On 11/06/2013 16:29, harry wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:13 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 11/06/2013 06:45, harry wrote:







On Jun 10, 7:12 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 17:53, harry wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:28 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
....
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20...

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri...

I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.

The picture of the aircraft they used for the article you linked to that
shows the old way of doing things? The economics of the two methods mean
that is going to die out once they have finished with the existing mines
and reinstated the land.

Colin Bignell

No. It's the first photo/link to the link I posted.
Showing the truth. What's happening now.

After the tar sands are processed there is a mountain od toxic waste.

Nothing that wasn't in the soil to begin with and, what they can't sell,
can go back into the pit as part of the reclamation. There will also
probably be a requirement for much greater protection against leaching
out than from the untreated sands.

Colin Bignell

It's not possible to put the land back as it was.

Putting it back as it was is part of the licence conditions and it has
already been done where the mining is complete. It is something that
happens wherever there is open cast mining.

Poisonous chemicals are leached out and pollute the rivers/ground
water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_san...nmental_issues

As I said, there is nothing that was not in the ground to begin with and
the licence most likely includes conditions that will make leaching less
probable than from untreated sands.

Colin Bignell