Ours comes from the rig .....................

Sorry, thought the plan was to reforest the areas?

No market for all the sulphur, so I expect it will stay there while the trees regrow.

Lets not pretend the energy cost of extracting oil from the tar sands is in any way comparable with regular oil extraction and distribution shall we. Give us at least some credit for not being stupid.

As for sarnia, whats that got to do with extracting crude in Alberta? We are comparing polution and energy costs for getting the crude to the refinery in the first place werent we?

About the only thing you can say in favour of tarsand oil is its not coming from the middle east, and its employing lots of people in Canada. From an environmental point of view its largely indefensible, unless you happen to work there in which case you probably have a vested interest in arguing that its not an embarasment to Canadas environmental credentials (whats left of them).

At least they're not doing it in the UK so **** em.

What does energy cost have to do with anything? the fact that its being done means its worth it, otherwise they won't be doing it. Like any industry you have to do accounts and if it costs too much it would not be done.

I flew up there for the first time recently, landing at Fort MacMurray was landing in the middle of a giant forest, all you can see around is trees trees and trees.

Provided its returned to its original state afterwards, like the slagheaps in South Wales, there's not really a problem, there's more deforestation going on to make the paper for rags like the Mail, then the oilsands.

Energy costs have lots to do with it. Or are you one of those that do not accept global warming due to fossil fuel use as scientific fact? Using 5 times as much energy to extract each barrel is not great, especially when we could be putting all that effort into ways to wean ourselves off using so much oil, rather than enabling ourselves to carry on as before. Clearly not so many trees where they are stripping the topsoil toaccess the tarsands below the surface. TBH I could care less about the trees, as long as they leave corridors for the wildlife. The trees will grow back. The damage to the water shed and the amount of polution released into the atmosphere I am not quite so thrilled about. They cant refix all that Carbon into the ground can they Frankly I also suspect that once the oil companies are done extracting and making money they wont be keen on a "no return on investment" choice of spending on the clean up, and no government in Canada will have the balls to hold their hands to the fire to make them do it. Call me a pessimist, but I cant think of a time yet that the government has prevented big oil doing what it wants. The damage to the forest is the least of the environmental ills in this project though.

Wasn't there a peer reviewed scientific study performed by a wonderful expert in B.C. that stated that the release of all of the carbon stored in the oilsands would have limited impact upon global warming?

This was in the Calgary Herald today. I appreciate that it may have been written by satan himself but ... IPCC Experts

Dare I point out that the Calgary based group "Friends of Science" is largely funded by big oil...

With friends like that...


The truth about "scientific studies" is that they nearly always find whatever the people funding them want them to find... its almost like the methodology is designed so that can be assured when one goes out to seek the funding. Actual "blue sky" research is not at all common Im afraid.

Are you suggesting that we only pick the apples from the bottom of the tree?

Oil is a commodity. The price of oil (say $100/bbl) is based on a certain amount of global supply. If you wish to only use nice, conveniently accessible oil, then that will impact the global supply. And that will impact the price.

There really aren't many places left with oil that can be extracted as effortlessly as you seem to think "conventional" oil is. I was reading a report yesterday about the Kashagan development in the shallow Caspian Sea off Kazakhstan where costs will hit $130 billion before a barrel is sold. do you think oil companies would spend that sort of money if they didn't need to in order to protect their future ability to sell oil?

Ah....the ol Quid pro quo

I'm suggesting we should start exploring the idea of picking oranges instead in a serious way.

What people need to do is accept that oil is expensive and wean themselves off it, rather than spend billions developing new sources that might extend our dependence a little longer. Never mind if the supply runs out in the long term, its global warming that is the real issue that should be driving our weaning off oil before its too late to do anything about it. We seem to be in danger of believing in the "Star Trek" fantasy that some Scotty in engineering will come up with some 11th hour technological solution to make the problem go away.

In the mean time get oil in the way with the lowest impact and spend the profits to find long term alternative technologies. Government taxation, tax breaks and funding of research would be one approach. At present the economics are such that its viable to get oil from the Alberta tar sands, no one is arguing that its not economic once oil is $100+, it may not be as profitable as other sources of course, but there is money in it. It just happens to be incredibly short sighted and immoral thats all. Not that that has ever had any impact on what oil companies or the governments that they fund do.

Who cares where the audience came from? What concerns me is that the experts that advise the panel that advises Governments around the world, appears not to be as expert as those pushing the global warming agenda would have us believe.


I agree. That is why I don't trust any of them.

Would you invite a speaker with a message that you didnt want to hear?

No, me neither.

The thing with the global warming research is that its blue sky neutral funded research wi th no particular axe to grid that found there is an issue, and its almost exclusively oil company funded research thats arguing it was there all the time and nothing to do with mankind and nothing we do can change the outcome... Initially there was no money to be made in finding that pollution was taking us to a point of no return, quite the opposite in fact.

Abracadabra.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...echnology.html

Didn't you start a thread with very similar photographs not that long ago?

Yes folks, industry is industrial. Compared to the Black Country during the industrial revolution it is small beer.

And we had another thread on this one, because the oil reserves estimated to be around the Falkland Islands are mind numbingly huge, so great in fact that I strongly suspect they'll become an independent country at the first available opportunity.