Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
Interesting factoid:
So, those who claim that no federal money has been spent on the development may want to check their facts.
And another intersting factoid:
So, those who claim that no federal money has been spent on the development may want to check their facts.
And that is a demand? I questioned his statement. It is up to him whether he wants to take it further and show that he is right.
The CROW rate had a negative effect on manufacturing in BC. What else is there to know about it.
I am right about the federal fuel tax because at the time I was involved with the industry. AS I told Ton this was around 15 years ago and I am no longer involved so have lost touch with many current issues. I haven't ever paid all that much attention to regs surounding logging since I got rid of all my iron. Don't even know where to start looking nor do I have the time for a complicated search. There were a great many rules in place to protect Ontario and Quebec industries from western competition at one time. Many of them have been dismantled but the resentment lingers.
Cap: Did you find a link?
Funny thing about links that back up statements:
Some day index pinkies may come with a URL. Until then....
As an owner did they invest working capital or were they just owners who raised capital through profits, loans and share sales?
We currently own 20% of GM. Did we dump cash into Russian, Indian and Chinese auto plants or did the company do that?
Last edited:
The gvt was smart enough to buy-in and operate their own business in whole or as a partner. But really, I would have expected you to point to Trudeau's baby - PetroCanada... Mind you, as was expected, it was run into the ground until the private sector took it over.
I wasn't looking for a link on the fuel issue. I was only pointing to the fact that Cabbage DID ask for info on the program
Why would I bring up petrocanada? I did buy a crapload of shares when they first went public, and made good money on them.
I know all that yummy tar is down here somewhere!
.. Because PetroCanada sucked the hammer so bad that they were (as a major producer I might add) be able to be bought-out at such a ridiculously low price.... Look where they are today and tell me that you really cleaned-up on that buy.
Sheesh
Shell was there mining in ummmmmm,1982.
Then they went and bought a few coal strip mines in the elk valley and the northeast coal projects at smithers and bullmoose and quintette came online with help from the government and wiped out 5 strip mines in the elk valley,I remember it well.
My stepdad ran the first bucketwheel at the oilsands way back then.
Then they went and bought a few coal strip mines in the elk valley and the northeast coal projects at smithers and bullmoose and quintette came online with help from the government and wiped out 5 strip mines in the elk valley,I remember it well.
My stepdad ran the first bucketwheel at the oilsands way back then.
No, according to Eaglesmack? I'm Henny Penny thinking the sky is falling, of course when you read the peer-reviewed science on Global Warming it's hard to not become concerned.
It's those who are unwilling or unable for whatever reason to accept the science who have their heads in ground...which is coincidentally where they keep telling us our future lies. They could very well be right, but that's probably going to be six feet down for millions if some of the experts are right.
Gwynne Dyer for one, who has extensive military experience writes about how most of the worlds major militaries are preparing for the conflicts that are coming as a result of climate change.
Climate Wars: How Peak Oil and the Climate Crisis Will Change Canada (And ... - Gwynne Dyer - Google Books
Oh, and they aren't really oil sands, they're tar sands.
Oil sands makes it sound like all you need to do is squeeze the sand a little and all that chock-full-a-goodness oil just comes pouring out.
To turn tar sands into consumer products, you need to first mine it, which produces a lot of greenhouse gases, separate the tar from the clay, which uses huge amounts of water and produces more greenhouse gases, upgrade the tar to sythetic crude which uses more water and produces more greenhouse gases(and you're creating thousands of tons of toxic pollution along the way), and then ship the crude to refineries which uses more energy and resources. And then consumers use the final products creating even more greenhouse gases and pollution.
It's hard to conceive of a stupider way to fuel our economies under the current conditions. It's a piercing spotlight on who is really running things in the world today...and it aint us as voters. Which brings us back to robo calls, many Canadians simply wouldn't have a vote if it was up to the Conservatives they feel so strongly about supporting one narrow sector over the common interests of ALL Canadians.
it's a mine,how come you dont go after all the other huge mines that make the oilsands look tiny? They all use exactly the same equipment.You did know that the mining process is identical to any strip mine right?
Yes,squeeze the sand and pure bitumen will come out.
I will also say for some reason people focus on the oilsands because they get a lot of media attention and they are big,what a lot of people dont realize is that the bigger the equipment,the more efficient and the cheaper the costs,so basically a huge mine running p and h and BE shovels that can load up to 150 tonnes a scoop are more fuel efficient and less cost per BCM moved and create less greenhouse gases then a smaller mine,the ones that the enviro nuts allways ignore.
There are strip mines all over the world that make the oilsands look very small,they use identical mining techniques and all use the same amount of resources to refine their product but bigger is allways cheaper,more efficient and therefore create less envirodamage then smaller outfits.
I guess thats why people in the mining industry just shake their heads at some of these claims that they are major contributors yet they are the most efficient.
I'm waiting for it to click in that copper mining, smelting and useage is far far far worse than oil ever will be be. Then what will greens do? Sends tweetsa and emails around the global via copper wiring or will they use eco-friendly smoke signals?
A 400 tonne rock/waste.ore hauler is more fuel efficient then lets say a 50 tonne hauler,therefore,these huge mines are creating less greenhouse gases then the smaller outfits.
I just want to establish that fact.
More bcm's moved for less fuel.
I also heard on cbc radio today that intensive studies on the athabasca since the last ones dont show any more mercury contamination then in other rivers.
Last edited:
Anytime some one mentions "peak oil"(like for the last ten years)then you know your dealing with a foiler,trying to fearmonger whoever they can to push their warped agenda.
Oil will stay high for 2 more years,so from 2004 to 2009 exploration in Alberta and Sask quadrupled as did production,and the next 2 years it will go 4 fold each year.
Good times!
Oil will stay high for 2 more years,so from 2004 to 2009 exploration in Alberta and Sask quadrupled as did production,and the next 2 years it will go 4 fold each year.
Good times!
Making money from rocks is all about ratios. X amount of kW in per tonne to get X amount of product out per tonne. It's a fine line for some minerals.