- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Gouged Earth: Big Part of Oil Sands Carbon Footprint
What's more destructive, rainforest wrecking bio-fuel farms or Alberta's open pit mines? Study adds it up.
Syncrude oil sands mining operations in Alberta peatlands. Photo: David Dodge, Pembina Institute and oilsandswatch.org.
The carbon footprint of oil sands mining projects caused by land disturbance is greater than that of highly destructive bio-fuel projects in Indonesia, says a new study by U.S. and Canadian researchers.
While the clearing of tropical rainforest in Indonesia to grow palm oil for diesel production puts 3,452 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere per disturbed hectare, the destruction of boreal peatlands by oil sands mining industry creates nearly 3,600 tonnes of CO2 emissions per hectare.
However, in terms of energy output per disturbed hectare of forest, a bitumen mine still produces 530 times more energy than a palm plantation.
Investigation sought real cost of energy crops
The novel study, published in the journal Environment Science and Technology in October, springs from a growing controversy about the volume of greenhouse gas emissions created by destruction of tropical forests and soils to grow energy crops such as palm oil or ethanol.
A 2008 Science study, for example, found that biofuels made from U.S. corn, Brazilian soy and Indonesian palm oil were more destructive to land than gasoline.
Biofuel lobbies such as New Fuels Alliance countered that land disturbance caused by fossil fuel production is also significant "but that no one had looked at," says Sonia Yeh, a researcher at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California.
So a group of researchers including Yeh as well as David Keith and Sarah Jordaan at the University of Calgary and Adam Brandt at Stanford University, compared land use emissions from the biofuel industry with conventional and unconventional oil production in California and Alberta.
The study found that the destruction of carbon-rich peat lands as well as methane generated from huge tailing ponds containing mining waste primarily accounted for high CO2 emissions from oil sands mining projects.
In fact the average CO2 emissions from Syncrude's Mildred Lake Settling Basin, the scene of recent duck deaths and one of the world's largest dams in terms of construction material volume, amounts to approximately 1,100 tonnes per hectare a year (as well as 43 tonnes of methane) due to explosive biological activity in the ponds. (The tailing ponds now cover an area larger than downtown Vancouver, 170 square kilometres.)
"What surprised us were the tailing emissions and the peatland emissions," says Yeh. "We didn't know they would be that big." As a consequence emissions fostered by the uprooting of boreal soils and trees by oil sands mining and mining waste disposal "can be comparable or higher than biofuels" from palm oil plantations in Indonesia.
'Peatlands are really special'
The study assumed that nearly one quarter of oil sands open pit mines take place on peatlands. "Peatlands are really special formations and they store 10 times more carbon than found in soil." Once dug up these valuable ecosystems, which also sequester vast amounts of mercury, oxidize and release CO2 into the air. "Something is being lost from the peatlands that can't be recovered," adds Yeh.
Although the study assumes that industry will fully reclaim mining pits and tailing ponds, great uncertainty exists about the cost and scientific feasibility of most reclamation projects let alone the recreation of wetlands.
The study also found that carbon emissions from land use disturbance from California's oil patch (73 tonnes per hectare) was much less than Alberta's oil fields (157 tonnes per hectare). While California oil wells disturbed between .33 to 1.8 hectares of grassland per well, Alberta production ripped up anywhere between 1.6 to 7.1 hectares of forest or grasslands with well pads, roads and seismic lines. In Alberta the GHG land use intensity of normal oil production was 5-10 times greater than that of California's conventional oil wells.
Emission from tree felling and soil disturbance caused by in situ or steam plant bitumen production was 205 tonnes per hectare. But that figure doesn't include land disturbance caused by enormous amounts of natural gas consumption necessary for steam plant production. (This energy-wasteful method burns four times more natural gas than mining operations by boiling water to create steam to melt deep deposits of bitumen at 240 degrees Celsius.)
