An Oil Company CEO...for Kyoto?

[fanforever1986]

The Shell CEO says Oil company's are ready to work with Governments under the Kyoto Agreement.

I've never thought Kyoto was the right strategy to cut emissions, but this is very interesting to say the least.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D8LQ5BA81.htm

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...1204?hub=World

[JohnnyFlame]

Interesting report I saw on the weekend which showed how Candu nuclear reactors could be used on the Tar Sands projects and would help out a great deal emissions wise.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Yeah, I've seen nuclear power suggested several times in the past when it comes to the oilsands. It seems like even more of a disaster waiting to happen IMO, but I suppose that it gets bandied about from time to time shows how desperate things are.

[mykalberta]

The reason nuke power isnt used yet is:

A: Alberta has no plutonium so doesnt get a cut when its used
B: Alberta has a mother load of cheap coal so coal plants are used

Coal could be just as clean as nuke if they were to put filters at the top of the stacks and collect them and then dispose of them. That would likely be cheaper than dolling out billions on nuke plants where the alberta government makes no revenue.

MYK

[JohnnyFlame]

I can't see why nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen. I think the safety record of the Candu reactors has in fact been very good. A well managed nuclear alternative looks like a very good choice in fact.

[mykalberta]

Clean fuel is the next fuel - oil companies see that but before it was just not economical to exploite it.

With the amount of reliable drilling sites and friendly goverments dwindling, oil is more and more scarce and thus oil companies will turn more and more to clean fuels which cant be exploited.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by fotze

I thought Shell has been supporting kyoto for a long time. Isn't BP another? I can't remember.

Ah, another classic fotze comment - or is it

MYK

[MarchHare]

New Brunswick's Irving company, owner of the largest oil refinery in Canada, also supports the Kyoto Accord.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/...ing030129.html

Arthur Irving, one of Canada's wealthiest oil executives, says he supports the Kyoto accord on greenhouse gas emissions.

Irving says he doesn't think the implementation of Kyoto will be bad for business.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Ah, another classic fotze comment - or is it

MYK

Eh?

Fotze is absolutely correct in this matter. Shell has been a long-time supporter of the Kyoto agreement. I found this press release from as far back as 1999 outlining their position:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?..._10171250.html

The Shell Group is already cutting its own emissions of greenhouse gases. It supports the Kyoto Protocol that is aimed at stabilising man-made emissions.

[...]

Shell supported the Kyoto process, has taken its decisions on board and is already working on the ground toward its goals.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The reason nuke power isnt used yet is:

A: Alberta has no plutonium so doesnt get a cut when its used
B: Alberta has a mother load of cheap coal so coal plants are used

Coal could be just as clean as nuke if they were to put filters at the top of the stacks and collect them and then dispose of them. That would likely be cheaper than dolling out billions on nuke plants where the alberta government makes no revenue.

MYK

If we're talking about the kind of pollution that Kyoto governs, then there really isn't any way for coal power plants to be as clean as nuclear plants. Sure you can filter out particulates (which have nothing to do with Kyoto), but you still release a lot of CO2. Nuclear plants don't produce any CO2 emissions because all they do is use nucler fuel to turn water to steam.

Also, while your point about plutonium is correct (since Plutonium as I understand it is not found in usable quantites in nature, and is only created from uranium for the purpose of fuel for nuclear plants/bombs), it is irrelevant on account of CANDU reactors use Uranium for fuel.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Eh?

Fotze is absolutely correct in this matter. Shell has been a long-time supporter of the Kyoto agreement. I found this press release from as far back as 1999 outlining their position:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?..._10171250.html

I thoght BP and Shell were the same comany or interconnected some how?

If I am wrong in that I apologize to Fotze.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I thoght BP and Shell were the same comany or interconnected some how?

If I am wrong in that I apologize to Fotze.

MYK

I'm pretty sure they're completely separate companies.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If we're talking about the kind of pollution that Kyoto governs, then there really isn't any way for coal power plants to be as clean as nuclear plants. Sure you can filter out particulates (which have nothing to do with Kyoto), but you still release a lot of CO2. Nuclear plants don't produce any CO2 emissions because all they do is use nucler fuel to turn water to steam.

There have to be filters/a filtering system for CO2 emissions as well and if not I would rather have Alberta spend X Billions on developing that technology than using nuclear power that we dont see a dime of revenue from.

MYK

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I can't see why nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen. I think the safety record of the Candu reactors has in fact been very good. A well managed nuclear alternative looks like a very good choice in fact.

Nuclear Waste?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I thoght BP and Shell were the same comany or interconnected some how?

If I am wrong in that I apologize to Fotze.

MYK

BP and Shell are not the same company.

I'm still not sure how that relates to your comment about Fotze's original post though. He's correct that both BP and Shell support Kyoto.

Here's an article about BP's stance:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...een.27_company

Browne, who had managed the company's Alaska division for many years, became group chief executive in 1995. The following year, to the surprise of many environmentalists and oil industry analysts, BP resigned from the Global Climate Coalition, which ridiculed the science pointing to human induced climate change and sought to undermine the Kyoto treaty negotiations.


"The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point," Browne said. Subsequently the company moved to adopt internal greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

There have to be filters/a filtering system for CO2 emissions as well and if not I would rather have Alberta spend X Billions on developing that technology than using nuclear power that we dont see a dime of revenue from.

MYK

Pretty tough to filter out a gas.

Do you honestly think that you can develope a technology that can eliminate CO2 emissions form burning coal?? The majority of technology used to clean up emissions from coal pants (called scrubbers, Not filters, as it's pretty darn tough to filter a gas), is aimed at reducing sulfur, mercury, and other harmful chemical emissions, the CO2 is allowed to go into the atmosphere. You're not gonna be able to get the CO2 emissions from a coal plant to anywhere near zero because that is what the vast majority of the emissions are.

As for Alberta not getting any revenue, man that is pretty much the mentality that got us into a situation where we need something like Kyoto in the first place (personally not a big supporter, but that is besides the point). To hell with the environment, I'd rather burn Coal becasue then I get something out of it, yeah, that's a really sustainable stance.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

British Petroleum is Italian I think.

My god please tell me you're joking.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

Please tell me you're joking.

No not really.
I'm not sure why you would think that a company called British Petroleum, with it's international headquartes in London would be an Italian Company.

[Eagle Eye]

..

[fanforever1986]

I still want to know who's kidding?