits. At least one of the suspect wells were drilled by a prior operator, the company said. When a well casing failed, according to the company, oil started seeping out through the surrounding ground, eventually impacting a 50-acre swath. Pictures from the site show standing pools of oil, dead wildlife, and trees covered with thick, black sludge. According to figures released by the company, some 6,300 barrels of bitumen has been collected from the site so far and several dozen animals have been killed. The company says that the leaks have slowed to less than 20 barrels a day but that oil will continue to seep to the surface for some time.

The tar sands at the Cold Lake site are too deep to be mined, so the company uses a method called Cyclic Steam Stimulation, in which millions of gallons of steam are injected into the ground to heat and loosen the heavy tar, so it can be pumped back out. The process involves dozens of wells dotted across the site. Wednesday morning, the company said that bitumen—the heavy tar that can be processed into oil—migrated up from an old, compromised wellbore, eventually bubbling up at four different sites. According to the company, it's similar to a 2009 incident at the same site, when the casing of a well failed and bitumen started seeping to the surface. After that, Canadian Natural changed its standards for well construction, but it didn't address older wells, like the ones responsible for the current spill.

But knowing what went wrong doesn't really change anything. According to both the company and Cara Tobin, a spokesperson for the Alberta Energy Regulator, the agency that oversees tar sands extraction, all they can do is wait until the bitumen moving underground has run its course. "It's going to be an extended release of bitumen to the surface, until all the pressure underground dissipates," said Tobin. "There is a lot of detailed work that needs to be done to figure out what's going on underground." On the conference call Wednesday, the company promised that it is working to "minimize the impact to the environment, and [is] taking proactive measures to prevent this type of accident in the future." It claimed that it expects "little to no additional environmental damage" from the continued oil leaks. According to the company, in over 30 years of CSS extraction at the site, there have been only "a few bitumen emulsion seepages to surface."

The company said it is facing an estimated $40 million cleanup cost, with another $20 million needed to investigate the incident and for new monitoring equipment."

Given the impact covers about 50 acres in a rather remote area I would imagine the greatest impact has been to CNR's checkbook. Which is how it should be IMHO.

[WildRose]

So wouldn't the leak stop when the steam stops? The tar is then no longer miscible.

The steaming process is done for weeks at a time and then the bitumen is recovered for months at a time before the cycle begins again. Of course, if they keep using the same technique in an area where a breach of the cap rock can happen, the leaks will continue to happen.

[Graeme]

Transporting tar sands oil is problematic

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.

watertowndailytimes

[Graeme]

Canada tries to block NAFTA review of tarsands

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.

axisoflogic

[Graeme]

Watch this nature doc on the majestic tar-sands pipeline

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.”

grist

[Synapsid]

Graeme,

"idyllic shrouds of the Athabasca River"? Say what?

[Graeme]

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]

wiki

[Synapsid]

Graeme,

My point is that the expression is devoid of meaning. What is the idyllic shroud of a river?

I'd like to take whoever wrote that for a 5-mile hike through muskeg.

[Tanada]

The environmental impact won't be known in toto for a generation as we see how well 'reclaimed' mining sites recover, or fail to recover.

[dohboi]

Toto is in the wicked witch's basket!!

As are we all!!

The native peoples in the area are pretty freakin' aware of the consequences.

With this as with so much else, if we wait till we are TOTally certain of all consequences, it will be far too too late to do diddly squat about it.

[Graeme]

Pipeline Spill In The Heart Of Canada’s Tar Sands Industry Leaks 1.3 Million Gallons Of Oily Emulsion

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.

thinkprogress

[Keith_McClary]

Pipeline Spill In The Heart Of Canada’s Tar Sands Industry Leaks 1.3 Million Gallons Of Oily Emulsion

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.

BTW:

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 ...

[WildRose]

I know we talked about how bitumen is more erosive in pipelines when we were discussing the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Now that we've had this most recent, very large spill near Fort McMurray, there is again doubt about whether even new pipelines can carry bitumen safely. The double-walled pipeline in this newest spill only began working last year. Investigators aren't sure yet what caused the breach of the pipeline, but there was a large hole which went through both layers. Erosion may be the cause.

He noted technology, like the kind of double-walled pipeline involved in the Nexen spill, might not provide as much safety protection as some think. The basic concept that sells those type of pipelines is that if the inner wall of the pipeline breaks, the outer wall will act as a backstop for spills.

But how well it works depends on everything from the type of the material to the installation and how the pipeline operates. For instance, if the double-walled pipeline is made of steel, under certain conditions risk of a rupture can increase because erosion can occur, Kuprewicz said

"It may be the illusion of safety when it really isn't," he said.

So, another large clean-up is underway while our government and industry leaders discuss sending bitumen through an Energy East Pipeline.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3159562

[Graeme]

Michigan River Remains Poisoned By Oil Five Years After Massive Spill

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.

thinkprogress