reevesr1 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 SAG D is worse I think, even though optically open pit looks worse. The problem with SAG D is the water they are injecting is potable and we can never recover that water EVER. The water is sourced from rivers and streams. Really not trying to start a bun fight here Rick but I am sure any Engineer can do the math to show the economics on the oil sands, heck I can do the math on it. But do they really understand the impact it will have? You don't NEED your car or truck, its nice to have don't get me worng, but you NEED fresh water to live. I am not a tree hugger or dirty hippy, but I know that thre is a fine line to walk between sacraficing a NEED resource for a NICE resource. Matt, What's a bun fight? Also, fess up. You are a tiny bit of a tree hugger. (hey, what happened to the river cleanup this year?) While you are certainly correct that we don't need our cars and trucks, they are not going to go away any time soon. Unless I miss my guess, as more of the world develops there will be more of them, not less. And they will need fuel, and part of that fuel will come from oilsands. There is no doubting that, IMHO, unless there is a cosmic shift in economics and human behavior. So the question becomes how do you produce the oilsands in a more environmentally sound way? The water needs currently for SAGD is admittedly massive, and will continue to rise as the Sask fields begin to be developed (though I must admit some ignorance here as I don't know how the Sask fields will be produced. My assumption in mining and sagd like here, but that is purely an assumption). There was a line in the paper this morning that said current oilsands production is 1.2 million barrels a day, estimated 2015 production at 4.3 million (that's from memory and could be off a bit) in Alberta alone. (Warning-personal opinion to follow with no facts to back it up) Also, I think people need to recognize what they are saying when they talk about ending the oilsands. The stopping of the oilsands could be a near death sentence for the Alberta Oil and Gas Industry. There is basically no oil left in Alberta, natural gas production is declining, and nat gas prices are in the toilet with little prospect for short term recovery. There is too much supply in the shale gas plays in the US, and all these LNG terminals being built assuring supply for the next several years and beyond. Now I know that there are those who would say "good, see ya oil and gas and good riddance." And I also know that many more would accuse me of being a bit of an alarmist. But the end of the oil and gas industry here means a collapse of the Alberta economy and a return to agriculture and tourism. But hey, more fish, a more pristine environment, and a lot fewer people to enjoy it. On the bright side, all us foreigners and newfies will be gone. Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to start a fight either. This issue is massively complex and unsolvable here. But sure is fun to talk about. Quote
Ricinus Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 If the U.S. decides that the oilsands is dirty oil, what then? Do we slow down and let the industry clean up their act or do we sell to countries that aren't so picky? Is shale gas development any cleaner and more enviromentally friendly? Tough questions and I don't think anybody is supplying honest answers. Regards Mike Quote
bigbowtrout Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 If the U.S. decides that the oilsands is dirty oil, what then? Regards Mike Sell it all to China http://www.albertacanada.com/documents/AOS...terlyUpdate.pdf Quote
SupremeLeader Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 How true, I love it how people can spin things their way and then accuse someone of doing the samething, where I come from it calling the kettle black. Spinning again...... Read the second post by Jayhad, and the third by Rickr; both mentioned a one-sided article, aka bias. I can assure you, anyone reading this thread that has even the smallest amount of objectivity can see through you guys. Again, we 'were' talking about Acid Rain/ Oilsands. Quote
theiceman2 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Being a self declared "NON TREE HUGGER" means I am not unrealistically saying that they should stop all oil sands production, but it pisses me off to see needles on the river along side beer cans and bikes. The resource is there, its real and there is no way we are going to leave that much money in the ground. Industry just needs to find a better way to exploit the resource. Fresh water is valuable we shouldn't take it for granted. Don't forget how public opinion changes over the years. 50 years ago the US suggested detonating a nuke to extract the oil from the tar sands publically saying "there is only wildlife and inuit up north, they don't matter anyway". Quote