Complicated trade-offs
The findings illustrate the complexity of energy policy decisions now facing consumers and politicians around the world given rising oil prices. Although the paper focuses solely on carbon emissions, Yeh emphasized the environmental and ecological issues associated with land disturbance caused by energy production are just as important. "It's up to society to determine how they want to make the trade-offs."
According to research by Yeh and her colleagues land disturbance now accounts for 11 per cent of total GHG emissions caused by fossil fuels. Its contribution is rarely included in calculations of GHG emissions from bitumen upstream production, which typically creates as many as three times more climate destabilizing gases than conventional oil due to its energy intensity. However, there is no public transparency on production emissions. Neither industry nor government GHG studies use real bitumen production data or submit their studies for peer review.
Nearly 80 per cent of all emissions for fossil fuels from well to car come from the burning of hydrocarbons in grossly inefficient combustion engines. (Less than 20 per cent of the energy in the gasoline moves the wheels of a relatively efficient vehicle: the rest is wasted.) ![]()




13
Login or register to post comments
KWD
1 year ago
open pit minds?
When it comes to understanding the thinking of those favouring tar sands development, that pretty much says it all.
jnewcomb
1 year ago
oil sands only part of the fossil fuel cycle
Given that 80% of all emissions for fossile fuels come from the end-users, the relatively-larger contribution of tar sands VERSUS other fossil fuel sources may be minor. Given that, it is as important to bring much higher efficiencies to end-user applications, such as infrastructure for transit, apartments and compact communities.
jwstewart
1 year ago
"Although the study assumes
"Although the study assumes that industry will fully reclaim mining pits and tailing ponds, great uncertainty exists about the cost and scientific feasibility of most reclamation projects let alone the recreation of wetlands."
I find it disturbing that reclamation has not been address or even fully funded by the producers.
In many jurisdictions, you cannot build a gas station without reserving funds to clean and remove poluted soil or underground tanks.
whatthe
1 year ago
Anecdotal
There I dont feel so bad about Harper's Hell Pit.
Lets look at the root of the problem. I know that is radical by definition but lets us risk democracy and reason for a moment here.
Markets do not create themselves. Ask any celebrated corporate master of the universe and they will tell you the secret is creating and sustaining a market for your products.
So we must really consider this point.
In this case of Palm Oil. Do wwe really need to flush it down the drain everytime we wash our hands?
Do we really need soft luxurious skin? This aslo applies to petro products as skin applicants.
While it would be nice to hold those accountable who have created these markets responsible for the havoc and damage they leave in their wake, the second priority after creating the market is externalizing cost. Trust me we would have no government if it was not for this second business principle as where else could they offload these "externalities."
We must must must get to the root of the problem or be prepeared to go where we are headed.
realisticman
1 year ago
Let's hope these studies
Let's hope these studies continue. Interesting information. By the way, how many oil wells are there operating in California today? BBC recently ran an investigative report on palm oil production. Quite shocking.
Meanwhile:
"Oil sands giants post big profits
DAVID EBNER
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Nov. 04, 2010
Canada’s two biggest energy companies – Suncor Energy (SU-T35.482.587.84%) and Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ-T39.331.594.21%) – delivered some of their best results ever, propelled by strong oil sands production and high prices.
Both companies are benefiting from rising oil prices, which yesterday closed at $86.49 (U.S.) a barrel, up about 20 per cent since August. It helped Suncor deliver a 90-per-cent jump in operating profit, while net profit reached $1-billion (Canadian) or 65 cents a share. ..."
Up 90%, that's what they call sweet.
jimorsheryl
1 year ago
The Solution Is Simple
We all just need to quit using petroleum based products. That includes the obvious like driving internal combustion engines and heating with oil. Now lets dispose of all the plastics that depend on oil. Imagine a world without plastic! That computer you are looking at might look great with a cherry wood case instead of plastic, the phone might not be too useful though.
No car,no truck, no semi-trailers, no buses, no diesel trains, no planes etc. etc. etc.
