Lets look at the oilsands in a different way.

[PIK]

Is the oil sands not a major oil spill? Caused by mother earth? And by processing the sands is the same as cleaning up a old gas station? There is land out there that was just oil sand and now is green, so really is this not bhelping and IMO they have come along way in having a cleaner process to get it out. And the river they keep bring up, my undersatanding is was poluted with oil even before the natives got there. Can we trust anything suzuki or may and redford tell us?

[fellowtraveller]

Can we trust anything suzuki or may and redford tell us?

We need to get all of them to come from all over the world on jet aircraft to discuss the issue at a big conference. First class tickets on commercial flights for the second string cast only, the heavy hitters all have their own aircraft.

[prairiechickin]

I was laughing when I watched that big protest in Washington over the XL pipeline. Tens of thousands of people from all over America -- how did they all get there? Bicycles I'm sure.

[waldo]

there's an interesting study out there, done by a couple of reputed scientists who were so ticked-off at the typical 'jet-setting' nonsense continually spouted off by the usual suspects. It's quite illuminating to show just how trivial, how miniscule, how irrelevant the energy utilization associated with all that 'jet-setting' stacks up - "mice nuts". Citation request!

[Evening Star]

there's an interesting study out there, done by a couple of reputed scientists who were so ticked-off at the typical 'jet-setting' nonsense continually spouted off by the usual suspects. It's quite illuminating to show just how trivial, how miniscule, how irrelevant the energy utilization associated with all that 'jet-setting' stacks up - "mice nuts". Citation request!

Yeah, especially if someone is flying on a commercial flight, that has to be one of the most energy-efficient ways to travel.

[bud]

PIK.. what do you know about the environmental effects of the oil sands operations on land and water?

[waldo]

Is the oil sands not a major oil spill? Caused by mother earth?

no - there is minimal natural "spillage" in relation to either mining or in-situ extraction methods.

There is land out there that was just oil sand and now is green, so really is this not bhelping and IMO they have come along way in having a cleaner process to get it out

my last recollection had overall reclamation at less than 0.2% of all affected areas. The government standard holds that a full 100% of affected area must be, eventually, reclaimed. The cleaner process you describe is, as yet, uncertain/unclear; principally,because there was no formalized methodology in place for monitoring, for review, for analysis. This appears to have been addressed to the point of recognizing the problem/deficiencies and beginning to move towards developing processes & methodologies for appropriate monitoring, review, analysis and reporting. And, of course, the "cleaner process" is one subject to a complete lack of consideration towards mitigating CO2 emissions.

[PIK]

PIK.. what do you know about the environmental effects of the oil sands operations on land and water?

Not to much, that is why I am asking these questions.

[August1991]

Is the oil sands not a major oil spill? Caused by mother earth?

You are correct in your reasoning. The problem arises because we are releasing all this CO2 into the atmosphere in a relatively short period of time.

"The spill" (as you put it) happened a long time ago, and took a long time to occur. We are cleaning the spill (and releasing the CO2) quickly.

The question is whether this sudden influx of CO2 will have any significant effects on the earth's environment. I think that it's fair to say that we simply don't know enough about the question now to have a definitive answer.

Edited January 12, 2012 by August1991

[sharkman]

Yes, it's an interesting take on the oilsands issue, and I think right for the most part.

[waldo]

The question is whether this sudden influx of CO2 will have any significant effects on the earth's environment. I think that it's fair to say that we simply don't know enough about the question now to have a definitive answer.

are you offering a narrow qualifier, 'this', to narrow CO2 emission considerations to the tarsands, per this threads discussion? Or, alternatively, are you speaking to the greater 'influx', at large... in any case, see... climate change!

[TimG]

are you speaking to the greater 'influx', at large... in any case, see... climate change!

There is no evidence of any net negative effects from climate change. The so-called science claiming nnet egative effects is largely unsubstantiated BS based on correlations with no evidence of causal links. We get a surfeit of this kind of crappy science because scientists, like any tabloid journalist, know that "disaster porn" sells. Edited January 12, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

... so-called science ... crappy science because scientists, like any tabloid journalist, know that "disaster porn" sells.

yes, we're all well acquainted with your denial premise that holds to themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, etc., etc., etc. I don't recall you using the 'selling disaster porn' theme previously... wonder which denier blog you're spending way too much time on?

[sharkman]

There is no evidence of any net negative effects from climate change. The so-called science claiming nnet egative effects is largely unsubstantiated BS based on correlations with no evidence of causal links. We get a surfeit of this kind of crappy science because scientists, like any tabloid journalist, know that "disaster porn" sells.

Good points, clearer heads need to prevail here.

[August1991]

are you offering a narrow qualifier, 'this', to narrow CO2 emission considerations to the tarsands, per this threads discussion? Or, alternatively, are you speaking to the greater 'influx', at large... in any case, see... climate change!

No, I am not playing a word game. When I say CO2 emissions, I am referring to all CO2 emissions and not just those from the oil sands. In effect, any oil in the ground is just sequestered CO2 from the past like trees are now. When we burn oil or trees, we are releasing the previously captured CO2. (BTW, from what I understand, the oil sands process means that the CO2 emissions from burning "oil sands based" gasoline is about 20% more than burning "Saudi oil based" gasoline.)

