Tar Sands - Tailings Ponds Toxins Seeping Out
There was an ironic incident on Oct 10th 2010 where 350 more ducks were killed from landing on Tar Sands tailings ponds... this happened just days after Suncor was found guilty and fined $Millions for the earlier incident where 1600 ducks died this way.
Today there is an article by CBC that shows the tailings ponds are not well contained. A fresh water creek is flowing right into the ponds and wildlife is drinking the toxic water at that site. One entire side of this tailings pond has no barrier and as it fills up it expands into wetlands and forest. See the photo in the CBC article - link at bottom here.
Furthermore, it is now evident that the "government-industry panel" was wrong in claiming that the toxins in the Athabasca River were from natural erosion and not from the Tar Sands operations.
-------QUOTE:
High levels of toxic pollutants in Alberta's Athabasca River system are linked to oilsands mining, researchers have found.
The findings counter the reports by a joint industry-government panel that the pollutant levels are due to natural sources rather than human development.
Mercury, thallium and other pollutants accumulated in higher concentrations in snowpacks and waterways near and downstream from oilsands development than in more remote areas, said a study to be published Monday afternoon in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Upstream and undeveloped sites exposed directly to the McMurray Geologic Formation, the natural source of the oilsands, did not show high levels of pollutants.
The study led by Erin Kelly and David Schindler of the University of Alberta also found that levels of the pollutants cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc exceeded federal and provincial guidelines for the protection of aquatic life in melted snow or water collected near or downstream from oilsands mining.
"They're all elements that are known to be very toxic at low concentrations," Schindler said. He added that natural levels of some elements are already high in waters in that area.
---------Link:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/08/30/oil-sands-athabasca-river....
and they plan to double production in a few years.....
We all know they use "tailings ponds" made from lakes because it's cheaper and easier than trying to really contain this toxic sludge. Of course they leak, it's a lake! And there are ponds with creeks running in and out, marshland etc. It's unbelievable they are allowed to get away with it.
no wonder they suppress the real data, fudge the numbers on government research etc. It's the only way these things can proceed! These projects would not be financially viable if the true costs were taken into account.
Yes, I wonder what it would cost to restore one of these "lakes made into tailings ponds", complete with creeks running into them and beavers and moose living and eating in them. They would have to somehow nullify all the toxins in the ground!!
I think the so-called "complete restoration" they do now is just landfilling the old tailings ponds and planting grass and trees on that landfill. Hardly a return to previous conditions. Toxins will be leaching out for 1000s of years.
Does anyone know of groups - governmental, academic that are looking at remediation of tailings waters? Please post if you do.
Thank You Ryoungs
now to Newfoundland...
Vale setback: Sandy Pond Alliance lawsuit ruling places severe restrictions on intervener status
excerpt:
Brazilian mining company Vale was recently dealt a serious blow in its bid for intervener status in a legal challenge launched last year by the Sandy Pond Alliance to Protect Canadian Waters. The Federal Court of Canada decision granted limited intervener status to Vale, the Mining Association of Canada, and the Mining Association of British Columbia. The Alliance takes this as a victory in its efforts to protect Sandy Pond - a pristine 90 acre lake situated in eastern Newfoundland, noted for its abundant, trophy-winning brook trout, and unique 10,000 year old ecosystem.
Vale, the Mining Association of Canada and the Mining Association of British Columbia filed a motion to be designated as interveners in this legal challenge with fairly broad powers or, alternatively, to have "party" status. Madam Justice Heneghan's recent 23-page written decision on the motion creates very restrictive conditions in how the mining corporation and associations can intervene in the case.
"Justice Heneghan's decision essentially gives a strong 'no' to the broad participatory powers sought by the interveners as proposed in their submissions," says Owen Myers, lawyer for the Sandy Pond Alliance. "The Alliance is concerned that Vale's request for full intervener status would have the effect of dragging out the case extensively thus driving up costs and making it prohibitive for the volunteer, non-profit citizen's group to pursue the legal challenge. The decision denied the mining corporations the full rights of a respondent, and addresses our concerns."
Federal regulations created by ministerial action under Canada's Fisheries Act allow mining companies to use natural water as waste dumps. The Alliance considers these regulations as contrary to the intent of the Fisheries Act because they permit the destruction of freshwater fish habitat and unique bio-diversity. The Sandy Pond Alliance launched their legal challenge to strike these regulations from the Fisheries Act in 2010.