reevesr1 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 TREEHUGGER, You owe me a new keyboard as mine is shorted out from me spitting my coffee. Hopefully one made from fully recycled material and free from petroleum or wood products. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 SAG D is worse I think, even though optically open pit looks worse. The problem with SAG D is the water they are injecting is potable and we can never recover that water EVER. The water is sourced from rivers and streams. Really not trying to start a bun fight here Rick but I am sure any Engineer can do the math to show the economics on the oil sands, heck I can do the math on it. But do they really understand the impact it will have? You don't NEED your car or truck, its nice to have don't get me worng, but you NEED fresh water to live. I am not a tree hugger or dirty hippy, but I know that thre is a fine line to walk between sacraficing a NEED resource for a NICE resource. So what are you saying? Are the oil companies draining all the water out of the Athabasca River and killing all the fish downstream? Is there no water left downstream for agriculture or cities? How much are they using percentage wise from the river? Are they recycling any water? From your post it sounds like Alberta is in big trouble here. What is the effect of the Dioxin sludge flowing downstream of the Hinton pulp mills these days? I would not drink or use one ouch of water from that river. The tumors in the fish are from dioxin...not oil sands. Was oil leaking into the Athabasca prior to the oil sands being developed? As for acid rain...don't know who did the study, paid for the study, what the methodogy was etc...but being reasonably...CO2 is meaningless but now a days companies should try hard to reduce sulphur emissions where ever possible. They proved acid rain caused by industry emmissions out east. I kinda doubt we have near as many refineries producing this up at Fort Mac...but hey...try and do the best mitigate job reasonably possible. Quote
theiceman2 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 So what are you saying? Are the oil companies draining all the water out of the Athabasca River and killing all the fish downstream? Is there no water left downstream for agriculture or cities? How much are they using percentage wise from the river? Are they recycling any water? From your post it sounds like Alberta is in big trouble here. What is the effect of the Dioxin sludge flowing downstream of the Hinton pulp mills these days? I would not drink or use one ouch of water from that river. The tumors in the fish are from dioxin...not oil sands. Was oil leaking into the Athabasca prior to the oil sands being developed? As for acid rain...don't know who did the study, paid for the study, what the methodogy was etc...but being reasonably...CO2 is meaningless but now a days companies should try hard to reduce sulphur emissions where ever possible. They proved acid rain caused by industry emmissions out east. I kinda doubt we have near as many refineries producing this up at Fort Mac...but hey...try and do the best mitigate job reasonably possible. I am going to keep this response really simple. Pollution and water loss from the oil sands are very different. With pollution the water is there and can be filtered and cleaned but still remains within the hydraulic cycle. Rivers, ponds, and ocean collect the water and evaporation picks up the water leaving behind salts and most pollutants. None the less the cycle is never broken if a factory uses it to make hotdogs, you eat the hot dog and piss out the water, it goes to the Bow, eventually to the ocean and the salt is left behind (IE Salt water ocean). Here is the big difference with oil sands and SAG-D (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage). In order to get the oil out of the ground it either is shallow enough to be mined, ir they have to drill two horizontal oil wells, with one injecting steam from river water that is heated with natural gas, the oil is heated and gravity pulls the oil into the lower horizontal well bore where it is pumped to surface. Unfortunately you are never getting that water back EVER! The hydraulic cycle is broken and it technically impossible to recover the water. Big difference from water that you get for a water well or artesian well. This is over a km deep and will be absorbed into the shale forever. THATS BIG DIFFERENCE THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF, AND IF THAT MAKES ME A TREEHUGGER, THEN I ACCEPT IT AND HAVE CHANGED MY NAME FROM THEICEMAN2 TO TREEHUGGER. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I am going to keep this response really simple. Pollution and water loss from the oil sands are very different. With pollution the water is there and can be filtered and cleaned but still remains within the hydraulic cycle. Rivers, ponds, and ocean collect the water and evaporation picks up the water leaving behind salts and most pollutants. None the less the cycle is never broken if a factory uses it to make hotdogs, you eat the hot dog and piss out the water, it goes to the Bow, eventually to the ocean and the salt is left behind (IE Salt water ocean). Here is the big difference with oil sands and SAG-D (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage). In order to get the oil out of the ground it either is shallow enough to be mined, ir they have to drill two horizontal oil wells, with one injecting steam from river water that is heated with natural gas, the oil is heated and gravity pulls the oil into the lower horizontal well bore where it is pumped to surface. Unfortunately you are never getting that water back EVER! The hydraulic cycle is broken and it technically impossible to recover the water. Big difference from water that you get for a water well or artesian well. This is over a km deep and will be absorbed into the shale forever. BIG DIFFERENCE THAT TH EGENERAL PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF. So if you consider the billions of barrels produced by shale gas or coal bed methane that is pumped to surface, treated and released to streams versus oil sands then there is probably