Oil sands in Canada: the US wants them ...

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 4




by jean63 » 20/01/07, 00:43

Exceed wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:

Jean, are you stuck on your rich? Are you making a fixette? : Lol:


Good boy !!! You haven't seen where it comes from .... it's an Auvergne !!!! Damn ... : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

A + Serge.


No, no ..... you are mistaken there: we are all rich there on the net.

It is by reading this exceptional book by Hervé KEMPF that I understood how there is an immense poverty in the world which concerns millions of people, who survive and they do not pollute the planet ..... ..... and on the other hand all the PRIVILEGIES of the earth, that is to say the least poor of developed countries (because we must not forget our poor who do not pollute the planet either ... see the side of the Saint Martin canal).

So do not feel affected by the RICH problem.

WE are RICH who each at our level, participate through our frantic CONSUMPTION to the generalized pollution of the PLANET (pollution in the broad sense, therefore including CO2 emission). If this term offends you, abandon your interventions on this forum.

You have to read this book to understand. The very rich, of course, are even worse: they take a lot of the plane, consume a lot (hence induced pollution), use a lot of polluting means of transport to simply have fun (Yachts, etc.) and in addition they participate in the EXPLOITATION of the poor: just go to DUBAI who builds the palaces of the kings of oil and under what conditions !!!

We can close our eyes to it, but it is ostrich policy. The rich run the economy but destroy the planet, because they do not care about the damage to the planet, their only concern is "to always have more MONEY".

Just read the sentence of the American Indian quoted below (so exceed you make a mistake on the diagnosis, the Auvergnat that I am is not the one you think, I am disgusted by the frantic consumption of our globalized capitalist society) ===>
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 20/01/07, 09:03

Well, well it looks like it's Saint John there. I have not read this book and therefore do not know which wealthy the author is talking about. Because as Einstein could have said, everything is relative, according to the plane on which we place ourselves. As John is richer than us (or that others) or less rich does not matter, we are in any case always richer than some and less than others. The problem is not there.
Christophe, you are right to say that "the mass of the less rich pollutes much more than the minority of the very rich". But is this what it is?
Jean, could you enlighten us on this subject?
Is it not rather the very rich who make the rain and the good weather on the world economy, who direct, influence, manipulate governments, the very ones who decide to exploit the Canadian oil sands or the oil in Alaska, in a national park, the very ones who have no mood and who pray every day to the God Dow Jones and do everything to make it go up.
And André says it very well:
Andrew wrote:that will be fine when we have a social government freed from the international economic machine of the big financiers who decide overnight that a government sees its debt double. a government that has both hands tied by a dozen very rich multinationals, without name, without heart, without morality, without homeland, $$$ they control the world, that we elect whoever it is, those who shoot the strings are in place.
We call this democracy in a civilized country.

Then there are also the rich of the class below, those who are full of aces but without real power, the opportunists who will adapt, make money by following the political and economic line of the very rich. We could compare them to these sucker fish that live on the skin of sharks. But if they have an insolent standard of living, they are only adapting. Because if tomorrow the very rich decide to bet everything on biofuels, ecology, etc., because it is more profitable, or for X reasons, the others will follow, the rich and less rich.
The problem therefore comes from those who pull the strings. How to cure it ? revolutions do not change human nature, you say it pretty well too André, so we can at least make our voice heard, by reading that for example:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post41472.html#41472
0 x
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 4




by jean63 » 20/01/07, 10:00

Christophe, you are right to say that "the mass of the less rich pollutes much more than the minority of the very rich". But is this what it is?
Jean, could you enlighten us on this subject?
Is it not rather the very rich who make the rain and the good weather on the world economy, who direct, influence, manipulate governments, the very ones who decide to exploit the Canadian oil sands or the oil in Alaska, in a national park, the very ones who have no mood and who pray every day to the God Dow Jones and do everything to make it go up.

