Quote:
Originally Posted by COGENT
I've never seen the oil sands for myself so my opinion is formed from articles I've read and discussions I've had with people who have experienced it. Before I start my rant I should mention that I think it's horrible what's happening up there and we do need to find a way to make it cleaner. The questions is, who pays for it?
|
It is being made cleaner. And it's the companies that pay for it.
The majority of pictures in the paper show the traditional oil sands mining. Which at best can access 15-20% of oil available in northern Alberta. It's the easiest 15-20%, and traditional mining cheapest method which is why this method has been employed for so many years. This is the "dirty oil" that companies thing they're boycotting, and is shown in the media.
The oil sands are moving to SAGD, which recycles most of its water (although it still burns a lot of natural gas), and doesn't tear up the ground anywhere there's oil. Most of the new projects (if not all) in northern AB are SAGD, which is environmentally friendlier than any natural gas plant around Calgary who were grandfathered in to current environmental legislation.
Before the discussion of ducks comes up, Suncor (not to be confused with Syncrude, who was taken to court over the ducks in the tailings pond) has recently invested 1.2 billion dollars in efforts to eliminate tailings ponds in the future, decrease current reclamation time, and have recently completed reclaiming thier first tailings pond. Complete with 60,000 trees, and assorted wildlife.
That's what they don't show on billboards in California.