Russians, Saudis, helping fund anti oilsands groups

[egghead]

On 5/7/2019 at 4:55 AM, GostHacked said:

The process of extracting the oil from the tar sands means it is a net energy loss. I was not even talking to the cost of it. We are simply putting MORE energy into the tar sands compared to what we get out of it in terms of oil energy.  That's always been the case.

 

 

oh, I understand what is your point now. Sry, may be we shall no agriculture and cattle industry as well 

Edited May 8, 2019 by egghead

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

It was the other point I was referring to. As to fracking - which is not, afaik what the oil sands do, that sometimes causes small earthquakes, but only in certain areas.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fracking-earthquakes-schultz-1.4492762

No I was not conflating the two. Fracking was mentioned and I took that to task.  The tar sands have a different process. There was a long time where people would not accept the findings until more wells came in to amplify the problem. One or two might not be bad in an area, but throw a high concentration of fracking wells in an area and you will bet there will be tremors and small quakes.

But these facts are not as sexy as blaming Russia for ... physics.

Edited May 8, 2019 by GostHacked

[August1991]

On 5/7/2019 at 6:23 AM, Michael Hardner said:

....

2. The analogy is lacking.

Disagree.

Trudeau, Suzuki, Gore, Clinton, Hollywood person (pick a name) are flying around the world - with their entourage - emitting CO2. And yet, they tell me to stop emitting CO2.

====

In the 1930s, Churchill saw the Nazis as a threat to the world.

Heck, in the mid-1970s, Thatcher and Reagan saw the Soviets as a threat to the world.

If Suzuki, Gore, Hollywood view "global warming" as a threat to the world, I want to see some skin in the game.  

Edited May 9, 2019 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Disagree.

2. Trudeau, Suzuki, Gore, Clinton, Hollywood person (pick a name) are flying around the world - with their entourage - emitting CO2. And yet, they tell me to stop emitting CO2.

====

3. In the 1930s, Churchill saw the Nazis as a threat to the world.  Heck, in the mid-1970s, Thatcher and Reagan saw the Soviets as a threat to the world. If Suzuki, Gore, Hollywood view "global warming" as a threat to the world, I want to see some skin in the game.  

1. You can disagree, but it's like disagreeing with me when I say "I don't understand you".  Your analogy is incongruous enough that I don't understand how it supports your point.  Try again.

2. Again - I can spend money on a debt counsellor if it helps my overall strategy.  Nobody is saying eliminate CO2 use, just to be careful in CO2 use.

3. They didn't want to kill all Germans though, only to stop the threat.

 

[Rue]

On 5/6/2019 at 5:16 PM, GostHacked said:

The problem with the tar sands is that it is a net energy LOSS. We are spending to many other resources (natural gas) to extract the oil from the heated sand.  Not sure how the Russians or Saudi's can influence that.

And fracking has it's issues with documented proof that large concentration of fracking wells causes tremors in that area and also affect the ground water. Not to mention the amount of fresh water ruined with fracking chemicals that are pumped into these wells

But we can blame Russia and Saudi Arabia for this if that helps you all sleep at night. 

I agree strongly with your two first sentences. On the third myself, I don't "blame them" but I do want them exposed and held accountable.

Also if there were to tar sands  oil extraction which I think is a horrible disaster for the environment it would create a very real negative impact on al Canadians which I  am not sure

anyone has the political will to want to deal with. For starters you would severely gut Alberta's economy and our gdp and export revenue would drastically decrease.

From a purely economic perspective,  it would have serious negative impact that scares politicians.

The major negative impact of the tar sands extraction to the environnment are

source: :https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Environmental_impacts_of_oil_sands

 

• Tailings Ponds Impacts: Tailings ponds are settling ponds that contain the waste byproduct of oil sands extraction and upgrading. They are a mix of water, sand, silt, clay, unrecovered hydrocarbons, and other contaminants.
• Climate Impacts: The greenhouse gas emissions for oil sand extraction and processing are significantly larger than for conventional crude oil. These emissions contribute to global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect.
• Water Impacts: The extraction of bitumen from oil sands requires a large amount of water, and thus water use is a concern when looking at oil sands extraction. Water used in the oil sands can be recycled, but only small amounts of this water are returned to the natural cycle.
• Air Quality Impacts: Along with greenhouse gases, other pollutants are released into the air during oil sands operations. These pollutants are harmful to the environment and human health, and include gases such as NOx and SOx.
• Reclamation: Reclamation is the attempt to return previously used land - whether it was used for surface mining or as a tailings ponds - to their natural state. The chemicals in the tailings are factors that can make reclamation difficult.

I wish there was a way to better get the chemicals out of the pools left behind. If those harmful chemicals could be extracted, then the pools left behind would not be problematic. I hear they are working on that  but I am not sure how much progress is being made:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/oil-sands-companies-are-trying-to-reduce-environmental-impact.html

 

 

[Argus]

And now for a brief moment of sanity from Gwyn Morgan on the climate change scaremonging. I realize context is unimportant to others, but I've always been attached to it.

Many Canadians have been led to believe (with the help of Liberal misinformation) that oil is a sunset industry. But the consensus of authoritative forecasts sees growth in developing countries pushing world oil demand from the current 100 million barrels per day to at least 110 million by 2030. Here’s the question Canadians should be asking: If world oil demand is going up anyway, why should Canada cede the market for our most important export to Russia, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia — countries that don’t care about the environment and have horrendous human rights records? At the same time, hundreds of coal-fired power plants are under construction in China, India and Southeast Asia. (Vietnam, one of the smallest countries in that region, has new coal plants under construction that could end up producing more carbon dioxide emissions than all of Canada.)

As good little scout Canada struggles mightily to meet its commitments under the Paris climate accord, the vast majority of nations on the planet have already given up on the pact. Last year, global greenhouse gas emissions grew by an estimated 2.7 per cent. So if Canada’s economy had simply ceased to exist, our 1.6 per cent of global emissions would have been replaced in just seven months.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-a-principled-conservative-policy-would-challenge-trudeaus-climate-propaganda-with-truth