![]() |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 7076570)
Except that they have already made a big mess and gotten potentially harmfull stuff into the water supply.... If they cant control it on the initial smaller scale instalations I cant imagine why they should be then trsted to get it right on a much larger scale. Its a leap of faith, and I just dont have faith in the self serving oil companies to get it right.
There has never been a better case (IMHO) for government intervention. Now oil has dropped, they are going to be even less likely to spend any more money than needed. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by neill
(Post 7076561)
The BBC are biased in all things related to the environment. That is not to say that i would throw out the "allegations".... would like to see report come from somewhere neutral. What have CBC said about it?
The BBC may or may not be biased, but the BBC are not the ones putting arsenic and mercury out as by products, or carrying out the studies that found higher levels of tailings contaminants downstream from the tailings ponds. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/...ter-study.html Its interesting to see how the bbcs reporting has evolved from this largely positive piece http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4649580.stm to this largely negative one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7776775.stm Its sort of reflective of my journey too I supose. There was a CBS 60 minutes bit; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1225184.shtml Maybe the open edit format of wikipedia is the best hope for balance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 7076570)
Except that they have already made a big mess and gotten potentially harmfull stuff into the water supply.... If they cant control it on the initial smaller scale instalations I cant imagine why they should be then trusted to get it right on a much larger scale. Its a leap of faith, and I just dont have faith in the self serving oil companies to get it right.
You deserve to be buried head-down in a petcoke landfill..., er, storage, area. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Souvenir
(Post 7076618)
Gotten?
You deserve to be buried head-down in a petcoke landfill..., er, storage, area. Sorry, going for the sarah palin down home folksy vibe. Its a fair cop, as long as she is burried first! It wont happen again dad. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7076003)
Well, it took me about 20 minutes to make and it kept the four of us from starving for at least 12 hours, so pretty good I'd say. :D
20 minutes! Give you a couple of weeks and you could feed all the starving children in Africa. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 7076570)
Except that they have already made a big mess and gotten potentially harmfull stuff into the water supply.... If they cant control it on the initial smaller scale instalations I cant imagine why they should be then trusted to get it right on a much larger scale. Its a leap of faith, and I just dont have faith in the self serving oil companies to get it right.
As long as there is money to be made from the tar sands, there will be companies there so it's important to make sure that they operate in a clean and sustainable way. Although the price of crude has come down recently, I suspect it'll be way back up again in a year or two. I just hope that they're saving some of the tax dollars for when the tar runs out or the environment damage becomes too great to invest in new products for Alberta to sell. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 7075898)
(I know I've ignored the energy cost of tanker construction, but I can't easily find an estimate, I've also ignored the occasional Exxon Valdez, but the Exxon's record after that is a bit of a two edged sword if you choose to wield it).
It's also a bit disingenuous to attempt to argue against the oilsands on environmental grounds by 'ignoring the occasional Exxon Valdez'. I think most marine biologists would agree that the enormous increase in shipping traffic and associated marine pollution is one of the major problems facing the world today. Roasted ham, sugar snap peas and new potatoes tonight. Burp! |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Taco Bell take-out for us.
|
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 7077824)
As well as ignoring the energy cost of tanker construction, which is not insignificant when you consider the steel production and then the fabrication in the yard, you've also ignored the production of the oil itself in the Gulf, and the transportation from the oilfields to the loading terminal.
It's also a bit disingenuous to attempt to argue against the oilsands on environmental grounds by 'ignoring the occasional Exxon Valdez'. I think most marine biologists would agree that the enormous increase in shipping traffic and associated marine pollution is one of the major problems facing the world today. Roasted ham, sugar snap peas and new potatoes tonight. Burp! I intentionally didn't repeat the ERoEI on Gulf oil extraction, which is ~6 as I have previously posted. Including the ERoEI of ~100 for transportation hardly changes that. I'm surprised you picked up the Exxon Valdez issue, since the crux of your case is that we can trust the oil companies to carry out full remediation on the open cast oil mines once the resource is extracted (and somehow or other clean up the watershed and lakes). The Valdez incident hardly adds credibility to that belief. As I said upfront, I'm not arguing in favour of transporting oil around the globe, simply debunking your absurd suggestion that oilsand exploitation is preferable to that activity on environmental grounds. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
money, money, money....must be funny, in a rich mans world........;)
|
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
A view of Fort McMurray from the BBC website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7777984.stm Black Gold http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7762226.stm and Dirty Oil http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7763365.stm The graph at the end of the Dirty Oil page shows countries with largest oil reserves. They are not generally countries that could reasonably be described as stable, democratic and likely to be reliable sources of oil for the next 10, 25, 50 etc years. Canada is generally considered to be a stable democratic country with freedom of information. Various action groups are well funded and have freedom to take action within the law to oppose developments where they believe they are not in the public interest. The oil companies may have huge resources to make their case but they clearly don't have things all their own way which is the way it should be. Some of the reports are disturbing most certainly. I was quite suprised to see how the system of tailings lakes has been allowed over the years. However, from what I've heard there are projects aimed at cleaning these up. It would be unfortunate if these projects were cancelled as the price of oil falls. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Dinner tonight was 6 pints of assorted ales, so excuse any biftecks.
Frankly, if you live in Canada, pump gas into your car, heat your home with gas or oil, work in a building that's heated day and night as if by magic... you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to offering an opinion about the source of your comfort. BEGGARS CAN'T BE CHOOSERS :) Burp. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 7081363)
Dinner tonight was 6 pints of assorted ales, so excuse any biftecks.
Frankly, if you live in Canada, pump gas into your car, heat your home with gas or oil, work in a building that's heated day and night as if by magic... you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to offering an opinion about the source of your comfort. BEGGARS CAN'T BE CHOOSERS :) Burp. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 7081363)
Dinner tonight was 6 pints of assorted ales, so excuse any biftecks.
Frankly, if you live in Canada, pump gas into your car, heat your home with gas or oil, work in a building that's heated day and night as if by magic... you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to offering an opinion about the source of your comfort. BEGGARS CAN'T BE CHOOSERS :) Burp. We may have no choice, but we do have the right to make out views on the subject known and seek to change the situation. |
Re: Canada's Oil Sands
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 7081363)
Dinner tonight was 6 pints of assorted ales, so excuse any biftecks.
Frankly, if you live in Canada, pump gas into your car, heat your home with gas or oil, work in a building that's heated day and night as if by magic... you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to offering an opinion about the source of your comfort. BEGGARS CAN'T BE CHOOSERS :) Burp. Of course, we could always go back to living in caves and doing some small scale farming to get by.... it wouldn't be so much fun living in Canada then. No Tim Hortons! |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:41 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.