TAR SANDS - another national disgrace

[mabudon]

RE: TAR SANDS - another n

WOW as for anyone asking what happened to Karlin, I don't know why he would bother to respond to what is almost a perfect Rush Limbaugh discussion.
The Tar Sands business is the same smoke-and-mirrors trick as ethanol, and both "solutions" are perfect examples of the 1950's mentality which is at play as mentioned in the first page. No-one can dispute the fact that the "alternatives" to gasoline seem to be other stuff that works in the exact same manner, no seeming inclination at all to look for actual alternatives

And shame on everyone who actually smugly posted "oh but Karlin HATES Canada". What a friggin moronic thing to say, and another good reason for the fellow to just decide that the idiots spouting this crap obviously aren't going to discuss the article posted, simply go to ad-hominem attacks to make the facts go away....

How is not wanting to choke the country to death, to continue on a road that will most certainly end sometime soon, a show of "hatred" for our country???

Anyone who has simply attacked Karlin should really think a bit harder about what their definition of "discussion" is, if you're simply going to attack the messenger and call them names, you might just want to get some spray paint and go out painting crap on other folks property or some other such constructive activity, as carrying on posting insults here just makes you all tuly pathetic

Glad you posted the article, Karlin

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: TAR SANDS - another n

The Tar Sands business is the same smoke-and-mirrors trick as ethanol

Are you joking?

 

[TinMan]

Good point Mabudon,

I suspect by the intelligence of their argument that this group of posters atacking an opposing viewpoint are 14 years olds.,,,and their reliance on the Calgary Sun editorial pretty much confirms it. Open your eyes to the economic realities of the situation people, if you live in Canada right now you are not getting richer, in actuality you are getting poorer.

 

[fuflans]

Commodities pulling back but upturn seen resuming: TD

2006-07-11 15:29:00

TORONTO (CP) - Commodity prices receded by 3.3 per cent in June - 5.4 per cent excluding energy - and the decline is likely to continue into 2007, economists at TD Bank (TSX:TD) reported Tuesday.

The bank's commodity price index had soared by nine per cent in the first five months of this year, but the June pullback, excluding oil and gas, was the largest in almost five years.

Precious metals dropped 12.7 per cent in the month and base metals lost 9.8 per cent, while forest products were shaved by 2.5 per cent and the energy subindex was flat.

"We still see scope for further adjustment over the next several months," TD senior economist Derek Burleton said in a commentary to the report, which forecasts a steep decline in oil prices.

"A looming mid-business-cycle slowdown in the U.S. economy will erect a hurdle in the way of commodity markets," Burleton added.

"Prices for crude, base metals and, to a lesser extent, forest products appear to be most vulnerable to downward pressure in that environment, whereas gold and silver prices are expected to gain ground."

The next turning point is expected in the second quarter of 2007, "when early signs should emerge that the U.S. economy has found its footing," he wrote.

"Then, the secular upswing in commodity prices which has been helped along by rapid growth in the developing economies should be ready for another leg."

The TD report observes that crude oil traded in a range between $70 and $72 US per barrel during June before hitting a record just over $75 in early July "despite the increasing focus during the month on the growing abundance of supply globally."

It forecasts a price of $55 US per barrel by year-end and $45 by mid-2007.

Natural gas declined four per cent in June, bringing its loss since mid-December to 55 per cent. Assuming no major hurricane damage to Gulf of Mexico energy installations and near-average winter temperatures, TD sees a lift in natural gas prices by year-end.

In the forest sector, pulp prices rose 2.8 per cent to a 10-year high of $725 US per ton but lumber sagged 8.3 per cent and faces "a broad-based slowdown in the U.S. housing sector."

The only commodity sector with an overall price increase in June was agriculture, as hog prices fattened by 8.8 per cent and cattle ran up 6.1 per cent while wheat, flaxseed, canola and barley showed minor gains.

In base metals, after June's pullback of almost 10 per cent followed stunning 15 per cent gains in both April and May, "we expect a further correction in prices in the order of 20 to 30 per cent through the first quarter of 2007, followed by a moderate recovery later in the year," the TD report said.

Gold, meanwhile, suffered its first losing month in a year, falling from a quarter-century high of $725 US an ounce to below $600. However, the TD economists predict that geopolitical jitters and U.S.-dollar weakness will keep gold between $650 and $725 US an ounce over the next 18 months.

And silver's 26 per cent retreat between mid-May and late June "is likely to prove temporary" despite the fading of film-photography demand, as the metal increasingly is seen as a shield against uncertainty.

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Mining/2006/07/11/1679523-cp.html

What price does oil have to be at for the tar sands to be profitible? All we've been hearing about lately are spiralling costs.

