Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet in the thread - I checked the last couple of pages and didn't see anything..
CBC.ca | Q | Is oil-sands oil the most ethical oil on Earth?
Apparently, there is an argument to be made for the oil sands on the basis that it is more ethical to get our oil from there, rather than Saudi Arabia or Iran - where we are in effect, supporting acts against humanity. I strongly suggest you listen to the beginning of the Sept. 15th Q podcast - where Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk duke it out.
I personally think it's a load of crap. Ezra is also a columnist for the Sun Media and has some serious conservative ties that would make Fox news anchors blush. There may be a valid argument in there, but the real solution is to shift to alternative resources much in the same way that reducing AGW requires emission reductions instead of wasting tax dollars to build a climate 'research station' in the Arctic. The illusion of altruism here is really a thinly veiled argument in favour of economic stability, regardless of consequence.
CBC.ca | Q | Is oil-sands oil the most ethical oil on Earth?
Apparently, there is an argument to be made for the oil sands on the basis that it is more ethical to get our oil from there, rather than Saudi Arabia or Iran - where we are in effect, supporting acts against humanity. I strongly suggest you listen to the beginning of the Sept. 15th Q podcast - where Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk duke it out.
I personally think it's a load of crap. Ezra is also a columnist for the Sun Media and has some serious conservative ties that would make Fox news anchors blush. There may be a valid argument in there, but the real solution is to shift to alternative resources much in the same way that reducing AGW requires emission reductions instead of wasting tax dollars to build a climate 'research station' in the Arctic. The illusion of altruism here is really a thinly veiled argument in favour of economic stability, regardless of consequence.
Last edited:
But sewage is usually treated. Mercury is not exactly anything to be objective about. It does cause brain damage. Mercury is only one of may pollutants being produced/refined and dumped.
well I have to ask...what part of there is no fungal communities on the soil above the bitumen deposits that you dont understand?
Thats harsh land my friend,it's sitting on bitumen outcrop where there is allmost NOTHING growing.
When they reclaim with topsoil there is something growing,your way out of your league here so dont try explaining reclamation when you dont even have a clue about how it's gone about ok?
Were replacing dead ground with vibrant growth....understand that part?
Repeat...allmost nothing grows on bitumen deposits,any clearer yet?
There was no fungal communities to begin with,just bitumen laden sand,very few trees and grasses.
Jheeesh,stick to your fish and let us guys that work with the stuff do our job.
Lets not leave out the 5 or so pulp mills that have operated on the Athabasca,that would be real bad science to do so and would show an obvious bias.
Here's where I have a problem with Tonnington,he says
but he leaves out one important factor and that's the same level of nutrients from WHERE? The soil they stockpiled while roadbuilding to get to the deposit?
Surely you cant mean the overburden off the top of the deposit but I think thats what your saying and that shows you are very ignorant on any kind of reclamation.
And especially ignorant on the geology of the deposits,what caused them to be exposed and the ground directly above them,it means lots because that also has a lot to do with natural leeching of bitumen into the Athabasca,something you keep conveniently leaving out.
Any and I mean any geoligist or geotech (as they like to be called now) would call you on allmost all of your assumptions and work you over real good in a heartbeat on your claims.
Your an internet environmentalist like the many that have surfaced over the years,totally ignorant of the land here and the environment but base all your findings on totally biased reports from the pembina institute or any organization that has a seat on their bandwagon and facts be damned.
I'll tell you something else,the big players in the oilsands dont care what you think,they will hire the best and brightest to keep running and be environmentally responsible and pass the buck on to the consumer at the pump.
So when it costs twice as much to fill your car up because of all the environuts working off of google then dont bitch,the due dilligence would have been done anyways but ignorant fearmongers like your ilk will eventually cost the local joe and jane twice as much to buy anything because of your fearmongering.
I could go on and on but I have another 20,000 tonnes of mature fine tailings to remove from a pond tomorrow,one down,many to go.
Our budget just went from 400 million to 800 million next year on the TRO project,something Tonnington keeps ignoring even though I posted a link explaining the new technology and a video days ago,he keeps going on and on about fungal communities that didnt exist.
Last edited:
And if it hadn't been for the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the Enbridge leak in Michigan, etc., nothing would have happened. Dramatic accidents get news, which causes well deserved collatoral damage to the tar sands-an ongoing mess.
