Ethical Dilemma #3: The Canadian Tar Sands and Their Impact on Wildlife
Rememeber to respond to at least two of your peers' comments. Also, make sure to write your work in a word doc just to make sure you have a back up copy to your work.
Canada's Tar Sands
In 2005, Canada was second only to Saudi Arabia in crude oil reserves, but almost 97% of Canada's reserve is in tar sands. The Athabasca Oil Sands development in northern Alberta currently produces 1.98 million barrels per day and is forecasted to reach 3.7 million barrels per day by 2020". (http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp) But removing that oil from the tar sands requires a lot of energy. Currently the tar sands project burns natural gas to heat the steam that removes the oil. The tar sands project is the largest single producer of greenhouse gases in North America.
What are some of the harmful effects of the tar sands, and the greenhouse gases they produce?
What are some positives to Canadian tar sands? (check out the link below for some insightful statistics)
Should businesses and consumers be concerned about the effects?
Useful Links:
|
According to the information given, Canada is facing the problem between the economy and the environment. As for being a developed country that mostly imports oil, oil sands are irreplaceable in the society. In my opinion, all the businesses and consumers should pay attention to the energy used. Also, they should release the using of tar sands. Without a doubt, developing oil sands can create more jobs for people, boost on the economy, build the relationship between Canada and other countries, and obtain profits. On the other hand, absorbing oil requires lots of fresh water and extending oil sand area may influence many residences. Researchers believe there will be 3.7 million barrels of oil per day used by 2020" while tar sands are the largest single producer which contributes to global warming. From most of people's views, a developed country should know how to balance 'need' and 'have '. As a result, I think using tar sands is inevitable in Canada's economy, but if businesses control using the amount of crude oil, there will still be a chance to slow down global warming.
ReplyDeleteAlisa, as for me, I think the amount of oil used by people is not likely to reduce, the best thing to do is to upgrade the refinery which would make crude oil more valuable.
DeleteThanks for your suggestion and I think you are right~
DeleteIn order to collect the oil within tar sands, a huge quantity of natural gas is used to refine the oil sands, and as a result a lot of green house gases are produced. Green house gases will cause global warming, which is one of the most serious issues that human face. However 80% of the water used in refine tar sands can be recycled, also saline water, which cannot be drink by human, can be used in refine tar sands. Despite the disadvantages of oil sands, it also creates some positive change. For instance, more 100,000 people were employed to refine oil sands, which is a positive impact to the whole society, because more people get to work. Finally, the oil sands is a project which has equally harms and benefits to many different aspects, so from my perspective a compromise should be made: limit the amount of the tar sands, so that there is less harm to the environment while people still can get jobs.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your opinion, Jason. The environment problem we are facing is so serious that something must be done to stop it! Recycling used water in refineries is a great idea.
Deletei disagree with your comment as if we limit the amount of tar sand production then we will limit the amount of production, limit the amount of jobs and limit the amount of energy available to Canadians.
DeleteI like your point that limiting the use of tar sands is a great idea but won't that limit environmental damage which is good but also limit jobs which is bad?
DeleteWith processing 1.98 million barrels of oil every day, the oil sands need a lot of materials to keep functioning. They use a great deal of fresh water, which could be used towards the community and the wildlife around instead of the mines. The oil sands also need tons of oil to operate their machines, which creates massive amounts of carbon dioxide which adds to the worldwide problem of global warming. Another harmful effect, that the oil sands create is that they need to cut down flat boreal forest for space for more drilling, which are destroying the homes of the native animals that live there. On the other side, the oil sands benefit Canada immensely, by creating jobs for citizens and also the oil sands are one of the largest income money for Canada. Businesses that sell fresh water in Canada should get involved with the oil sands and figure out how much water they are wasting for oil, so the company can sell more water itself. If the oil sands keep using the freshwater, the prices for water will go up because there will be less the economy to use.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement. The oil sands are both good and bad. Unfortunately they continue to use so much fresh water. Would the oil really come out that mush different if the oil companies were to use non-drinkable water?
DeleteTar sand is a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen. The world’s largest reservation of tar sands is in Canada. What’s more, Canada has very advanced technology to mine and process them. However, the impact on environment has now become a serious problem. Since refining tar sands needs lots of energy and water, both mining and processing of tar sands involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, in my opinion, businesses and consumers should concern about the effects in both good side and bad side, people should find replacement of oil as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhile this would be good please think of the massive economic loss for the government this would be and the hundreds of thousands of people put out of job in Canada the idea of taking this out of our economy is inconceivable with out HUGE economic repercussion.
