Canada's oil sands emit more greenhouse gases than entire countries.

[kinglouisxiv]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/13/greenpeace-oilsands.html

Alberta's oilsands produce more greenhouse gas emissions than some European countries right now and will produce more than all of the world's volcanoes in just 11 years if the pace of development continues, a new report says.

Greenpeace commissioned award-winning author Andrew Nikiforuk, a business and environmental reporter, to write the report. "Nobody in Canada wants to talk about the scale issues," he said in an interview Saturday. "The emissions are bigger than Estonia and Lithuania right now and in 2020 will be larger than countries like Belgium, Austria, Ireland and Denmark."

The report documents the "real" cost of the oilsands, which Nikiforuk said are the world's largest energy project.

"The major energy projects in the Middle East,... they don't come anywhere near. None of them approach the scale and capital intensity of the oilsands."

The report says almost $200 billion has been or will be invested in the projects in northern Alberta, including not only the oilsands but pipelines, refinery expansions and other associated infrastructure. It adds that the liabilities are a nearly threefold increase in greenhouse gas emissions, enormous amounts of natural gas used and wasted to produce synthetic oil from bitumen - which consists of tarry pitch, or asphalt - and the "economic nightmare" of carbon capture and storage, a technology that has yet to be developed.

On Friday, the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan inked a deal pledging to work together on carbon capture and storage technology. In June, the Alberta government announced it was giving $2 billion to seven companies to fund three pilot projects.

But Nikiforuk points out that there is no commercial carbon capture and storage facility operating anywhere in the world.

The technology is being designed mainly for the coal-fired electricity plants operating in Alberta to fuel the energy-hungry oilsands and associated projects.

This is how it's envisioned to work: Carbon dioxide is captured from smokestacks and the gas is compressed and transported to be stored underground. The waste must be monitored for an undetermined amount of time, possibly for thousands of years, at an uncalculated cost to ensure that no leaks occur, the report says.

"Most governments are not good at monitoring things for five years, let alone a thousand years," Nikiforuk said.

He also said the money to pay for carbon capture and storage will come out of Canadian taxpayers' wallets.

"The estimate from the Carbon Capture Council in Alberta is that we're going to need $2 billion to $3 billion a year for the next 20 years. That's extraordinary, that's taxpayers' money.... Any fiscal conservative in the country should look at this and just be absolutely alarmed."

Nikiforuk compared it with the fledgling nuclear power industry nearly 50 years ago.

"It was going to be too cheap to meter, then it became too expensive to build, and I think carbon capture and storage will probably leave the same kind of legacy."

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Canada must burn.

 

[kinglouisxiv]

For reference:

 

[al audi]

SMH America Jr. is kiling our planet.

 

[frenchblue23]

 

[cb94]

I'm trying to care so hard.

 

[whywesteppin]

sup KLX

btw, my understanding is that oil sands are another form of energy but more expensive to use because you have to process them more and this extra processing iswhat's causing the greenhouse gases?

 

[lazy b]

Canada isn't going to stop at all especially since the oil sands have helped boost the value of the Canadian dollar in comparison to the American dollar.

 

[kinglouisxiv]

Originally Posted by whywesteppin

sup KLX

btw, my understanding is that oil sands are another form of energy but more expensive to use because you have to process them more and this extra processing is what's causing the greenhouse gases?

The production process involved in turning the bitumen (essentially sand/oil mixed) into usable petroleum or synthetic crude oil amounts to 170 lbs ofgreenhouse gas per barrel. The National Energy Board has estimated Canada's emissions of GHG solely from oil sands production to be 74 million tons peryear by 2015. This would account for 8% of Canada's total GHG emissions, however it does not count the GHG emissions from usage of the petroleum productsderived from oil sands production.

The sustained use of fossil fuels bolstered by Canada's production of oil sands will put the world on track to reaching the predicted 400-500 ppmconcentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. IPCC scientists have set 350 ppm CO2 concentration (as it was in the 1950s) as the ideal number for climate stability.For more info. on the ideal 350 ppm concentration I suggest visiting http://www.350.org/

Oil sands may represent as much as two-thirds of the world's total petroleum resource, with at least 1.7 trillion barrels in the Canadian Athabasca OilSands and perhaps 235 billion barrels in the Venezuelan Orinoco oil sands. Between them, the Canadian and Venezuelan deposits contain about 3.6 trillionbarrels of oil in place, compared to 1.75 trillion barrels of conventional oil worldwide, most of it in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries.

