Comments on: The tar sands — Canada’s version of liquid coal http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:44:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: tidal http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-6091 tidal Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:31:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-6091 This is a classic example of why we so desperately need a price on carbon - be it a tax or some sort of cap. So long as there is none (and none on the water degradation as well), then the economics are straightforward. The EROEI* is positive (about 110% to 120% if I recall my reading of those articles last month) and therefore you undertake production. (*Energy Return on Energy Investeed). There is another decent/recent article in Macleans magazine here http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071008_110103_110103&source=srch , which references an upcoming book on the subject: Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care) http://www.amazon.com/Stupid-Last-Drop-Environmental-Armageddon/dp/0676979130/ref=sr_1_1/104-4542983-7076760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192127232&sr=8-1 Remarkably, the author claims that the province once seriously considered a plan to detonate an underground nuclear bomb to extract oil sands... I wonder what the EROEI was on that??? This is a classic example of why we so desperately need a price on carbon - be it a tax or some sort of cap. So long as there is none (and none on the water degradation as well), then the economics are straightforward. The EROEI* is positive (about 110% to 120% if I recall my reading of those articles last month) and therefore you undertake production. (*Energy Return on Energy Investeed).

There is another decent/recent article in Macleans magazine here http://www.macleans.ca/ article.jsp?content=20071008_110103_110103&source=srch , which references an upcoming book on the subject: Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn’t Seem to Care) http://www.amazon.com/ Stupid-Last-Drop-Environmental-Armageddon/ dp/ 0676979130/ ref=sr_1_1/ 104-4542983-7076760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192127232&sr=8-1

Remarkably, the author claims that the province once seriously considered a plan to detonate an underground nuclear bomb to extract oil sands… I wonder what the EROEI was on that???

]]> By: Anonymous http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-6108 Anonymous Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:32:50 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-6108 If there weren't buyers, it wouldn't be produced. Most of Canadians aren't too happy about this project. It's had a HUGE impact on shooting us vastly off course to hit our Kyoto targets. It's also causing pollution problems in neighbouring provinces and threatening water supplies. Development may slow because of these factors. There's more to this story than us being "unwise". If Canada's Prime Minister weren't from Alberta, there might be more brakes put on tar sands development. As long as oil supplies are shrinking and the price keeps going up, that oil will be extracted and exported to whoever's willing to pay for it. If there weren’t buyers, it wouldn’t be produced. Most of Canadians aren’t too happy about this project. It’s had a HUGE impact on shooting us vastly off course to hit our Kyoto targets. It’s also causing pollution problems in neighbouring provinces and threatening water supplies. Development may slow because of these factors. There’s more to this story than us being “unwise”. If Canada’s Prime Minister weren’t from Alberta, there might be more brakes put on tar sands development. As long as oil supplies are shrinking and the price keeps going up, that oil will be extracted and exported to whoever’s willing to pay for it.

]]> By: unwisecanadian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-6111 unwisecanadian Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:18:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-6111 If there weren't buyers, it wouldn't be produced. Most of Canadians aren't too happy about this project. It's had a HUGE impact on shooting us vastly off course to hit our Kyoto targets. It's also causing pollution problems in neighbouring provinces and threatening water supplies. Development may slow because of these factors. There's more to this story than us being "unwise". If Canada's Prime Minister weren't from Alberta, there might be more brakes put on tar sands development. As long as oil supplies are shrinking and the price keeps going up, that oil will be extracted and exported to whoever's willing to pay for it. If there weren’t buyers, it wouldn’t be produced. Most of Canadians aren’t too happy about this project. It’s had a HUGE impact on shooting us vastly off course to hit our Kyoto targets. It’s also causing pollution problems in neighbouring provinces and threatening water supplies. Development may slow because of these factors. There’s more to this story than us being “unwise”. If Canada’s Prime Minister weren’t from Alberta, there might be more brakes put on tar sands development. As long as oil supplies are shrinking and the price keeps going up, that oil will be extracted and exported to whoever’s willing to pay for it.

]]> By: Roy http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-8226 Roy Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:20 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-8226 If you repeat misleading information often enough does it become true? The atom bomb idea was in the late 1950s or early 1960s. In that era engineers were talking about using the bombs to dig an alternative to the Panama Canal, cut new mountain passes and all kinds of other things engineers thought would be nifty if you had an explosive that could make real big holes in the ground. The rest is similarly exaggerated or leave out facts that cast a different light on the issue. I suppose you are actually a shill for polluters. If you act deceptively, it will cast doubt on legitimate concerns. If you repeat misleading information often enough does it become true?

The atom bomb idea was in the late 1950s or early 1960s. In that era engineers were talking about using the bombs to dig an alternative to the Panama Canal, cut new mountain passes and all kinds of other things engineers thought would be nifty if you had an explosive that could make real big holes in the ground. The rest is similarly exaggerated or leave out facts that cast a different light on the issue.

I suppose you are actually a shill for polluters. If you act deceptively, it will cast doubt on legitimate concerns.

]]> By: shortie http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-14337 shortie Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:36:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/tar-sands-water-energy/#comment-14337 the whole tar sand thing is an outrage... its like people are talking money from our pockets when all alone it belongs to us workers and our familys. the whole tar sand thing is an outrage… its like people are talking money from our pockets when all alone it belongs to us workers and our familys.

]]>