Skewed Values of the Alberta Tory Government

[WesternCanadaKing]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...8-b9570a056416

It's this sort of negative characterization of the oilsands that has prompted the Alberta government to mount a $25-million, three-year campaign to boost the Alberta "brand" at home and abroad

So the government pumped $25 million into an Alberta marketing scheme so people will think the oilsands are environmentally friendly? Why not make them environmentally friendly first?

Plus I read an article about how Stelmach is denying the CHR a $25-million boost to open beds at new facilities. But they'll put this money into advertising Alberta as all Earth friendly, which is like trying to market that United States has good foreign relations.

How do these people keep winning elections?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...8-b9570a056416

So the government pumped $25 million into an Alberta marketing scheme so people will think the oilsands are environmentally friendly? Why not make them environmentally friendly first?

I'm not a fan our government by any means, but there are some things I think you should know before you criticize this.

First off, Alberta's oil is simply more carbon intensive than conventional oil. It simply takes more energy to extract oil sands than it does to drill a hole into a high-pressure reservoir. There's a thermodynamical limit to the efficiency with which we can process the oil sands, so there's no way to make them less carbon-intensive than conventional oil. Yes we can go further to clean up the oil sands but unless those changes are economically feasible and profitable than they aren't really possible at all. That's the nature of a capitalist society.

Given that the US law proposes that the government not purchase oil that is more carbon intensive than conventional, what the Alberta government is doing is lobbying to have our oil classified as conventional. And really, if we want to keep selling oil to the US government, well, that's really the only thing we can do, for the reasons outlined above.

[WesternCanadaKing]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm not a fan our government by any means, but there are some things I think you should know before you criticize this.

First off, Alberta's oil is simply more carbon intensive than conventional oil. It simply takes more energy to extract oil sands than it does to drill a hole into a high-pressure reservoir. There's a thermodynamical limit to the efficiency with which we can process the oil sands, so there's no way to make them less carbon-intensive than conventional oil. Yes we can go further to clean up the oil sands but unless those changes are economically feasible and profitable than they aren't really possible at all. That's the nature of a capitalist society.

Given that the US law proposes that the government not purchase oil that is more carbon intensive than conventional, what the Alberta government is doing is lobbying to have our oil classified as conventional. And really, if we want to keep selling oil to the US government, well, that's really the only thing we can do, for the reasons outlined above.

Well the fact still stands that they're willing to put the money into lobbying it (which I will admit is necessary if what you say is true) then why isn't it that the Calgary Health Region isn't receiving the money that it also needs? It just seems skewed to me that Stelmach sees lobbying the American government worth $25-million, but making sure that there are enough beds in hospitals isn't.

[4X4]

Thanks for the input, Seb. I don't know much about the oil industry, but I figured there had to be more to it than 'Alberta's Oilsands are dirty'.

[MelBridgeman]

So this money that Stemach denied the CRHA?
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...0e&k=50259&p=1

is what you are talking about?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

Well the fact still stands that they're willing to put the money into lobbying it (which I will admit is necessary if what you say is true) then why isn't it that the Calgary Health Region isn't receiving the money that it also needs? It just seems skewed to me that Stelmach sees lobbying the American government worth $25-million, but making sure that there are enough beds in hospitals isn't.

You do understand that if the AB government doesn't get significant revenue from the royalties on the extracted oil that the health authorities will have even less, don't you?

How sure are you that the health authorities are running as effeciently as possible?

[Hakan]

How sure are you that the royalty structure is set up as efficienctly as possible?

[jofillips]

it isn't just the carbon emmissions that are bad with tar sands - the areas ecosystem has been ripped apart by the industry.
Dead rivers = problems for people who live off it.

My impression is that the oil companies are desperatley trying to get as much oil as possible before people start to learn what they've done to the area, ie before tighter enviromental laws come in.
The reports coming out of Fort Mackenzie are pretty crazy, seems more like a Nigeria or other 3rd World countries situation where they're unable/unwilling to protect their own land.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by SebC

There's a thermodynamical limit to the efficiency with which we can process the oil sands, so there's no way to make them less carbon-intensive than conventional oil.

Please clarify this statement, as this does not make sense to me.