But of course, reread my last post, the very wealthy manipulate the globalized economy so everything related to the exploitation of oil, gas, charcoal resources etc. and also minerals of all kinds (including asbestos at Canada when we know that this material kills !!!) wherever they are, without any concern for the planet, there is only the word profitability who counts.
And so, all the other rich, each at their own level, contributes their share by consuming (the title of the article in Greenpeace is "consume less, distribute better"), thus automatically causing CO2 emissions: for example a simple pair of jeans ( djinn) traveled 6000 kms before being presented in a store: it is clear that it is not the Chinese teenager who worked day and night and ate 2 bowls of rice to make it, who polluted the planet, but all of the following intermediaries participated in the pollution, starting with transport in container carriers + container trucks, delivery vans, etc.
So who if we returned to a local production with properly paid employees near the point of sale, we would avoid all these unnecessary transport.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY THAT WELL-ORCHESTRATED GLOBALIZATION IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THIS FORWARD LEAK (Investment funds only invest in companies for double-digit returns> 2% ...... so it is not not hard to imagine the rest).
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 4




by jean63 » 20/01/07, 15:16

We come back to bituminous sabers (maybe it's Christophe's text?):
http://ecologie.caradisiac.com/Etats-Unis-Canada-le-petrole-coulera-t-il-a-flot-249
To increase production to five million barrels per day would be equivalent to a quarter of American consumption and almost half of its total imports. The projections in the document are also double those officially announced by Canadian industry. According to the document, they will require new refineries and new pipelines to transport Alberta crude to California and south Texas.

Recall that with its current production of one million barrels per day, oil from the oil sands is also already the main source of increase in greenhouse gases in Canada. Greenpeace is all the more concerned that the document, which is co-produced by the Canadian Department of Natural Resources, recommends that the Canadian and Alberta governments simplify the environmental approval process for energy projects. "That a department of the Canadian government in a document writes that we have to do this is still incredible", judge M. Guilbeault
.
And here is the job, it confirms well what André says who is well placed to know what he is talking about ..........but what is Al Gore doing? why not a demonstration of opponents in the USA against this madness.

This time it's won, they will succeed in melting the Arctic : Evil:

Only Greenpeace talks about it and tries to curb this pure madness. they will even bring it to California at Schwartzy the green !!! : Lol: Normally they shouldn't need oil since they will all be going green !!!! : Mrgreen:
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 4




by jean63 » 20/01/07, 17:06

To refocus the subject,
I create a new subject "Why the rich are destroying the planet".
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 28/09/09, 17:52

an article on Alberta Tar Sands in The Oil Drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5771

Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands Development in Alberta


I note that
-the current production is 1.4 million barrels / day

- the production process of each of these barrels generates 5x more greenhouse gases than each of a barrel of conventional lihgt / medium

Canadian government reports similarly suggest that “GHG emissions from oil sands mining and upgrading are about five times greater than those from conventional light / medium crude oil production.


- each barrel produced requires 2 to 4 "barrels" of water. This results in the water consumption equivalent to a city of 3 million inhabitants.
Producing a barrel of synthetic crude oil from the oil sands by mining requires two to four barrels of fresh water after taking into account water recycling.16 Companies are currently licensed to withdraw over 590,000,000 cubic meters of water per year, which is roughly equivalent to what a city of 3 million people would require.


polluted and toxic residual water "lagoons" are still untreated, and there is no indication that they will be in the near future. They occupy a combined surface area of ​​130 km2:
The liquid tailings, a by product of the oil sands mining process, contain naphthenic acids, unrecovered hydrocarbons and trace metals, making it toxic to aquatic organisms21 and mammals22.

Operators are required to store tailings waste on site in large containment dykes because the water is too toxic to be returned to the Athabasca River under water quality guidelines.

There are currently over 720 billion liters of toxic tailings on the landscape in the Athabasca oil sands area. 23 These ponds cover an area of ​​more than 130 square kilometers. By 2040 these tailings are expected to occupy 310 square kilometers, an area nearly the size of Vancouver. 24 No tailings ponds have been reclaimed to date.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Oil sands in Canada: the USA wants them ...




by Obamot » 20/04/13, 20:02

Well, I did not know where to put it is news!