 

[hypebeast mcstreetwear]

Originally Posted by Lazy B

Canada isn't going to stop at all especially since the oil sands have helped boost the value of the Canadian dollar in comparison to the American dollar.

Yup.

Their means of extracting oil is pretty inefficient. 10:36-12:36

 

[general johnson]

What the +*!! is climate stability?

I thought climates/temperatures changed over time. I seem to remember learning that we had 3 or more ice ages.

Whatever though. I'm not a scientist.

 

[ninjahood]

im wit da republicans on this.....i can give 2 craps.

we seriously worried about something that humans exhale on they own?

 

[kinglouisxiv]

Originally Posted by General Johnson

What the +*!! is climate stability?

I thought climates/temperatures changed over time. I seem to remember learning that we had 3 or more ice ages.

Whatever though. I'm not a scientist.

An increase to 530 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere by 2050 would raise global temperatures six degrees celsius. IPCC scientists have predicted an increase of twodegrees over that short period of time would cause irreversible melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, raising sea levels, extending tropiczones and resulting in longer, hotter and more frequent heat waves, resulting in drought and other heat related hazards (brush fire) in mid-latitudes.

An increase of six degrees would wildly transform our planet. The Earth's climate does change, over time. CO2 loading in the atmosphere is at anunprecedented scale, with drastic implications for global climate patterns. If you would like more information regarding the source, mechanics, andimplications of climate change please refer to the most authoritative body on the subject: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, see the FourthAssessment (2007).

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Originally Posted by ninjahood

im wit da republicans on this.....i can give 2 craps.

we seriously worried about something that humans exhale on they own?

It's hard to believe this sort of willful anti-science, anti-intellectualism sentiment still exists in the face of overwhelming destruction of the planet.

 

[general johnson]

Originally Posted by KingLouisXIV

Originally Posted by General Johnson

What the +*!! is climate stability?

I thought climates/temperatures changed over time. I seem to remember learning that we had 3 or more ice ages.

Whatever though. I'm not a scientist.

An increase to 530 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere by 2050 would raise global temperatures six degrees celsius. IPCC scientists have predicted an increase of two degrees over that short period of time would cause irreversible melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, raising sea levels, extending tropic zones and resulting in longer, hotter and more frequent heat waves, resulting in drought and other heat related hazards (brush fire) in mid-latitudes.

An increase of six degrees would wildly transform our planet. The Earth's climate does change, over time. CO2 loading in the atmosphere is at an unprecedented scale, with drastic implications for global climate patterns. If you would like more information regarding the source, mechanics, and implications of climate change please refer to the most authoritative body on the subject: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, see the Fourth Assessment (2007).

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

So?

%!!@ happens. As humans we adapt to these problems or we die. It's worked that way for years. I'm not going to stop exhaling or driving my V8because some dip %%@#! think a hotter planet is gonna be a problem for everyone.

Don't these same scientist believe in natural selection and evolution?

Let nature do what it do in response to us (if that's the case).

I'll keep exhaling CO2 and letting the plants breath it and create air for me to breathe.

No need to respond any more to me. I don't care about this crap.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

im wit da republicans on this.....i can give 2 craps.

we seriously worried about something that humans exhale on they own?

Yes, it is called Science. The amount of damage done to this planet in the past 50 years is ridiculous. We have destroyed almost all theworld's fisheries from over fishing, caused massive holes in the o-zone, over farmed our land and damaged our essential cropland and pastureland. Within100 years all the war's will be over enviornmental issues.

 

[will068]

Originally Posted by Lazy B

Canada isn't going to stop at all especially since the oil sands have helped boost the value of the Canadian dollar in comparison to the American dollar.

That's not the reason. As long as the price per barrel for oil is above $44-47, these oil sand companies do not lose money. It is actuallypreferred by Canadian Exporters to have the the Canadian Dollar lower than the greenback by a significant amount. The preferred price interval is 0.75 to 0.85USD Dollars to 1 CDN Dollar. If the ratio is close, a lot of Canadian Goods are deemed expensive by US buyers and the rest of the global market. Thus, lessdemand.

 

[theprocessofbelief]

This might be news to people outside of Canada.... but Canadians have known about this for a while.