a wash. I note that any water that flows down to the ocean from the oil sands areas then goes into the water cycle for the rain to fall again in the mountains etc. Does removing 1% change the climate, future rainfall or river discharge or alter anything? What is the volume of water to be used, less any recycled or brackish water in the reinjection process compared to the yearly flow down the Athabasca or the water volume in the ocean that it flows to. One thing you may not be considering in your fear and concerns is that the water here is flowing to the Arctic and not going by any densely populated areas. The rivers here flow north and not south. Is losing 1% of the flow really a bad thing that can not be mitigated if need be? Is 10%? Obviously 100% is bad as the fishes will all die but where is the middle ground that can be a win/win for all? What are your thoughts? Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 The hydraulic cycle is not a doom and gloom thing. There is billions and trillions and gazillions of barrels locked into the rocks over billions of years. Even in aquifers the water may site in their unused by nature or man for millions of years. Some recharge, some do not...some recharge quickly...some do not. What proof is there that removing that water affects anything especially considering all the water man is liberating daily in the world from the aquifers. What are your thoughts? Quote
theiceman2 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 So if you consider the billions of barrels produced by shale gas or coal bed methane that is pumped to surface, treated and released to streams versus oil sands then there is probably a wash. I note that any water that flows down to the ocean from the oil sands areas then goes into the water cycle for the rain to fall again in the mountains etc. Does removing 1% change the climate, future rainfall or river discharge or alter anything? What is the volume of water to be used, less any recycled or brackish water in the reinjection process compared to the yearly flow down the Athabasca or the water volume in the ocean that it flows to. One thing you may not be considering in your fear and concerns is that the water here is flowing to the Arctic and not going by any densely populated areas. The rivers here flow north and not south. Is losing 1% of the flow really a bad thing that can not be mitigated if need be? Is 10%? Obviously 100% is bad as the fishes will all die but where is the middle ground that can be a win/win for all? What are your thoughts? [/quote All produced well water is considered a biohazard, and must be disposed of by reinjecting it. That equates to a net loss. Quote
bigbowtrout Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 SAGD 101 (kinda grade 4ish) http://www.longlake.ca/PDF/PDFs%20for%20SA...the%20Water.pdf http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovation...kableWater.aspx Quote
Jayhad Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 All produced well water is considered a biohazard, and must be disposed of by reinjecting it. That equates to a net loss. Why is it considered a biohazard? Are there micro-organisms or viral pathagins involved? I am not wanting to add fire to the flame, I just don't know. Generally biohazards must be biological in nature to be classed. Doesn't the re-injecting of water into the shale just put it back into the water table to be filtered through natural means? I would think that water would make it back? Quote
theiceman2 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 SAGD 101 (kinda grade 4ish) http://www.longlake.ca/PDF/PDFs%20for%20SA...the%20Water.pdf http://www.capp.ca/energySupply/innovation...kableWater.aspx Beautiful link, very one sided but nice all the same. Quote
Ricinus Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Great link, it helped alot in understanding SAGD. But now the song " Don't worry be happy" keeps running thru my head. Regards Mike Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Beautiful link, very one sided but nice all the same. what was one sided about it? You said they are all using up river water but apparantly that is not true based upon this. I read nothing that did not make sense. It is simplified but I do not need to understand the actual water cleaning procedure. It appears they also recycle rain water and snow runnoff. Is that your only concern? I guessed they would recycle. Makes sense if they get hot water up from the reservoir that because it is already hot that cleaning it and reusing it would make sense. I am not sure where your concerns lie? Please elaborate... Quote
Ricinus Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Another viewpoint http://www.cpaws-sask.org/common/pdfs/Deat...ousand_cuts.pdf Regards Mike Quote
dmcd Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Why is it considered a biohazard? Are there micro-organisms or viral pathagins involved? I am not wanting to add fire to the flame, I just don't know. Generally biohazards must be biological in nature to be classed. Biohazard is bad wording, toxic would be more along the right lines Doesn't the re-injecting of water into the shale just put it back into the water table to be filtered through natural means? I would think that water would make it back? I a nut shell no. It's generally reinjected to a zone below the the water table so it's segregated. Quote
