Alberta oil sands

[Topaz]

I don`t know if this is true but while listening to a radio program from Texas, the host said they the US congress has past a bill making it illegal for the US government to buy oil from countries that don`t look after their environmnet because of gloabl warming. He said this was a real stupid thing that congress did because they means the US oil companies could get their oil from CANADA any longer. This surprise me for one thing, that they knew about our oil sands and two, what the congress did.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don`t know if this is true but while listening to a radio program from Texas, the host said they the US congress has past a bill making it illegal for the US government to buy oil from countries that don`t look after their environmnet because of gloabl warming. He said this was a real stupid thing that congress did because they means the US oil companies could get their oil from CANADA any longer. This surprise me for one thing, that they knew about our oil sands and two, what the congress did.

It's not true and reveals a complete lack of understanding for oil and distillate contracts for the "US government". America has invested billions in Canadian tar sands development, even when Ottawa screwed things up. That is not going to end.

[WIP]

I don`t know if this is true but while listening to a radio program from Texas, the host said they the US congress has past a bill making it illegal for the US government to buy oil from countries that don`t look after their environmnet because of gloabl warming. He said this was a real stupid thing that congress did because they means the US oil companies could get their oil from CANADA any longer. This surprise me for one thing, that they knew about our oil sands and two, what the congress did.

A nation as thirsty for oil as the U.S., is going to find some way around any such laws passed by Congress! They are not going to allow the neglect of the only major source of foreign oil that is not located in a banana republic dictatorship or a hostile Muslim state that will use the money to wage jihad, finance terrorism and propagate their religion (like Saudi Arabia).

In a way, I wish it was true since those oil sands are a dirty source of oil to develop. Maybe one of the Albertans can confirm or disconfirm what I heard about tar sands production on the radio about a year ago: namely, that the separating and refining of oil from the tar sands consumes about 40% of Canada's total of natural gas consumed annually. If this is true, it would explain why our CO2 emissions are going through the roof! I wonder if anyone connected with the oil patch has explored the feasibility of using nuclear power to run the steam-injection boilers? This would at least bring it closer to emission levels from regular oil production.

[GostHacked]

Again you fail to provide link to back anything you say Topaz.

The problem with the Oil Sands, is that it takes quite a lot more energy to extract the oil. More energy than what is gained by extracting the oil. Using up large amounts of natural gas to heat up the soil enough to extract the oil.

Remember that Carbon Dioxide is good for plants

[oreodontist]

I don`t know if this is true but while listening to a radio program from Texas, the host said they the US congress has past a bill making it illegal for the US government to buy oil from countries that don`t look after their environmnet because of gloabl warming. He said this was a real stupid thing that congress did because they means the US oil companies could get their oil from CANADA any longer. This surprise me for one thing, that they knew about our oil sands and two, what the congress did.

Radio program? " I heard on a radio program that..... and this means..... (fill in anything you want )

[WIP]

Radio program? " I heard on a radio program that..... and this means..... (fill in anything you want )

It means that I was asking for someone in the know (obviously not you!) to tell me whether this was an accurate statement. Can you read?

Edited April 6, 2008 by WIP

[Topaz]

So all of you who didn't believe me about the US Congress passing a bill not to buy oil from countries that harm the environment are the ones that are wrong and not me. This week the Alberta gov't is spending 25 million and are DC, to show the oil sands aren't polluting but we know better. The US bill was passed last fall but since the US is desperate for oil they are going to do some changes to the bill and hope it passes the changes in congress.

[geoffrey]

Topaz, there has been talk about it, but let's not be ridiculous.

Where is the US going to get the few million barrels they import every day? Iran? Sudan? Venezula? Don't think so. They'll remain a customer of Alberta so long as there is oil in the ground.

Either way, we'd just sell it to China if they packed up and left. Do you think they're ok with that? Enbridge is already constructing the pipeline to do it.

[Topaz]

Topaz, there has been talk about it, but let's not be ridiculous.

Where is the US going to get the few million barrels they import every day? Iran? Sudan? Venezula? Don't think so. They'll remain a customer of Alberta so long as there is oil in the ground.

Either way, we'd just sell it to China if they packed up and left. Do you think they're ok with that? Enbridge is already constructing the pipeline to do it.

