Oil sands, oil shales, nuclear power, global warming, and all the political nonsense

It is dangerous territory to venture into opinions about the prudence of oil sands mining and oil shale mining.  But the other side continues to post such unmitigated nonsense on their sites that it behoves me to comment. 

When I first came to America in the late 1970s, oil shales was the hot topic.  I even supervised the master’s thesis of a young civil engineer at the university in Tucson: he was working on the problem of trafficability of large equipment on oil shale tailings.  We worked with a professor who had been the consultant to NASA on the traffic ability of lunar landing vehicles. 

Today I am consulting on the trafficability of large equipment on oil sand tailings. I will probably be in Fort McMurry part of the summer doing real-time testing directed at final covers over their tailings impoundments. 

In 1979 I bought a Toyota Corolla as I thought it an energy efficient vehicle.  With three young kids and a small salary, I was concerned about gas prices–coming from South Africa where gas cost far, far more, I viewed American concerns about “high” gas prices with some scepticism, but still Carter was in power, so no point in taking a chance. 

Keep in mind also that I had been affected by that 1970s grand-silliness the report from the Club of Rome that predicted we would all soon run out of energy.  You can believe that prediction at the 1980 South Africa gas price equivalent to $4 a gallon (in 1970 $s.)

Now I drive a Honda Accord in the USA and a Honda Civic in Canada.  But these cars were chosen because I liked their look and feel and not because of gas prices—although they are not expensive to fill with my advanced savings and earnings.  Except maybe when entertaining grandkids and keeping their impecunious parents happy. 

In the intervening years since 1980, oil sand production has boomed.  Oil shale production has gone nowhere.  In spite of the fact that I am an expert in neither—see above for the extent of my knowledge—I cannot help but thinking as follows:

Oil shale mining will never go anywhere.  There is a lot of oil in those shale up in that part of the country  where Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada sort of come together, or at least share a common geology.  I somehow recall they have more oil than in all of Saudi Arabia.  But that is some of the most beautiful country in the world.  And there is no water there.  I also recall that the energy required to get at the stuff is extraordinary.  I cannot envisage how any mining company will ever get permission to open pit mine the shale and leave behind holes and tailings piles.  In spite of the master’s thesis that concluded you could traffic on such tailings. 

Maybe some government could get the oil out with force and a convenient local nuclear power station.  Maybe they could desalinate groundwater from the Mancos shales down in Utah and use what never will be a potable source of drinking water.  But then one wonders:  if you need a nuclear power plant to get at the oil, why not use the nuclear power as the prime source of energy?  Thus to me oil shale mining just does not add up technically.

I can understand venial and ill-informed politicians pandering to some sort of populistic, nationalistic voters by shouting: “US energy independence depends on oil shales.”  I can even understand those job starved folk out there clamoring for work and research on oil shale.  But I urge you to phone your representative and tell them it is silly and unnecessary while there is abundant nuclear potential and there is abundant oil from Canadian sand. 

Which sends our thoughts north to Alberta.  There they mine oil from the oil sands and seek to expand: both via open pits and by in-situ mining.  They are talking about a nuclear power plant fuelled by Saskatchewan uranium. 

It is hard to envisage what would put a halt to the expansion of the oil sands.  Some horrible candidates include:

• Running out of fresh water.  The Athabasca River is predicted to be finite.  There is, however, a vast quantity of water locked up in the tailings impoundments and in the natural sands over the uranium deposits in nearby states. 
• Passing of power to a liberal federal government with clout enough to control Alberta’s politicians.  It is an intriguing, if slightly scary thought, to think that next year the US may have a more liberal government than Canada.
• Proof positive that carbon emissions lead to global warming.  There are enough naysayers right now to leave room to doubt.  For example, as I write here in Huntington Beach, CA surrounded by cool sea breezes, it is hard to believe in anything but the Lexus-packed parking lots of the expensive neighborhood stores.  Indeed the local member of Congress, Dana Rohrabacher, is quoted in the the town’s newspaper as saying in  a speech in the House of Representatives that “large parts of the environmental movement are ‘pseudoscience’ to justify increased government regulation.” He continued: “I have no doubt that unless we thwart the onslaught of nonsense being foisted upon mankind in the name of man-made global warming, the next generation will be deprived of freedom, prosperity, and a healthy environment.”  Is it any wonder Americans will support oil sands in far-away Alberta to feed the Lexus; and yet continue to demand clean skies and clear vistas in the great open spaces of the west to motor through on expensive vacations?

There are, however, other events that could lead to a change of mind and development of America’s oil shales.  Some horrible candidates include:

• Gas prices exceeding those in Europe and Canada. 
• A Canadian government that collapses into its essential mode of anti-Americanism and environmental purity.
• A new president who renegotiates NAFTA to close our borders to imports in the name of national self-sufficiency. 

Luckily all these American and Canadian “horrible candidates” are unlikely, so we can anticipate continued oil sands development and continued lip-service with no action in the oil shale arena.  The ultimate and only justification for this is that freedom ultimately consists in each doing best what they are best at doing. 

The debates will and must continue; but let us stick to science and avoid faith and invective.  Let us keep reducing car gas consumption and move to sea-breeze blessed areas.  Let us vote out existing politicians and replace them with decent people.  Let us keep developing wind farms and solar panels and nuclear power plants. 

Maybe we should also focus on mining in the right places and not seek to mine in every place.  For my humble opinion is that the question of oil sands versus oil shales highlights the most vicious fallacy:  every place must mine everything it needs. 

In my opinion, there can be no more ill-advised policy.  It is not necessary to have in every state and in every province a uranium mine, a oil producing “mine”, a gold mine, a molybdenum mine, and so on.  There are good and better resources in good and better places to mine.  In a “flat world” it makes sense and is good for most people to mine only where mining is appropriate—difficult as it may be to define the term “appropriate.”  For that is a term like pornography: we may not be able to define it, but we know it when we see it.   

This piece is now too long, so on that inconclusive note, I beg leave to close and ask only that you comment below.