Canada's Tar Sands: Destruction So Vast and Deep It Challenges the Existence of Land and People

[Submariner]

Oil companies have replaced Indigenous people’s traditional lands with mines that cover an area bigger than New York City, stripping away boreal forest and wetlands and rerouting waterways.

By Nicholas Kusnetz
November 21, 2021
Photography and Video by Michael Kodas

This article is part of a series produced in partnership with NBC News and Undark Magazine, a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society.

FORT MCMURRAY, Canada—The first mine opened when Jean L’Hommecourt was a young girl, an open pit where an oil company had begun digging in the sandy soil for a black, viscous form of crude called bitumen.

She and her family would pass the mine in their boat when they traveled up the Athabasca River, and the fumes from its processing plant would sting their eyes and burn their throats, despite the wet cloths their mother would drape over the children’s faces.

By the time L’Hommecourt was in her 30s, oil companies had leased most of the land where she and her mother went to gather berries from the forest on long summer days or hunt moose when the leaves turned yellow and the air crisp.

Today, that same land, near her Indigenous community of Fort McKay, is surrounded by mines that have swallowed an area larger than New York City, stripping away boreal forest and muskeg and rerouting waterways.

Oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil and the Canadian giant Suncor have transformed Alberta’s tar sands—also called oil sands—into one of the world’s largest industrial developments. They have built sprawling waste ponds that leach heavy metals into groundwater, and processing plants that spew nitrogen and sulfur oxides into the air, sending a sour stench for miles.



MORE >>

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21112021/tar-sands-canada-oil/



cross posted from Environment & Energy Group.

[captain queeg]

1. It's pretty amazing to see a large industrial operation like this

I worked awhile in the copper mines in Chile, the worlds largest producer of copper. I don’t know the output but the crushed ore was run thru at 6-8 thousands tons per hour, 24/7. Multi billion dollar investment that was payed off in 10-15 years. So much of things we use are produced in large projects like these. People have no idea where materials come from.

[Demovictory9]

22. those discovery channel reality show... gold mining... the amount of damage those little operations

do just to get a cup full of gold... it's sickening

[canetoad]

2. I feel physically sick

To see the land, any land, so abused and forlorn. Shame.

[Hekate]

10. So do I

I had no idea it was this bad.

[Hortensis]

11. Awful all right, but the cure for sick is balance. In the 1950s

in that area the child death rate was dreadful. Extreme poverty, as in no plumbing, frequent hunger, sleeping on dirt floors, etc, in that area was common. Both are rare now. People tend to have just a couple of children now, not churning out several against the likelihood that some will die. People up there have jobs, hot water, electricity, and bed-beds and are warm all winter.

Bigger reality is that most of the planet's petroleum currently comes from tar sands, and without it people would not just suffer by the billions but die by the hundreds of millions. Starting this winter.

Hope that helps.

[canetoad]

15. I'll tell you what would be helpful

Is to post some facts and figures instead of emotional wailings.

Does that help?

[Hortensis]

17. Hey, that's the idea. Go for it.

[MineralMan]

39. What that poster said is actually common knowledge.

Citations are not needed. It is simply the truth.

So, no, that does not help. It hinders, instead.

[Peacetrain]

38. Oh Lord.. what a hellish looking place

[Faux pas]

3. Kickin'

with and

[Bayard]

4. The article is horrifying

Land destroyed, creeks rerouted and polluted with toxic chemicals, cancer in people. Terrible air pollution. Billions of gallons of water used up. Once again, Exxon is the main culprit, and they are still subsidized to keep doing what they're doing.

What I don't understand, is why this land continues to be leased to the oil companies. I don't really see that mentioned in the article. If its the Canadian government, why do they want to kill their people and destroy the environment? Are they really that greedy?

[brooklynite]

5. Just an observation that you are posting this with a computer that likely uses rare elements....

....that are mined with many of the same environmental impacts. What are you willing to give up?

[Torchlight]

6. Most journeys we undertake begin with little more than one foot forward.

I don't think too many journeys begin with unctuous casuistry.

Making life better for ourselves and others isn't an on-off switch implied by the label of hypocrisy, but instead a series of small degrees, each small measure built upon the preceding degree.

Like yours, that was just another observation.

[Mysterian]

9. pwnd

lol

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

24. Another example of how global Capitalism traps its subjects

by making items and substances that it profits from, which are derived by processes that cause the destruction of the planet, indispensable for human existence in every place that is held in the control of the global capitalist fist.