I'm telling you that last fall the congress passed a bill to not take oil from countries that harm the environment, I didn't say it was smart for them to do it since they used more oil outside of China. The US congress probably didn't realize how much damage was being done in Alberta so now they are going to change the law to make a special exemption to allow Canadian oil fron the tar sands.

[msj]

I'm telling you that last fall the congress passed a bill to not take oil from countries that harm the environment, I didn't say it was smart for them to do it since they used more oil outside of China. The US congress probably didn't realize how much damage was being done in Alberta so now they are going to change the law to make a special exemption to allow Canadian oil fron the tar sands.

Now all you have to do is show us the bill.

[oreodontist]

Now all you have to do is show us the bill.

Topaz is known for making things up. I don't say she does it on purpose but she has little perspective of opinion vs reality. Sort of like the gossip queen in the office who over hears some snippet and gets it all twisted.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this 'mistake'

...and the 'exemption' bill. (via the generalized 'they'

It's part of her defensive mechanism coping with the real world.

Edited May 17, 2008 by oreodontist

[jbg]

Topaz is known for making things up. I don't say she does it on purpose but she has little perspective of opinion vs reality. Sort of like the gossip queen in the office who over hears some snippet and gets it all twisted.

I am an American and I've never heard of this "law".

[msj]

I am an American and I've never heard of this "law".

Well, that certainly doesn't prove anything.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe they are referring to this (Pub.L. 110-140):

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, enacted in December,

prevents federal agencies from purchasing "alternative or synthetic" fuels

whose lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are higher than conventional

petroleum.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15687

Edited May 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Under Section 526 of that law, tar sands are considered to be an alternative fuel.

But the law requires oil sold to the U.S. government and produced from alternative sources to emit fewer greenhouse gases than oil produced from conventional crude sources.

That's a big problem, says IBD

So what will it cost to bring emissions from the tar sands down to conventional levels? I wonder if IBD not to mention the US military will have any problem with the price of oil once this cost is added to the conventional costs of exploration, production, royalties and speculative profit taking?

I guess it'll all come down to what we need the least of, emissions or profits. It should be an easy choice.

[Guest American Woman]

So what will it cost to bring emissions from the tar sands down to conventional levels? I wonder if IBD not to mention the US military will have any problem with the price of oil once this cost is added to the conventional costs of exploration, production, royalties and speculative profit taking?

I guess it'll all come down to what we need the least of, emissions or profits. It should be an easy choice.

If the emissions from the tar sands are above conventional levels, wouldn't that be going against Kyoto?- and Canada supports Kyoto, doesn't it?

[bush_cheney2004]

If the emissions from the tar sands are above conventional levels, wouldn't that be going against Kyoto?- and Canada supports Kyoto, doesn't it?

No, in practice, Canada has never supported Kyoto. In fact, the USA reduced growth in GHG's more than Canada, and it didn't even ratify the treaty.

[eyeball]

Most Canadians support Kyoto but we don't have much say over what our government does, in practice at least.

[bush_cheney2004]

Most Canadians support Kyoto but we don't have much say over what our government does, in practice at least.

Talk is cheap....if "most Canadians" actually supported Kyoto, we would see it in energy consumption and choices...but we don't.

[Guest American Woman]

Most Canadians support Kyoto but we don't have much say over what our government does, in practice at least.

I can understand that, but it doesn't seem as if the same principle is applied to Americans; doesn't seem to me as if we get a 'pass' for not having much to say over what our government does in practice. Furthermore, that doesn't make our governments all that different, yet you said Americans are afraid of their government but Canada's government is afraid of the people. If you don't have much say in what your government does in practice, I would hardly say your government is afraid of the people.

[Oleg Bach]

I can understand that, but it doesn't seem as if the same principle is applied to Americans; doesn't seem to me as if we get a 'pass' for not having much to say over what our government does in practice. Furthermore, that doesn't make our governments all that different, yet you said Americans are afraid of their government but Canada's government is afraid of the people. If you don't have much say in what your government does in practice, I would hardly say your government is afraid of the people.

Keyoto is a dumb thing...It there was a huge glass bubble over China then it makes sense. Those that push the accord as if it is a noble cause are usually very wealthy people who are totally dependent now on the cheap labour that is China who is also the worst polluter and human abuser on the planet. No matter how "green" we get..China and the other so-called developing nations will cause a black cloud of industrial human soot to blanket us all. The term "developing" is a mis-nomer..Clean nature maintained is fully evolved and developed. Greed based industry is not development it is actually de-development. We must realize that creating thing that we don't need in order to gather up wealth and status that we don't need is really quite insane..but who's to say that people running the show are sane? Untill we get the greed and power thing into prespective all the accords regarding managing nature are useless. Nature does not need a manager..we need one!

