Oilsands expansion 'fool's gold,' scientist warns

[Boblobla]

Personally, I think we should just start exporting to China. If the US doesn't want our oil, fine. They can buy their oil from politically stable places like Saudi, Iran, Venezuela or from environmentally friendly places like the Gulf of Mexico.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Personally, I think we should just start exporting to China. If the US doesn't want our oil, fine. They can buy their oil from politically stable places like Saudi, Iran, Venezuela or from environmentally friendly places like the Gulf of Mexico.

Profit margins for an exporter might be lower the further it has to be shipped.

On the other hand, supplanting Canadian crude with something from Venezuela might be more expensive for the importer as well.

In the end, common interests will converge, money will talk and crude from the Athabasca Oil Sands will be going primarily if not wholly into the USA market.

And the more of it, the better . . . . .

That isn't to say concerned citizen groups shouldn't continue to press governments and industry for higher environtmental protection standards . . . . . but the world's largest industrial project is in a highly isolated place occupying a postage-stamp sized plot of land on the face of the planet. Some of this vitriol is a little ridiculous.

Cowperson

[Hi-Psi]

I'm not going to get into the whole Oilsands debate, I see it everyday at work.

At least I know I'll have a job for years to come haha :-P

[photon]

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.

And the earth's environment was vastly different to create those levels. There was a point in the earth's history where there was almost no oxygen in the atmosphere too, just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it's going to happen again or that if it did it'd be a good thing.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

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.

I think their intention is obvious, they want to reign in the release of CO2.. which is fine but the solution isn't to focus on one type of extraction, the solution is to reduce demand with some combination of better sources of energy.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

and London.....Brent....

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

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

Only if it's served with whale meat.

[T@T]

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.

Spot on, but you left out the part where 90 odd % of the planets life was killed off by an astroid or comet.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Build cars that don't run on gas but cost less than (or the same as) cars that do. Problem solved. Hard to believe we still can't figure that one out.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Build cars that don't run on gas but cost less than (or the same as) cars that do. Problem solved. Hard to believe we still can't figure that one out.

Find something that has as much energy as gasoline per whatever unit you want to use.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Find something that has as much energy as gasoline per whatever unit you want to use.

Natural gas will have to become our transportation gas. We have a 100 year supply at hand.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Build cars that don't run on gas but cost less than (or the same as) cars that do. Problem solved. Hard to believe we still can't figure that one out.

Damn those pesky laws of thermodynamics!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Natural gas will have to become our transportation gas. We have a 100 year supply at hand.

The energy density of gasoline is 4 orders of magnitude greater than that of natural gas, so you'd have to compress the natural gas significantly and you'd still end up with a lot less range per unit volume than gasoline.

Plus the added cost of the tanks and fueling stations (home based or commercial).

That said it could be a useful step, but it makes more sense to me to go directly to electric vehicles. The big block there of course is the same problem; energy density and batteries that can store useful amounts.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by T@T

Spot on, but you left out the part where 90 odd % of the planets life was killed off by an astroid or comet.

exactly

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by photon

That said it could be a useful step, but it makes more sense to me to go directly to electric vehicles. The big block there of course is the same problem; energy density and batteries that can store useful amounts.

That, and the fact that the bulk of electricity in the states is still produced by the burning of coal.

[henriksedin33]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Build cars that don't run on gas but cost less than (or the same as) cars that do. Problem solved. Hard to believe we still can't figure that one out.

because it's that simple!

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

That, and the fact that the bulk of electricity in the states is still produced by the burning of coal.

And Alberta...shame shame

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by fotze

People from California.

Which is hilarious because the heavy oil they drill there is just as bad or worse from a carbon emissions point of view than the oil sands. Also they are much less safe in how they drill. If you ever want to see how 'urban drilling works, the inland empire of the LA area has tonnes of wells in shopping center parking lots, suburban home developments etc. The biggest hypocrites on Earth live in California.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

That, and the fact that the bulk of electricity in the states is still produced by the burning of coal.

Even though it's produced by coal, a large scale coal power plant is far more efficient than small scale internal combustion engines. Localizing pollution also allows for large-scale mitigation techniques (CCS, for example, and obviously there are issues with that as well) that isn't possible on an individual level.

[MJM]

I recently went out to lunch with a pretty big player in the hydro-electric sector who told me that what we do in NA is so irrelevant on the world scale, that we could all go back to burning coal and wouldn't make one bit of difference with China and India producing at the rate they do (and they are getting worse) every day.

People picking on the oil sands (about the size of a postage stamp in the world) is absolutely ridiculous given what goes on in other parts of the world.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Which is hilarious because the heavy oil they drill there is just as bad or worse from a carbon emissions point of view than the oil sands. Also they are much less safe in how they drill. If you ever want to see how 'urban drilling works, the inland empire of the LA area has tonnes of wells in shopping center parking lots, suburban home developments etc. The biggest hypocrites on Earth live in California.

I don't know enough to directly argue for/against this point, and even though I live here, I take no offense from your statement.

I think it's worth pointing out, though, that California is one of the most politically, socially and economically disparate regions in the world. I didn't realize this until I moved here, but within these borders live some of the more "leftist" and "rightist" (liberal and conservative) individuals - and significant groups - in North America... and all those in between.

This suggests to me that different people are promoting/involved in heavy oil drilling and those activities contrary to it (as an example, the WWF), as both ends of the spectrum are incredibly well-funded and well-connected in this state.