"Vale has taken advantage of the regulatory loophole to obtain federal approval for the use of Sandy Pond, a pristine Newfoundland lake, as a toxic dumpsite for its nickel processing plant," says Ramsey Hart, Program Coordinator of MiningWatch Canada. "Their request for intervener status is about protecting corporate profits rather than our water and environment."
(from email sent by Council of Canadians)
Another non-Tar Sands example of industry being willing to destroy freshwater lakes for their projects is Fish Lake in BC, the proposed Prosperity Mine.
BC's assessors were fine with turning Fish Lake into a toxic dump.
Quote [about regulations] -
Schedule 2 is an inconspicuous name for legislation that is responsible for the destruction of freshwater bodies in Canada. Schedule 2 is a loophole in the Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (MMER) of the federal Fisheries Act that allows metal mining corporations to use lakes and rivers as toxic dump sites. Once added to Schedule 2, healthy freshwater lakes lose all environmental protections.
Schedule 2 was first introduced by the Liberal government in 2002. At the time, environmental groups were told it was merely an administrative detail aimed at accounting for the lakes and rivers that had historically been used for mining waste. The Liberal government gave assurances that Schedule 2 would not be used for healthy bodies of water.
Then in 2006, under the Harper government, two lakes in Newfoundland and Labrador were approved for destruction using the MMER loophole and a precedent was set that would put the future of all lakes and rivers throughout the country in jeopardy. Since then, Environment Canada has released a list of 13 natural water bodies that mining corporations have applied to use as toxic dump sites - or what the companies refer to as "tailings impoundment areas." Five bodies of water have already been approved for destruction.
link> http://www.canadians.org/water/issues/TIAs/index.html
"Five bodies of water have already been approved for destruction."
With stuff like this going on, it's no wonder that the Earth is pissed and is trying to shake us off of it.
(sorry for the thread drift, but could find nowhere else to put this) Another battle against Vale:
Michael Moore adds star power to Manitoba mining battle
excerpt:
Michael Moore is taking on a Brazilian-owned mining company that's decided to close a nickel smelter and refiner in Manitoba just months after it received a $1-billion loan from Export Development Canada. It was Mr. Moore's film about the devastation wrought in Flint, Michigan, by the decline of the auto sector that first brought him international acclaim.
Now he is joining the fight against Vale, second-largest mining company in the world, being waged by Niki Ashton, the NDP MP for the northern Manitoba riding Churchill, which includes Thompson where the mine is located.
In a post on his website titled "Why I Support the People of Thompson, Canada - And You Should Too," Mr. Moore says: "Right now Thompson is fighting a frontline battle in a war that's been raging for the past 30 years - the global war of the world's rich on the middle class."
excerpt:
In 2006, the government of Canada approved Vale's purchase of Inco which had previously owned the Thompson mine. Vale also received the loan last fall after promising to increase employment but subsequently announced that the smelter and refinery would close by 2015.
"Michael Moore's support for our campaign helps us send the message that this is not just about Thompson, it's not just about Canada - it's about all of us fighting to have control of our future," Ms. Ashton said in a press release on Friday. "It was Flint yesterday. It's us and others today. Tomorrow, who knows? That's why we're reaching out, that's why we're fighting back and that's why it's important that our message is going global."
excerpt:
Coincidentally, Vale announced its earnings Friday, which set industry record net profits of $17.3-billion last year, more than tripling 2009's figures thanks to a stellar performance.
God, I hate babble formatting - took me seven effing tries at editing to get that message cut and pasted properly!
Activism that keeps up the pressure on oil sands developments is the surest method of forcing change. The largest technical challenge in tailings pond reclamation is settling out the lighter clays from the tailings. R+D on new processes takes investment and these companies are undertaking this investment because of environmental pressure.
Wind turbines kill more birds every day than tailings ponds. So do large airports but the focus on tailings pond bird deaths has forced the oil companies to increase investment in tailings recovery. Some of my work entails reclamation of contaminated sites and it is not at all unusual to do only part of the work in one year because we have used up the funding allocated for that year.
The competition for funding at the corporate level is intense and a good business case is essential. The more public exposure, the more attention received at the corporate level.
So gov't regulation and contractual commitments to the people of Canada are meaningless?
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
No, not meaningless, merely jockeying for priority. The same as the priorities held by government are influenced by the threat of public confidence in said government.