theiceman2 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Another viewpoint http://www.cpaws-sask.org/common/pdfs/Deat...ousand_cuts.pdf Regards Mike Wolfie great find! The pembina institute gives a more realistic view not all roses not all bad, but a BIG ASS footprint. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 what was one sided about it? You said they are all using up river water but apparantly that is not true based upon this. I read nothing that did not make sense. It is simplified but I do not need to understand the actual water cleaning procedure. It appears they also recycle rain water and snow runnoff. Is that your only concern? I guessed they would recycle. Makes sense if they get hot water up from the reservoir that because it is already hot that cleaning it and reusing it would make sense. I am not sure where your concerns lie? Please elaborate... again TREEHUGGER...if the water is not being used like crazy out of the river...where is your concern coming regarding water? Please...in simple terms...explain. Thanks. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Another viewpoint http://www.cpaws-sask.org/common/pdfs/Deat...ousand_cuts.pdf Regards Mike I think this is the same view point as the other link. From a water perspective...everyone seems to be on the same page... Recycle, reuse, dispose properly and mitigate where needed. Everyone should also take a step back when complaining about the foot print size. I think forcing companies to minimize their foot print is great but really...look within Alberta at all the urban areas. That has destroyed a ton of habitat but while we are in our cosy home or office looking for something to complain about we step away from NIMBY to bug others. We do not look within and say yes...I will move my family from a 1500 - 2000 square foot home into a 800 square foot apartment. I will not give up the two cars and ride the transit. I will not recycle absolutely everything I can cause well it is time consuming. Put Calgary and Edmonton and Red Deer etc. foot print along with all our public road and figure how much space is taken. I will give a lot of credit to anyone that truly does that in a significant way. That guy can talk... SAGD wells are to be drilled from pads, jointly tied in to minimize pipe etc. Both good for the environment and for cost controls. People are also assuming that every inch will be drill instantaneously but alas...neither practical nor likely. Developement over time for sure but remember...oil has been leaking into the Athabasca River long before people roamed the area. Quote
Ricinus Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Ya know Sun, the thing that pi$$es me off is the multinationals, ERCB and our own Government treat us like fools. You know- don't worry we have everything under control, everything is fine, we're environmentally responsible, etc. They spend millions on spindoctors to spew out garbage that even I -with no background in the industry- can see is bulls**t. If you're going to pillage and plunder the land, at least have the balls to admit it and say what the consequences are. The Oilsands are a done deal; there is no stopping the development, but at least let Albertans know what the environmental cost was. Regards Mike Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Ya know Sun, the thing that pi$$es me off is the multinationals, ERCB and our own Government treat us like fools. You know- don't worry we have everything under control, everything is fine, we're environmentally responsible, etc. They spend millions on spindoctors to spew out garbage that even I -with no background in the industry- can see is bulls**t. If you're going to pillage and plunder the land, at least have the balls to admit it and say what the consequences are. The Oilsands are a done deal; there is no stopping the development, but at least let Albertans know what the environmental cost was. Regards Mike By that admission you are against farms and agriculture. They pillage and plunder the land way more that the oil sands. They have an absolutely massive foot print. They water crops during the heat of the day, they spread massive quantities of pesticides and herbicides on the ground. They kill deer and elk eating the crops where their meadow once sat. They kill small mammals and foxes and coyotes and poison animals that damage their crops and kill their livestock. Bears are killed to protect pretty little donkeys. They chopped down and plowed in millions of acres of boreal forest and grasslands and meadows to grow wheat, barley, tobacco etc. We need the food. We need the fuel. What is the difference? IMHO Quote
tonyr Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 We need the food. We need the fuel. What is the difference? IMHO whats the difference lol Quote
SupremeLeader Posted August 19, 2009 Author Posted August 19, 2009 By that admission you are against farms and agriculture. They pillage and plunder the land way more that the oil sands. They have an absolutely massive foot print. They water crops during the heat of the day, they spread massive quantities of pesticides and herbicides on the ground. They kill deer and elk eating the crops where their meadow once sat. They kill small mammals and foxes and coyotes and poison animals that damage their crops and kill their livestock. Bears are killed to protect pretty little donkeys. They chopped down and plowed in millions of acres of boreal forest and grasslands and meadows to grow wheat, barley, tobacco etc. We need the food. We need the fuel. What is the difference? IMHO There is so much spinning going on here I'm getting dizzy. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.