CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4285
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:15 am
 


This is a great article by the Calgary Herald that really adds some perspective on the subject of green house gas emissions. The article itself has a bit more to do with the issue of Alberta needing representation at the Copenhagen summit but it really does under scores just how over hyped the issue of emissions from the oil sands are in contrast to emissions from power generation in North America (I would love to see a world graph that includes China and India). Unfortunately the online version didn't have the graphic so I had to scan it (sorry for it being so big, I don't have editing software on this putter).

Image
Quote:
Putting oilsands in context requires push from premier


By Deborah Yedlin, Calgary HeraldDecember 8, 2009

There isn't a day that goes by without Canada being criticized for falling below its emissions cutting goals. But, as a television ad for Canadian Pacific from the 1970s that often aired during CFL games stated, a picture is worth a thousand words.

In this case, a graphic published by Natural Resources Canada pretty much tells the whole story on Canada's role as a global emitter. And the short answer is that what this country emits, in relative terms, amounts to a hill of beans compared with what is going on south of the border. And while we are being soundly criticized for letting the country's emissions rise 26 per cent since the 1990 baseline, given variables such as the growth in the economy and population, not to mention the vast area and harsh climate, it's easy to understand why Canada's numbers have jumped.

But one can only imagine what a graph of China's coal plant emissions would look like.

What's striking, however, about the graphic is that it illustrates, very clearly, that oilsands emissions are not the problem the environmental groups want them to be.

Fixing the global emissions problem, if one accepts the anthropogenic argument in the first place, is much, much bigger than the one-tenth of one per cent of emissions that come from the oilsands.

The bigger culprit by far is coal-fired electricity generation. But because it's cheap and is aiding in the industrialization of the developing world, it's not politically correct to go there.

So, once again, Canada's oilsands were the target of protests that took place on the weekend in the U.K. that were aimed at getting governments to take action at the Copenhagen climate change summit.

And it's because the oilsands continue to be the lightning rod for global warming that it's more than a tad surprising Alberta looks unlikely to be represented in Copenhagen by its premier. By contrast, the premiers of British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec have made the trek, none of which are being targeted by global environmentalists for their respective emissions.

When Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach was in Geneva earlier this year, showcasing Alberta's carbon capture and sequestration scheme, he met with a handful of individuals residing in Europe who suggested Alberta should have formal standing in Copenhagen, staffed by both the oilsands players and government officials, with the intent of addressing the oilsands misconceptions head-on.

This advice was clearly not heeded and a perfect opportunity has been missed.

It's not out of the question one of the reasons for not mounting an oilsands offensive in Copenhagen was because of a sense of fear that whatever was held in a formal setting would be overrun with protesters and therefore stymie any attempt aimed at bridging the gap between perception and reality.

But fear is no reason to run away. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: the only thing to fear is fear itself.

Bridging the information gap on the oilsands is going to take a lot of work; so far, the approach has been akin to a zone defence and as the evidence shows, it hasn't been very successful.

It's time the debate about emissions was framed on how the world uses energy and not the evils of the oilsands.

It's time for an offensive line comprising the heavyweights in the business the likes of Syncrude, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources and Imperial Oil to be struck. Think of it as the equivalent to the formidable offensive line from of the Edmonton Eskimos dynasty of the 1970s: Bill Stevenson, Ron Estay, Dave Fennell and David Boone were collectively referred to as Alberta Crude for their sheer power and were instrumental in the team's Grey Cup victories.

Copenhagen provided the perfect window to begin this offensive, to seize the communications agenda from the environmental groups and present the case for the oilsands. And that's precisely why premier Stelmach should be there, as well as strong representation from the oilsands producers, not to mention the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Instead, Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, his Alberta provincial counterpart Rob Renner and a handful of advisers are left holding the bag for the province and industry. It's simply not going to be enough to counter the images of dead ducks on a tailings pond. Pictures, as they say, are worth a thousand words.

dyedlin@theherald.canwest.com

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Putting+oilsands+context+requires+push+from+premier/2314575/story.html





PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:27 am
 


It's all lies! coming from an oil company shill of course :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22818
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:33 am
 


Yup. Big oil wants you to buy more oil so you can fly or drive.. to places like Copengahen and party it up at the peoples expence.





PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:24 am
 


Terrible comparison.

I guess I could say that the 5.7 L engine of my dodge, although it is a pig, gives off less emissions than Moose Jaw.

Why not show a graph detailing how each province and state contributes to greenhouse gas emissions based on their per barrel drilling and/or upgrading. That is an equal comparison.