Corporations are forced to address spending deficiencies just the same as governments are - by pressure.
What 'spending deficiencies' are we talking about at $100 a barrel?
Roscoe says: "Wind turbines kill more birds every day than tailings ponds. So do large airports but the focus on tailings pond bird deaths has forced the oil companies to increase investment in tailings recovery. Some of my work entails reclamation of contaminated sites and it is not at all unusual to do only part of the work in one year because we have used up the funding allocated for that year."
I have to point out that the tailings ponds have the added threat of spreading toxins to nearby communities and natural areas. Wind turbines kill one bird at a time, without causing widespread illness and environmental problems, as toxins can do.
For example, Fort Chip resident's cancers are connected to the Tar Sands toxins.
Ross Youngs asked "Does anyone know of groups - governmental, academic that are looking at remediation of tailings waters?"
The Suncor VP of Oil Sands has a webpage > http://tinyurl.com/4vb4sh5
A statement by a suspect industry front group posing as environmentalists, "Treehugger", quotes a recent report by the Royal Society of Canada on Oil Sands operations:
"The verdict on land reclamation and water use goes both ways, and often seems to be based on best-case scenarios for implementation of remediation techniques and, in some cases, overtly stated future technological developments."
In other words, they are not doing enough to either mitigate the damage done by tailings ponds, and they really don't know how to restore the areas involved to a natural state.
In terms of tailing pond operation and remediation, the report says that improvements in tailing pond management are not keeping pace with industry expansion. Furthermore, and this is the more damning statement for the future of the industry even if stated in the least inflammatory way possible, "Reclamation and management options for wet landscapes derived from tailing ponds have been researched but are not adequately demonstrated." In other words, we just don't know with certainty that tailing ponds can ever be reclaimed and no tailing pond to date has fully been reclaimed.
For other land disturbed by these projects, uplands fare better than wetlands, and in either case "reclaimed conditions will resemble and function as natural landscapes, provided that the legislated requirements are fully implemented, but reclaimed conditions will not be identical to the pre-disturbance state."
The link to the Royal Society of Canada report [PDF] here > http://tinyurl.com/4oeqt3w
Or here> http://www.rsc.ca/expertpanels_reports.php
or via the Treehugger site> http://tinyurl.com/4zkxto5
By the way, the best work done on the health effects is the Dr. Schindler studies. That, at least, indicates the nature of the problem with the tailings and other effluent coming from the Tar Sands operations.
Interestingly, Dr. Schindler does make a direct connection to the Ft. Chip cancers and Tar Sands operations, but the Treehugger group quotes the Royal study: "there is no credible evidence to support the commonly repeated media accounts of excess cancer in Fort Chipweyan being caused by contaminants released by oil sands operations" {see the Treehugger site link above
What 'spending deficiencies' are we talking about at $100 a barrel?
Maybe 'spending deficiencies' is the wrong term. The point is that reclamation does not rate much of a priority in the development of next year's budget. Usually, in upstream, whatever is left over after priorities like exploration and development are addressed is eked out to 'cleanup'. Sometimes, a project is completed in 3 years rather than 1 due to funding constraints.
When public pressure is brought to bear, reclamation becomes a priority rather than an afterthought. When senior management is forced to become involved, magically, the funding appears. Its not that management doesn't consider cleanup important, just that there are many competing priorities for funding and the budget directs that funding to the biggest bang for the buck.
I have to point out that the tailings ponds have the added threat of spreading toxins to nearby communities and natural areas. Wind turbines kill one bird at a time, without causing widespread illness and environmental problems, as toxins can do.
Ross
I was using the bird loss in the context of attracting attention to the issue, not the bird loss itself. Bird losses at wind turbine sites and airports don't attract media attention.
Its interesting that Schindler et al were strenuously critiqued on their report which leads me to believe they are on to something. More has to be done, especially in the resolution of the tailings issue.
I don't believe that the technology is regarded as overly optimistic but rather the processes are overly expensive relative to the optimistic price tag the oilcos have placed on reclamation.
So just to be clear, it is your contention that without both public pressure and regulatory enforcement there will never be any attempt to address the environmental disaster that is ongoing and accelerating?
They need to design a tailing pond liner that won't leak.
So just to be clear, it is your contention that without both public pressure and regulatory enforcement there will never be any attempt to address the environmental disaster that is ongoing and accelerating?
