Connacher oilsands project resumes

[captain morgan]

... And if they are declining in a 5 year term, they'd also be declining in a ten year period as well. This is the big fraud that you are buying into - cherry-picking select data that is only supportive of a micro-analysis without looking at the big picture.

The bottom-line is that the climate is cyclical and ever-changing. There are multiple of recorded episodes of glaciation and warming in the absence of man-made ghg's - this ought to be a clue that the global system is dynamic.

The biggest misleading measure is based on the notion that we can extrapolate 'givens' by analyzing short periods (ie decades or centuries) in a system that has cycles that complete (for lack of a better word) over the course of many millenia.

 

[TenPenny]

... And if they are declining in a 5 year term, they'd also be declining in a ten year period as well.

What? If they are declining for 5 years, they're also declining for 10 years? Do you understand what you are saying?

This is the big fraud that you are buying into - cherry-picking select data that is only supportive of a micro-analysis without looking at the big picture.

I'm not buying into anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that you're making statements that are ridiculous, and then changing your tune, just like SJP does.

You said 10 years, now you say 5 years, but now you're claiming that 5 years actually means 10 years anyway.

I hope you convince somebody of something, because so far, you're not doing a good job.

 

[captain morgan]

What? If they are declining for 5 years, they're also declining for 10 years? Do you understand what you are saying?

Well, if the last 5 years (according to your graph) illustrate that the temps are trending downwards, it goes to reason that the 10 trend is also declining.

This isn't that hard.

 

[TenPenny]

What? If they are declining for 5 years, they're also declining for 10 years? Do you understand what you are saying?

Well, if the last 5 years (according to your graph) illustrate that the temps are trending downwards, it goes to reason that the 10 trend is also declining.

That's ridiculous. Did you ever take any statistics or math courses? Just because the last 5 miles of road were downhill, doesn't mean the last 10 miles were downhill.

 

[captain morgan]

T-R-E-N-D-I-N-G

Get it?

BTW - Employing your micro-analysis techniques to the road example - If you select a solitary and exact point on a steep road without any reference to a point ahead or behind, the point will be perfectly level... Does that mean that the road isn't sloped?

Really man, give me a break.

 

[JLM]

That's ridiculous. Did you ever take any statistics or math courses? Just because the last 5 miles of road were downhill, doesn't mean the last 10 miles were downhill.

I think this thread just got a little beyond the realm of common sense.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I would say it is bad news for everyone. The tar sands are an ecological disaster. The biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

 

[Trex]

Good for Connacher.
Alberta is going to need all the investment it can get in the future.

As to all the never ending GW debate.
My belief is we lack data, its all hypothetical.
Nobody really knows for sure.
And it may take a long,long time before we really do understand it fully.

I recently listened to a MIT researcher who was working on impact of C02 on the worlds environment.
His results seemed to indicate that the effects were fairly minimal, however he was the first to admit that far more data and research was required.
But here is the interesting part: the poor guy was deluged in hate mail and calls for his funding to be cut off.
So he contacted various other tenured researchers at various renowned universities.
They all agreed that if any data was released that agreed with the global warming hypothesis all was well.
If they happened to release any information that seemed to disagree, all hell broke loose.
Death threats, lobbying for research and funding cuts and outright vandalism including arson.
So what's up with that, they all wondered?
So the shrinks and sociologist took a look at the problem.
They believe people fixate on the issue as a means to justify their lives and lifestyles.
They change out a few light bulbs and begin to feel good about themselves
Thus the get obsessive.

if you argue with what they think is happening in the ecosphere it threatens how they feel about themselves and their families.

Thus free debate and scientific research that may not agree with their closely held belief system becomes almost evil or wrong.
And thats a bad thing in my view.

I support reducing waste and minimizing pollutants.

On the other hand refusing to believe that there are two sides, or truly believing that there is a "right" side and "wrong side" to a scientific hypothesis is flawed.
Any good scientist knows you start with an idea and blast it full of holes.
Once you have eliminated virtually all the variables and possibilities you take a hard look at what remains.
We are a long way from eliminating all the variables concerning GW.
There are no rights or wrongs.
But there is bad data.

Like this for example:
quote.
I would say it is bad news for everyone. The tar sands are an ecological disaster. The biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in North America.
unquote.

The tar sands are not even vaguely close to being the biggest source of greenhouse gases in North America.
Or in Canada.
Or in Western Canada.
Or in Alberta.
And probably not even in Fort Mac.
The idling pickups probably are.

The United States produces 633 million tons of C02 emissions industrially.
Canada produces 90 million.
Coal fired generating plants produce by far more C02 than does heavy oil extraction.
China burns 2,400,000 thousand tons of coal a year.
The States around 1,000,000 thousand metric tons.
Canada 58,000.