No one escapes, except, possibly, a few primitive tribes whose lands have not yet been co-opted and exploited in the name of capitalist profit. Soon, global capitalism will end these few tribe's autonomy, by destroying the land that they depend on for their existence, subjugating them by forced assimilation made necessary to their survival.

Unless Capitalism evolves into a system where the needs, health, and safety of people and planet take precedence over profit, the ecosystem of the planet will be destroyed. Observing the growing collective insanity that has already subsumed most conservatives to RW extremists worldwide, it appears that global capitalism will, inevitably, destroy the critical systems that sustain life on this planet.

"Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money'.

Alanis Obomsawin

Sad, but true.

[brooklynite]

25. Do you have an alternative economic structure in mind?

[Klaralven]

26. The problem is cities

Oil production, mining, agriculture, forestry and other extractive industries mainly exist to support cities.

Eliminate the metropolitan populations and the problem is solved.

[brooklynite]

27. Empty the cities?

Cities at least optimize deliver of goods and services. Or are you suggesting we just have too many people?

[Klaralven]

29. Cities are centers of consumption that turn raw materials into air pollution, sewage, and rubble

People are the root cause of environmental destruction. It is the growth of cities and the industrial civilization that is the problem.

[Amishman]

31. I'd say all of the above

Cities do allow more efficient delivery of goods and services, but they are also so dense that they prohibit widespread usage of some of the least impactful solutions for supporting modern life.

Wells and septic systems are inherently more environmentally friendly than the huge water and sewage treatment and distribution systems.

Geothermal heat pumps are the most efficient means of heating and cooling, but require either a large area at the surface or deep well drilling, either of which is viable in an urban setting.

The forest on my property sequesters far more carbon than my lifestyle contributes.

Not to mention the opportunities in a rural setting for raising / producing your own food.

Of course just because these opportunities exist in a rural setting, doesn't mean more than a small subset actually take advantage of this.

Not saying rural good / cities bad (though that is my preference based on lifestyle), I'm saying it is more complicated than is generally appreciated. Plus we have too many people in the world to de-urbanize to a meaningful degree.

(full disclosure, I hate cities. I'd rather get punched in the face than spend an afternoon in the typical metropolitan area)

[brooklynite]

33. "full disclosure, I hate cities"

How sad.

Cities have existed for more than 5,000 years, because people chose to join together: for safety, for trade, but most importantly to engage with people who were different from them. I'm guessing that your rural paradise doesn't have a lot of Yemenis, Albanians, Koreans, Argentinians...all of which I can find within walking distance of my house in the City.

[Amishman]

35. The human interactions are the only positive to cities, and for me the rest far outweighs it

I lived in Washington DC for several years when I was younger, and I can't figure out how I ever tolerated it.

The stench of car exhaust, garbage, stale piss - especially in the summer.

The shuffling crowds and claustrophobia.

The noise. I can't begin to put into words how off-putting the sounds of a city are to me.

The ugliness of cracked concrete, trash, and graffiti.

That miserable baking heat of that concrete and asphalt oven in the summer; the depressing dirty snow piles in the winter.

Not nearly enough greenery; a handful of trees and the occasional park just doesn't cut it for me.

I'm quite happy staying here in the middle of nowhere, with my woods and hayfield. I have a tight circle of friends and am close with my family and my wife's (even though some of them do drive me nuts occasionally).

I used to do a lot of IT contracting, BA or PM for software development projects. I settled down a little while back, not only to have stability and more family time, but also just to avoid the travel and the places work would make me go.

its all subjective, but as I get older, any major city is an approximation of hell to me. I know I'm unusual in this regard.

[Klaralven]

37. DC is pretty nice compared with Mumbai or Dhaka or Kinshasa or Lagos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities

Washington is 77 on the list and has a modest density of 1378 / square km.

Dhaka is 9 and has a density of 36,928 / square km.

[Klaralven]

36. The function of a city historically was to dominate a hinterland from which resources could be had

This usually involved being the seat of a king or emperor, backed up by a clergy and a military sufficient to control the city population, put down any rebellion in the hinterland, and to defend against the neighboring cities.

Usually they were on a harbor or waterway, since waterborne transportation was the most efficient way to transport large amounts of food and materials from areas under control. Rome's import of grain from the Mahgreb or the system of canals in China are examples. Also Egyptian cities of the Nile.

[CrackityJones75]

28. ???? How so?

Living closer together is much better than society spreading out taking up more land requiring more movement of goods. Localized society is much better overall.