The US ambassador is saying below, specifically, the tar sands needs to be cleaned up. Because the tar sands are getting their filthy butt kicked around in the media and will lose US markets if they don't-because they haven't been doing it enough. The tar sands are big time duck killers. Time to go to bed Kak.
http://www.calgarysun.com/money/2010/09/15/15362936.html
U.S. ambassador urges cleaner oilsands
By MARKUS ERMISCH, Calgary Sun
Last Updated: September 15, 2010 2:52pm
U.S. President Barack Obama’s man in Canada says the industry and government must do “more” to clean up the oilsands.
But David Jacobson, U.S. ambassador to Canada, declined to say what exactly that means, as diplomats do not seek to give advice to foreign governments.
Quoting David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Jacobson explained why: “I did not become a four-star general by stepping on land mines.”
In a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, Jacobson talked about the importance of Canada as the major supplier of oil to the U.S. Most of that oil comes from Alberta’s oilsands.
“But, and I don’t think I’m alone in saying that, more must be done” to shrink the environmental impact of the oilsands, he said. “I think that more must be done because it’s necessary to do more for the environment.”
Mining the oilsands and producing oil from the thick bitumen requires more energy that conventional oil extraction. Also, oilsands mining includes deforestation and the use of tailings ponds. Industry, however, is required to reclaim the land disturbed by oilsands mining.
When my geotech buddy "dirt Dave" gets back From Newfoundland from his vacation(left this morning)I'll get him to sign on at this forum and maybe explain it to Tonnington in Tech terms and he will walk circles around him as he is very knowledgeable about the environment around here as he deals with it every day.He was too busy laughing the other day when I showed him some of the posts as I was typing a retort to Tonnington so he got worked up,I'll make it a priority though when he gets back.
He will eat Tonnington for breakfast and spit out the bones.;-)
Give me a break,your car will kill more birds in your lifetime then the oilsands did in that incident,so will your cat.
See my latest posts about the ponds,when my company reclaims them all in 5 years what will you whine about next????????
Sorry dude but we are reclaiming them,watch or listen to the latest news in a few days to see.
Most of you are so ignorant on the oilsands and running off an agenda that I can own you in a few posts,keep em coming or better yet,come on up and see for yourself.
He will eat Tonnington for breakfast and spit out the bones.;-)
Give me a break,your car will kill more birds in your lifetime then the oilsands did in that incident,so will your cat.
See my latest posts about the ponds,when my company reclaims them all in 5 years what will you whine about next????????
Sorry dude but we are reclaiming them,watch or listen to the latest news in a few days to see.
Most of you are so ignorant on the oilsands and running off an agenda that I can own you in a few posts,keep em coming or better yet,come on up and see for yourself.
The tarsands are not offshore oil wells,our record is a thousand times better my friend,why would you even try for a comparison is beyond me.
I'm not trying to split hairs on this with you ironsides. To offer an extreme analogy, I can't imagine that there would be a lot of people that would be comfortable drawing a glass of drinking water from a source that was out of the proverbial pipe that advertised "treated-clean" sewage water. The psychological element aside, we all know (or have heard stories) of the kinds of toxic things that flushed every day.
Perhaps a better example would be the fallout/toxic components that is contributed in to the environment from land-fill sites... The point I am making is that it is an unfortunate byproduct related to humanity.
A blame the cat strategy. Brilliant.
According to your post, exactly zero, nil, none, nada toxic tailings ponds have been cleaned up. A fantastic record!!!!!!
How about Bhopal, India or Chernobyl?... Do those incidents justify the abolishment of the chemical or nuclear business?.. Hell, people dies in cars, on bicycles, boats and airplanes everyday, would you support motions to rid the planet of these evils?
The American political machine is backing themselves into a corner on this. A pipeline is under construction from the Ft. Mac (or Ft. Sask?) area that is destined for the West coast. The sole purpose of this is to supply the Asian markets.
Pelosi is taking a big gamble in playing hardball. If the US economy doesn't green itself as they have planned, they will still rely on oil but the friendly and secure source from AB will be servicing a deeper customer base all of the sudden. And make no mistake, the Asian markets are sitting back quietly, waiting for any chance to kick in money (vast sums) to secure their energy future.
So is Dick Cheney.
Well, how about it? Cats kill birds, right?
i suppose that you'd get behind a motion to exterminate all of these murder-cats as a preventative measure to save our avian friends?
Just as predicted. A not-so-subtle twisting of reality to deny that Suncor has cleaned up a former tailings pond.
Does that make you a denier?
How about eliminating food because gives us diabetes?