[guzzy]

wah

wah
wah
wah

They keep winning elections because Albertans are smart enough to realize the alternative would be more detrimental.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by jofillips

it isn't just the carbon emmissions that are bad with tar sands - the areas ecosystem has been ripped apart by the industry.
Dead rivers = problems for people who live off it.

My impression is that the oil companies are desperatley trying to get as much oil as possible before people start to learn what they've done to the area, ie before tighter enviromental laws come in.
The reports coming out of Fort Mackenzie are pretty crazy, seems more like a Nigeria or other 3rd World countries situation where they're unable/unwilling to protect their own land.

Fort Mackenzie is in QC ,I believe you are referring to Fort McMurray. There are no dead rivers and despite you're beliefs the oil companies arent ripping apart the ecosystem.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Fort Mackenzie is in QC ,I believe you are referring to Fort McMurray. There are no dead rivers and despite you're beliefs the oil companies arent ripping apart the ecosystem.

THANKYOU

I am so sick of people making it sound like Northern Alberta is the reason for 'Global Warming'. It is not the great satan that the liberal media makes you think it is. I get so frustrated by this. I will respond more when I have calmed down.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

THANKYOU

I am so sick of people making it sound like Northern Alberta is the reason for 'Global Warming'. It is not the great satan that the liberal media makes you think it is. I get so frustrated by this. I will respond more when I have calmed down.

Liberal Media? Really? This is still something that people believe?

Media is focused on one thing: selling their product. A second priority is spewing editorialized content that the owner agrees with. There are some "liberal" media outlets. There are some "conservative" media outlets. Overall, their persuasion is meaningless to a person who can critically think.

And yes, Alberta must first secure future funding in order to provide social spending. And overall I think Stelmach has demonstrated that both are a priority for his government. He's spending more money while encouraging systems to get more efficient.

The Oil Sands is an ecological nightmare. But most companies are being FORCED to proceed in as much as an environmentally sensitive manner as possible, by the government who people are quick to lambaste for wild and usually misguided reasons.

[Khel]

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

why isn't it that the Calgary Health Region isn't receiving the money that it also needs? It just seems skewed to me that Stelmach sees lobbying the American government worth $25-million, but making sure that there are enough beds in hospitals isn't.

I work for the Calgary Health Region, and while I applaud our staff, nurses, and Docs for the outstanding work they do, money isn't the issue. The amount of bureaucratic waste and bs that happens around here is insane. Like me... surfing CP all the time, thanks guys!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Please clarify this statement, as this does not make sense to me.

Sure. Conventional oil is both lighter (meaning more useful, smaller molecules) than Alberta's oil sands and easier to access. With conventional oil, if you want crude oil, you drill a hole in the ground into the reservoir. Typically the reservoir will be at high pressure and push the liquid oil out. There's very little energy requirement to extract the oil, and it doesn't need to be processed to get it to crude.

Contrast that with Alberta's oil. First, you have to get it out of the ground, because unlike conventional oil it doesn't move to the surface by itself. This can be done with mining (least efficient), SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage - where you use steam to warm up the oil so it becomes more viscous), thermal methods (burn up a portion of the oil to create pressure and heat), and other experimental methods. The good news here is that economic pressures are pushing the oil companies towards the better methods. The more efficient systems give them higher yields, lower energy overhead, and higher profit margins. SAGD was considered unproven not so long ago, and now everyone's using it. It also creates a much smaller surface footprint than mining. Newer technologies will go even further, and there is progress being made in this area.

Second, Alberta's oil (bitumen) is larger, heavier, longer molecules than conventional oil. It's more like tar than it is like gasoline, which is why the oil sands are also known as the tar sands. For many of our oil companies, the end product they sell is synthetic crude. That means they have to "upgrade" the oil before they sell it. And that means breaking chemical bonds, and breaking chemical bonds requires energy. Even a perfectly efficient plant would take in the energy required to break the bonds.