As I say, the question is whether this sudden release will have an effect on the earth's environment. We have had several threads on this forum debating this question in great detail.

Here's a link to a thread started by one of our most tenacious and exacting posters, Riverwind. IIRC, he started as a believer in climate change/global warming and then as he conducted research, he became agnostic. That's what I think too.

-----

For the record, I happen to think that we face far more severe environmental problems than CO2 emissions. I fear that the Left has unfortunately taken over environmental issues (watermelons, as they say) and as the Left tends to do, it has thoroughly botched it.

[waldo]

... link to a thread started by one of our most tenacious and exacting posters, Riverwind. IIRC, he started as a believer in climate change/global warming and then as he conducted research, he became agnostic. That's what I think too.

tenacious and exacting! Ya, right! But don't worry... he still makes regular visits in his reincarnated form! Notwithstanding your referenced Riverwind persona was the king of conspiracy theorists, he most certainly was never a, as you say, "believer"... his act, followed by many around here, was to play the "concern troll" role - if you're unsure of exactly what that is, particularly in a climate change context, just run a MLW search. That agnostic belief you speak of, most assuredly, was an outright crafted denial.

For the record, I happen to think that we face far more severe environmental problems than CO2 emissions. I fear that the Left has unfortunately taken over environmental issues (watermelons, as they say) and as the Left tends to do, it has thoroughly botched it.

you don't know what you're talking about

[August1991]

you don't know what you're talking about

Huh? Leftists botch everything, and the environment is far too serious a matter to trust to Leftists.

I reckon/hope that rich, democratic countries will let smart people figure out what to do. Leftists certainly won't protect the environment. Leftists will argue, try to define terms and then separate into groups while proclaiming solidarity.

----

Leftists botch everything? Look at what leftists have done to Haiti, and Attawapiskat. Or what about Soviet Russia, or Cambodia. How about Cuba, Venezuela? China before Deng?

Leftists are incompetent, bad managers, unless they are Norwegian and have access to an endless supply of free money. Whacko Saudis also have access to royalties, and are also Leftists. Some people claim that Saudis are good managers too, like Norwegians. The Leftist Soviet Union also survived because its bureaucrats had access to cheap oil/gas.

----

In general, for example, schoolteachers are leftists and while they can care for children, they botch any organization. I fear entrusting our environment to leftists. I suspect that while America names leftists to the EPA, China more wisely names smart people to review the effects of its projects on its environment.

Leftists: From East, West, Chinese, Russian, European, American - what a disaster. What a hopeless lot. Nowadays, Eastern Europe and other places know better. With luck, we in the future will too.

Edited January 13, 2012 by August1991

[eyeball]

Do you tie your left hand behind your back out of fear it might screw something up August?

You need to get a grip.

Edited January 13, 2012 by eyeball

[bud]

‎"Massive Oil Spill Results In Improved Wildlife Viscosity"

[William Ashley]

Is the oil sands not a major oil spill? Caused by mother earth? And by processing the sands is the same as cleaning up a old gas station? There is land out there that was just oil sand and now is green, so really is this not bhelping and IMO they have come along way in having a cleaner process to get it out. And the river they keep bring up, my undersatanding is was poluted with oil even before the natives got there. Can we trust anything suzuki or may and redford tell us?

Joke the states is sueing the oil sands.... Alberta is bankrolling and prepping it.. you think if environmental damage in the US as a spill over effect is enough for a lawsuit... problems arn't worse in Alberta.

Development is good but it needs to be done safely without polluting the natural environment.

It isn't an oil "spill" it is an oil "sink" or what oil is like after it is cleaned up.

Like I said development is good but 0 emissions techs should be mandatory on the operations and old systems should be migrated to enclosed burn type ops.

They are being total jerks in not putting the money right back into a safer and cleaner means of extraction and that is why it is the cigarette of yesteryear no one wants a smoker blowing smoke in their face and that is the oil sands.. they could be chewing nicorette.

[Evening Star]

Whacko Saudis also have access to royalties, and are also Leftists.

How so? There's nothing very leftist about a theocratic absolute monarchy. (There have been plenty of these in history, even prior to the major socialist writings, and I doubt most people would consider most of them to be leftist.) Socialism refers to collective control of the economy, not just government control regardless of how the government is formed or from where it derives its mandate.

On social policy, Saudi Arabia is obviously about as far from liberalism as one could get.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Evening Star

[dre]

Huh? Leftists botch everything, and the environment is far too serious a matter to trust to Leftists.

I reckon/hope that rich, democratic countries will let smart people figure out what to do. Leftists certainly won't protect the environment. Leftists will argue, try to define terms and then separate into groups while proclaiming solidarity.

----

Leftists botch everything? Look at what leftists have done to Haiti, and Attawapiskat. Or what about Soviet Russia, or Cambodia. How about Cuba, Venezuela? China before Deng?