Being an Albertan, it is almost impossible to do anything.... as oilsands bring hundreds of thousands of jobs to our province...

Our Premier (Ed Stelmach) is also borderline incompetent. PC, FTL.

Much of Stelmach's term as Premier has been dominated by questions related to the Athabasca Oil Sands. The rapid development of these reserves was fuelling the Alberta economy's strong growth, but also raised environmental questions. After winning the Premiership, Stelmach emphasized that he had no intention of taking measures that would slow down oilsands development and suggested that the economy would find its own appropriate growth rate.[sup][42][/sup] He aggressively defended Alberta's oil at home and abroad, and called the idea that it was extracted at an unacceptably high environmental cost "a myth".[sup][43][/sup][sup][44][/sup] When Liberal Party of Canada leader Stéphane Dion proposed a federal carbon tax to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, Stelmach rejected the policy on the basis that it would hurt the economy and would unfairly penalize the western provinces.[sup][45][/sup] Instead, he has championed the development of carbon capture technology.[sup][46][/sup] In July 2008, Stelmach announced $2 billion worth of funding for carbon capture initiatives, for which he was applauded by industry groups.[sup][47][/sup] However, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called it "a huge amount of money to spend on something that isn't proven",[sup][48][/sup] and Mike Hudema of Greenpeace suggesting that there were better environmental uses of the money available.[sup][49][/sup]

Though Stelmach pledged not to do anything to curb the development of the oilsands, he did promise to review royalty rates-the rates paid by oil companies for the privilege of extracting Alberta's oil. He also committed to reducing the proportion of bitumen that left Alberta to be upgraded out of province, likening the export of bitumen to "scraping off the top soil" from farmland.[sup][42][/sup] Soon after becoming Premier, he commissioned the Alberta Royalty Review panel to make recommendations on the province's royalty regime; opposition politicians had accused the government of undercharging substantially. Stelmach rejected many of the panel's recommendations, but did increase royalty rates by approximately 20% (25% less than recommended by the panel).[sup][5[/sup] Just after the 2008 election, Stelmach's government announced a five year royalty break worth $237 million per year to encourage development that it feared would have become uneconomical under the new plan.[sup][51][/sup] He was less decisive in increasing in-province bitumen upgrading; in 2008 he conceded that Alberta would continue upgrading between sixty and sixty-five percent of the bitumen it produced for the foreseeable future, rather than the seventy-two percent target he had previously announced for 2016.[sup][52][/sup] This admission came in the wake of his government's approval of three new pipelines designed to export bitumen.[sup][52][/sup]

In January 2008, Stelmach unveiled the province's "made in Alberta"-as distinct from imposed by the federal government or by international treaty-plan to cut carbon emissions in order to fight global warming. The plan called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 14% (from 2007 levels) by 2050.[sup][53][/sup] Environmental groups and opposition parties suggested that this was insufficient in light of British Columbia's plan to cut emissions by 80% (from 2007 levels) during the same period, but Stelmach argued that Alberta's position as a supplier of oil to the rest of the country justified higher emissions.[sup][54][/sup] This was followed in June by the unveiling of the government's campaign to ask Albertans to make "one simple act"-such as composting, using reusable shopping bags, and replacing incandescent light bulbs with the more efficient fluorescent bulbs.[sup][55][/sup] Opponents argued that the emphasis on personal responsibility by individuals did nothing to address the greater environmental damage caused by the development of the Athabasca Oil Sands.[sup][56][/sup]

In late April 2008 hundreds of ducks landed in a northern Alberta tailings pond belonging to Syncrude, where most died.[sup][57][/sup] The incident was a blow to Stelmach's efforts to convince the world that Alberta's oil sands were environmentally friendly.[sup][58][/sup] The number of ducks that died was originally reported at around 500, but in March 2009 Syncrude revealed that the number was in fact more than 1,600. In response to accusations from opposition and environmental groups that his government, which had known the actual number since the summer of 2008, had participated in covering it up to save face, Stelmach asserted that it had refrained from making the higher number public for fear of jeopardizing its investigation of whether Syncrude had violated any provincial regulations in the incident.[sup][59][/sup] Investigations were centred around the questions of whether Syncrude had immediately reported the incident as required (the government had first heard of it from an anonymous tip, though Syncrude reported it several hours later) and whether the company had the required measures in place to prevent ducks from landing on its tailings ponds (it had noisemakers designed to deter waterfowl, but these had not been set up at the time of the incident due to winter weather conditions).[sup][6[/sup] Syncrude was eventually charged with "failing to have systems in place to divert waterfowl", which carries a maximum fine of $800,000.[sup][59][/sup]