Show me the link where the toxic talings pond has been eliminated. I heard they just drained it into another bigger toxic pond. Tar sands trickery. PR BS.
Pelosi, like many Americans wants alternative energy to gain some traction in the USA and Alberta is lobbying against it with Big Oil. Why are we subsidizing the hydrocarbon fuel business? Big Oil and Alberta are the enemy of a progressive energy future.
That is the base logic that you are using for the oil sands
Got a radio?.. Even CBC announced it over the last 2 days. Suncor will be making the official announcement this week.
Really funny... Alberta is lobbying against green initiatives through "Big Oil" (insert sinister music: here) are they?
(got a link by chance?)
We've been down the "subsidizing" the oil business many times and you still haven't provided anything that establishes this other than an Op/Ed piece that used the word subsidy in the title and later referred to all of the suspect elements as "tax incentives".
As it stands, Pelosi is cutting off her nose to spite her face. The US economy is currently (and for the foreseeable future) in no way prepared for the massive technological and infrastructure expenditures to implement any kind of meaningful green strategy. She's poking a stick into a hornets nest on this one and it will be the average American citizen that will bear the brunt of this decision.
You are a propaganda machine on this issue, and not a very good one at that... here's a little advice; only the naive and gullible believe the hype that is being spewed these days, and as every debate rages, another person gets educated and resents those self proclaimed eco fringe groups that traffik in misinformation, embellishment and lies.
In the end, I owe you a debt of gratitude for if it wasn't for the over-the-top commentary by groups that espouse your views (and especially the suspect techniques to convey the fabrications), fewer people would have been forced to really analyze the issues.
Kevin Grandia: Canadian Oil Lobby Trying to Kill U.S. Clean Energy Policy
Kevin Grandia
Managing Editor of DeSmogBlog
Posted: June 30, 2010 05:16 PM
Canadian Oil Lobby Trying to Kill U.S. Clean Energy Policy
What's Your Reaction:
Who knew the tentacles of the Canadian oil lobby could reach all the way down to Washington, D.C.?
And who knew they were so powerful?
I am sure many Americans will find it rather disturbing that a foreign entity, no matter how friendly they may be (full disclosure: I am Canadian), is holding so much sway over the clean energy future of their country.
In a lengthy and well-researched new expose on the Canada oil sands industry's lobbying activities in Washington, D.C., reporter Geoff Dembicki untangles a complicated web that includes former Republican insiders, dirty energy front groups and powerful politicians on both sides of the border that are doing their best to kill U.S. clean energy legislation.
Take former Republican Congressman Tom Corcoran for instance.
Ironically, Corcoran was born in Ottawa, Illinois which shares its name with Ottawa, Ontario, the capitol of Canada. It seems a little Canadian patriotism has rubbed off on Corcoran because he is now working on behalf of that country's oil sands lobby and against clean energy for his own country.
Corcoran heads an organization called the "Center for North American Energy Security [pdf]." His group's membership includes heavyweights of the Canadian oil sand operations like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.
Corcoran successfully lobbied to have a low-carbon fuel standard removed from the clean energy bill that passed through Congress last Fall.
"Ultimately, we got that deleted. And so what passed the House does not contain a low-carbon fuel standard, and what is being considered in the Senate at the moment does not contain that either," bragged Corcoran at the time.
The low-carbon fuel standard is a policy that would put a heavy price on the use of the most intensive carbon emitting fuels, which would include oil produced from Canada's tar sands.
The process for making a barrel of oil from tar sands is very dirty and energy intensive.
Think of taking a bucket of roof tar, dumping it into a sand box and then stirring it around until it forms giant glob of black sandy goo -- that's tar sand. Now put that sandy goo in your sink and dump super-hot water on it until the oil separates from the sand -- that's how tar sand is made into oil.
Now imagine that process being done day in and day out in on an industrial scale so large that it can be seen from space.
All that water and sand left over from the process -- laden with heavy metals and toxins -- is pumped into giant holding areas that form massive lakes of sludge. These lakes are so large that they are considered one of the largest human-built projects in the world.
These "lakes" of sludge are so toxic that one of the oil sands companies, Syncrude, was just charged in the death of 1,600 migrating ducks that landed on the sludge and died.
Lobbyists like Tom Corcoran are helping to make sure that this dirty oil continues to flow South to the United States free-and-clear of any penalties being imposed on these oil companies for using our water, land and air as their free dumping ground.
