Biden revokes KXL permit in blow to Canada's oil sector, Ottawa disappointed

[Gold Star]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

And after the fires the forest is renewed. Part of the natural cycle. What's that got to do with acid rain? Ya think after the forest dies from being poisoned it's going to come back? Is acid rain cyclical in nature?

It is not at all to the same degree as in the 70's with the coal fired plants in the east, which seem to be doing just fine now.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Gold Star said:

LOL. Have you ever been on of seen the size and headwaters of of the Athabasca river? Not a chance.

 

You think just looking at something is how science is done?

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

Wildfires devastate thousands of square kilometers of forest yearly in Canada, and have been occurring for many thousands of years since the last ice age.  Every forest matures over the years, then burns to a crisp during a dry season due to lightning or other causes.  We have a cabin up north. Not an issue.

 

Seems like you're changing your tune. Do you recognize the author of this?

"Modern methods of heavy oil extraction for new operations involves in situ recovery. Steam and diluent injection with a very small surface footprint. The forests are undisturbed with no environmental damage unlike surface mining."

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

It is not at all to the same degree as in the 70's with the coal fired plants in the east, which seem to be doing just fine now.

First off, there are a lot less coal plants in the east nowadays. Secondly, they were forced to install expensive scrubbers to remove most of the sulfur from the emissions. 

[Gold Star]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

You think just looking at something is how science is done?

No. I live there and have seen firsthand how science gets skewed and bent in an attempt to fulfill the agendas of special interest groups opposed to any sort of development. I have also guided on the Athabasca.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

No. I live there and have seen firsthand how science gets skewed and bent in an attempt to fulfill the agendas of special interest groups opposed to any sort of development. I have also guided on the Athabasca.

In other words, you've got nothing.

[Gold Star]

Just now, placeholder said:

In other words, you've got nothing.

Listen, it's obvious we have different opinions, and the arguments will have no end. You are free to bash Canadian energy as many do, finding it abhorrent and toxic. That benefits me, as my money is invested on the fact that this very attitude has killed off investment in our oil sands industry and collapsed energy producer share prices offering a once in a lifetime opportunity for our world class producers.  Note that China is increasing it's fossil fuel energy use even with it's spectacular renewable adaptation yearly. The high expectation but slow adaptation of renewables and lack of spare global energy supply as the world economy grows will result in energy shortages in the future causing rolling blackouts, and skyrocketing prices. As people freeze in the dark, or can't escape the heat and face obscenely high energy prices, Canada would be glad to help out, but we are not building any new oil sand operations anymore, and we won't have enough pipelines to get it out to the world markets. Goodnight and good luck.

[Jeffr2]

15 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Just another stupid thing he is doing for the greenies. Yes we want more and more wind power and more and more dead birds.

Jeez...you sure fall for the right wing dog whistles and lies.

 

You really need a better source for your news.

 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

Quote

Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year. And of all bird deaths, 30 percent are due to natural causes, like baby birds falling from nests [source: AWEA].

 

[Jeffr2]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/alberta-canadas-tar-sands-is-growing-but-indigenous-people-fight-back/

 

Quote

 

This is the world's most destructive oil operation—and it's growing

 

Can Canada develop its climate leadership and its lucrative oil sands too?

 

 

[Jeffr2]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/14/canadas-shameful-environmental-secret-tar-sands-tailings-ponds

 

Quote

 

Canada's most shameful environmental secret must not remain hidden

 

 

Tar sands have been dubbed the largest – and most destructive – industrial project in human history. And Canada is on the forefront of their exploitation

 

 

[pacovl46]

7 hours ago, Gold Star said:

Modern methods of heavy oil extraction for new operations involves in situ recovery. Steam and diluent injection with a very small surface footprint. The forests are undisturbed with no environmental damage unlike surface mining.

That’s great, but how many years have they used the old methods and that damage is definitely done?

[chilli42]

13 hours ago, Gold Star said:

Canada is blessed with the third largest oil reserves in the world. Why would it not choose to develop this resource in a responsible world class way unlike current producers? Energy East was the West to East pipeline to supply eastern Canada. It was killed by the Quebec provincial government, not the federal government. 

Agree.  A wonderful way to step up and provide leadership.  Sadly, interest has been lacking.  Perhaps it’s the level of investment to accomplish that end that nobody wants to take on.  The oil company’s just want to move the crude cheaply to their refinery’s.  The politicians don’t see it as a vote getter so no interest.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

Agree.  A wonderful way to step up and provide leadership.  Sadly, interest has been lacking.  Perhaps it’s the level of investment to accomplish that end that nobody wants to take on.  The oil company’s just want to move the crude cheaply to their refinery’s.  The politicians don’t see it as a vote getter so no interest.