Deletei agree with your comment as the refinery of oil has been very damaging to the environment and significantly so in the past 100 years. I feel that there should be a replacement for oil and in many cases there are yet oil is the most convenient source of energy.
DeleteAs u were saying that Canada's technology is growing and within a few decades our world would find a replacement for fuel which doesn't damage our environment. once that happens we can start rebuilding where we went wrong in our forest and environments.
DeleteI like your point of replacement of oil, however it is not very possible for the whole society to stop using oil because of the environmental issue, but it is indeed a good idea.
DeleteThere is a mix of positive and negative affect when it comes to the tar sands. Firstly yes they do produce harmful greenhouse gasses that damage the worlds atmosphere. However when you look at the business side of things there are many positives. The mining of these sands opens jobs in the market and created more revenue into the Canadian economy. Oil is a very profitable business so therefor it can also help people become very wealthy in turn helping the Canadian economy again. I feel that the business side should be more concerned about it than the consumer side as there are many negatives that could come towards them such as carbon tax etc. The fact that what there doing is so damaging to the environment isn't such a concern to the consumers... yet, However generations onwards will have to deal with rising water levels and warmer climates.
ReplyDeleteI love the way you looked into the topic, you thought about the other side of this dilemma. However, I don't quite agree with this opinion. You are talking about that economy is more important than environment, but the fact is in the contrast. If the environment has already been damaged, there won't be economy any more, the lives of human beings should be c concerned at first.
DeleteI don’t quite agree with the way you look into it, if we leave the problem to generation onwards then it might be too late so that the climate change is unstoppable anymore. Currently, if we try to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas being produced, the problem might be solved.
DeleteThough this is something that's been talked about, it is something that we can have a fluctuating opinion on. We see it as something of a valuable resource that we need in our lives and that it already has a fast production rate of almost 2 million barrels a day, for us to have a plentiful amount of it to meet up with the demand from the consumers. Which can keep our economy sustainable and thriving with our businesses as well in charge of these products. a But with the cost of that to make it it needs a lot of energy by burning natural gases to have the steam remove the oil. Not to mention this site project alone, is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in North America. Which is why we should be considerate of our current and soon new ways for gathering resources and turning them into our needs/wants if we still want to be aware our environment and what impacts those products can have on it while it's being made. As we rely on energy and other resources for other important products as well besides what is mainly being made from it.
ReplyDeletePhil, I completely agree with you on your point regarding that we have a plentiful supply for all the demand of oil, especially these days. I also agree with your point about being aware about our current and new ways of gathering resources since they maybe damage the environment, and like you said are already the largest producer of greenhouse gases in North America.
DeleteI like your point that environment and economy are both important factors for a country also the example of North America is really convincing.
DeleteI agree with your point. We need the oil sands to help keep the economy growing but people will need to find a balanced way to support both the economy and the environment.
DeleteThe second largest oil reserve in the world is in Alberta, the size of the reserve is approximately 140,800 square kilometers which is roughly the size of the state of Florida. That's huge!!! In order to get the oil they have to mine, and can cause a disturbance to the boreal forest. Production of well pads, roads, and pipelines that will be built in order to help the oil reserve will negatively impact species such as the caribou, which are already endangered. Green house gas emissions are higher for oil sand productions than for conventional oil production for example, traditional drilling, pumping, and compression techniques. The production required to produce synthetic crude oil from oil sands results in greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 62 to 164 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per barrel!!! That is a crazy amount which is very very high. Some of the positives of the oil sands are that there is a very very very large supply of it, like I said before the second largest in the world! Another positive is that it will help keep oil prices relatively low, especially for people in Canada. It will also make a lot of jobs open so the indigenous people will have jobs open for them to work and make money, it also has a enormous growth potential! I think businesses in other countries that also sell oil should be concerned because this oil sand reserve is huge and will definitely affect people on a global scale. As for the average person in Canada I feel like they might like this if they don't really pay attention to the environment but they own a car since it will lower oil prices, then again a lot of people might be against it since it damages the environment quite a lot.
ReplyDeleteI think Canada should improve the oil reserves to environmentally friendly ones because tar sands are so important not only in Canadian economy but also in world's businesses.