Trex

 

[TenPenny]

My objection to the Tar Sands development has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

It's the lakes of polluted water. That's a crime against humanity, and the full effect won't be realized for another 10 to 20 years.

 

[Cliffy]

Don't you ever get to feeling rather silly and hypocritical in the face of all of the damning evidence that clearly indicates that global warming/climate change hysteria fraud is a farce?

really man - open your eyes.

I have never supported GW or the opposite. For me it has never been about the climate but I know that nothing is ever going to be done to save this planet from the pollution of big oil until their is money in it. So, though I know that the GW scam is motivated by money, I support anything that would reduce the toxins in the atmosphere.

Do I care the Gore stands to make a fortune from carbon trading? No. I think it is a stupid idea and I have reservations about it even effecting the pollution levels, but it did bring global attention to the problem so for that I am grateful. Constantly saying that it is a sham and a fraud detracts from meesage by telling people that they don't need to change and it is alright to pollute.

 

[#juan]

Top 10 Facts About the Alberta Oil Sands

• View
• Track

1. Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. The water requirements for oil sands projects range from 2.5 to 4.0 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.


2. At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in tailing lakes so toxic that propane cannons and floating scarecrows are used to keep ducks from landing in them.


3. A 2003 report concluded that "an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands tailings ponds could have catastrophic impact in the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin due to the size of these lakes and their proximity to the Athabasca River."


4. In April, 2008 a flock of migrating ducks landed on a tar sands toxic lake and died.


5. Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes in Canada. Natural gas requirements for the oil sands industry are projected to increase substantially during the projected period from 17 million cubic metres (0.6 billion cubic feet) per day in 2003 to a range of 40 to 45 million cubic metres (1.4 to 1.6 billion cubic) feet per day in 2015.


6. The toxic tailing lakes are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space.


7. Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic metres (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day.


8. The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada.


9. The Alberta Oil Sands Operation are the largest single point source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.


10. By 2015, the Alberta Oil Sands are expected to emit more greenhouse gases than the nation of Denmark (pop. 5.4 million).



Sources and more information on the Alberta Oil Sands:


1. Check out the Pembina Institute's Oil Sands Watch for an in-depth look at the Alberta Oil Sands.
2. Download Environmental Defence’s report (pdf) highlighting the environmental and health consequences of the Tar Sands: Canada’s Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth
3. CBC: Hundreds of ducks trapped on toxic Alberta oilsands pond
4. Boreal Songbird Initiative's Alberta Tar Sands Fact Sheet
5. Greenpeace Tar Sands Campaign
6. Stop the Tar Sands

7. Traveling Alberta (Tar Sands Vacation site)

 

[captain morgan]

I agree with all that you've posted Cliffy in terms that the focus (as far as I interpreted) is on pollution and toxic emissions. However, relative to the statement:

Constantly saying that it is a sham and a fraud detracts from meesage by telling people that they don't need to change and it is alright to pollute.

What is the alternative? Based on what is available today, there is no possible way in which the globe could even sustain the current population or support anywhere near the amenities that are available in society (ie healthcare-hospitals; transportation; infrastructure).

It's a catch-22.

 

[Tonington]

Ohhhhh - the records... tell me all about the records...

They are much longer than ten years, so arbitrarilly choosing any point that doesn't include all of the data is cherry picking. You can choose smaller frames, but you need to have a good reason for doing so.

Choosing any ten year period for making definitive statements about climate is stupid. There is variability in the climate system on frames longer than one decade...

The reason that I choose to employ a 10 year horizon is specifically due to the notion that it is convenient to my ends, much like the faux-greenie-eco-fascist movement that does the same.

So you don't have a good reason then.

As the old expression goes: Turn-about is fair play.

Yes, but then that's not science. So you should probably stop making statements about it and what it deals with if you think this is a meaningful response...

PS - Degrees of freedom are the necessary crutch for incompetent 'scienticians' that need to have wiggle-room in order to allow for their incorrect theories to fit historical fact. (sounds like you depend heavily on generous degrees of freedom).

No, the degrees of freedom is a term that is used in nearly every statistical calculation. I already explained how your problem relates to the degrees of freedom. The variability is so large, so smaller DoF handicaps the validity of your analysis, which wasn't actually an analysis at all. You're just repeating buzz words that you think sound smart.

Arrhenius?.. That clown?.. I have a signed (authenticated) letter taht he submitted stating that all his research was fabricated and falsified... In fact, Arrhenius, in that statement, stated that the biggest factor that uneqivocally proved that fluctuations occurred naturally was evidenced by the existence of multiple ice-ages.

Bull$hit. High school science classes replicate his results, you can too. I'd like to see this letter of yours.

Get with the program man!... You're backing a loser and are just too myopic to realize it.

