babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Tar Sands Hell 3

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

continued from Tar Sands Hell 2


Comments

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

from rabble.ca: Unethical oil

excerpt:

The tar sands cover an area of land the size of England, which has been divided up and leased to the world's biggest oil companies... The tar sands use more water every day than a city of two million people and consume enough natural gas to heat six million Canadian homes. Until the oil boom, the tar sands were too expensive to be economically viable. But our global addiction to oil has us scraping the bottom of the barrel. The tar sands generate 40 million tonnes of CO2 per year, more than all the cars in Canada combined... As the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, the tar sands are the main reason Canada continues to block meaningful global climate regulations. The Canadian government ignores the warnings of the scientific community by aiming for abysmal targets that will leave us at nearly double the science-based target that we need to meet to keep the increase in global temperature below 2 C and avoid catastrophic climate change.

note: the comment section below the article disputes the car emission figures.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

The commenter cited 80 million tonnes a year, but that's for all types of vehicles, including trucks. The excerpt you quote was from Greenpeace, and they specifically said "more than all the cars in Canada combined", which is true.

Total tar sands emissions were 44 million tonnes two years ago, in 2009, according to an oil-company source:

The Canadian government says total CO2e emissions from "light-duty gasoline vehicles" in 2008 were 40.6 million tonnes, and from "light-duty diesel vehicles" were 0.4 million tonnes. The other categories of ground transportation are trucks, heavy-duty diesel vehicles, and motorcycles.

Source: Big .pdf download, page 21/221

 

 

 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Thanks. I'm glad you were able to find those links!


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Boom Boom wrote:

from rabble.ca: Unethical oil

excerpt:

The tar sands cover an area of land the size of England, which has been divided up and leased to the world's biggest oil companies... The tar sands use more water every day than a city of two million people and consume enough natural gas to heat six million Canadian homes. Until the oil boom, the tar sands were too expensive to be economically viable. But our global addiction to oil has us scraping the bottom of the barrel. The tar sands generate 40 million tonnes of CO2 per year, more than all the cars in Canada combined... As the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, the tar sands are the main reason Canada continues to block meaningful global climate regulations. The Canadian government ignores the warnings of the scientific community by aiming for abysmal targets that will leave us at nearly double the science-based target that we need to meet to keep the increase in global temperature below 2 C and avoid catastrophic climate change.

note: the comment section below the article disputes the car emission figures.

The article should be called "Unethical Propaganda".

An "area the size of England" huh?  The bitumen underlies about 140k sq km and, of this area, about 602..... yes, a whole six hundred out of a hundred and forty thousand square kilometers has been disturbed by oilsands activity.

The area that has bitumen close enough to the surface to mine is about the size of New York state, not England.

 

Nice graph. lemme see ...in 2008, the graph shows roughly 38mt out of a global total of 29,888 mt and a Canadian total of 544mt.

So, that means oilsands totals are 6.98% of Canada's total which is 1.8% of global totals, meaning that the oilsands total is .00125% of global totals.

Wow!  A thousandth of a percent! 

I guess a thousandth of a percent won't generate the same outrage as "an areas the size of England" in the use of junk science and alarmist hyperbole to misinform the gullible.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Roscoe wrote:

The area that has bitumen close enough to the surface to mine is about the size of New York state, not England.

Um, the area of England is 130,410 sq. km.

The area of New York state is 141,299 sq. km.

So according to you, the article actually underestimates the size of the mineable bitumen!!

Quote:
So, that means oilsands totals are 6.98% of Canada's total which is 1.8% of global totals, meaning that the oilsands total is .00125% of global totals.

Wow! A thousandth of a percent!

Yeah, and if you express it as a percentage of the emissions in the entire solar system, it's an even smaller number.

The fact is that Canada's emissions are relatively large in global terms. We have only .5% of the world's population but we emit 1.3% of the global carbon dioxide equivalent. You and your planet-destroying industry want to minimize the scope of your destructive activity, but the rest of us know that those emissions have to be stopped if we want to save the earth.

 


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

I agree with you that emissions need to be reduced significantly but disagree with simple solutions to complex problems.

 40% of Alberta's emissions come from power generation - mostly coal - but any attempt to bring coal into the discussion is ignored in favour of ragging on and on about the eeevil tarsands.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Roscoe there you go again being an apologist for the oil industry.  Your posts are predictable and now to the point of amusing.  