In fact, Corcoran is so motivated that he hired another former Republican insider, Mike Whatley to help him out. According to the Lobbyist Disclosure database, Corcoran hired Mike Whatley and his DC lobby firm HBW Resources to work over Senators and members of Congress on behalf of "heavy oils, oil sands and oil shale."
Whatley, in turn, has his own pro-oil front group called the Consumer Energy Alliance that just so happens *surprise* to be supported by big players in the Canadian tar sands, like ConocoPhlilips, ExxonMobil, BP (yes, that BP) and Chevron.
Here's Whatley's photo -- he might be a familiar face to DC insiders because prior to defending the interests of foreign dirty oil companies, Whatley was the Chief of Staff to former Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole.
I have always been amazed by the intertwined school of oil lobbyists, political insiders and sympathetic front groups that plow the waters of Washington, DC politics, but who knew that the oily tentacles of the Canadian tar sands had such a grasp on the US capitol.
And this.
Oilsands boycott bad for U.S., premier warns
Oilsands boycott bad for U.S., premier warns
WASHINGTON - U.S. politicians will hurt their country's hopes of escaping addiction to oil from politically unstable regions if they move against Alberta's oilsands and their environmental impact, Premier Ed Stelmach warned a Washington, D.C., audience on Wednesday.
By The Edmonton Journal January 17, 2008
-----------------------------------
And this:
Phase out subsidies to oil and gas, Flaherty urged
Phase out subsidies to oil and gas, Flaherty urged
By Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service May 26, 2010
By Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service May 26, 2010
OTTAWA — The Harper government is being urged by its own senior bureaucrats to "lead by example" and deliver on a commitment to phase out subsidies for the oil and gas sector at a global economic summit next month in Toronto.
In a secret memorandum sent to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and obtained by Canwest News Service, the top bureaucrat in his department recommended it was time to end the tax incentives as part of a move toward a balanced federal budget.
The memo, dated March 18, 2010, follows up on a commitment made last year in Pittsburgh by leaders from the group of 20 economies to "rationalize and phase out" inefficient subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that encourage wasteful consumption to address both environmental and energy concerns.
In a secret memorandum sent to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and obtained by Canwest News Service, the top bureaucrat in his department recommended it was time to end the tax incentives as part of a move toward a balanced federal budget.
The memo, dated March 18, 2010, follows up on a commitment made last year in Pittsburgh by leaders from the group of 20 economies to "rationalize and phase out" inefficient subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that encourage wasteful consumption to address both environmental and energy concerns.
No,it was cleaned right up,it took that long for the mature fine tailings to settle,like i have been trying to explain and the link I posted many times explains in great detail.Either you cant read,have a comprehension problem or just plain dont want to see the ponds get cleaned up because it would interfere with your agenda.
Now by adding flocculent(polymer) it does settle and will release water in 21 days instead of 20 plus years.
This is the new trademarked technology I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring.
I'm pretty sure even a grade 4 class would have got it by now.
Mature fine tailings gone....water gone....start reclaim on pond....simple enough for ya?
Pond 6 will be next,i give it a year tops as it's shrinking very fast right now.
in 5 more years 4 more ponds will be undergoing reclamation.
simple enough for ya?
Soon there will only be one pond.
I highlighted a couple of the important components of your submission. Lets' deal with them one at a time:
Great, really great.... A blog submission from some eco-nuts backed-up by referencing another eco-publication for support is the smoking gun, is it?.. It's like gaining the opinion that heroin is the healthy alternative from a drug dealer who studied the issue by consulting with other pushers.
I can see where you get your logic and style from, ole Kevin stretches the boundaries of logic on this one... here's an example: Did you ever stop to think that the reason that the US gvt 86'd the carbon tax was that they knew it would drive-up the cost for consumers at a time when they could least afford it?....
Here's a hint for ya: When your economy is in the tank and your currency is weakening, what you don't do is drive up the cost of powering that economy.
.. And it is DTM... What part of "the US doesn't have the infrastructure or technology in place" to even consider this half-baked solution... How will the US heat homes or transport goods/people?.. Do you think that they ought to refuse the use of oil sands products for the next 15-20 years until the tech and infrastructure actually exists and rely on OPEC, Hugo Chavez or Nigerian dictators to fuel their economy?
And finally:
.. Ohhh, a secret memo?
Too bad it's such a secret, maybe there would have been a reference to an actual "subsidy" and not the tax incentives that they later reference.
