Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Environmental problems caused in the oil sands of alberta
Economic benefits of tar sands alberta
The canadian oil sands essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For Or Against Oil Sands Oil Sands are a type of bitumen deposit, the sands are naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, water, and an extremely dense and viscous form of petroleum called bitumen. They are found in large amounts in many countries throughout the world, but are found in extremely large quantities in Canada and Venezuela. Along with the local environmental and human-health impacts have contributed to the debate surrounding the resource. While many welcome it because it benefits the Canadian economy, Canada became U.S. and a curial energy source. To start off, a pro is that the oil sands have spurred massive economic growth in Alberta. Oil sands continue to generate huge profits to Canada and provide thousands of jobs for the residents including mining, research and …show more content…
A major argument against oil sands would be the carbon emissions. The extraction methods used are the most carbon intensive because the oil is too deep to be extracted using a traditional method, the greenhouse has emission is approximately five to fifteen percent higher due to the extraction method. Furthermore, another argument against oil sands is that it destroys habitats. The Athabasca Delta, where oil sands are located, is a breeding ground for various species of birds. Theses grounds have been destroyed to make clear land for oil production. Lastly, the social impact of the oil sands is similar to environmental impact, and the people of Alberta are the ones suffering most. Decrease in both living standards and services around the community result from an unmanageable increase in population without proper funding. Social services are collapsing in areas with drastic population increase, and a severe housing shortage, as well as run-down schools and healthcare, bad roads, higher crime rates, and a poor garbage removal system, are all stressful for both people and
Nikiforuk’s article is written to argue a point and persuade the audience, non-specialist individuals, to his claim. There are many methods used to achieve this. Starting in the introduction Canada is glorified for what it used to be known for, then that image is quickly juxtaposed with the now dark and destabilized country because of the developing tar sands (Nikiforuk 211). This introduction, which uses pathos by using strong words to evoke negative e...
The Alberta Oil Sands are large deposits of bitumen in north-eastern Alberta. Discovered in 1848, the first commercial operation was in 1967 with the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant opening, and today many companies have developments there. The Alberta Oil Sand development is very controversial, as there are severe environmental impacts and effects on the local Aboriginal peoples. This essay will discuss the need for changes that can be made for the maximum economic benefit for Canada, while reducing the impact on the environment and limiting expansion, as well as securing Alberta’s future. Changes need to be made to retain the maximum economic benefits of the Alberta Oil Sands while mitigating the environmental and geopolitical impact. This will be achieved by building pipelines that will increase the economic benefits, having stricter environmental regulation and expansion limitations, and improving the Alberta Heritage Fund or starting a new fund throu...
The reason for this report is to increase the reader’s knowledge on the Alberta Tar Sands, which will allow them to create their own opinions on the situation. It is a very pertinent issue in politics and will have a very large effect on the carbon emissions of Canada. Also, I wanted to further my understanding of the Alberta tar sands and learn the side effects of the tar sands. How the tar sands are different from other oil and energy procurement methods and which method is more energy efficient? Would the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States be an intelligent way for the US to involve itself in the tar sands? I wanted to answer these questions by knowing the real facts about the tar sands versus what the oil companies are telling the consumers. The ability to assess the entire situation will allow both the reader and I to formulate our own opinions about the tar sands and whether the extraction of oil at the tar sands should continue.
The opposition to this project is increasing because the people living in those areas are already feeling negative consequences. The large communities living in Boreal Forest and other Natives lands are being affected by the extraction and process of tar sands. Not only this people are being rushed away from their lands, but also, the rate of cancer, renal failure, lupus, hyperthyroidism and other decease, are higher than ever. This health conditions increased because of the air pollution and the high quantities of metals and chemicals in the drinking water. Yet, lots of precautions are being taken by the company, oil spills keep happening over and over. The external metal corrosion caused by extreme temperatures and the corrosive acid components of the bitumen are factors that contribute to accidents like explosions and oil
Almost every single nation in our world today, the United States included, is extremely reliant on oil and how much of it we can obtain. Wars have started between countries vying for control of this valuable natural resource. The United States as a whole has been trying to reduce its reliance on foreign oil and has had some success, especially with the discovery of the Bakken formation and projects like the Keystone Pipeline. Projects like the Keystone Pipeline are important as they will allow us to transport more oil than we would be able to in train cars, and grant larger access to oil reserves in the United States and Canada. The Keystone Pipeline itself is an oil pipeline which runs from the western Canadian sedimentary basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States.
The US Government, with the backing of the American people, should authorize the pipeline that would import tar sand oil from Canada. The pipeline would generate jobs while helping to diminish foreign oil dependency, is the cleanest and safest transportation option and finally it will not harm the environment. As Mark J. Perry, PhD, MSA, Professor of Finance and Economics at the University of Michigan states “There are few more important tasks than ensuring the Keystone pipeline gets built. Obama should approve its construction, for the good of the country” (“Should
There is an abundance of oil underneath earth’s crust on land and in the water but getting to that oil can be proven as a challenge and a negative impact on the earth. Many of these oil reservoirs lie in federally protected land or water to minimize the negative impact on the earth. But should those restrictions be removed? Removing the restrictions can allow the US to tap into domestic reserves rather than rely on imported oil from the Middle East and Asia but tapping these reservoirs can also leave behind an impact that is harmful to this planet. “Critics oppose this move for fear that it will cause irreparable harm environmental harm. They point to the April 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence of the risks associated with offshore drilling” (SIRS).
