Skewed Values of the Alberta Tory Government

[Flames in 07]

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?

Yes, but what is sickening is that someone died up there about 5 days prior and that had almost no coverage.

I felt as bad for those ducks as the next guy but it's quite the commentary on the media and society that more people want to focus on the birds than the death.

[Flames in 07]

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?

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?

Well if that money is pointed to educating people like you who clearly demonstrate that they know nothing about the oil and gas industry then its worth it. There is a very direct relationship between naivety and venom towards governments ... the spending makes sense to me.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Flame On

What other industry is allowed to figure out how to deal with it's waste material later down the road?

lots.

Even solar energy has a huge end waste product issue. When solar panels are done their useful life, you can't toss them into a landfill my friend.

Same for nuclear

And just because someone has a plan for what to do with their waste doesn't mean it's a good one either... Waste is waste. Regardless if you are an environmentalist or business profit driven individual, the one common ground is an increase in efficiency. More efficient means less input, higher output, meaning less cost and less waste. Plain and simple, as a consumer, that is what we should be demanding.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

Yes, the energy requirements are going down (trust me, I've heard about it), but there's a limiti to how low they can go. At the very least, W=mgh. Which is not to say we won't always be making improvements, as progress is likely to be asymptotic.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

You could put the plant far away from the oil sands, and even with the transmission losses it would still be way better from an environmental and sustainability perspective than burning natural gas to produce oil!

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, the energy requirements are going down (trust me, I've heard about it), but there's a limiti to how low they can go. At the very least, W=mgh. Which is not to say we won't always be making improvements, as progress is likely to be asymptotic.

You could put the plant far away from the oil sands, and even with the transmission losses it would still be way better from an environmental and sustainability perspective than burning natural gas to produce oil!

We may find that the supply of gas in the future is so abundant that buring it to produce oil doesn't move folks to put it in italics. It's looking out forward quite a bit but there are potential reserves of nat gas that if recovered would make is more than abundant and dirt cheap (a ways from now I admit).

Just curious, where would you put the nuke?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by SebC

You could put the plant far away from the oil sands, and even with the transmission losses it would still be way better from an environmental and sustainability perspective than burning natural gas to produce oil!

I am just curious how you would get the tar sands, or bitumen, depending on the method of extraction to the plant that is away from the oil sands.

Trucking? Do you have any idea how large scale some of these operations area and the numer of vehicles that would be required to do this? I am pretty sure that trucks burn diesel...

Pipeline? How are you going to heat this product in the pipeline? I am pretty sure that you would BURN NATURAL GAS.

Are you aware there is some companies that do transport the product to an offsite area? Do you know where their plants are? Montana.

So you take the resources from Canada and then give the profit to the States? Is that what you are advocating here? I am just wondering if you have actually done any sort of research before you make some of these suggestions.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I am just curious how you would get the tar sands, or bitumen, depending on the method of extraction to the plant that is away from the oil sands.

Trucking? Do you have any idea how large scale some of these operations area and the numer of vehicles that would be required to do this? I am pretty sure that trucks burn diesel...

Pipeline? How are you going to heat this product in the pipeline? I am pretty sure that you would BURN NATURAL GAS.

Are you aware there is some companies that do transport the product to an offsite area? Do you know where their plants are? Montana.

So you take the resources from Canada and then give the profit to the States? Is that what you are advocating here? I am just wondering if you have actually done any sort of research before you make some of these suggestions.

Well I think he was referring to a nuke plant so I think your post doesn't really make much sense. The nuke plant would supply the heat to allow for the processing and upgrading to be handled locally.

And right now would be a great time to stop throwing stones at him. You don't understand the discussion going on here and you don't understand the economics of upgrading. All these resources at the end of the day need to cross a border and preferably the US border so I don't get your sensitivity to crude going to Montana. If you do, please do yourself a favor and never research where almost every single crude line leaving Edmonton ends up ... it's not a pretty sight for those who want the crude to stay here.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Well I think he was referring to a nuke plant so I think your post doesn't really make much sense. The nuke plant would supply the heat to allow for the processing and upgrading to be handled locally.

