Certainly not liquid per se, but dry isn't necessarily "dry". The only realistic way to dry it is put it out in the sun otherwise the process is just using more fuel.
Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Certainly not liquid per se, but dry isn't necessarily "dry". The only realistic way to dry it is put it out in the sun otherwise the process is just using more fuel.
I listened to a guy earlier today on the radio as he was trying to flog his new book.
He was talking about Canada's "Ethical" Oil from the Tar Sands, supporting
Canada and its democracy, as opposed to supporting Saudi Arabia, etc...and
was asking why Green Peace protests Canadian oil, but isn't over protesting in
the streets in Venezuela or Nigeria, and made speculations as to what the
outcome of those protests would be like. It was interesting....
He compared the Canada's Tar Sands to other Oil Producing regimes, and made
analogies to Canada's Diamond industry compared to Blood Diamonds, and had
mentioned the idea of having "Country of Origin" labels on the Fuel Pumps along
with their history (by country) of human rights abuses, etc...and figures that other
countries would be willing to pay a premium to use Canadian produced fuel.
I wish I heard the name of this guy but I didn't hear it. Oh well. I wouldn't mind finding
& reading the book.
He was talking about Canada's "Ethical" Oil from the Tar Sands, supporting
Canada and its democracy, as opposed to supporting Saudi Arabia, etc...and
was asking why Green Peace protests Canadian oil, but isn't over protesting in
the streets in Venezuela or Nigeria, and made speculations as to what the
outcome of those protests would be like. It was interesting....
He compared the Canada's Tar Sands to other Oil Producing regimes, and made
analogies to Canada's Diamond industry compared to Blood Diamonds, and had
mentioned the idea of having "Country of Origin" labels on the Fuel Pumps along
with their history (by country) of human rights abuses, etc...and figures that other
countries would be willing to pay a premium to use Canadian produced fuel.
I wish I heard the name of this guy but I didn't hear it. Oh well. I wouldn't mind finding
& reading the book.
Ahh, I thought of something else it depends on, the animal it came from, and what it was eating.
It was Ezra Levant.
CBC Books - Canada's Oiled Future: Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk Debate
It was Ezra Levant.
CBC Books - Canada's Oiled Future: Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk Debate
Cool & Thank You! I'll hunt that one down. I was driving at the time I was listening
to the radio, had gotten into the car part was through the interview, and was
focusing on the road, while dwelling on the mud now through the car that
I'll have to clean up due to my own lack of planning.
to the radio, had gotten into the car part was through the interview, and was
focusing on the road, while dwelling on the mud now through the car that
I'll have to clean up due to my own lack of planning.
I hate muddy floor mats...and you're welcome!
I listened to the debate, it was very good, except for the demagoguery by the two opponents at the end. It's an interesting point, the ethics involved. One ethical dilemma I thought of was the increased cancer rates in Fort Chip. Is it ethical still if Canadian oil is increasing cancer rates in folks downstream? I was unconvinced by the report a few years back. They found statistically significant increases in the rates of many cancers, but said that could be due to chance. Yet that's why you perform a statistical test of significance in the first place.
There needs to be more separation between the Alberta government, industry, and the reports. The results are not transparent enough, and there needs to be more degrees of separation between a government that makes loads of money of the industry, and the industry it is charged with regulating.
Mining sites arent as big as you think they are,they leave a small footprint when compared to clear cut logging as the mine stays in one place and is contained,production quality bitumen is found on the surface,it doesnt change grade as it gets deeper,if you spent any years in the mine or knew geology you would know this.The outcrop is where they start mining,like any mine for any mineral or what have you,then you follow the deposit down untill the strip ratio makes it too expensive to mine.This is done all over the world in any kind of mine and thats the way it go's.
Your cut and pastes make no sense,your useing deep deposits to compare to the deposits that are mined when they are actually brought to the surface with sagd,which i'm sure you have no knowledge of or your cut n paste guy didnt as it never should be mentioned as far as strip mining is concerned.Maybe you just are that ignorant of mining methods and are useing the cut n paste to make a point but anyone with mine experience reading it would just shake their head wondering what your going on about.Read up on SAGD oilsands production before you post again.
You should also learn what insitu means,your useing the term wrong in your little presentation,it pretty well covers all the oilsands,they didnt migrate from somewhere else.
B.C. probably cuts more forest down in a day then one oilsands operation cuts down in their lifetime.
You have no idea how small an actual pit is,a tailings pond was a pit at one time,maybe 4 square miles in area,it would be mined to follow the deposit at a profitable strip ratio(depends on the price of oil at the time) untill the slopes on all sides of the pit hit natural repose which is the safest grade you can work at and you hit the bottom of the pit which is where the deposit would be smallest or the strip ratio gets higher depending on the geology.This is all planned out before the pit is started which may have been ten years before it was depleted and turned into a tailings pond.You most definetally need a course in strip mining 101 if your going to keep posting what your posting because most of it makes no sense.