The tar sands are good!! Shale gas development is good!!

Blah blah blah I love the oil industry.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Roscoe wrote:

40% of Alberta's emissions come from power generation - mostly coal

Again, you're making up statistics.

The Alberta Government (Fig. 9, page 11) three years ago showed power generation as responsible for just over 50 megatonnes/yr CO2e, out of total emissions well in excess of 250 MT/yr. That's less than 20%. And the projection was that power generation would remain more or less static, while total emissions would rise to about 280 MT by this year. So the ratio is declining to more like 17%.

As for coal (which you falsely imply environmentalists have no problem with), Alberta's power generation is not quite "mostly" from coal. "Coal-fired plants make up almost 45 per cent of the province's total generating capacity" says Alberta Energy.   

That's way too much coal burning. In fact, it's appalling!  But the tar sands emit more than twice as much CO2E as Alberta's power-generating coal, and that ratio is steadily increasing.


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010
M. Spector wrote:
Roscoe wrote:
40% of Alberta's emissions come from power generation - mostly coal
Again, you're making up statistics. The Alberta Government (Fig. 9, page 11) three years ago showed power generation as responsible for just over 50 megatonnes/yr CO2e, out of total emissions well in excess of 250 MT/yr. That's less than 20%. And the projection was that power generation would remain more or less static, while total emissions would rise to about 280 MT by this year. So the ratio is declining to more like 17%. As for coal (which you falsely imply environmentalists have no problem with), Alberta's power generation is not quite "mostly" from coal. "Coal-fired plants make up almost 45 per cent of the province's total generating capacity" says Alberta Energy.    That's way too much coal burning. In fact, it's appalling!  But the tar sands emit more than twice as much CO2E as Alberta's power-generating coal, and that ratio is steadily increasing.
Really?
Quote:
  Alberta Coal reserves have a  current estimate of 37 billion tons remaining to be mined.

This massive energy resource continues to help meet the energy needs of Albertans, supplying fuel for about 59 per cent of the province's electricity generation in 2008
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OurBusiness/coal.asp Are you "making up statistics", Spector?

Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

M. Spector wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

40% of Alberta's emissions come from power generation - mostly coal

Again, you're making up statistics.

The Alberta Government (Fig. 9, page 11) three years ago showed power generation as responsible for just over 50 megatonnes/yr CO2e, out of total emissions well in excess of 250 MT/yr. That's less than 20%. And the projection was that power generation would remain more or less static, while total emissions would rise to about 280 MT by this year. So the ratio is declining to more like 17%.

As for coal (which you falsely imply environmentalists have no problem with),

Falsly, schmalshly, Spector, 'environmentalists' simply ignore coal in order to swoon and moan about the eeeeevil tarsands. I suppose the reason is that they actually HAVE coal emission in their 'hood, the hypocrites.

 

 Alberta's power generation is not quite "mostly" from coal. "Coal-fired plants make up almost 45 per cent of the province's total generating capacity" says Alberta Energy.   

That's way too much coal burning. In fact, it's appalling!  But the tar sands emit more than twice as much CO2E as Alberta's power-generating coal, and that ratio is steadily increasing.

Ah! A very interesting twist in the stats, Spector.

Greenhouse gas emissions 2008

 

The pie graph won't transfer for me but it states that total oilsands GHG emissions, (mining, upgrading and insitu) were 31.4% while utilities were 44.1% of Alberta's total. 59% of 44.1% = 26.02%

 

So, your made up statistics don't jive with published statistics. Being the kind and generous soul I am, I can only surmise that our conclusions differ due to the extrapolations of numbers by untrained statisticians. I would never be unkind enough to suggest your efforts are less than honest.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

You know I'm not making up the statistics, because I cited my sources.

Clearly the Alberta government needs to get its story straight on coal.


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

M. Spector wrote:

You know I'm not making up the statistics, because I cited my sources.

Clearly the Alberta government needs to get its story straight on coal.

Yeah, the same sources as mine.

I accept your apology. Now can we get on with some positive discussion on solutions?


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Roscoe wrote:

The pie graph won't transfer for me but it states that total oilsands GHG emissions, (mining, upgrading and insitu) were 31.4% while utilities were 44.1% of Alberta's total. 59% of 44.1% = 26.02%

Can you at least provide a link to where I can see this pie graph and decide for myself whether "utilities" is synonymous with electric power generation, or whether it includes natural gas?