So my statement is that even with perfect technology, it requires more energy to extract and process Alberta's oil into useful products than it does for conventional oil. I recall one of my profs telling me that this theoretical minimum is around 13% of the energy contained in the oil sands, and this guy has a million-dollar research budget and is one of the leading oil sands gurus. Now, having said that, if we really want to clean up the oil sands, what we should do is use nuclear power to meet those energy requirements. Nuclear is actually one of the cleanest and safest VIABLE energy sources we have. Sadly, the optics for nuclear are bad and so people don't want new plants to be built.

[MelBridgeman]

well we should just switch to bio fuels...that way we can create another ecological disaster

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

well we should just switch to bio fuels...that way we can create another ecological disaster

Slash and burn the rainforest for ethanol!

[Flame On]

Here we go.
There's no excuse for toxic lakes with large quantaties of wild life death. Certainly not for the excuse that Syncrude uses which is "it was wintery". BS.
Wether you're right wing, daddy works in the oil patch, you work in the oil patch or industry you should be able to agree that the death lakes you can see from space are a bit of a blight.
I don't care if the extraction process is different. What other industry is allowed to figure out how to deal with it's waste material later down the road?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Here we go.
There's no excuse for toxic lakes with large quantaties of wild life death. Certainly not for the excuse that Syncrude uses which is "it was wintery". BS.
Wether you're right wing, daddy works in the oil patch, you work in the oil patch or industry you should be able to agree that the death lakes you can see from space are a bit of a blight.
I don't care if the extraction process is different. What other industry is allowed to figure out how to deal with it's waste material later down the road?

Nuclear, most form of mining, hell people dump a crap pile of trash away everyday. It doesnt just disappear once it goes in the earth. Tailings ponds arent unique to the oilsand. Theres no doubt they are unsightly, but when the counter measures are working they do a fair good job. Personally I am not a fan of the strip mining, I work on a SAGD project and we don't have tailings ponds or massive amounts of toxic waste. Our project recycles the production water and uses the excess steam to run a cogeneration unit. IMO its a much less destructive way to access the oil. It still produces are fair amount of CO2 but eventually that will be sequestered in the ground once carbon capturing is introduced.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SebC

Sure. Conventional oil is both lighter (meaning more useful, smaller molecules) than Alberta's oil sands and easier to access. With conventional oil, if you want crude oil, you drill a hole in the ground into the reservoir. Typically the reservoir will be at high pressure and push the liquid oil out. There's very little energy requirement to extract the oil, and it doesn't need to be processed to get it to crude.

Contrast that with Alberta's oil. First, you have to get it out of the ground, because unlike conventional oil it doesn't move to the surface by itself. This can be done with mining (least efficient), SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage - where you use steam to warm up the oil so it becomes more viscous), thermal methods (burn up a portion of the oil to create pressure and heat), and other experimental methods. The good news here is that economic pressures are pushing the oil companies towards the better methods. The more efficient systems give them higher yields, lower energy overhead, and higher profit margins. SAGD was considered unproven not so long ago, and now everyone's using it. It also creates a much smaller surface footprint than mining. Newer technologies will go even further, and there is progress being made in this area.

Second, Alberta's oil (bitumen) is larger, heavier, longer molecules than conventional oil. It's more like tar than it is like gasoline, which is why the oil sands are also known as the tar sands. For many of our oil companies, the end product they sell is synthetic crude. That means they have to "upgrade" the oil before they sell it. And that means breaking chemical bonds, and breaking chemical bonds requires energy. Even a perfectly efficient plant would take in the energy required to break the bonds.

So my statement is that even with perfect technology, it requires more energy to extract and process Alberta's oil into useful products than it does for conventional oil. I recall one of my profs telling me that this theoretical minimum is around 13% of the energy contained in the oil sands, and this guy has a million-dollar research budget and is one of the leading oil sands gurus. Now, having said that, if we really want to clean up the oil sands, what we should do is use nuclear power to meet those energy requirements. Nuclear is actually one of the cleanest and safest VIABLE energy sources we have. Sadly, the optics for nuclear are bad and so people don't want new plants to be built.

we'll find that in the next decade a few companies ... well at least one will find a way to extract the oil with less inputs. It's happening right now on a small scale that nobody hears about.

Nuclear is northern alberta is the worst idea in the history of the civilized world.

That would be the biggest terror target on earth, and if successful will pollute the largest resevoir of oil on earth. Bad idea.