There is only one reason and only one why tailings ponds havent been reclaimed very fast and I have been trying to explain it to you but you just dont get it so i'll try one more time.
Mature fine tailings....they are fine clay particles that sit near the bottom of a pond in suspension and will not settle for 40 years,therefore you cant reclaim something that has the consistency of quicksand,thats why we are useing TRO with polymer flocculent which lets them bond back together and settle and release water in 21 days.They settle or dry out,the remaining water can be moved to another pond to be used in the next tailings reduction program and you can start backfilling the pond.
Simple huh?You cant reclaim something you cant even walk on,thats why the floc is added.
Pond 5 at suncor will be gone in maybe 2 years as will be pond 6,trees are allready growing on pond 1.
The remaining water will be transferred to the next one thats on the reclaim list to be recycled and used in the tailings reduction program,you dont take out the water untill all the MFT is gone and you have a stable base.
That's it in a nutshell,very simple technology actually.
As for mercury in coal,hmmmm,that's a new one.Is it as bad as in the lead paint that came with the mini blind's everyone bought from China?
So you're telling me that the Editor in Chief for Mining.com Magazine, who studied mining at UBC, was lying?
I don't believe you.
"In the area to the north of Fort McMurray, the overburden is relatively shallow – often less than 75m – which makes surface mining possible."
Syncrude Oil Sand Mine, Alberta - Mining Technology
"About 20 percent of the oil sands reserves in Alberta are recoverable by surface mining where the overburden is less than 75 m. For the remaining 80 percent of the oil sands that are buried at a depth of greater than 75 m) in-situ technologies (largely thermal techniques such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, or SAGD; Cyclic Steam Stimulation, or CSS; or, Hybrid Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, or HSAGD) are used to extract the bitumen. "
EMD Oil Sands technical area
No, it isn't.
Are you comfortable being compared to the Chinese for environmental or human health standards? That's a comparison I wouldn't make if I were you. Especially given how you've gloated about the stringent laws here...
To use excrement for fuel, you don't dry it, you digest it in tanks - methane is the fuel, burns cleaner than petrolium because in essence it is natural gas. The other byproduct is fertilizer. India has been doing it for decades. We have enough excrement from humans, domestic animals and domestic crop and lawn wastes to produce vast amounts of cheap clean natural gas to put the tar sands out of business. And it would probably cost much less to produce. Many cities produce methane from there garbage dumps. Vernon had a methane trap on theirs decades ago but just burned the gas off atop a tall pipe.
Methane Digesters
There is a lot more info out there. Just do a Google search.
OK Cliff- you learn something new every day. I just figured what works with buffalo chips and cow pies should work with human waste. :lol::lol:
Kinda like what happens when 60 jets fly over my city daily completely turning the sky white but this isn't included in IPCC bullsh*t schemes. Why not?
Actually, no. It's nothing like when 60 jets fly over your city. Jet turbines burn cleaner than a log, burn cleaner than a cow patty. There is far less black carbon produced by a jet turbine.
And as for not in IPCC reports, you really could just check before you make such a statement. In fact the IPCC goes into more depth than I did, they actually account for the cooling effects of black carbon as well. It takes less than 30 seconds to go to google, and search for "IPCC black carbon", here's just one result:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
Or the image, if you can't even be bothered to click on a link:
Why don't you ever look first, before you make such claims? It's pretty easy to check...
The Canadian dollar is at times referred to as a petrocurrency. Why is this? Because of Alberta is getting so many new tar sands upgraders. This is forcing the dollar up, and as a result of a high currency, its killing thousands of jobs in manufacturing across the country. Which can cause an economic slowdown. Which is what is happening, and a possible double dip recession.
A "weak" currency is relative, and often good because it helps exporters. Right now Japan is trying to "weaken" its currency to help its exporters.
Examples of Whitefish living in the Athabasca water shed. The large hemorrhagic fish on the top was found in the Athabasca Delta. The whitefish with the tumor was found in Lake Athabasca.
Yikes...here's what a healthy whitefish looks like:
Yikes...here's what a healthy whitefish looks like:
The Canadian dollar has recently been referred o a petro-dollar and it has nothing to do with the upgraders for bitumen as it does for the reference that the country is a major energy producer. Secondly, the country has been relying more heavily on energy and financial sector revenues in recent years as the mfg sector in Eastern Canada has been waning.
The biggest factor driving up the value of CAD is the devaluation of the US greenback. Add in the (relative) lack of confidence in the Euro and the effect is to back those currencies that have a founding in energy (or precious metals for that matter).
The manufacuring sector in Canada is not competitive and has relied for years on a weak dollar... The unprecedented growth of the Chinese economy should be proof of that, hell, some of the ealy big upgradng plants are being built in China and transported across the country to their locations. Why is this you ask? The answer is that it is cheaper to source an equal or better quality item in Asia, transport it the long route to Alberta; St Lawrence and then train to AB (the equipment is so big that it won't make the twisting turns through the Rockies by train from BC)... All this trouble and they still save millions.