Leftists are incompetent, bad managers, unless they are Norwegian and have access to an endless supply of free money. Whacko Saudis also have access to royalties, and are also Leftists. Some people claim that Saudis are good managers too, like Norwegians. The Leftist Soviet Union also survived because its bureaucrats had access to cheap oil/gas.

----

In general, for example, schoolteachers are leftists and while they can care for children, they botch any organization. I fear entrusting our environment to leftists. I suspect that while America names leftists to the EPA, China more wisely names smart people to review the effects of its projects on its environment.

Leftists: From East, West, Chinese, Russian, European, American - what a disaster. What a hopeless lot. Nowadays, Eastern Europe and other places know better. With luck, we in the future will too.

Whacko Saudis also have access to royalties, and are also Leftists.

:lol:

Dude... Saudi Arabia is the most conservative country on the planet.

Leftists: From East, West, Chinese, Russian, European, American - what a disaster. What a hopeless lot. Nowadays, Eastern Europe and other places know better. With luck, we in the future will too.

You remember the little talk we had about the imaginary people in your head right?

Edited January 14, 2012 by dre

[prairiechickin]

Leftists botch everything? Look at what leftists have done to Haiti, and Attawapiskat. Or what about Soviet Russia, or Cambodia. How about Cuba, Venezuela? China before Deng?

Leftists: From East, West, Chinese, Russian, European, American - what a disaster. What a hopeless lot. Nowadays, Eastern Europe and other places know better. With luck, we in the future will too.

Don't forget the most left-wing government in Canadian history -- the Saskatchewan CCF under Tommy Douglas. From 1944 to 1964 those lunatics nearly ruined the province with 20 balanced budgets, sustainable resource development, and by intoducing a provincial health plan that was the precursor to universal health care. Crazy bastards.

[August1991]

Don't forget the most left-wing government in Canadian history -- the Saskatchewan CCF under Tommy Douglas. From 1944 to 1964 those lunatics nearly ruined the province with 20 balanced budgets, sustainable resource development, and by intoducing a provincial health plan that was the precursor to universal health care. Crazy bastards.

So, to pick an example of a successful collectivist experiment, you choose a small community of several hundred thousand people, dependent on a resource economy, coming out of a severe recession where commodity prices were low.

Tommy Douglas, the Bernie Madoff of collectivism.

In the late 1930s, given commodity prices, Saskatchewan had little direction to go but up. So Douglas, in ideal circumstances, managed to make socialism look good. In such circumstances, how could socialism/collectivism fail? (Peter Lougheed looks good too. He was Alberta's PM when oil prices quadrupled.)

As I say, it's easy to be a socialist in Saudi Arabia, Norway or in Angelina Jolie's household. When you are spending other people's money, socialism is easy. Socialism works when it has a rising tide of wealth to share.

But socialism/leftism is not sustainable. While Leftists can possibly care for young children, they cannot solve basic economic problems or organize much of anything.

----

While I'm on this rant, and thread hijack, let me give you another socialist, command-control experiment in Canada: Newfoundland. Smallwood - given almost as many advantages as Douglas had - botched it. You point at Douglas. I point at Smallwood (and Castro, Lenin, Mao, Burma, Albania, East Germany, Kim Jong-Il, etc.)

Frankly, if I were a socialist/collectivist/communist, I would point to the experiences of Israeli kibbutz - not Saskatchewan in the 1940s. The kibbutz seem to be at least sustainable. Saskatchewan's health system is not.

---

Prairiechicken, socialism doesn't fail in an election cycle, or even in a generation. It took over 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse (and I frankly think that if Andropov had not died and if not for Gorbachev, the Soviets could have survived for another 20 years or so).

Depending on how stubborn people are, it can take a long time to run out of other people's money (or rather, other people's trust). But eventually, all Ponzi schemes come to an end and socialism/collectivism is basically a Ponzi scheme.

Edited January 16, 2012 by August1991

[prairiechickin]

\In the late 1930s, given commodity prices, Saskatchewan had little direction to go but up. So Douglas, in ideal circumstances, managed to make socialism look good. In such circumstances, how could socialism/collectivism fail? (Peter Lougheed looks good too. He was Alberta's PM when oil prices quadrupled.)

As I say, it's easy to be a socialist in Saudi Arabia, Norway or in Angelina Jolie's household. When you are spending other people's money, socialism is easy. Socialism works when it has a rising tide of wealth to share.

/quote]

You know Saskatchewan was teetering on the edge of bancruptcy in 1945, don't you? There was no 'other people's money' to piss away. And there were no oil wells, or potash mines, or much of anything else beyond a one-crop economy and no war industries to convert to peacetime use. In 20 years of CCF rule, the provincial economy diversified, the province was in the black, and unlike Joey Smallwood, Douglas assembled one of the most talented civil services in Canada rather than running a one-man show. I could go on and on, but I only raise this example to counter your argument that all left-wing governments are bad governments. The CCF under Douglas was one of the finest provincial administations in Canadian history, and it demonstrated to the rest of Canada that universal health care was possible. Douglas was voted Most Outstanding Canadian because he was a talented, visionary and honest politician, something we sadly see much of these days.