 

[Karlin]

Weel, now that I've read the critics, none of whom responded to the meat of my post, I will just say that they are definately "on-side"with the powers that be now.

its just too much to fight the Elites, when you boobs side with them. I've sen too much to back off my position, I know that the corporate-Elite-government conspiracy loves it when commoners like you back them up. They will still spit on you anyhow.

IF Global Warming is not a good enough reason to reduce our emissions, to reduce our use of fossil fuels, then ok, its your world, you can have it and there is nothing I can do about how you want to use it, abuse it, whatever.

Just one thing - please post a bond for repairs though, okay?


k

 

[SaintLucifer]

I'm glad you're beginning to notice. The US DOES have alot of bad points, make no mistake of it, it's not ALL bad. The same applies to every country. Watch posters who are consistent and you'll better catch my drift.

As for the Tar Sands, it's wealth for Canada, so what's the problem?

Exactly. The tar sands has increased our GDP by billions of dollars. That's great. Its because Karlin would prefer Canadians to live on the street with no jobs and he wants the economy to collaspe. Obviously Karlin doesn't care whatsoever about the well-being of this country.

Might I point out this Tar Sands wealth benefits only Albertans which is wrong? That money should be redistributed amongst the provinces which it is not. It is high time the federal government tore into Alberta's profits and took them back to Ottawa where they belong. It is wrong that Ontario supported Alberta for so long not to see a cent forthcoming from Alberta.

 

[SaintLucifer]

Weel, now that I've read the critics, none of whom responded to the meat of my post, I will just say that they are definately "on-side"with the powers that be now.

its just too much to fight the Elites, when you boobs side with them. I've sen too much to back off my position, I know that the corporate-Elite-government conspiracy loves it when commoners like you back them up. They will still spit on you anyhow.

IF Global Warming is not a good enough reason to reduce our emissions, to reduce our use of fossil fuels, then ok, its your world, you can have it and there is nothing I can do about how you want to use it, abuse it, whatever.

Just one thing - please post a bond for repairs though, okay?


k

If it is a corporate elite government conspiracy we would be fascists today. As we are not I have no idea where you are getting your ideas. Tell me, do you work for a corporation?

 

[bluealberta]

I'm glad you're beginning to notice. The US DOES have alot of bad points, make no mistake of it, it's not ALL bad. The same applies to every country. Watch posters who are consistent and you'll better catch my drift.

As for the Tar Sands, it's wealth for Canada, so what's the problem?

Exactly. The tar sands has increased our GDP by billions of dollars. That's great. Its because Karlin would prefer Canadians to live on the street with no jobs and he wants the economy to collaspe. Obviously Karlin doesn't care whatsoever about the well-being of this country.

Might I point out this Tar Sands wealth benefits only Albertans which is wrong? That money should be redistributed amongst the provinces which it is not. It is high time the federal government tore into Alberta's profits and took them back to Ottawa where they belong. It is wrong that Ontario supported Alberta for so long not to see a cent forthcoming from Alberta.

To which I say, of course, bullshit. Where do you get the idea that Ontario supported Alberta for so long? Where do you think the transfer payments from Alberta go if not to Canada? Do you realize that Alberta contributed more in transfer payments than they made off oil royalties? How much more do you want, all of our money?

Get over yourself and your Ontario "center of the universe" mentality. Do you realize that back in the day, the West, including Alberta, paid for the cost of shipping raw products to the factories in Eastern Canada, and then paid for the cost of shipping finished products from Eastern Canada to Western Canada? No? Thought not. That was hardly fair, was it.

Anyway, your point is moot, because, despite your Ontario knows best attitude, resources and the revenues generated from resources, are a provincial issue. Which means if you want to have your suggestion taken seriously, then there will have to be a consitutional change, something that I don't really think you want to have happen, given the demands of Western Canada should this happen.

Whether you like it or not, federal government interference in provincial affairs will be lessened under a CPC government, thank God. The Libs could never keep their noses out of places that they had no jurisdiction in.

 

[Said1]

I'm glad you're beginning to notice. The US DOES have alot of bad points, make no mistake of it, it's not ALL bad. The same applies to every country. Watch posters who are consistent and you'll better catch my drift.

As for the Tar Sands, it's wealth for Canada, so what's the problem?

Exactly. The tar sands has increased our GDP by billions of dollars. That's great. Its because Karlin would prefer Canadians to live on the street with no jobs and he wants the economy to collaspe. Obviously Karlin doesn't care whatsoever about the well-being of this country.

Might I point out this Tar Sands wealth benefits only Albertans which is wrong? That money should be redistributed amongst the provinces which it is not. It is high time the federal government tore into Alberta's profits and took them back to Ottawa where they belong. It is wrong that Ontario supported Alberta for so long not to see a cent forthcoming from Alberta.