 


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

M. Spector wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

The pie graph won't transfer for me but it states that total oilsands GHG emissions, (mining, upgrading and insitu) were 31.4% while utilities were 44.1% of Alberta's total. 59% of 44.1% = 26.02%

Can you at least provide a link to where I can see this pie graph and decide for myself whether "utilities" is synonymous with electric power generation, or whether it includes natural gas?

 

 

Yeah, its the same site. Alberta Energy/ oilsands/environment/read more. Here's the page: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/791.asp

The pie graph is about halfway down under 'environment'. While you are there, check out the amount of land reclaimed and the number of trees planted.

Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

fatfingered the post button


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

As I suspected, the "Utilities" sector on the pie chart includes retail natural gas as well as (electric) power generation, which was the subject we were discussing.

Referring to the graph I linked to previously (Figure 9, Page 11) it is clear that "Power Generation" (the blue line) accounts for nowhere near 40% of the total emissions. As I said above, it's less than 20%. You will note there is a separate line for Oil and Gas (red).

Wow. Ten percent of the disturbed land has been "reclaimed". I guess the rest is tailing ponds and giant pits. How's the reclamation of the Athabasca River coming along?


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/publications/cc/COM1374/ec-com1374-en-s3.htm#tbl-5

Bitumen sands (a more accurate term than either oil or tar sands) development are the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada, and are expected to be over 90 MT CO2 equivalent by 2020 under a "Business as Usual" scenario. Aside from the increased incidence of certain cancers downstream (relative to the general population), the lack of effective monitoring makes it difficult to say what the other environmental and health impacts are.

It is completely and utterly ridiculous for anyone to make a blanket statement that environmentalists are ignoring coal.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Tony Clement was talking about cutting 700  jobs from Environment Canada today in the next Budget in March. That tells us, in a nutshell, what the Cons think about climate change.Frown


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

Boom Boom wrote:

Tony Clement was talking about cutting 700  jobs from Environment Canada today in the next Budget in March. That tells us, in a nutshell, what the Cons think about climate change.Frown

Not just climate change, but the environment in general.


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Overheard: Asia's View of Alberta, Tar Sands and Pipelines  -  by Michael Byers

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/index.html

"If this insider is right, Gateway is purely a ploy and Canadians are rubes.."


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

NDPP wrote:

Overheard: Asia's View of Alberta, Tar Sands and Pipelines  -  by Michael Byers

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/index.html

"If this insider is right, Gateway is purely a ploy and Canadians are rubes.."

In a word, arbitrage.  The problem the oilsands have is that their exports to the US or anywhere are stranded in Cushing OK. Its costing Canadians a $20 discount to world prices. Access to the Gulf will allow upgrading and global export.

The big constraint against building upgraders in Alberta, or even the rest of Canada is the lack of trades people and engineers to construct them.

Gateway fits into the plan as an alternate to exporting through the US. I tend to agree for a number of reasons that it is a ploy. Funding of environmental groups by US organisations is also a ploy. A ploy to forstall both Keystone XL and Gateway to ensure oilsands product remains a captive in the US market.

The Chinese investment in the oilsands isn't directed toward exports to Asia as much as they are toward arbitrage of global oil prices. Simply put, the Chinese concerns that have a share of production can simply trade this share for oil product that is closer to destination. Its called arbitrage and occurs every day.

Another reason for Chinese participation in Alberta's oilsands is simple shit disturbing to keep the Us on their hind foot and increase the ability of the Chinese to interfere in US domestic policy. Its not only cyberhacking the Chinese are good at.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Here is a link to a critic of Enbridges "inadequate" environmental risk assessment that they presented to the government.

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/Livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384...

 

From the cover story at Dogwood.

Quote:

Of the thousands of pages in Enbridge’s application, arguably the most important are those that contain the risk assessments for potential oil spills from the pipelines, terminal and tankers. Spills happen fairly frequently and can be devastating, so professionally assessing the risk they pose is very important. If you’re going to do it, you’ve got to do it right. 