According to one government analysis, the crude from Canada’s oil sands will emit seventeen percent more greenhouse gas pollution than there processes used for conventional oil, making it even more controversial against environmentalists (Davenport par. 6). The concerns are reflected in great quantity of carbon in the tar sands, “Ensure that they will play an important role in whether or not climate change gets out of hand” (Clayton 2). In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) noticed the impact it would have on greenhouse gas emissions. According to the E.P.A., “The recent drop in global oil prices might mean that contraction of the pipeline vault spur increased development of Canadian oil sands—and thus increase planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions” (Davenport par
In today's global economy, energy is one of the most crucial and sought after commodities. Who supplies it and how much they supply determines how much influence they have over other countries as well as the global economy. This is why hydraulic fracturing is currently such an important and controversial topic in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking" or hydrofracturing, is the process of using pressurized liquids to fracture rocks and release hydrocarbons such as shale gas, which burns more efficiently than coal. This booming process of energy production provides a much needed economic boost, creating jobs and providing gas energy for Americans. The efficiently burning shale gas reduces carbon emission from electricity production plants, reducing carbon footprints on the environment. However, the process of hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of pressurized liquid, which contains toxic chemicals, and some of this water is left over undealt with. The air near fracking sites is often also polluted and unsafe for nearby community residents. Injecting millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into the rock thousands of feet deep can cause earthquakes, causing a safety hazards for all nearby areas. Hydraulic Fracturing makes rare natural gases easily attainable, boosting the economy and reducing carbon emissions. However, the negative side effects such as contaminated water and air, make hydraulic fracturing a process that may not be worth the benefits.
The U.S federal government should significantly increase fracking because oil and gas fracking is big business in America, with more than two million hydraulically fractured wells across the country producing 43 and 67 percent of our national oil and gas outputs, respectively. But in my opinion these wells also nearly played a secondary role as nuclear waste storage sites and had the Atomic Energy Commission had its way with Project Plowshare. And fracking is the process of pumping water deep into the Earth, specifically into underground oil and gas reserves, at tremendous pressures in order to break apart the surrounding rock and free the energy product, which can then be pumped out and used. However in the mid 1950s, scientists from the Atomic Energy Commission and officials from the U.S. Bureau of Mines did begin experimenting with an alternative method of fracking, one that employed nuclear bombs more powerful than anything we dropped on the Japanese.
The issue here is that the industries, alongside with the government that is currently ruling, still continues to dig out from this Earth and extract oil from the sands, most especially in Alberta which is located in the North America or also known as Canada. The Fort McMurray, the biggest land for mining oil from its sands in the country, is the best candidate of examples of this current issue that the country is facing when it is concerned about public safety and also, the water pollution. Fort McMurray's temporary tailing lakes contain a great volume of water, sand, clay, hydrocarbons, naphthenic acids, salt and other byproducts of the bitumen extraction and upgrading process. Even in -30 degrees, the hot waste sends a great amount of steam
Oil sands crude is more corrosive to pipeline and more difficult to clean up when there is a oil spill (Palliser 9). Traditional clean up techniques used will not work and some are concerned that the federal agency that oversees the United States pipelines are not equipped to handle such a massive project (Palliser 9). Search for how many oil spills in the united states. In the event of a structural failure of the Keystone XL pipeline the maximium spill volume could be 2.8 million gallons (Palliser 9). This would be devastating to wetland, rivers, ground water and drinking water
The Athabasca oil sands are the second largest producer of crude oil in the world, with a surface area of approximately 100 000 square kilometres (Anderson, Giesy & Wiseman, 2010). The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board estimates that the oil sands contains approximately 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen, however only 19% can be ultimately recovered (Raynolds, Severson-Baker & Woynillowicz, 2005; Humphries, 2008). The availability of recoverable bitumen makes Canada’s oil sands deposit larger even than that of Saudi Arabia (Czarnecki, Hamza, Masliyah, Xu & Zhou, 2004).The process of surface and in situ mining of the Athabasca oil sands is causing rapid and significant degradation of the regional environment surrounding Fort McMurray and the Athabasca River. Production is expected to increase to three million barrels per day by 2015 from approximately 2 million currently (Humphries, 2008). This increase will further exacerbate the existing environmental impacts of crude oil production. The Canadian oil and natural gas industry is extremely lucrative, but despite the short-term economic benefits of the mining of the Athabasca oil sands, the remediation of the negative environmental impacts of the extraction of oil on terrestrial and aquatic environments, biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions are a priority.
The world, in which we are living, is being built and developed using much oil ever since the year of 1950. Many of a time, the food we eat, the cars we drive, the electricity we use need oil in order to be delivered, to operate and to be produced. Oil can have negative effects on economy as well, because oil can lead to unpredictable situations such as the decreases of oil prices recently or the peak oil crisis in July 2008. Therefore, I strongly agree that we should not heavily rely on oil as the primary energy resource.