No. It is my opinion that tailings pond reclamation will proceed but that without the spur of both public pressure and regulatory enforcement it won't have priority to proceed quickly.
Quickly being defined as sufficient funding to accomplish the task expeditiously.
Bullshit.
"it won't have priority to proceed quickly"?
If it never gets started, it never gets done - and it isn't being done, period.
They need to design a tailing pond liner that won't leak.
They need to stop producing tailings.
They need to design a tailing pond liner that won't leak.
They need to stop producing tailings.
Then you'll need to stop using oil, and all products with oil inputs.
WilderMore is right. I seldom hear of anyone saying they have decided to stop using a personal vehicle. We know mining the tar sands will destroy the land.
Essentially, what we are doing is eating our children and granchildren. There will be no future for them, unless we stop what we are doing.
They need to design a tailing pond liner that won't leak.
They need to stop producing tailings.
Then you'll need to stop using oil, and all products with oil inputs.
Ha. You sound like those people who post on CBC...."well, I will bet those greenpeacers got there in a truck!!!! How dare they protest.....bla bla bla...." While I realize that we are still an oil fuelled world, I don't buy into the absolute necessity of having to extract that oil from tar sands. It is very expensive dirty oil.
And there is a middle ground - just stop the continuing expansion, at least until the damage can actually be limited. Right now, these companies are being allowed to expand based upon pure conjecture that they can reduce their carbon and poisonous outputs somewhere in the nebulous future.
They need to design a tailing pond liner that won't leak.
They need to stop producing tailings.
Then you'll need to stop using oil, and all products with oil inputs.
Ha. You sound like those people who post on CBC...."well, I will bet those greenpeacers got there in a truck!!!! How dare they protest.....bla bla bla...." While I realize that we are still an oil fuelled world, I don't buy into the absolute necessity of having to extract that oil from tar sands. It is very expensive dirty oil.
I have notified the moderators about your personal attack on me.
As for the rest of your post, I can accept that you do not want your oil and oil based products to come from the oil sands. Fair enough, but might I ask which oil you are prepared to consume.
I have notified the moderators about your personal attack on me.
Duly noted.
Wilder, next time you get the urge to hit the "flag as offensive" button, might I suggest you walk away from your computer for a full five minutes, and consider carefully whether you really need the mods to take some kind of action.
I have notified the moderators about your personal attack on me.
Duly noted.
Wilder, next time you get the urge to hit the "flag as offensive" button, might I suggest you walk away from your computer for a full five minutes, and consider carefully whether you really need the mods to take some kind of action.
Absolutely. Might I also suggest the same 5-minute rule for moderators, so that they do not suspend people for typos (Catchfire), or post links to anti-Palestinian websites (you).
And there is a middle ground - just stop the continuing expansion, at least until the damage can actually be limited. Right now, these companies are being allowed to expand based upon pure conjecture that they can reduce their carbon and poisonous outputs somewhere in the nebulous future.
Absolutely. If they must spend the big oil bucks, spend it on squeezing every drop out of existing conventional wells and not on expanding that environmental clusterfuck that is Fort Mac.
From Charlie Angus on FB:
The "Alberta Enterprise Groups" sent every MP a free copy of Ezra Levant's book "Ethical Oil". Give me a fricking break. Seems we should love the tar sands because Canada doesn't use torture or force women to wear the veil. That's it? That's the ethical high bar? Note to tar sands...if you have to rely on Ezra for PR then you're in need of a serious makeover.
They need to design a tailing pond liner that won't leak.
They need to stop producing tailings.
I think you're right with this Polly...as technology progresses it becomes feasible to use underground water sources (=brackish waters) for the process and then returning the water underground after use (no tailing ponds, mind you know clue how sequestering used water underground will go). Seems more preferential given the option of stop using oil vs continuing with current tailings.
and wildermore, if you think comparing what you say to cbc announcers is offensive, you'll probably be offended by anything on this board. May I suggest a more tame forum be graced by your presence?
Roscoe says: "Wind turbines kill more birds every day than tailings ponds".
But who is he quoteing? Sounds like an attempt to create an urban myth to me.
If the tailing pond is on a migratory route for water birds, it might snuff out a whole species pretty quick.
Nobody seriously thinks that the birds only land when the environmentalists are around, do they?
Brian I have talked to guys that work in Mac and dead birds are the norm, not the exception. Other dead wildlife as well. It's the worst kept secret.