[Wild Bill]

Most Canadians support Kyoto but we don't have much say over what our government does, in practice at least.

How do you know this? Have you talked to most of them?

Perhaps you could give us some links.

I suspect you may have fallen into the same trap as what happened with Stockwell Day when he first won the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party. He seemed to believe that the 'silent majority' of Canadians were Christian fundamentalists like himself. He then promptly tried to govern as if majority support would be automatic. Of course, he went down in flames. His sad lesson was that his views were NOT that of the majority!

Even if we agree with you just for the sake of argument (which I certainly don't, BTW!) a lot depends on how you ask the question. If the poll asks:

"Should Canada support the Kyoto Treaty and help save the planet?" you would get a majority agreeing with you.

If the question was rather:

"Should Canada support the Kyoto Treaty, given that there is disagreement among scientists as to what's really happening with the climate and how much is within Man's power to affect and also that it may cost you personally in the form of increased prices and taxes?" you'd likely get a very different answer.

Personally, I don't know anyone in my social circle of a practical frame of mind who supported Kyoto. Only school teachers and the like, all of whom taught english or art and NONE of whom taught maths or hard sciences like chemistry and physics! Not a true poll of course but it reinforces what I've learned over the years to listen to physics from physicists and politics from politicians.

[jbg]

If the question was rather:

"Should Canada support the Kyoto Treaty, given that there is disagreement among scientists as to what's really happening with the climate and how much is within Man's power to affect and also that it may cost you personally in the form of increased prices and taxes?" you'd likely get a very different answer.

To that it should be added:

If Canada enforces Kyoto and India and China, two rapidly growing economies with almost no environmental regulations continue to spew greenhouse gases with abandon, will it likely influence the climate, or otherwise be a desirable action?

[eyeball]

I can understand that, but it doesn't seem as if the same principle is applied to Americans; doesn't seem to me as if we get a 'pass' for not having much to say over what our government does in practice. Furthermore, that doesn't make our governments all that different, yet you said Americans are afraid of their government but Canada's government is afraid of the people. If you don't have much say in what your government does in practice, I would hardly say your government is afraid of the people.

Your constitution apparently says you can overthrow your government or impeach it at the very least. In light of what I've seen the power of impeachment being wasted on not to mention what its ignored...I'm amazed your people haven't stormed Washington. In retrospect I think you're probably right though, our gvernment is probably more in contempt of our people than frightened. In any case there was a time I think when most Canadians showed support for Kyoto, in the wake of easy motherhood type of questions like the first one that WB posited. Nowadays, I think WB may be right, Canadians are becoming resigned to the idea that nothing can, will or should be done about AGW. Interestingly both our governments must have gotten enough of a head full of that pro-Kyoto steam that the public did demonstrate, and have crafted policys that on the face of them at least are intended to do something after all. Perhaps these will fizzle in the wake of people's growing resignation, OTOH they may become the basis for a new way to squeeze money out of people.

I can't ignore the fact I've seen a lot of GW fence-sitters make up their minds during this past cold winter and spring. I also see more people treating science with the same sort of skepticism and contempt they have for politics. This can't be a good thing. If anything humans are even farther adrift on a deep wide ocean of confusion and stupidity. This is not where we want to be given the huge problems that are confronting us.

[Wild Bill]

I also see more people treating science with the same sort of skepticism and contempt they have for politics. This can't be a good thing. If anything humans are even farther adrift on a deep wide ocean of confusion and stupidity. This is not where we want to be given the huge problems that are confronting us.

Actually, I see this as a healthy trend! The very soul of science is skepticism!

Besides, I don't see it so much as doubt for science as no longer accepting ANYTHING said by someone in a white coat! People are slowly realizing that many institutions that purport to be scientific are actually political and therefore deserving of the same skepticism given to politicians.

When David Suzuki was quoted as saying that anybody who disagreed with Global Warming should be thrown in jail he "jumped the shark", taking much of his movement with him.

Perhaps it's still too early to hope that the average Canadian would at least understand how a light bulb works, it being a simple invention over a 100 years old. However, skepticism is a good first step!