Partially in an effort to counter-act negative publicity from oil sands-related issues-for example, the March 2009 edition of National Geographic Magazine contained a 20 page article portraying Alberta's oil sands operations as being highly environmentally damaging[sup][61][/sup]-in 2009 Stelmach's government spent $25 million on a rebranding campaign for the province. Among other things, it replaced the "Alberta Advantage" slogan that had long been in use with "Alberta: Freedom to create. Spirit to achieve."[sup][62][/sup] The campaign became the subject of some ridicule when the Edmonton Journal revealed that one of the photos used in it was not taken in Alberta, but at a North Sea beach in Northumberland. While the government initially claimed that it had intentionally used a foreign image to represent Alberta's engagement with the world, it later admitted that this was not the case, and that the photo had been used in error. Stelmach responded to the image, which showed two children running along a beach, by saying that "children, no matter where they are around the world, they are the next generation. And air quality, water quality, no matter where we live on this big globe, we're all responsible, and that's the message we're trying to portray."[sup][63][/sup]

 

[hypebeast mcstreetwear]

Originally Posted by General Johnson

Originally Posted by KingLouisXIV

Originally Posted by General Johnson

What the +*!! is climate stability?

I thought climates/temperatures changed over time. I seem to remember learning that we had 3 or more ice ages.

Whatever though. I'm not a scientist.

An increase to 530 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere by 2050 would raise global temperatures six degrees celsius. IPCC scientists have predicted an increase of two degrees over that short period of time would cause irreversible melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, raising sea levels, extending tropic zones and resulting in longer, hotter and more frequent heat waves, resulting in drought and other heat related hazards (brush fire) in mid-latitudes.

An increase of six degrees would wildly transform our planet. The Earth's climate does change, over time. CO2 loading in the atmosphere is at an unprecedented scale, with drastic implications for global climate patterns. If you would like more information regarding the source, mechanics, and implications of climate change please refer to the most authoritative body on the subject: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, see the Fourth Assessment (2007).

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

So?

%!!@ happens. As humans we adapt to these problems or we die. It's worked that way for years. I'm not going to stop exhaling or driving my V8 because some dip %%@#! think a hotter planet is gonna be a problem for everyone.

Don't these same scientist believe in natural selection and evolution?

Let nature do what it do in response to us (if that's the case).

I'll keep exhaling CO2 and letting the plants breath it and create air for me to breathe.

No need to respond any more to me. I don't care about this crap.

Wow.

 

[jdocs]

I knooooowwwwwww....... Harper loves Alberta so nothing will be done about this anytime soon..

Sorry on behalf of Canada.

 

[recycledpaper]

General Johnson, you are a moron.

 

[atlien seeko]

But Canada is a country...

 

[kash55]

Yeah, it's absolutly terrible. They are raping the land.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Fortunately the one's in here who are 'indifferent' to CO2 emissions are the same people who will never become any more significant than the amountof pollution they put out.

Their feelings reflect the minority view.

 

[general johnson]

Originally Posted by recycledpaper

General Johnson, you are a moron.

Nah.

I just don't care about or believe that global warming is something I have any control over and I don't see how carbon credits and all that crap isgonna fix anything when it's industry creating the so called "problem".

I appreciate you taking the time out to acknowledge me though. Enjoy your day.

Fortunately the one's in here who are 'indifferent' to CO2 emissions are the same people who will never become any more significant than the amount of pollution they put out.

Their feelings reflect the minority view.

You sound real hurt by people not all lining up andbelieving the same thing.

Why don't you reduce your carbon footprint by logging off and go save the planet, Captain.

 

[general johnson]

All these hypocritical green eco-friendly people kill me.

You waste just as much, if not more energy and rescources than the next man, yet you cry about saving the planet from CO2, which we all exhale.

How many of you wear clothes made of recycled material, use only your feet and a bike to get from place to place and farm your own food?

Are you using solar energy to power your computer right now? No?

Ok, hop off. Just admit you're as wasteful as everyone else and get over yourselves.