It's extremely expensive to extract, it creates much more carbon pollution than extracting form other petroleum sources does, it uses a huge amount of fresh water, and the process of extracting it creates acid rain. Apart from that, no problems.

[unblocktheplanet]

20 hours ago, Marknreston said:

Unfortunately with or without the pipeline, the oil will move.  Instead of a pipeline it will move via trucks or trains which will be more prone to accidents, derailments and environmental damage. Yes, this is politically correct and will be welcome by the Progressives in his Party but this is very short sighted  

No, it won't. Too many Canadians outside of AB are totally opposed to tarsands extraction & pipelines. Good job, OJ (Old Joe)!

[Gold Star]

9 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

That’s great, but how many years have they used the old methods and that damage is definitely done?

What damage? All mines and even SAGD operations are required by law to reclaim the lands and environment after operations conclude, and they are doing an excellent job so far as mines progress slowly forward. They are being monitored and regulated with strict guidelines and held accountable. Bison herds currently roam reclaimed areas and the fast regrowing boreal forest is thriving, complete with waterfowl and all species that inhabited the area prior to operations. The indigenous peoples and communities living there not only support these operations, they are some of the wealthiest in Canada, and own many  businesses directly involved with all aspects of operations. It is a win win solution for all. People are easily fooled by the biased reporting and articles depicting doom and gloom and environmental catastrophe running rampant without recourse and oversight. Go there and see for yourself instead of re-forwarding sensational biased articles. 

Everybody loves to eat hot dogs, but watching them being made is ugly.

 

[Gold Star]

3 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Agree.  A wonderful way to step up and provide leadership.  Sadly, interest has been lacking.  Perhaps it’s the level of investment to accomplish that end that nobody wants to take on.  The oil company’s just want to move the crude cheaply to their refinery’s.  The politicians don’t see it as a vote getter so no interest.

Now without a west to east pipeline, oil to eastern Canada must be sent via railcar, or flow west over the Rockies on the TMX to Vancouver, down along the west coast of the US in a tanker ship, go through the Panama canal, and be shipped up to east coast refineries. Heavy oil is needed in some refining processes as you can't easily make everything you need out of light oil.

 

[pacovl46]

58 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

What damage? All mines and even SAGD operations are required by law to reclaim the lands and environment after operations conclude, and they are doing an excellent job so far as mines progress slowly forward. They are being monitored and regulated with strict guidelines and held accountable. Bison herds currently roam reclaimed areas and the fast regrowing boreal forest is thriving, complete with waterfowl and all species that inhabited the area prior to operations. The indigenous peoples and communities living there not only support these operations, they are some of the wealthiest in Canada, and own many  businesses directly involved with all aspects of operations. It is a win win solution for all. People are easily fooled by the biased reporting and articles depicting doom and gloom and environmental catastrophe running rampant without recourse and oversight. Go there and see for yourself instead of re-forwarding sensational biased articles. 

Everybody loves to eat hot dogs, but watching them being made is ugly.

 

You can’t tell me that oil tar sands mining is the cleanest thing in the world! Even if they reclaim it, there will always be contamination! 

[Gold Star]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

You can’t tell me that oil tar sands mining is the cleanest thing in the world! Even if they reclaim it, there will always be contamination! 

Nothing is perfectly clean. Heavy tar oil has been naturally oozing from the deposits into the Athabasca watershed for thousands of years, directly into the river. You can see it on the banks where the land is cut away in places. Indians used it to repair their canoes. Is nature pure? Heavens no. This natural heavy oil sand deposit layer itself would be by far the largest environmental disaster in Canada. Think of Exxon Valdez running aground in Alaska, and the effort required to clean it up. Tiny in comparison to the vast areas of oil soaked sands in Alberta. Industry is cleaning it up in the process, removing the oil from every grain of sand, and restoring the surface land to its natural state. This is a good thing! Now, why on earth would any naturalist or environmentalist in his right mind be opposed to cleaning this up?

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

Nothing is perfectly clean. Heavy tar oil has been naturally oozing from the deposits into the Athabasca watershed for thousands of years, directly into the river. You can see it on the banks where the land is cut away in places. Indians used it to repair their canoes. Is nature pure? Heavens no. This natural heavy oil sand deposit layer itself would be by far the largest environmental disaster in Canada. Think of Exxon Valdez running aground in Alaska, and the effort required to clean it up. Tiny in comparison to the vast areas of oil soaked sands in Alberta. Industry is cleaning it up in the process, removing the oil from every grain of sand, and restoring the surface land to its natural state. This is a good thing! Now, why on earth would any naturalist or environmentalist in his right mind be opposed to cleaning this up?

