Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
I am saying what I said. Does one sentence become too complicated. Does burning mean something different in your world? Have multiple meanings?
ahhhhh,were going off the tracks now.
So Cabbage,do you agree that big mines are more efficient then smaller ones?
So Cabbage,do you agree that big mines are more efficient then smaller ones?
I will put it another way. It should not be needed, but! Oil, for burning, is an end product. 80% of the carbon content is emitted. Some is lost in the various processes used in gaining that end product.
That, though, is not important. If you want statistics, approximately 80% of the world's total emissions are from the use of fossil fuels in one way or another.
That, though, is not important. If you want statistics, approximately 80% of the world's total emissions are from the use of fossil fuels in one way or another.
I don't see what you are getting at with CO. For the CH group, I assume that you are interested in CH4 - Methane?
Methane is responsible for 28% of the Greenhouse effect. Though it is far more potent than CO2, there is 200 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. As a potential game changer the release of Methane is exaggerated. Methane is a transient gas in the atmosphere (it doe not stay there long) and it will take a very long time for concentrations to be of great concern. We need to address CO2 in that time so that Methane does not become a major factor.
What Methane does is degasify; oxidating into water vapour in the upper atmosphere. It is the CO2 induced warming that raises the threat from Methane.
If you want a better or fuller answer, you will have to ask one of our scientist contributors. Or look it up.
Why don't you understand? Did I mention CH4 or the entire CH group? One of your scientist contributors? How do I get on payroll?
I don't understand because if you mean something different then you make no sense.
Of course you're confused. You're in over your head and your comments are ridiculous to say the least.
How about burning wood?
He sounds like Cretin. A thing is a thing is a thingy.
I think you made a typo. It's YOU who makes no sense and doesn't understand.
If 80% of the carbon in oil comes out as emissions, what happens to the other 20% of the carbon? Where does it go?
Good idea, but people complain about the smoke. Golden for one is a place where last I heard, new wood burning stoves have been banned.
There's a major difference in strip mining for minerals and strip mining for petro-chemicals. Would we allow massive gold, copper or iron ore strip mines that covered hundreds of square kms, put out massive amounts of pollutants and seriously degraded a major Canadian watershed?
Read the books and draw your own conclusions.
It's some of the most informed and educated people on the planet warning us about the dangers of uncontrolled exploitation of unconventional fossil fuels as well as coal and eventually conventional oil.
Why have experts if we're not going to listen to them, or professionals. Just for fun you could let the guy who tunes your car fly you on your next vacation or your priest/rabi/imam could perform your surgery the next time you need it.
Why do we even listen to the totally uniformed on this issue and that includes the "politicians" who are pretending to be our government at the moment.
No, but I can read and comprehend above the level of a third grader.
Just read the IPCC 2007 Physical Report or any number of books and articles put out by people actually doing research in the field, not working for thinly disguised PR firms funded by the oil industry like ExxonMobil and GMI.
With all the valid information out there, it must take a pretty concerted effort to remain ignorant on the real situation around Global Warming.