Oilsands expansion 'fool's gold,' scientist warns

[Ramsayfarian]

Expansion of Alberta's oilsands must be avoided if the world is going to avoid disastrous effects of climate change, says one of the world's leading climate scientists.

James Hansen, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, travelled from New York to appear Tuesday at the Energy Resources Conservation Board hearing into the proposed Total Joslyn North mine near Fort McMurray. The open-pit mine is slated to produce 100,000 barrels a day.

The Joslyn project is the first new oilsands megaproject to seek approval in several years. An upgrader near Fort Saskatchewan to serve the mine was approved last month.

[photon]

It's a silly argument, shutting off one individual source isn't going to decrease consumption.

Not only that, would you rather have the supply be from some place like Alberta where governments can implement policies to mitigate emissions, or some place where the government doesn't care about emissions and will do it as cheaply as possible.

Unconventional is viable because conventional is harder to find.

If the concern is burning coal or oil or natural gas to power the process, why don't they build a nuclear reactor up there?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by photon

It's a silly argument, shutting off one individual source isn't going to decrease consumption.

Not only that, would you rather have the supply be from some place like Alberta where governments can implement policies to mitigate emissions, or some place where the government doesn't care about emissions and will do it as cheaply as possible.

Or from a country like Iran who is known to finance terrorism.

[HotHotHeat]

Every scientist that proclaims the world should stop using the oil sands should also have to go to China and tell them they don't get to own and car or a microwave.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Every scientist that proclaims the world should stop using the oil sands should also have to go to China and tell them they don't get to own and car or a microwave.

That's the flip side, also silly argument, the merit of a statement about if the oil sands should be exploited doesn't depend on the fairness of everyone having an equal opportunity to benefit from that exploitation.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by photon

That's the flip side, also silly argument, the merit of a statement about if the oil sands should be exploited doesn't depend on the fairness of everyone having an equal opportunity to benefit from that exploitation.

Doesn't change the fact that China doesn't care about where they get their oil from. From that perspective, it's not even an argument. It's just true.

[Ramsayfarian]

Does anyone one really care where their oil comes from?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

It's a silly argument, shutting off one individual source isn't going to decrease consumption.

Not only that, would you rather have the supply be from some place like Alberta where governments can implement policies to mitigate emissions, or some place where the government doesn't care about emissions and will do it as cheaply as possible.

Unconventional is viable because conventional is harder to find.

If the concern is burning coal or oil or natural gas to power the process, why don't they build a nuclear reactor up there?

Steam can only travel 15ish km down a pipeline before it begins to condense. You would need many small reactors to make nuclear viable for SAGD.

[photon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Steam can only travel 15ish km down a pipeline before it begins to condense. You would need many small reactors to make nuclear viable for SAGD.

What about transmitting the electricity and then using that locally to produce the steam?

Lossy sure, but even with the losses how much more costly would it be?

[CaptainCrunch]

Seriously its almost like these scientists are afraid to go after countries like China with their ecological problems, and the middle east and the U.S.

But the Oil sands which represent less then 1% of the worlds greenhouse gas effects are an easy target because we as Canadians don't like to defend ourselves.

There are far bigger problems then the Oilsands causing pollution, go attack those.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I can't believe these bought and paid for butt kissing "scientists" are still trying to convince everybody that human CO2 production is going to result in global warming errrr I mean "climate change" .....

[photon]

Don't derail the thread, if you want go start a conspiracy thread about it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Does anyone one really care where their oil comes from?

Apparently you've never seen the "Terror Free Oil" gas station in Omaha, NE?

Its laughable though because at the end of the day all of the oil trades through New York anyway.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

What about transmitting the electricity and then using that locally to produce the steam?

Lossy sure, but even with the losses how much more costly would it be?

I guess it could be done, but I dont know how efficiently. One company is using electrodes in the ground to melt the oil, not sure if its commercially viable or not.

I think natural gas will always be the fuel of choice for conventional SAGD. Its pretty cheap and they produce fuel gas from the formation.

Most new projects have a cogeneration unit, which produces electricity and steam more efficiently. If they used the largest turbines available i believe its 90% efficient.

Cogenerated steam with CO2 capture and brackish source water is a pretty clean efficient process with minimal footprint.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Don't derail the thread, if you want go start a conspiracy thread about it.

I'm not derailing anything .......

OP says the "expansion of the oilsands must be avoided if the world is going to avoid "disastrous" effects of climate change....." and then said scientist shows no evidence that these "effects" are happening (because they are not) or going to happen in the future ........aside from that famous but tragically flawed computer modelled graph.

When it comes to the oilsands I would be far more concerned about the toxic by-products flowing down river and poisoning kids in small communities...

Haha I love this part:
"At this point, carbon in the atmosphere is 389 parts per million, while the safe level is 350 ppm, he says. To get to the lower level, the world has to phase out fossil fuel and look to nuclear and renewable energy, Hansen said."

Good old safe and sound nuclear energy....what are we going to do with all that extremely toxic waste?

"However, if all existing reserves of fossil fuels are used in coming decades, climate change will cause more than a fifth of the world's million species to die off, he said."

Pure speculation and fear mongering....

Another one:
"That's because future generations will have to pay to have the carbon removed from the atmosphere, and that's much costlier, he said."

Pay what? Oh yeah that global carbon tax fraud scheme that the political elites want us to pay...

Sorry, I won't "derail" the thread anymore...

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Does anyone one really care where their oil comes from?

You sound like the same kind of people who love Shark Fin soup.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I'm not derailing anything .......

The thread is about the expansion of the oilsands, not about climate change deniers parroting their nonsense, so yes it is derailing the thread.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

"At this point, carbon in the atmosphere is 389 parts per million, while the safe level is 350 ppm, he says. To get to the lower level, the world has to phase out fossil fuel and look to nuclear and renewable energy, Hansen said."

Compared to most geological time periods in earth's history, that's really low, extremely low. The Paleogene was 500ppm, the Cretaceous was 1700ppm....assuming of course the data is accurate.

As far as the article goes and what this scientist says IT does make you wonder what their real intentions are, cause really like photon said it is a silly argument.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Compared to most geological time periods in earth's history, that's really low, extremely low. The Paleogene was 500ppm, the Cretaceous was 1700ppm....assuming of course the data is accurate.

As far as the article goes and what this scientist says IT does make you wonder what their real intentions are, cause really like photon said it is a silly argument.

The issue isn't the absolute value of CO2, or even that it's increasing. It's how fast it's increasing.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by SebC

The issue the absolute value of CO2, or even that it's increasing. It's how fast it's increasing.

I understand. Just pointing how sometimes these things can be ambiguous.