The vast majority of profit goes to private industry, who, the fed government gave all kinds of incentives (tax breaks) in order to attrack their investment.

 

[Karlin]

Okay, I admit it, and I am sorry for "cutting and running".
I see I got a wide reputation for that.

The problem is that I got too many things to post from alternate news sources, and I could do less of them but they seem too important.

So, I don't get back. Sorry, deal with it, and I will try to follow up more.

Maybe if I got some support...And how about something to respond to that goes with the topic? lol, kidding

OK - I still say
The tar sands are a huge "energy pit" and serves no one but the Elites and ya,a few 100, well 10,000 workers. The government subsidues would cover twice that many workers wages, its a money pit too.

What sense does it make to create jobs like that, why not create jobs with government money doing usefull things? Its not actual cash, I realise, but it is royalties not paid to the people, it is taxes on materials not paid - all things that would be usefull to any industry starting up, like a solar panel factory, made from the pellets produced from fossil fuels!! Good one K.

Later!!

 

[Said1]

LOL. No one replied. :lol:

C'ept pour moi, of course.

 

[Karlin]

oh well, it wouldn't make any difference anyhow eh?

Today the White House scientists are saying they were not free to speak thier minds on global warming. If people don't see by now that this is a huge farce, that we are living a lie for oil corporations, they never will.

 

[elevennevele]

oh well, it wouldn't make any difference anyhow eh?

Today the White House scientists are saying they were not free to speak thier minds on global warming. If people don't see by now that this is a huge farce, that we are living a lie for oil corporations, they never will.

Nasa’s head of climate study is saying we probably have only about 10 years left to reverse the downward trend caused by global warming. I don’t know if that means there is no hope beyond 10 years as global warming will simply accelerate till we are all dead, but we better start fixing it soon. I'm really not in the sporting mood to find out. The heat so far has already been killing off the elderly while the US seems to be running out of energy for their air conditioners.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Rewriting The Science

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

...

"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, we’ve got to be on a declining curve.

"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I don’t think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means we’re going to, that there’s a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can’t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can’t build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."

...

"I think we know a lot more about the tipping points," says Hansen. "I think we know about the dangers of even a moderate degree of additional global warming about the potential effects in the arctic about the potential effects on the ice sheets."

Note:

Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and he’s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way.

 

[Karlin]

Re:New call for SLOWDOWN of Tar Sands

Thanks for the kind and thoughtfull reply Elle.

Pembina Institute and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
http://tinyurl.com/obhfq

"The report calls for a moratorium on new projects and lease sales until the province develops a plan to protect the boreal forest in northeastern Alberta."

There are many concerns other than the boreal forest.
"Environmental concerns pose the greatest challenge to oil sands production growth. Greenhouse gas emissions, land reclamation, and water usage are the most common issues."

The amount of water being used at this point in global warming where water will become precious:
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=16683

The Tar Sands uses the Athabasca River for the huge amounts of water needed for the processes. Oil sands projects by Shell Canada Ltd. , Suncor Energy Inc. and Syncrude Canada Ltd. draw water from the same river.
TrueNorth wants permission to siphon off up to 907,000 barrels of water a day.

And if they keep expanding while the river keeps getting less volume as global warming dries up snowpack and runoff and glacier feeds to the Athabasca, then there won't be anough water. They are planning to proceed as if there isn't any global warming to factor into the river's flow.

Also, we must remember that the Tar Sands is just a way to turn a clean energy into a dirty one: one-third of Alberta's total natural gas output per year will be going to the Tar Sands operations. We could just use the natural gas and get the same energy output... but NOOOOOO, the USA wants its crude oil...


Its dumb. It is using Alberta's water and natural gas and not paying them enough for it, while a few top dogs get wealthy.

K

 

[iARTthere4iam]

I laugh when i hear people complain that we are gonna be out of water, the earth is warming and we are the cause and such.
Dig up that tar sand, bathe in that water. Keep that oil money, Alberta, and buy yourself a really nice hat. You earned it.
The earth warms the earth cools the earth gets hit by a meteor. Nothing in this world is guaranteed, no one will live forever. I can't believe that people waste their time worrying and complaining.
I don't care one wit about gobal warming, I live in Canada, it just means that when i am an old man I won't have to move to Florida. I worry much more about pollution (horrible chemicals dumped into the water and air). A warm climate won't kill the earth, relax people.

 

[Toro]

Re:New call for SLOWDOWN of Tar Sands

Its dumb. It is using Alberta's water and natural gas and not paying them enough for it, while a few top dogs get wealthy.

K

A few top dogs?

Have you been to Alberta lately, Karlin?

 

[Karlin]

Yes, I have been there., Not even 1% work in oil., if that is what you mean. I don't deny that Alberta gets a lot of wealth from the tar sands, but does it , and of it, go to "the average worker", other than those in Fort McMurray running stores and selling houses.