DeleteThe Alberta oil sands are one of Canada's most used natural resources. They provide money to the economy and oil to the world. However, the amount of pollution and use of fresh water is harmful for the environment. Not only does the use of fresh water leave less drinkable water for people and animals but forests are cut down to build new factories. Forests are also cut down if they are on top of a potential oil sand. Pollution and oil waste are distributed into the surrounding ecosystem causing harmful chemicals to infect the environment and any animal living in it. Oil sands are a kinda new thing people are still experimenting with ways to make it more environmentally friendly. I believe that in the current state oil sands are a very bad thing for the environment.
ReplyDeleteEnrica while reading your paragraph I saw some very good points but please do remember that we have an economy to worry about and that we cant just get rid of this industry without serious repercussions.
DeleteI definitely agree with your reasons on how this is both beneficial and bad as well. I also probably would say that this is a case where we would need to really consider whether if there's another way to do the same thing but have both us and the environment benefit from it.
DeleteEnrica I fully agree with your reasons on how the oil sands are a very bad thing for the environment. People in Canada should find a much more environmental safer way to gain the oil other than using the oil sands.
DeleteI agree with the environmental damaging points you bring up but is there anyway we can reduce that but still keeping the oil and economy we need?
DeleteCanada has a lot of oil sands, is considered to be the second oil and gas storage source after Saudi Arabia. The exploitation of oil sands from the underground will consume a lot of energy, which means that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the mining process will be much larger than the average oil drilling project. In addition, the forest damage and the pollution of the atmosphere, water sources caused by oil sand mining should not be neglected. Alberta government countered with advertisements in newspapers and Times Square. The oil sands industry also placed features distinctive advertising, talk about the wonders of oil sands through the mouths of ordinary workers. The government and the oil companies in the province always provide free travel for journalists and activists, hope they can know that it is better than they think. This kind of honest performance always bring more negative reports. 1600 wild duck corpses floating in a tailings pond in photos and other shocking scenes together make northern Alberta look like the surface of the moon, environmentalists had succeeded in discrediting the brand of Alberta. Preston McEachern, a water environment scientist at the Alberta provincial government, said: "the oil sands have become the seals of Greenland in the eyes of environmentalists."". People can easily kill such gentle animals with sticks. So, in my opinion, the environment is the most important in our planet, so it is better to find a replacement for oil sand, money is not worth mentioning in front of the environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs we know the oil sands are the largest private employers employing over189 thousand people in Canada thats practically the size of Orlando, FL in the country meaning that the economy is dependant on them no to mention the tax contribution the government gets from the oil sands. But while thinking about this we have to remember that it has bad effect on the environment such as global climate change which is killing species and melting the ice burgs in the arctic. As people we should be concerned about the effect and so should businesses as this is the world we live in and because of this I think that we should work on putting the carbon tax towards finding a way to get oil out of the tar sands in a more environmentally friendly way because we cant just take this out of our country and stop producing oil.
DeleteAs we know the oil sands are very beneficial to many aspects of society. Running them creates jobs, gathers important resources, creates economy, and much more. It is a great thing for many reasons. However, like everything, there is a down side. It causes pollution in the air and through the ground, it releases greenhouse gases which affect climate change, and requires deforestation on trees and plants that help battle against Co2 emissions. Overall, the oil sands are a good thing however I feel that there should be a cap on the rate at which how fast we produce the oil. Currently we create 1.98 million barrels of oil a year and they plan to double that in the next three years. This mean more greenhouse gases and less wildlife in a shorter period of time. I think having a cap on the rate can help in a few ways. One, it will make the greenhouse gases stay the same and perhaps decrease, two, it will keep forests alive for longer, and three it will slow the rate that we are gathering oil so we will have access to it for longer. If we produce it too fast then the businesses that use it will be stuck when there is none left. So, in conclusion I feel we should not accelerate the rate at which we produce oil and maybe even slow it down a little to help the problems it creates.
ReplyDeleteNick, I strongly agree with your point of the oil sands being very beneficial, and also about their downsides that you listed, such as the release of green house gasses, and that it requires deforestation. Also, I like the point you brought up about our greenhouse gasses being released more and more since we will start producing more and more barrels of oil.
DeleteYou have very good points about this topic and like your idea about how we should have a cap on how much barrels should be produced each day in order to keep the level of Co2 emissions at first consistent and then slowly produce a bit less. This will start decreasing the amount of it and resulting in process of preventing most of our environmental problems from the oil sands.
Delete