Ok, follow the bouncing ball you ignoramus:

Fact, greenhouse gases exist.
Fact, human activity increases atmospheric greenhouse levels.
Fact, increasing greenhouse gases puts the earth out of radiative equilibrium, so the earth warms.
Fact, when there is more heat being trapped in the lower levels of the atmosphere, less infrared is escaping to space.
Fact, when less inrared escapes to space, the upper atmosphere cools.
Fact, the troposphere has warmed for more than a century, while the stratosphere has cooled.
Fact, this signature is inexplicable by any of the Milankovitch cycles, by any change in solar insulation, or any other lame brain mechanism that you and fellow septics have come up with.
Fact, this is a completely expected result, from radiative physics and atmospheric chemistry which is not by any means new.


Yup, you're the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Cliffy]

I agree with all that you've posted Cliffy in terms that the focus (as far as I interpreted) is on pollution and toxic emissions. However, relative to the statement:

Constantly saying that it is a sham and a fraud detracts from meesage by telling people that they don't need to change and it is alright to pollute.

What is the alternative? Based on what is available today, there is no possible way in which the globe could even sustain the current population or support anywhere near the amenities that are available in society (ie healthcare-hospitals; transportation; infrastructure).

It's a catch-22.

Yup! Unless the population of mindless consumers is drastically reduced, we are headed for a mass kill off, whether natural or man made. Hang on to your ass 'cause we are in for a rough ride, one way or the other, very shortly.

 

[Trex]

Well Juan thats a great chunk of cut n paste spin you plunked down.
And I accept that you should have the right to oppose whatever development you choose.
And other people should get to have other views and opinions.
Personally I think the Oil Sands are a huge industrial complex.
The world would certainly be cleaner without the development.
But then the world would cleaner without the industries of Ontario or the pulp mills of BC and Quebec.

So while a whole bunch of prepackaged skewed spin literature may reflect your views perfectly it certainly doesn't reflect mine.
Big Oil has a PR department which kicks out literature which is no more nor less accurate than the rote cutnpaste from the environmental lobby.

Top 10 Facts About the Alberta Oil Sands

• View
• Track

1. Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. The water requirements for oil sands projects range from 2.5 to 4.0 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.
Who cares how much they are licensed to use and how does that relate to what they actually use?
Are you aware that most of the water the environmentalists are talking about is produced water from drilled water wells?
If the Government of Alberta feels it is appropriate and sustainable then its all good.
And by the way the largest user of water in Canada and for that matter Alberta is the agriculture industry.


2. At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in tailing lakes so toxic that propane cannons and floating scarecrows are used to keep ducks from landing in them.
Well here again I am not too sure what water the environmentalists are talking about.
Almost all the new developments are drilling into slightly saline aquifers and using that water.
Then they reuse it and reuse it and ultimately I suppose all of what remains could eventually end up in a pond for treatment.


3. A 2003 report concluded that "an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands tailings ponds could have catastrophic impact in the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin due to the size of these lakes and their proximity to the Athabasca River."
Spin again.
Of course it would.
And if a nuclear reactor blows up thats really bad too.
And if a giant tanker full of toxic chemicals blows up in Vancouver Harbour that also would be bad.



4. In April, 2008 a flock of migrating ducks landed on a tar sands toxic lake and died.
Every fall of every year hunters slaughter multiple flocks of ducks.
Not that that makes it OK.
Keep in mind that the wind farms kill hundreds and hundreds of birds.

5. Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes in Canada. Natural gas requirements for the oil sands industry are projected to increase substantially during the projected period from 17 million cubic metres (0.6 billion cubic feet) per day in 2003 to a range of 40 to 45 million cubic metres (1.4 to 1.6 billion cubic) feet per day in 2015.
So what?
What do energy inputs matter?
What are the total energy inputs required for all of Ontario's industry?
Should we "turn off" Ontario?
And if we use nuclear power as an energy input and sell off the gas elsewhere does that make it OK?


6. The toxic tailing lakes are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
Well its big all right.
But its not nearly one of the recognized biggest structures.
It is I believe, one of the biggest dams and possibly the worlds longest dike.
And they need to clean it up.
Luckily they are no longer building anything that requires huge ponds and strip mines.
These days its pretty much all SAGD.


7. Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic metres (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day.

It sure does.
Again so what?
It produces more greenhouse gas to produce heavy oil than conventional oil.
Apples to oranges.
Big trucks produce more greenhouse gas than small cars.
Apples to oranges again.
Its still light years ahead of burning coal for energy



8. The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada.
Yet more spin.
Of course they are, they are the fastest growing industrial complex in Canada.
There really are no other huge developments being constructed to compare with.
And its absolutely impossible to produce more greenhouse gas extracting oil than it is than burning the oil in a car at its end use.


