Thursday, September 28, 2006


Tar Sands Double indemnity

Here is a comment made over at the Mop and Pail on the leaked Auditor-General report to recommend Ottawa take action on global warming. "Report targets oil-sector emissions"
Bradley Haltli from Monroe, United States writes: Why is it unreasonable to expect the oilsands to be developed in an environmentally sustainable fashion and in keeping with Canada's proposed committment to the Kyoto Accord? First forget that 2 tonnes of sand must be mined to produce 1 barrel of oil (true fact from the Alberta gov website) and that the tar sands cover 140,000 km2. The impact of mining this source of fuel is staggering when you mearely think of the physical impact on the environment. Also forget that it takes vast quantities of energy just to extract usable oil from the bitumen contained in the oil sands. I think it would not be unreasonalbe to impose CO2 emmision regulations on the oilsands projects. The companies mining the oil are only doing it because they stand to make lots of money off the product, and let's face it, the oil companies can afford to do some research to make what they do more environmentally friendly. Imposing strict CO2 regulations would likely have 2 consequences - 1. slow down development of the oilsands to a more managable pace which is needed anyways. 2- spur on R&D efforts to develop more efficient/cleaner ways to extract the oil from the sand. In the end the bitumen still gets mined, Alberta still makes its money, and the environment is harmed less than before. Sounds good to me.

Here is an older article on the Tar Sands and their impact on the enviroment.

My question is why waste all of that natural gas to extract oil from the tar sands when an much cleaner less destructive and less wastefull practice of creating oil and gas is available with the Gas to Liquid process is available?

It also begs to question why the feds are still subsidizing the oil and gas industry when they see fit to cut programs for literacy, Womens rights, National Security, Youth employment, Aquaculture, DFO science etc.;41;540;1259;1260;5396;6407

As for what to do with the energy potential of the tar sands. Wouldn't it be better to convert that energy into electricity. Then you wouldn't be wasting the energy in natural gas to convert the tar sands into oil and gas.
Could even pelletize the tar sands to be sold to existing coal fired and bunker sea fired electric generating plants. I'm sure the tar sands would burn cleaner that coal and equally as clean as bunker sea with the aid of natural gas as an accelerant and the scrubber technology available today.
For that matter the pellets could even be used in home wood stoves, but I wouldn't recommend promoting this route.
Ah just me I guess but then again I don't have all of that money tied up into refineries and distribution.

Oil and gas should only be used as a mobile energy source. Any stationary requirement for energy should have to come from cleaner sources of energy. Even oil burning in a electric generating plant is cleaner than home furnaces and is much easier to monitor and impliment scrubbing technologies, not to mention you remove the emissions from the micro climate which develops in urban areas smog and keeps the emissions out in the nether regions where is does less harm.
Electric has to be one of the best methods of delivering energy to the market.

Auditor Generals report.
Get rid of regular gas and just have supreme gas. The savings from reduced infrastructure could be passed on in lower prices for the supreme. Europe only has supreme gas with an octane level of 99 or so.
Wouldn't the tar sand make for a great component for making ashpault?
PZRXFQ The best blog you have!
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]