Yeah ..... that's the ticket just quit using products reliant upon oil!
mopled
1 year ago
As long as the discussion about the Tar Sands
concentrates on how much CO2 is produced, it is useless. CO2 is not a problem.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ancient-evidence-co2-does-not-control-climate
The real question is should we be destroying the landscape for $US when they have no value anymore.
RickW
1 year ago
If not CO2, mopled, the how about "collateral damage"?
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2010.10-environment-the-last-great-water-fight/2/
In this instance, it would be prolonged drought.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/science.shtml
mopled
1 year ago
That's my point RickW
As more people understand that CO2 is plant food and not a climate changer. they will be turned off doing something about the real destruction the tar sands engender.
The environmental movement is in danger of being permanently crippled by continuing to point to the amount of CO2 released when every part per million increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere produces 6% more biomass. Releasing CO2 is the only good thing, aside from the money and jobs, the tar sands produce.
I'm A Denier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk
realisticman
1 year ago
Statistics
According to the California Department of Conservation, in 2005 there were 48,417 active oil wells in the state.
Based on the figures in the above article the tailing pond in Alberta cover an area of 170 sq km., and the oil wells in California disturb approx 484 sq km. Added to that are the California off-shore wells and the natural gas sites.
On the question of Climate Change, which is of some concern to those that think that man-on-earth is responsible, certain factual observations should be considered, particularly since there seems to be an overlap, or a mistaken combining of pollution and energy production and combustion. The idea that humans are responsible may just be delusions of grandeur.
"the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago....We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, , we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/
This from NOAA. They equivocate because nobody really knows. It might be the sun, it might not - but the sun has been acting differently for the past few years. In fact, there's a graph on the following link that suggests that we seem to be in a period that is quite extraordinary.
http://www.universetoday.com/76385/breaking-news-the-sun-worked-175-years-ago/
We very much doubt that zipping down to the barrista for a latte in a Hummer is actually changing the sun but you never can tell when an ideological belief becomes as intrenched as the 'believers' seem to have it. So much climate-change rhetoric seems to be coming from those camps populated by people that just don't like the way some people live.
If indeed human activity is even partly responsible for climate change, the consensus almost always goes along too with the statement that there are too many humans. The answer there is clear. To reduce the birth-rate of the planet more wealthier people are needed. More capitalism is needed. Even a casual glance at birth-rate statistics clearly shows that more wealth causes smaller families and a lower birth-rate of the population. The highest birth-rates are always in the poorer countries. All the 'developed' capitalist western countries have far lower birth-rates than the rest.
SharingIsGood
1 year ago
Algae Oil quote - from an
Algae Oil quote - from an anonymous poster at an online discussion group to which I belong:
"Companies in Europe have made tremendous advances in the science of algae and the engineering of micro algae production systems. They have established a
Germplasm on Algae with 91% Hydrocarbon using open Pond and Photo bioreactor
systems. The record production is 45.6 tons of Algae Oil per Hectare per annum."
For more info:
http://www.oilgae.com/ref/dir/geo/eu/eu.html
If one goes here, one can see that algae outperforms palm oil at somewhere between 8 and 25 to 1. Algae performs best in warm climates. This could be a great oportunity for tropical and sub-tropical places that have lost their forests and have little arable land (like Haiti) to utilize the nitrogen from their own human waste to create oil. If we are going to use oil, then it is much better to make a self-sustaining system that can employ under-employed peoples.
You Tube video:
Mini cracking towers - plastic back into oil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGGabrorRS8&feature=share
SharingIsGood
1 year ago
algae to oil link part 2
This link is embedded in the link at the site to which I referred (above):
http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html
I suggest that everyone needs to look at algae as a source of energy rather than open pit mining across grteat swaths of nature.
SharingIsGood
1 year ago
Canadian algae
A New York Times article about canadian biofuel algae:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/energy-environment/30iht-renalg.html?ref=canada