Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm


Tonington
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Last week? WOW. That's amazing considering there has been raw sewage dumped into the oceans for how many decades?

Quite a few decades. How long has fallout been falling on the ground in Athabasca and running into the watershed? Ottawa also funded the carbon sequestration project in Saskatchewan. Ottawa also funds projects (external - login to view)to clean up the operations in Athabasca.
 
TenPenny
#32
I don't pay much attention to things said by people who believe you cannot pump refined products through a pipeline.
 
Tonington
+1
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I don't pay much attention to things said by people who believe you cannot pump refined products through a pipeline.

That was priceless.
 
captain morgan
+1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Quite a few decades. How long has fallout been falling on the ground in Athabasca and running into the watershed? Ottawa also funded the carbon sequestration project in Saskatchewan. Ottawa also funds projects (external - login to view)to clean up the operations in Athabasca.

I'm thinking more than a few decades, there has been human waste produced from this area for a few hundred years.

As for Athabasca, the oil co.s are spending big money to deal with the issue since day 1... Can PEI say the same?


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That was priceless.

Do you know why?
 
petros
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Quite a few decades. How long has fallout been falling on the ground in Athabasca and running into the watershed? Ottawa also funded the carbon sequestration project in Saskatchewan. Ottawa also funds projects (external - login to view)to clean up the operations in Athabasca.

A 45% redcution in emission and effluent discharge since the 90s (even after a massive expansions) was funded by who? Botswanans?
 
captain morgan
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A 45% redcution in emission and effluent discharge since the 90s (even after a massive expansions) was funded by who? Botswanans?


I wonder what the tax revenues are that the CRA collects from the PEI sewage treatment facilities?

Oh, that's right - they really don't have those, do they...
 
petros
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I wonder what the tax revenues are that the CRA collects from the PEI sewage treatment facilities?

Oh, that's right - they really don't have those, do they...

Maybe PEI gets some of the $40 million paid out by oil companies into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund?
 
captain morgan
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Maybe PEI gets some of the $40 million paid out by oil companies into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund?

Who woulda thunk that PEI's emissions were such a direct cause of global warming... Hell, to just qualify for federal monies.

What the hell are you folks eating out there Tonington?
 
petros
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Who woulda thunk that PEI's emissions were such a direct cause of global warming... Hell, to just qualify for federal monies.

What the hell are you folks eating out there Tonington?

They aren't eating shellfish from the Charlottetown region that's for sure.
 
Tonington
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I'm thinking more than a few decades, there has been human waste produced from this area for a few hundred years.

I don't know the exact figure. I assumed it's been multiple, not being from the area.

Ahh, turns out it hasn't been that long. It's only in the past couple years that untreated sewage has been overflowing when there is heavy precipitation, after a few lines were merged.

Quote:

As for Athabasca, the oil co.s are spending big money to deal with the issue since day 1... Can PEI say the same?

Which issue? The toxic emissions are still falling out and running into the watershed.

Quote:

Do you know why?

I suspect what you find priceless is quite different than what I find priceless. Let's hear why you find it priceless.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A 45% redcution in emission

Which emissions? I'd like to see that.
 
captain morgan
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I don't know the exact figure. I assumed it's been multiple, not being from the area.

Ahh, turns out it hasn't been that long. It's only in the past couple years that untreated sewage has been overflowing when there is heavy precipitation, after a few lines were merged.

Gosh... The sands have been treating theirs too since the first day of production... What's say we go back to the old standards like the ones used in PEI way back in the day?

Deal?


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Which issue? The toxic emissions are still falling out and running into the watershed.

Much like the untreated sewage
 
Tonington
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Much like the untreated sewage

I never took you for someone who believes private industry should aim no higher than government successes, hmm. Oh and toxic emissions fallout every day. The release of raw sewage happens on heavy precipitation events only. And as we've discussed, Charlottetown is mitigating that.

Where's the plans to remove those toxic compounds from the emissions in Athabasca operations? You and others even deny they're there, or point elsewhere with red herrings when someone brings the issue up.
 
TenPenny
#43
I believe the difference is that the toxic emissions in Alberta are all naturally occuring, or so we are expected to believe.
 
petros
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Which emissions? I'd like to see that.

It's an AB Govt stat. Look it up lazy bones.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Where's the plans to remove those toxic compounds from the emissions in Athabasca operations? You and others even deny they're there, or point elsewhere with red herrings when someone brings the issue up.