Yup. Thanks. Although I personally don't know where I'd put it, since that would require more knowledge than what I have. Honestly, I'd probably put it fairly close to the oil sands, since I'm not as concerned about terrorism as you are. AFAIK, all the separation and upgrading is in Alberta anyways because bitumen is too viscous to efficiently move long distances, but once it's up to synthetic crude we pipe it out. That wouldn't change, but what would change is the carbon intensity of these processes.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And right now would be a great time to stop throwing stones at him. You don't understand the discussion going on here and you don't understand the economics of upgrading. All these resources at the end of the day need to cross a border and preferably the US border so I don't get your sensitivity to crude going to Montana. If you do, please do yourself a favor and never research where almost every single crude line leaving Edmonton ends up ... it's not a pretty sight for those who want the crude to stay here.

Which bring up another point. It would be best for the environment if we upgraded and refined at least a portion of the bitumen in Alberta, since sending it to the US for refining and then bringing it back to Alberta as final products is energy wastage. However, with our economy as hot as it is, creating final products here is uneconomic as our costs of business are so much higher.

But anyways, I posted in this thread simply to explain the situation a bit better to some who clearly don't understand it, not to debate the finer points with someone who clearly does.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yup. Thanks. Although I personally don't know where I'd put it, since that would require more knowledge than what I have. Honestly, I'd probably put it fairly close to the oil sands, since I'm not as concerned about terrorism as you are. AFAIK, all the separation and upgrading is in Alberta anyways because bitumen is too viscous to efficiently move long distances, but once it's up to synthetic crude we pipe it out. That wouldn't change, but what would change is the carbon intensity of these processes.
Which bring up another point. It would be best for the environment if we upgraded and refined at least a portion of the bitumen in Alberta, since sending it to the US for refining and then bringing it back to Alberta as final products is energy wastage. However, with our economy as hot as it is, creating final products here is uneconomic as our costs of business are so much higher.

But anyways, I posted in this thread simply to explain the situation a bit better to some who clearly don't understand it, not to debate the finer points with someone who clearly does.

Not sure that is true, for the most part Canada is long products (jet notwithstanding. Which US refineries send products to Canada? I'm not aware of any.

Besides the refining business is not a good business to be in ... they make sense as part of an integrated strategy but refining by itself makes no sense in Canada, there are at least two groups who have proposed refineries that are struggling and have put their project on hold or are mothballing it because it's not a good business to invest in. Another public fallacy.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Well I think he was referring to a nuke plant so I think your post doesn't really make much sense. The nuke plant would supply the heat to allow for the processing and upgrading to be handled locally.

Ah, I apologize, I got confused between a few posts there. I blame my coffee not working in time.

As far as the crude crossing the border, I know that needs to happen and I was not referring to that. I was merely stating that there is already some refineries in Montana that they ship the bitumen to.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Yes, but what is sickening is that someone died up there about 5 days prior and that had almost no coverage.

I felt as bad for those ducks as the next guy but it's quite the commentary on the media and society that more people want to focus on the birds than the death.

That's sort of a seperate issue though. But I hear what you're saying.
What was the nature of this person's death?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

lots.

Even solar energy has a huge end waste product issue. When solar panels are done their useful life, you can't toss them into a landfill my friend.

Same for nuclear

And just because someone has a plan for what to do with their waste doesn't mean it's a good one either... Waste is waste. Regardless if you are an environmentalist or business profit driven individual, the one common ground is an increase in efficiency. More efficient means less input, higher output, meaning less cost and less waste. Plain and simple, as a consumer, that is what we should be demanding.

I think the difference is that with Nuclear, to use your example, you know at least what the waste is and will be and will do. Even if its highly toxic, dangerous and all that stuff.
I don't think they know the long term effects of these ponds, wether it can get into the water supply etc.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Besides the refining business is not a good business to be in ... they make sense as part of an integrated strategy but refining by itself makes no sense in Canada, there are at least two groups who have proposed refineries that are struggling and have put their project on hold or are mothballing it because it's not a good business to invest in. Another public fallacy.

Didn't I say that? I said it's uneconomic... pretty much the same thing.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Ah, I apologize, I got confused between a few posts there. I blame my coffee not working in time.

As far as the crude crossing the border, I know that needs to happen and I was not referring to that. I was merely stating that there is already some refineries in Montana that they ship the bitumen to.

There are refineries in Washington, California, Minnesota, Illionois, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, Missori etc that AB crude goes to, why would this be any different? I don't understand what is bad about the crude going to Montana.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by SebC

Didn't I say that? I said it's uneconomic... pretty much the same thing.

No I'm saying that we wouldn't bring it back, so it's NBD to send them the heavy crude.