But the REAL ISSUE is ARE THE TAR SANDS A NATIONAL DISGRACE?
Some more fuel for my side [they are a disgrace] came out this week with a CBC program with David Suzuki, oft described as a true Canadian Hero.

TWO links :
"When Less is More"
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_lessismore.html

"when is enough, enough?"
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_enough.html

Neither has much in depth, but the TV show told statistics like that HALF of the natural gas used by ALL OF CANADA in a year will be used at the Tar Sands to change tar into crude [they argue that the natural gas could be used as consumer fuel instead.]

Or close to that kind of "efficiency debacle", what a waste of energy at a time when any energy we use must be used efficiently so we don't heat up the planet without even getting the ful benefits of the fuels we are burning. Dumb, just plain dumb. If thats the economy you are arguing we want to have, well it isn't sustainable so what are you doing next decade?
Got kids?

K

 

[Toro]

Yes, I have been there., Not even 1% work in oil., if that is what you mean. I don't deny that Alberta gets a lot of wealth from the tar sands, but does it , and of it, go to "the average worker", other than those in Fort McMurray running stores and selling houses.

Yes. That's why there is a tremendous in flow of people into Alberta. People wouldn't be going to Alberta if there wasn't a job shortage and wages were high. The tremendous gain from energy is flowing throughout the economy.

But the REAL ISSUE is ARE THE TAR SANDS A NATIONAL DISGRACE?
Some more fuel for my side [they are a disgrace] came out this week with a CBC program with David Suzuki, oft described as a true Canadian Hero.

TWO links :
"When Less is More"
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_lessismore.html

"when is enough, enough?"
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_enough.html

Neither has much in depth, but the TV show told statistics like that HALF of the natural gas used by ALL OF CANADA in a year will be used at the Tar Sands to change tar into crude [they argue that the natural gas could be used as consumer fuel instead.]

Or close to that kind of "efficiency debacle", what a waste of energy at a time when any energy we use must be used efficiently so we don't heat up the planet without even getting the ful benefits of the fuels we are burning. Dumb, just plain dumb. If thats the economy you are arguing we want to have, well it isn't sustainable so what are you doing next decade?
Got kids?

K

Depending on the methodology to convert bitumen, it takes 0.2-0.9 mmbtu of natural gas to make a barrell oil equivalent from the tar sands. The heat conversion rate between nat gas and oil is about 6, meaning 6 mmbtu is roughly equal to one barrell of oil. So, clearly, by using nat gas to extract oil from the tar sands creates energy at a rate of 7-30x per unit input of nat gas, the conversion process is efficient. With nat gas at $7, that means the cost of using nat gas ranges from $1.40 to $6.30 for a barrell that can yield up to $70.

You have to ask yourself, Karlin, why thousands and thousands of people are, every single day, running the numbers on the financial viability of the tar sands using all input costs including natural gas, then deciding to commit hundreds of billions of dollars in aggregate for something that wouldn't be economic?

As for using half of all the natural gas in Canada, my answer is "so?" Some who work in the field tell me that, in the end, there may be hundreds of years worth of natural gas in Alberta. If half the natural gas in Canada can be used to increase the amount of energy for export by 7-30x, and thus increase Canada's wealth by a similair amount, then that's a good investment.

And nat gas already is a consumer fuel. It is used to heat your house.

EDIT - Oops! Got the simple math wrong.

 

[hermanntrude]

I think people should stop getting their knickers ina twist about whether oil or gas is extracted or what price it gets or how much energy it takes to dig it up. the fact is that if it makes a profit (and this applies to everything not just oil or gas), people will do it. that's why prostitution happens and why burglary happens. if it makes money people will do it, whether it's good or not. money makes the world go round, sometimes in a very wonky way.

And we can't even change the demand cos it's not the consumers that lead the market, it's the middle men, the people who do the selling. If they can make more profit from oil than gas then they'll sell oil. no-one at the petrol pump cares where their petrol comes from except ina vague manner, but the people who do the refining and selling care cos they might have to lay out money to change their ways. Things will only change when the profit lies elsewhere. meanwhile people will probably cook their own grandmothers for oil

 

[Doryman]

I'm pretty sure working the Tar Sands now accounts for about half the wealth that comes into Newfoundland, through the legions of Newfie migrant workers that toil in them. I have a father, uncles, and countless friends and relations that owe their livelihood and well being to those north Albertan gulags, and I say god bless them.

From what I've seen and heard about, the tar sands in Alberta are well managed and as environmentally sound as possible, with the added bonus of adding to canada's wealth as a whole, and keeping the economies of the East running. God bless alberta, and long may the roughnecks in the west shift Tar.