First off, as you must know but are not telling, far from all the oil is coming from sand at the surface. Much of it (I guess I could look up the percentage) is being extracted through boreholes or wells because the oil sands are not at the surface. And they're not having much of an effect at all on the environment. They've been left undisturbed for millions of years. In fact whatever effect the sands at the surface were  having it clearly wasn't much. But now they are huge tailing ponds filled with contaminated water. And guess what? They're leaking:

  It’s official: Alberta’s oilsands tailings ponds are leaking. Now what?

There are more than a trillion litres of toxic oilsands waste stored in tailings ponds near Alberta’s Athabasca River — and they’re leaking.

Yes, we now have “scientifically valid evidence” that the ponds meant to contain toxic fluids are leaking, according to a years-long probe backed by the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

Not only that, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation report noted there is evidence tailings fluids “may circumvent [containment] systems and contaminate aquifers” and end up in the groundwater.

Alberta’s oilsands tailings ponds are leaking. Now what? | The Narwhal

[Gold Star]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, as you must know but are not telling, far from all the oil is coming from sand at the surface. Much of it (I guess I could look up the percentage) is being extracted through boreholes or wells because the oil sands are not at the surface. And they're not having much of an effect at all on the environment. They've been left undisturbed for millions of years. In fact whatever effect the sands at the surface were  having it clearly wasn't much. But now they are huge tailing ponds filled with contaminated water. And guess what? They're leaking:

  It’s official: Alberta’s oilsands tailings ponds are leaking. Now what?

There are more than a trillion litres of toxic oilsands waste stored in tailings ponds near Alberta’s Athabasca River — and they’re leaking.

Yes, we now have “scientifically valid evidence” that the ponds meant to contain toxic fluids are leaking, according to a years-long probe backed by the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

Not only that, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation report noted there is evidence tailings fluids “may circumvent [containment] systems and contaminate aquifers” and end up in the groundwater.

Alberta’s oilsands tailings ponds are leaking. Now what? | The Narwhal

Can you drill a well anywhere over an oil sands deposit and expect to get clean water? Of course not. The deposits themselves which are very near the surface have been leeching into the water tables and surface water naturally for the last 20,000 years since the last ice age. Even the extremely biased report article from the Narwhal acknowledges the Alberta Regulator has no evidence of contaminated groundwater reaching the Athabasca river, even with the millions of dollars being spent on environmental monitoring per year. The companies are doing an excellent job. People are so brainwashed against oil sands, they turn a blind eye to almost anywhere else in the world that produces oil and don't see what kind of environmental horrors are unleashed on the environment and population when industry runs unchecked. After the next coming ice age when there is a mile high thick sheet of ice on top of that part of Canada again, all the reclaimed lands will be scraped off anyway. We should get to it and access this precious resource while we can before it is gone as we won't be able to keep up current rates of CO2 emissions to fend off the longer trend of global cooling.

[placeholder]

21 hours ago, Gold Star said:

Can you drill a well anywhere over an oil sands deposit and expect to get clean water? Of course not. The deposits themselves which are very near the surface have been leeching into the water tables and surface water naturally for the last 20,000 years since the last ice age. Even the extremely biased report article from the Narwhal acknowledges the Alberta Regulator has no evidence of contaminated groundwater reaching the Athabasca river, even with the millions of dollars being spent on environmental monitoring per year. The companies are doing an excellent job. People are so brainwashed against oil sands, they turn a blind eye to almost anywhere else in the world that produces oil and don't see what kind of environmental horrors are unleashed on the environment and population when industry runs unchecked. After the next coming ice age when there is a mile high thick sheet of ice on top of that part of Canada again, all the reclaimed lands will be scraped off anyway. We should get to it and access this precious resource while we can before it is gone as we won't be able to keep up current rates of CO2 emissions to fend off the longer trend of global cooling.

Please. It's about the rate of contamination.  And the contamination isn't coming from the deposits anymore but from highly polluted ponds created from waste water used in extracting the oil.  We should get to this resource before it's gone? Really? The next period of glaciation isn't expected to happen for the 50,000 years at least. And most likely not for much longer than that given recent research on the subject. Alarmist much?

[placeholder]

And by the way, it isn't just the the Biden Administration that is opposed to Canadian pipelines. So is a govt from another country: Canada. The govt. of British Columbia is suing to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline which is being built to carry crude from Alberta to the West Coast of Canada. And the owner of that pipeline is the Canadian govt. They purchased this albatross from Kinder Morgan the company that wants to build the XL pipeline. So KM would have the cash to build the Keystone XL pipeline