Turns out, Enbridge didn’t. 

http://dogwoodinitiative.org/blog/doitright?utm_source=AdaptiveMailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=E-News&org=354&lvl=100&ite=2308&lea=53600&ctr=0&par=1

 


epaulo13
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2009
It’s Really Step It Up Time on the Tar Sands

by Ted Glick / August 22nd, 2011

The 15-day-campaign at the White House to stop the Keystone XL pipeline has begun, and thanks to the U.S. Park Police, it’s taken a totally unexpected turn.

In negotiations with the police prior to the action that jumped off today, the police were very clear that what would happen after people were arrested is that the vast majority would get what’s called “post and forfeit,” where you put up $100, get released from jail after several hours and you don’t have to come back again. It’s basically like a traffic ticket.

But this is not what they did.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/08/it%E2%80%99s-really-step-it-up-time-on...

eta: Stop the Pipeline! sit-in at the white house.

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Environment Canada's recent figures on Canadian emission trends show that by 2020 the tar sands will account for 92 Megatonnes of CO2 equivalent.

That's more than triple the 2005 figure of 30 MT CO2e and almost double the 2010 figure of 49 MT CO2e.

The 62 MT tar sands increase from 2005 to 2020 is actually greater than the projected increase from all sectors combined (54 MT), which means that Canada's total GHG emissions would actually decline by 8 MT between 2005 and 2020 but for the growth of tar sands emissions after 2005.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Harper stooge fools nobody in quest to promote ethical oil in the UK

London, October 20th 2011 – Joe Oliver, Natural Resources Minister, met with staunch opposition at the London School of Economics (LSE) whilst promoting Canada as the next ‘Global Energy Superpower’. Protesters presented an alternative perspective to the one-sided lecture by asking difficult questions throughout.

LSE students and activists presented Joe Oliver with the "Greenwash Propagandist of the Year Award" for his efforts to contort the science, dismiss the human consequences of tar sands extraction and to re-brand the world’s most destructive project as secure, reliable and sustainable.

“This lecture today was an inappropriate attempt to use an educational venue to promote the Canadian Tar Sands industry,” commented People and Planet ‘Tar Sands Free Universities’ Campaigner Liam Barrington-Bush. “Canadians should know that their ministers are embarking on an ongoing mission to undermine peer-reviewed science and efforts of European climate legislators by greenwashing the reality of tar sands extraction.”


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

That's great! Oliver has been on P&P almost every week trying to sell that ridiculous hokum.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

White House Action November 6

excerpt:

WASHINGTON, DC - Actor David Strathairn has released a powerful new video inviting concerned citizens to surround the White House on Nov. 6 to show President Obama that he has the people's support if he stands up to Big Oil and denies a permit for a dangerous proposed oil pipeline. Exactly one year from the election, thousands of citizens will surround the White House carrying signs and banners with words from President Obama's 2008 campaign about the need to end 'the tyranny of oil.'

The event comes after scores of other protests about the Keystone XL pipeline, including a two-week sit-in at the White House in which 1,253 people were arrested. TransCanada wants to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to carry dirty tar sands oil 2,000 miles from Canada to Texas. The pipeline threatens to pollute some of our country's most valuable and sensitive land and water resources, including the Olagalla aquifer, which supplies drinking water for millions of Americans and 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States.


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
You'll notice that Mulcair is THE environment critic, the ONLY ONE speaking directly to the Tar Patch - going beyond criticism of the blessed XL pipeline of TransCanada and challenging the CPC base in Alberta? I think that is worth mentioning in an Environment thread...at this time...or anytime.

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Gaian wrote:
You'll notice that Mulcair is THE environment critic, the ONLY ONE speaking directly to the Tar Patch - going beyond criticism of the blessed XL pipeline of TransCanada and challenging the CPC base in Alberta? I think that is worth mentioning in an Environment thread...at this time...or anytime.

 

I think you mean Megan Leslie. Mulcair said in September that "...no one in their right mind would suggest shutting down the tar sands, it's too important to the economy." Do a google.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

I thought Megan Leslie was "the" environment critic. Is she being overshadowed by Mulcair?

What does it mean that Mulcair is speaking directly to the Tar Patch - is he talking to the bitumen? does he have the ear of the oil companies? is he speaking directly to the workers there? Is "going beyond" criticism of the Keystone XL pipeline the same thing as avoiding criticism of it altogether? What is he saying, exactly?

I think that's worth mentioning in an Environment thread.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments