Alberta’s Oil Sands: While some sectors of society have embraced alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar, others are exploring ways of reaching previously unreachable oil. Known as oil sand or tar sand, these are deposits of sand or clay, water and bitumen,1 which is a heavy and viscous oil. Unlike traditional sources of oil, oil sand requires separating the sand and other debris from the bitumen, which must then be treated using one of several energy intensive processes. After being treated and refined, the bitumen is converted to “usable fuels such as gasoline and diesel.”2 Canada has the world’s largest oil sands reserves, and proponents of oil sands extraction emphasize its newfound accessibility due to new technology and importance to Canada’s economy. Tony Hayward, CEO of British Petroleum, a company heavily invested in Alberta’s oil sands, says of certain types of oil sands drilling that “the environmental footprint on the ground is no more or worse than normal oil or gas operation.”3 Many disagree, saying that oil sands drilling has a far larger carbon footprint, pollutes local waterways, and is responsible for a rate of deforestation in Alberta, Canada that is second only to that of the Amazon.4
The reserves in Alberta, Canada are the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia’s.5 However, unlike Saudi Arabia’s reserves, the oil sands cannot be mined using traditional methods. Currently, there are two ways to recover the oil. One of these ways is through the destructive practice of surface mining. Suitable for deposits closer to the surface of the earth, about 20% of the oil sands deposits are recoverable in this way. For deeper deposits an in-situ pro cess is used. The most common type of in-situ removal, Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), drills a pair of horizontal wells near the base of the bitumen deposit.6 Steam is injected into one of these wells, heating the bitumen enough that it loses its viscosity and can be pumped up through the second well. Once extracted, the bitumen is upgraded on site or trucked to a refining facility elsewhere.
Going from oil sand to usable oil is a high energy process: “to make a single barrel of oil requires two tons of oil-sands and three barrels of water.”7 Currently, Alberta is responsible for one-third of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.8The oil sands themselves are Canada’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).9
Oil sand production also uses more water per year than the entire city of Calgary. The first concern over this is availability of water for Alberta’s residents if all proposed oil sands projects go into effect. The second concern is over the Athabascan watershed and the effect that water withdrawl is having on fish populations and the aboriginal communities that rely on those fish.10
In addition to GHGs, drilling of oil sands is thought to release PACs, or polycyclic aromatic compounds. In 2008, samples showed PACs to be in the snow “for almost 50 kilometers around the oil sands complex”11 in Athabasca, Alberta. The Canadian government and industry representatives deny that the oil sands are to blame for these levels, but others are convinced that the “sands industry is responsible for higher than expected cancer rates”12 in the area. Last year’s summer levels (of PACs) were high enough for the Athabasca River’s fish to experience “deformities, lower growth rates, sexual hormone deficiencies, and even death.”13
Boreal Forest: 48% of Alberta is Boreal Forest Region,14 and oil sands development “causes large-scale spatial disturbances to [this] forest,”15 which encompasses a tremendous diversity of vegetation and wildlife. The government of Alberta maintains that any disturbance of the forest is temporary and that “production sites will be reclaimed when projects are finished.”16 To date only one production site, which was only “minimally disturbed,” has been awarded a reclamation certificate.17 Critics point out that this site is not representative of other activity in the region. A debate also exists over how to define reclamation. Environmentalists contend that many ‘reclaimed’ lands will be dry tree plantations where ecologically complex wetlands once stood.18 Woodland caribou numbers have dropped to half their 1993 levels in areas where Alberta’s industry is concentrated19, and biologists say that there is a “real danger”20 that the caribou, already a threatened species, could be “headed for extinction.”21
Alberta is one of the only oil deposits “with growing production”22 in a time when other sites are tapping out. As oil sands technology continues to improve, Alberta’s recoverable oil reserves will grow from the estimated 335 billion barrels available today.23 Currently, Canada is the largest supplier of foreign oil to the United States, with most of its 2.7 million barrels produced daily being shipped to its southern neighbor. Buying from Canada facilitates energy independence from countries like Nigeria, Russia, and Venezuela—a good thing for the U.S. economy and many believe national security, and other issues such as human rights.
The sands have also been a boon for Alberta’s economy. Reasonable estimates see an investment in Alberta’s oil sands of “just over $100 billion through 2020,”24 with “production of crude bitumen… at $531 billion.”25 Between the years 2000 and 2020, the “development and production activities [are forecasted] to lead to a total increase in GDP of some $789 billion in Canada.”26 Thousands of jobs, both within and outside Alberta, have already been created. However, infrastructure in many towns has failed to keep pace with high numbers of young men moving in to work. Housing costs are “spiraling upwards”27 and there is “a growing income split”28 between those working the oil sands and those not.
While there seem to be sufficient environmental reasons to suspend oil sands activity, it might ultimately be basic economics—an intolerable housing bubble, for example—that turns public support against them for good. The oil sands are estimated to have 400 years29 of oil left, so if neither polluted waterways nor inflation are good enough reasons to stop mining, then we all better learn how to say in situ fast.