Coal plants and capturing oil from oil sands are two completely different activities. Like comparing apples to lions, it makes no sense.

Those coal plants are pigs but they also produce millions and millions of kilowatts of energy which are distributed to hundreds of millions of people.

The oilsands is just a refining process and the energy captured has yet to be used as fuel.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20846
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:22 am
 


I support oilsands production (but would prefer nuclear power being used instead of natural gas in the upgrading process), but I think most of the effort to shut down/minimize the oilsands is one of those nip-it-in-the-bud missions, to stop something before it gets totally out of hand.

The big problem with the oil sands is that today, it sits at around 50 MT of emissions to produce roughly 1 million barrels of oil, if that picture is accurate. What happens when production jumps to 5 million by 2020 (assuming the projects the big oil companies planned get back on track)? Suddenly, the relatively average emissions jumps from 50 MT to 250MT, making it by far the biggest emitter on the continent.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22818
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:33 pm
 


So how big would developing OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates and Dubai be on that scale. Their so poor they need a helping hand.





PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:15 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
I support oilsands production (but would prefer nuclear power being used instead of natural gas in the upgrading process), but I think most of the effort to shut down/minimize the oilsands is one of those nip-it-in-the-bud missions, to stop something before it gets totally out of hand.

The big problem with the oil sands is that today, it sits at around 50 MT of emissions to produce roughly 1 million barrels of oil, if that picture is accurate. What happens when production jumps to 5 million by 2020 (assuming the projects the big oil companies planned get back on track)? Suddenly, the relatively average emissions jumps from 50 MT to 250MT, making it by far the biggest emitter on the continent.


Exactly. And the areas that they are now extracting oil from are tiny compared to the actual area that could be mined.

They could literally rip apart a huge chunk of both provinces. So the environmental damage plus the emissions from the processing...I'm not a big fan of splitting atoms but if I had to make a choice it seems like a no-brainer.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6948
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:49 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
The big problem with the oil sands is that today, it sits at around 50 MT of emissions to produce roughly 1 million barrels of oil, if that picture is accurate. What happens when production jumps to 5 million by 2020 (assuming the projects the big oil companies planned get back on track)? Suddenly, the relatively average emissions jumps from 50 MT to 250MT, making it by far the biggest emitter on the continent.


You have to keep in mind that some of these new projects ( and I don't know how many ) are not the so called nasty mining operations that are world famous. These projects will be injecting steam into the ground and the oil pumped out. What the difference in emissions are, well I can't tell you that either. :)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23859
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:36 pm
 


Alta_redneck wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
The big problem with the oil sands is that today, it sits at around 50 MT of emissions to produce roughly 1 million barrels of oil, if that picture is accurate. What happens when production jumps to 5 million by 2020 (assuming the projects the big oil companies planned get back on track)? Suddenly, the relatively average emissions jumps from 50 MT to 250MT, making it by far the biggest emitter on the continent.


You have to keep in mind that some of these new projects ( and I don't know how many ) are not the so called nasty mining operations that are world famous. These projects will be injecting steam into the ground and the oil pumped out. What the difference in emissions are, well I can't tell you that either. :)


Gotta heat that water up somehow. As well, once that steam is injected, it's most likely gone. Another hit on the water supply, no?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6948
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:15 pm
 


Gunnair wrote:
Gotta heat that water up somehow. As well, once that steam is injected, it's most likely gone. Another hit on the water supply, no?


Yep clean burning NG to heat it up. And don't worry about the hit on the water supply. During the summer their using 1%, during winter or low flow times that goes up to 3% of the Athabasca River as it is now. I think there's a misconception that people think once the river passes the oilsands, it's reduced to nothing more than a creek.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20846
PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:44 pm
 


Alta_redneck wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Gotta heat that water up somehow. As well, once that steam is injected, it's most likely gone. Another hit on the water supply, no?


Yep clean burning NG to heat it up. And don't worry about the hit on the water supply. During the summer their using 1%, during winter or low flow times that goes up to 3% of the Athabasca River as it is now. I think there's a misconception that people think once the river passes the oilsands, it's reduced to nothing more than a creek.


Even NG creates CO2 emissions. It's cleaner than coal or oil, but it as supply is tightening on it (unless they ever get the Mackenzie Pipelines built), then eventually they'll be forced to use something else.

The water shortage perception might differ from reality, but the province is well endowed with water in the north, where little population resides, and has far less in the south, where the bulk of the population lives. Right now most of southern and central Alberta's water supply comes from glaciers in the mountains, which for some reason (GW or something else) are rapidly shrinking.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.