That said, Canada's manufacturing sector is grossly uncompetitive and depressing the dollar for their sake is a train-wreck just waiting to happen.
The job loss is unfortunate, but it is an impact of the uncompetitikve manufacturing sector that we have and nothing to do with oil revenues... Face facts DTM, the mfg sector is suffeing because the Americans aren't interested in, or capable of buying Canadians goods when there are much cheaper alternatives coming out of Asia.
The US and China are devaluing their dollars too.
Considering the US is our biggest trading partner and they are devaluing their dollar, how much lower would Canada's dollar have to be to make our manufactured goods attractive to them?. Keep devaluing the dollar and you end up giving away your goods/services.
Oh I'm not saying he's wrong,just that you have no clue what hes talking about so your quoting him in a way that makes no sense to anyone in the mining industry,probably him also if he read your posts.
And in situ basically means in place so a surface mine is mining in situ bitumen.
You might want to read up a bit on sedimentary deposits and the geological faulting and folding that makes them minable and especially in Alberta.
I'm pretty sure the oilsands creates more jobs then it kills,you have no idea how many eastern Canadians work in the oilsands that cant get jobs at home because there is none,their "living the dream me b'ye" as they say.When I ask them what they mean they say they have jobs and a good income.
I dont call it fort macnewfy for nothing.
They buy houses,boats,cars,trucks,snowmobiles,motorbikes,and every other toy imaginable when they have made enough to retire comfortably back home.
We wont even mention the tax dollars they ADD to canada's coffers instead of taking like a lot of other provinces.
So dont tell me the oilsands are killing manufacturing jobs,if anything it's creating them,Alberta's oilsands right now are the economic engine driving Canada's economy right now.
Every single province in Canada benefits from the oilsands.
We know how to "get er done"
What good is an economy if you can't breath the air or go outside because you'll fry? This argument is beyond ridiculous. Canada has the expertise to lead the world in clean technology. Why are we wasting our time and money making a bad situation worse? The tar sands are a blight on the planet. No amount of mitigation is going to make strip mining this crap an environmentally sound process. Only those who are making money at the expense of our children and grand children for the next seven generations are arguing in favour of this selfish enterprise.
Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Harper has called Canada an "energy superpower" and this get magnified in the media and the PM hopes, western votes. Resources can be managed in a way manufacturing cannot bem especially right now, the world, ie, China wants our resources as fast as they can get them. Easy money. Some might call this a resource curse.
King Ralph give big tax rebates to Albertans instead of building up the Alberta Heritage Fund. A stupidly cursed dolt. A fund that is puny compared to Norway's. Party (sound like fiesta?-what me, worry about the future) on dudes.
Manufacturing has its own woes that are of course not the all fault of the oil patch. In the past ten years the Canuck buck has fallen about 60% against the Mexican peso and Korean won. Two countries not known for their abundant natural resources, and one is third world country.
It's a she, and she said that there are trees and soil and overburden above the surface mines. You were insisting there weren't, for what rhetorical purpose, I'm not really sure.
As to geology, the formation that the bitumen is mined from is overlaying the Wabamun and Banff formations, and underlying the Clearwater formation...
There is no contradiction in my statements.
Canada has relied on the energy (and financial) sector in recent years due to the falling revenues of the mfg sector. Mfg has been depressed due to a stronger CAD in concert with a more vibrant Asian mfg presence AND the inability of Canadian mfgr's to compete with the Asian mfgrs.
Everything can be managed including manufacturing. All governments (incl Canada) has incorporated special taxes, tariffs, regulations and levies in order prop up their own domestic industries. This policy, by in large, has been an utter failure in that it directly seeks to fiddle with the free market system while simultaneously operating on those very principals.
Recently, the EU and the Americans have been trying to implement this strategy with energy (commodities) for the same ends. Carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc. are direct attempts to gouge money from another nation's natural resource sector and use that money to subsidize their domestic industry or society.
This is the artificial environment that Canada's (and many other nations) mfg sector has relied upon for years. These sectors can't compete with emerging economies, therefore, the gvt slants the playing field in their favour.
King Ralph gave the cash to Albertans rather than give to Quebec and the East coast when Martin was thinking about taking a run at the provinces surpluses.
I see that you bring up the fund size in comparison to Norway's.... Norway doesn't make transefer payments to Sweden, Denmark and Greenland now, do they? If Alberta wasn't required to support the rest of Canada for the last number of decades, the fund would be the biggest in the world.
Measuring currencies against each other is a tricky business. Comparing the CAD against the peso is an unfair measure when the Mexican peso was critically low at one point where the IMF was almost ready to step in... At that point and degree of devaluation, the currency has no where to go but up.
As far as (South) Korea is concerned, they have a very strong mfg sector in electronics and marine construction.