Seek and ye shall find.
 
Tonington
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's an AB Govt stat. Look it up lazy bones.

Nah, I'll just chock that up to more of you talking out your **** instead.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post


Seek and ye shall find.

You're assuming a plan exists, but then again you can't even link to the stats you spout, so I'm not really surprised that you would say that.
 
petros
+1
#46
My **** made it to print? WTG ****!

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Nah, I'll just chock that up to more of you talking out your **** instead.



You're assuming a plan exists, but then again you can't even link to the stats you spout, so I'm not really surprised that you would say that.

I can't link or you're too afraid you'll find what you don't want to see?
 
captain morgan
+1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I never took you for someone who believes private industry should aim no higher than government successes, hmm.

Are you suggesting that there be 2 different standards in play? One set of regs for the private sector and a different one for the public?


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Oh and toxic emissions fallout every day.

Come, come now... Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the effluents in a muni sewage system deals only with the human waste component.

I would have thought that you, as an experienced observer of our marine enviro, would understand that there are an extraordinary number of toxins that get flushed daily or poured down the storm sewers by our less-than-conscionable co-citizens.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Where's the plans to remove those toxic compounds from the emissions in Athabasca operations? You and others even deny they're there, or point elsewhere with red herrings when someone brings the issue up.

Much of the remedial actions will the same ones that work on the waste treatment slurries in the form of bacteriological action.

The difference in the oil/gas sector (or mining or forestry-related) is that the aforementioned industries take dedicated and aggressive steps to deal with the toxins.
 
Tonington
-1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I can't link or you're too afraid you'll find what you don't want to see?

You won't link. It's standard for you to make claims and then refuse to even link to them yourself. I'm no mind reader, and besides what would I do with the rest of my time once I finished with yours?
 
petros
+1
#49
So nothing was implimented from the NRBS and made law under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act? Oil companies never footed the bill to meet the objectives outlined by the NBRS which are law in AB?


Did I just pull that out of my ***, did I find it floating in the harbour or is it fact?
 
Tonington
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Are you suggesting that there be 2 different standards in play? One set of regs for the private sector and a different one for the public?

No, I'm saying that for someone who frequently brings up the incompetence of the government, it's odd that you would want to use them as your yard stick.

Quote:

Come, come now... Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the effluents in a muni sewage system deals only with the human waste component.

How could I be so deluded when I mentioned storm water? Slow morning captain?

Quote:

I would have thought that you, as an experienced observer of our marine enviro, would understand that there are an extraordinary number of toxins that get flushed daily or poured down the storm sewers by our less-than-conscionable co-citizens.

Absolutely there are. As of yet there are no requirements to remove pharmaceuticals from the water, but I believe there should be. But that doesn't mean I think an industrial polluter which produces regulated pollutants should be allowed to emit them into the air and water....
 
petros
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Are you suggesting that there be 2 different standards in play? One set of regs for the private sector and a different one for the public?

Considering that Municpal Govts are Corporations and they are bound to the same laws Charlottetown got lucky to have not been nailed heavily with fines and stop ****ting orders.
 
captain morgan
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Considering that Municpal Govts are Corporations and they are bound to the same laws Charlottetown got lucky to have not been nailed heavily with fines and stop ****ting orders.


No doubt, but as we see, there is a great amount of latitude - or just plain ignoring the issue - as compared to the handful of 'hated' industries that are the frequent targets of the moral majority.

I can't speak for all coastal cities, but I know that Victoria has a similar practice as PEI (worse I believe) and they have been refusing to recognize the concerns from muni's in Washington State.

Now, if a mine or lumber mill was knocking pollution into the oceans the same way as Victoria, we'd never hear the end of it.

BTW - I forgot to mention another critical sector that toes the line at their own costs... Agri sector - if the family farm can do it, I don't see why PEI has taken decades to institute this same agenda.
 
petros
#53
City of Regina came up with a great idea in conjunction with a potash concern. We're going to dump our sewage into a potash mine to reduce surface water useage and to top it all off generate electricty from the methane produced as it simmers down were it's a nice and toasty 26C.

That beats the hell out of killing shellfish.
 

Similar Threads

427
Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"
by dumpthemonarchy | Oct 7th, 2010
no new posts