The only “blow to the Keystone pipeline” is in the exaggerated reporting of the science…
The “report” (Kurek et al., 2013) did find slight elevations (relative to 1950) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in five lakes in the vicinity of the Fort McMurray, near oil sand mining and upgrading operations in NE Alberta. The PAH flux trends in four of the lakes were unremarkable compared to the control (Namur Lake). One lake (NE20) exhibited PAH levels similar to urban and agricultural areas. The other four lakes were very similar to remote lakes in the Canadian Rockies and boreal forests.
This is Figure 1 from Kurek et al., 2013…
The lakes around Fort McMurray clearly do exhibit some increase in PAH flux since 1950. The winds in the area are generally southerly. So, it makes sense that SW22 and SE22 exhibit the least increase in PAH flux; while NE13 and NE20 exhibit the greatest increase. However, apart from NE20, the PAH fluxes aren’t remarkable when compared to Lake Namur. There does seem to be some evidence of minor wind-driven pollution in the lakes to the north of site AR6.
The supplemental information included a comparison table of PAH levels in the study area and in distant urban and remote settings. I transcribed those data to Excel in order to put the oil sands pollution into perspective.
Three of the four oil sands sites had lower PAH concentrations than Namur Lake. Only one of the sites (NE20) was comparable to lakes in urban and agriculturally developed areas.
I noticed that two of the remote, boreal forest sites (PAD 18) had maximum PAH fluxes in 1758 and 1810. So I plotted the PAH concentrations and fluxes against the year in which the maximum flux occurred.
This clearly demonstrates that the PAH “pollution” associated with oil sands development is insignificant. The PAH concentrations in most of lakes in the study area are unremarkable when compared to remote lakes in the boreal forest in the 18th and 19th century and are more similar to modern remote lakes than they are to urban and agriculturally developed areas.
Reference
Joshua Kurek, Jane L. Kirk, Derek C. G. Muir, Xiaowa Wang, Marlene S. Evans, and John P. Smol. Legacy of a half century of Athabasca oil sands development recorded by lake ecosystems. PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print January 7, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1217675110
mpainter says:
“Friesen seems reluctant to admit that tar sand exploitation has not harmed the environment.”
In his first post above, Bruce Friesen says:
“In this case, the data can be contrasted to other areas, and the appropriate degree of alarm can be assessed by any numerate person. As has been done by the author of this post and the more serious commenters on this thread.”
The author of this post says in his concluding paragraph:
“This clearly demonstrates that the PAH “pollution” associated with oil sands development is insignificant. The PAH concentrations in most of lakes in the study area are unremarkable when compared to remote lakes in the boreal forest in the 18th and 19th century and are more similar to modern remote lakes than they are to urban and agriculturally developed areas.”
I suggest that Mr. Friesen’s position is sufficiently clear.
_____________________
I personally object, as I stated above, to the high level of alarm portrayed in the Abstract in this paper. Regrettably, this is typical of the alarmist rhetoric that is commonplace when discussing the Athabasca oilsands industry.
A more realistic environmental viewpoint is, I believe, portrayed in my website at http://www.oilsandsexpert.com/faqs
“Many oilsands environmental concerns are wildly overstated by special-interest groups. The facts do not support their hypotheses. A few concerns, however, are real and must be solved.
For example, in 1990 I wrote, on the subject of Oilsands Fine Tailings Management:
“Sludge management is an obvious area for sharing of information and expertise between the players in the oilsands industry…
… My expectation is that ultimately, solid landscapes will be required and we should be working diligently to this end.”
Despite decades of sincere and costly effort by the oilsands industry, fine tailings management remains a significant issue that is yet to be fully resolved.”
_____________________
Background:
I have been involved, off and on, in the Athabasca oilsands industry since 1977. I chaired the owners Syncrude Technical Committee circa 1990.
More information at http://www.oilsandsexpert.com/
Allan MacRae says: January 13, 2013 at 8:52 am
I suggest that Mr. Friesen’s position is sufficiently clear.
=========================
And I suggest that I have sufficient experience and expertise to evaluate Mr. Friesen on my own.
What is not clear is why you have interjected your interests in this fashion.
Hi, Allen. Enjoy your posts.
mpainter, I am really taken aback. You say “Friesen seems reluctant to admit that tar sand exploitation has not harmed the environment”. Is there an accidental double negative in there? Or is it your belief, your contention, that extraction of bitumen from the oil sands “has not harmed the environment”?
Forgive me a literal reading of your comment. Of course oil sands mining changes the environment, in dozens of ways, many of which most people would consider “harm”. To use as an example the most obvious, a quick check of Google Maps will display huge holes in the ground, completely barren of vegetation. My opinion, stated in a previous comment, is that land reclamation, while hard, can be done, such that the environmental impacts of land disturbance can be managed. Residual concerns are two-fold: temporary loss of all vegetation and wildlife, and permanent changes in the particular assemblages of plants and animals on a specific patch of ground. For those people who consider any change unacceptable, mining has huge environmental impact. For those who can be comfortable with restoration of a thriving, diverse ecosystem, not so much. One person’s opinion – mine – is only that. Society as a whole must judge all the tradeoffs we make.
Allan MacRae uses a particular challenge – the challenge of incorporating in an acceptable final landscape the tailings fines – as his way of characterizing the situation and his personal opinion. It is a good example.
Oil sands operations affect the environment by fluffing up the ground, by washing stuff out of the dirt during the fluffing up, and by burning stuff. I will repeat my first comment: this is serious so should not be trivialized in comments threads; it can be managed; the net effect is not zero. Is it a “4”, mpainter, or a “2”? My personal opinion is not important. What matters is the overall assessment by society of costs and benefits, which is why I pointed you to the ERCB website.
Paul’s top post is about burning stuff, and about one kind of stuff that gets spread around when you do that. Let’s focus on that.
As per my first comment, the study which Paul has brought to our attention yielded data which in my opinion “finds just enough of a chemical change in the environment to warrant confidence in the sampling and analytical techniques employed.” and is cause for reassurance not concern.
Let’s go to the next level of detail. The study found increased levels of PAHs in the sediments of Namur Lake. For those who don’t know, Namur Lake is about 100km uphill (and upwind) from the long-standing bitumen upgraders near Fort McMurray. It has been used as a key resource by the local people for many years: they went up there in the fall, netted large quantities of fish, and stored the fish as a cache of dog food in support of fur trapping through the next winter. Dr. Schindler, when interviewed about this study, noted the Namur Lake data suggests PAH distribution about twice as far from the plants as did his work to date. Correlation? Causation? Did the study authors compare their deposition timeline to the timing of construction of fly-in fishing camps on Namur Lake?
This is all hard, all serious, all requiring careful consideration and management.
Things that do not help include: an Abstract that is more alarmist than the paper contents, and blog comments that trivialize the implications of major industrial activity.
p.s. Who am I? Google is your friend. Let’s just say Allan MacRae and I have spent considerable time in the same room, and in a roundabout way he probably thought of himself as my boss.
Bruce Friesen says: January 13, 2013 at 10:45 am
Or is it your belief, your contention, that extraction of bitumen from the oil sands “has not harmed the environment”?
========================
For my contention I refer to my post above, which I quote:
This sort of response does not serve you very well. You might think that it does, but if I were interviewing you for work, lights and buzzers would go off at such evasiveness.
Allan Macrae: Shale gas is said to have changed the economics of oil and gas exploration in North America. I have heard that shale gas is a big unknown hanging over the profitability of tar sand exploitation. Would investors looking at a start-up project for extracting, say 100,000 bbl/day from tar sands be well-advised to proceed with the project?
An excellent series of posts, thank you Bruce.
It is nice to connect with you again after all these years.
To be clear though, I always thought of myself as your colleague, never your boss.
We accomplished much in those early days of Syncrude, and it was the dedicated teamwork of thousands of capable, hardworking individuals that enabled the outstanding success of the Athabasca oilsands, now the mainstay of the Canadian economy.
Best wishes to you and yours for the New Year!
In response to your question, mpainter, below is my brief analysis of some of the challenges facing the oilsands.
In the near term, inexpensive natural gas from fracked shales has been a boon to the in-situ oilsands industry, since it makes thermal extraction of bitumen much less expensive and even masks poor energy fundamentals in some in-situ projects. In the longer term, the situation becomes less clear, as fuel substitution of natural gas for oil could reduce oil demand in North America.
Perhaps a greater challenge to the oilsands is if cheap oil from fracked shales becomes a reality, as some analysts believe it will.
Historically, the oilsands have been an economically marginal resource, and they may become so again if certain evens prevail, as further discussed below.
Regards, Allan
Situation Analysis – The Canadian Oilsands
http://www.oilsandsexpert.com/about
After almost two decades of relative stagnation in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the Alberta oilsands industry has grown rapidly, so that Canada is now the 6th largest oil producing country in the world, and the largest foreign supplier of oil to the USA.
However, the oilsands industry is now encountering difficulties, including:
1. Inappropriate changes to oilsands royalties and taxes by the Alberta and federal governments.
2. The high Canadian dollar.
3. Ever-increasing capital and operating costs.
4. Deterioration in global economies, and uncertainties about future oil prices.
Due to transportation (pipeline) limitations, the price differential of crude oil in Western Canada has increased to historic highs compared to oil sold in the USA and Europe. For example, at certain times in 2012, similar quality crude oil was selling in Europe at approximately $120 per barrel (Brent), $100 per barrel in the USA (WTI) and $80 in Western Canada (Edmonton Light). Eastern Canadian refineries import expensive crude oil at Brent prices, whereas Western Canadian refineries pay much lower prices.
This situation will be partially alleviated as pipelines are reversed, moving Western Canadian crude oil from Sarnia to refineries in Nanticoke, Ontario and Montreal, Quebec. Further eastward pipeline expansion to refineries at Quebec City and St. John, New Brunswick are contemplated, which should further reduce fuel prices to consumers in Eastern Canada.
Inappropriate opposition to an oil export pipeline to the Pacific Coast continues, at considerable cost and risk to the Canadian economy.
If the remarkable technical and economic success in natural gas fracking in gassy shales is extended into the oil shales, some analysts project much lower oil prices in the future, which could cause many oilsands projects to become uneconomic.
Very low natural gas prices, currently much less than the energy-equivalent of oil, are also masking the poor fundamentals of some in-situ oilsands projects.
Allan MacRae:
Many thanks for your response. Seems like a lot hinges on a pipeline to markets. Surely that will happen.
You are welcome mpainter, and I applaud your optimism regarding the West Coast pipeline.
However, I am concerned that this pipeline will be interminably delayed by radical groups that wear the environmental cloak, but actually oppose development in order to achieve their covert economic and political objectives.
The Tides Foundation and others are reportedly spending and distributing huge sums to oppose this pipeline.
Much of the opposition to the pipeline is not well-founded in fact, but fact seldom intrudes upon the polarized enviro-politics of our times.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has written a credible assessment of the radicalization of the environmental movement, excerpted below:
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
Allan McRae:
Thanks for your further response. Most interesting statement from Patrick Moore. The Greens constitute a menace to humanity, no question. The gravest danger, in my view, is through our educational system.