9. The Alberta Oil Sands Operation are the largest single point source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
Only if the complex is recognized as a point source.
And its not of course



10. By 2015, the Alberta Oil Sands are expected to emit more greenhouse gases than the nation of Denmark (pop. 5.4 million).
Once again the trusty old apples to oranges thing again.
And its a wild guess to boot.






Sources and more information on the Alberta Oil Sands:


1. Check out the Pembina Institute's Oil Sands Watch for an in-depth look at the Alberta Oil Sands.
2. Download Environmental Defence’s report (pdf) highlighting the environmental and health consequences of the Tar Sands: Canada’s Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth
3. CBC: Hundreds of ducks trapped on toxic Alberta oilsands pond
4. Boreal Songbird Initiative's Alberta Tar Sands Fact Sheet
5. Greenpeace Tar Sands Campaign
6. Stop the Tar Sands

7. Traveling Alberta (Tar Sands Vacation site)

 

[#juan]

Trex

I have worked at the oil sands.. I lived at the first project in Fort McMurray for two years. I've been back to the site several times in the last few years. The tar sands developement is an ecological disaster. I am a mechanical engineer but anyone with half a brain and one eye can see the giant tailing ponds and their proximity to the Athabaska River. If you can't see the ecological danger of the tar sands, you have to be either blind or stupid or you've never been there.

 

[Trex]

Trex

I have worked at the oil sands.. I lived at the first project in Fort McMurray for two years. I've been back to the site several times in the last few years. The tar sands developement is an ecological disaster. I am a mechanical engineer but anyone with half a brain and one eye can see the giant tailing ponds and their proximity to the Athabaska River. If you can't see the ecological danger of the tar sands, you have to be either blind or stupid or you've never been there.

Engineering is my gig too Juan.
Been there,don that.
I presently own an dinky little consulting company that operates internationally.

My position is not that there is no environmental damage up there.
There is.
Suncor is what, 20 years or so old?
And yes those two huge old strip mines with their resultant tailing ponds are a big problem.

But as an expert in Tar Sands production practices surely you know all about how the newer developments are planned?
No strip mines. Recycled water. SAGD. Huff and Puff. In Situ fire flood. Enhanced miscibility. Brine production wells. Disposal wells. Extended reach laterals. Dried solids disposal.Superpads.

You know about all that kind of thing right Juan?
Or perhaps not?
No worries though because I do.
And I would be happy to chat with you about the latest and greatest production techniques some other time.

So if you knew so much about the new practices why would you post a cut'n'paste environmental screed that natters on about the twenty odd year old strip mines?
Its not what they do now.

Yes they do need to reclaim those huge old strip mines.
Yes that huge old tailings pond is a potential nightmare.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with newer developments.
Or the development that this thread is talking about.

Surely you know outdated spin when you see it?
Why post it?

Trex

 

[captain morgan]

Trex

I have worked at the oil sands.. I lived at the first project in Fort McMurray for two years. I've been back to the site several times in the last few years. The tar sands developement is an ecological disaster. I am a mechanical engineer but anyone with half a brain and one eye can see the giant tailing ponds and their proximity to the Athabaska River. If you can't see the ecological danger of the tar sands, you have to be either blind or stupid or you've never been there.

... How come you haven't mentioned that this resource was initially discovered as an ecological disaster? Much of that bitumen has been at surface for centuries (first discovered in the mid 1700's) and has been leaking into the Athabasca and aquifers for that time.

You try to portray this as entirely man-made.

 

[TenPenny]

Engineering is my gig too Juan.
Been there,don that.
I presently own an dinky little consulting company that operates internationally.

My position is not that there is no environmental damage up there.
There is.
Suncor is what, 20 years or so old?
And yes those two huge old strip mines with their resultant tailing ponds are a big problem.

But as an expert in Tar Sands production practices surely you know all about how the newer developments are planned?
No strip mines. Recycled water. SAGD. Huff and Puff. In Situ fire flood. Enhanced miscibility. Brine production wells. Disposal wells. Extended reach laterals. Dried solids disposal.Superpads.

You know about all that kind of thing right Juan?
Or perhaps not?
No worries though because I do.
And I would be happy to chat with you about the latest and greatest production techniques some other time.

So if you knew so much about the new practices why would you post a cut'n'paste environmental screed that natters on about the twenty odd year old strip mines?
Its not what they do now.

Yes they do need to reclaim those huge old strip mines.
Yes that huge old tailings pond is a potential nightmare.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with newer developments.
Or the development that this thread is talking about.

Surely you know outdated spin when you see it?
Why post it?

Trex

That's all lovely, but I've looked at the plans for the tailings ponds for Kearl Lake (as I'm an engineer working with it). It makes me gag. You're not the only one who operates internationally, either.

 

[Ron in Regina]