[Klaralven]

30. China supported a large population of 100 - 200 million living dispersed on small plots growing rice

India also supported a large agricultural population.

It was the development of railroads and steamships that enabled the growth of cities by moving large quantities of foodstuffs and other raw materials from the hinterlands to the cities.

A population equivalent to that of 1850s could probably be supported without much environmental destruction. That was about 1.25 billion.

[brooklynite]

32. The population policies of communist Cambodia worked so well.....

[Klaralven]

34. I don't think there is a chance that population will be reduced because of politics

Despite feverish Qanon conspiracy theories to that effect.

But eventually some critical resource will run short, or one of the four horsemen will ride again.

Historically, there have been occasions where the population of large areas declined by half or more, e.g. Black Death or end of the Song Dynasty. We have just been lulled into thinking population will always go up by the last few centuries of population growth.

Rome's population was about a million during its Imperial peak. Its Dark Ages minimum was about 12,000.

Eventually our supply chains will snap or rip out of the ceiling and our wonderful crystal chandelier of technological urban living will crash.

[CrackityJones75]

41. And quality of life and life expectancy?

[Klaralven]

42. Low and short for the most part. Quality of life varied considerably with social status.

Life expectancy also was variable depending on wars, natural catastrophes, etc.

Essentially all premature and deformed babies died, as did babies born to mother's who died in childbirth.

Mortality due to childhood diseases was also high.

If you survived to reproductive age, your chances of living a quite long life were pretty good, barring conflict, accident, or if female death during childbirth.

This was pretty much the case globally before 20th century. Big medical advances were made during the 19th century, partly due to the need to understand why white people were dying so fast in the imperial tropics.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

43. No. It's too late. Nothing can or will be done before cataclysmic environmental

catastrophes alter life as we know it. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

[MineralMan]

40. Point! Your Side.

It is far too easy to be outraged about one thing without understanding your own impact on the planet.

[Duppers]

18. Apparently they are. 😡

I'm sometimes ashamed of our species.

[a kennedy]

7. 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬

[malaise]

8. Human beings - ruthless for profit vultures

that is all

[onethatcares]

12. ya know what?

we don't deserve this earth in the same way that we don't deserve dogs.

take a few minutes and watch that unreality show "gold rush". Occassionally there will be a pan shot that
shows just how much land is raped in the search of shiny metal.

Hate to say it folks, but we're farked. Ain't no replanting the Amazon or undoing the damage like the tar sand wound.

[FakeNoose]

14. The indigenous tribes of Canada would be smart to manufacture and sell wind turbines

They'd get a lot farther in replacing ExxonMobile with windfarms than with casinos. I wish our American indigenous tribes had shown more wisdom in that regard.

[Disaffected]

16. Just for clarity,

the orange coloured areas on the Alberta map depict the extent of the oil sands deposits (most of which is not economically viable for oil production), not the actual disturbed areas as shown in the pix which in total are tiny in comparison.

As for "vast quantities of energy" consumption, the energy cost of oil sands extraction is about 20% greater than the average for conventional production in N America.

I might add that bulldozing mountain tops to expose coal seams in Appalachia ain't a pretty sight either...

[Duppers]

19. Absolutely!

"bulldozing mountain tops to expose coal seams in Appalachia ain't a pretty sight either..."

[ForgedCrank]

20. I'm a little confused by this.

I've never really read up on tar sand extraction, I've only heard it mentioned here and there.
It looks to me like this isn't even a mine or anything, and the land was toxic and worthless due to the natural condition of it anyway.
Is that true? Or am I not understanding what I am seeing here?
It sure does look like a nasty mess, but it also looks like no one dug it up, it's on the surface and they are basically just extracting the wealth from a natural toxic pit that was already there. But like I said, I really don't understand the process here.

[onethatcares]

23. let's look at it this way.

there was a puddle of oil on the surface of the earth. Trees, brush, animals and various life forms lived around it, I think they call that a symbiotic relationship.

After that puddle of oil on the surface was noticed the petroleum companies thought there would be much more slightly below the surface so they began scraping that earth, kinda like picking a scab, and the lesion became larger and larger and larger with the flora and fauna moving away from it a bit more everyday.

At this point the lesion has turned into a cancer where nothing grows and nothing lives except money for the oil companies.

They'll keep scraping and picking until they extract every last dime and then they'll leave the mess after planting a few trees and tell the citizens "we are returning the land to it's previous state".

I hope that helps.

[Raine]

21. Ugh, absolutely HORRIBLE!!! 🤢 🤮 👎nt