Like I said in the last post, you provide nothing that backs-up the claim that the subsidies aren't tax incentives, which we all know are not subsidies.
Kevin Grandia
Managing Editor of DeSmogBlog
Posted: June 30, 2010 05:16 PM
Canadian Oil Lobby Trying to Kill U.S. Clean Energy Policy
Corcoran successfully lobbied to have a low-carbon fuel standard removed from the clean energy bill that passed through Congress last Fall.... The low-carbon fuel standard is a policy that would put a heavy price on the use of the most intensive carbon emitting fuels, which would include oil produced from Canada's tar sands.
Great, really great.... A blog submission from some eco-nuts backed-up by referencing another eco-publication for support is the smoking gun, is it?.. It's like gaining the opinion that heroin is the healthy alternative from a drug dealer who studied the issue by consulting with other pushers.
I can see where you get your logic and style from, ole Kevin stretches the boundaries of logic on this one... here's an example: Did you ever stop to think that the reason that the US gvt 86'd the carbon tax was that they knew it would drive-up the cost for consumers at a time when they could least afford it?....
Here's a hint for ya: When your economy is in the tank and your currency is weakening, what you don't do is drive up the cost of powering that economy.
.. And it is DTM... What part of "the US doesn't have the infrastructure or technology in place" to even consider this half-baked solution... How will the US heat homes or transport goods/people?.. Do you think that they ought to refuse the use of oil sands products for the next 15-20 years until the tech and infrastructure actually exists and rely on OPEC, Hugo Chavez or Nigerian dictators to fuel their economy?
And finally:
.. Ohhh, a secret memo?
Too bad it's such a secret, maybe there would have been a reference to an actual "subsidy" and not the tax incentives that they later reference.
Like I said in the last post, you provide nothing that backs-up the claim that the subsidies aren't tax incentives, which we all know are not subsidies.
The part about no fungal communities. The paper you yourself cited in the thread about US ambassador to visit oil sands, that paper contradicts the "no fungal communities on the soil above the bitumen deposits"
Did you even read it?
Any soil that has organic matter in it will have a microbial community growing in it.
I'm just going by what the industry says, and the paper you posted here bud. So don't get your panties twisted in a knot because you don't understand soil science...
No, you're not. The ground wasn't dead. Muskeg isn't dead. Boreal forest isn't dead.
Jesus christ you're thick...you remove soil above the deposit and stockpile it...There is plenty of life in the soil you're removing.
And the soil you removed
.
Stick to running your machines, and leave the matters scientific to people trained in science. How is it that you know better than the folks who wrote the paper that you called an unbiased report?
I think you are waging a losing battle Tonington. Kakato is "boots on the ground" working in Alberta and comes across as knowing what he is talking about. Sometimes stuff out of a book doesn't exactly coincide with what happens in real life. So if I was you it might be better to stick to Spud Island stuff and leave the Alberta stuff to Kakato. He's working in an area where nothing grows for 10 months of the year.
I'll wager that you don't even know what the bone of contention is here.
I never said he doesn't know how to move soil, or what the regulations are. He's made that abundantly clear that he's an expert in that respect. My specific bone of contention is that he and captain morgan have said that the reclaimed sites are left in better condition than they were found, which simply isn't true if based on an objective analysis.
Which is why I have taken the expert findings, that Kakato himself posted, as evidence that kakato and captain morgan are wrong. The soil has lower microbial activity, has higher pH, has less organic matter, less dissolved organic matter, is a higher temperature, and is more compacted. None of that is better than the undisturbed land. In fact the organic matter is less than half of what is found in undisturbed sites. The fungal communities are gone, and in the boreal forest, the trees rely on fungal communities to secure nutrients from a system that already has tight nutrient cycles. So if the reclaimed land is cycling even less, has a smaller pool of organic matter, and the microbial communities are decimated, then that is objective evidence that the land is NOT left in a condition better than it was found.
I'm by no means an expert, but I know how to read papers. I know where to look for expert findings, and an online forum like this one isn't where you find informed scientific experts.
Look, either the land is in better shape, or it isn't. I'll always trust findings that have gone through peer review over that of opinions of someone on a forum...
You guys are unbelievable. You tell me to stick to my own stuff, but you apparently know better than the experts at Statistics Canada. captain morgan apparently knows better than the climatologists. Yet you think I should stick to my field.
What's was your line of work anyway? I'll be sure to mention it from now on whenever you have something to say that isn't directly related to your work...