Christophe wrote:
The accelerated development of the Alberta oil sands is said to be directly related to the pressing oil needs of the Americans.

In the aftermath of the Harper government election last January, the heads of the American oil industry met in Houston, Texas, with the leaders of the major oil sands projects in Alberta. to take stock of the situation.

The report of the meeting, of which Zone Libre obtained a copy, recommends "to multiply by five the production of the oil sands over a relatively short period".

The United States wants to end its dependence on oil from the Middle East. In his State of the Union address a year ago, President George W. Bush deplored this dependence and proposed to cut oil imports from the region by three-quarters.

But with a production of a million barrels a day, Canada is already the main exporter of oil to the United States. Increasing production to five million barrels per day would be equivalent to a quarter of American consumption and almost half of its total imports.

The projections in the document are also double those officially announced by Canadian industry. According to the document, they will require new refineries and new pipelines to transport Alberta crude as far as California and south Texas.

Having read the document, the environmental group Greenpeace says it is very surprised. "I have never heard in Canada of an increase up to five million barrels per day," says Steven Guilbeault, general manager of Greenpeace Quebec. Recall that with its current production of one million barrels per day, oil from the oil sands is also already the main source of increase in greenhouse gases in Canada.

Greenpeace is all the more concerned that the document, which is co-produced by the Canadian Department of Natural Resources, recommends that the Canadian and Alberta governments simplify the environmental approval process for energy projects.

"That a department of the Canadian government in a document writes that we must do that is still incredible," judges Mr. Guilbeault.

The full Free Zone survey will be presented Friday evening.


http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Na ... -Can.shtml

Do you understand now what Bush meant by independence in his famous speech? Nothing to do with any reduction in consumption ...

Bein with Sarah Palin, we wouldn't have won!

We thought the Bush affair buried! The forgotten Bangladesh affair:

The Huffington Post wrote:Project in Bangladesh: two former SNC-Lavalin employees accused of corruption

http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06 ... 19697.html

And no, in the oil companies, shady business continues from the 'wet' Algerians:
SRC wrote:SNC-Lavalin suspected of corruption in Algeria

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Ec ... erie.shtml

Unprecedented wave of corruption: it (alas internationally) set off again!
http://www.maghrebemergent.info/actuali ... sumee.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC_Lavalin_scandal

http://www.lexpressiondz.com/actualite/ ... ption.html

http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01 ... 52182.html

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Mont ... endu.shtml

And obviously repercussions at the government level (when the rotten fish, it always starts with the head, told me my teacher of stats ...):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ibery.html

http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Mont ... endu.shtml

It reminds in some respects, the "Oil for food" case, which had wet the former SG of the United Nations (as if by chance?):
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/ ... mates.html

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_P% ... qu.C3.A9es

In short, oil does not stop rotting the world! And according to current North American news, the "war on terror" paradigm is not dead, given the "Ads"that the media do to him!

Father of Boston suspects father testifies
TSR wrote:From Makhachkala in Dagestan, Anzor Tsarnaev, the father of the Boston bombers, says he is very surprised by the actions of his sons.

[He tells the reporter who is interrogating him "They fell into a trap!"]
Mr. Anzor Tsarnaev: “I find it hard to believe that my sons could have planned and organized a 'terrorist act'! Because they knew the American Secret Service was watching them! The secets services had told them ":
- We know what you eat, what you see on the Internet, etc.

Once again they slaughtered the brain! Strange!
0 x
Other
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 3787
Registration: 17/03/05, 02:35
x 12




by Other » 21/04/13, 04:35

Hello
Obamot I don't know what SNC Lavalin is doing in this tar sands station ??
Corruption is a public, televised debate every day
the Charbonneau Commission, this particularly affects the city of Montreal and politicians, entrepreneurs and businesses
This has been known for a long time, and the majority of the population disagrees with these practices. but at least the government has the courage to make it part of the public icberg, and the media, while in some European industrialized countries, it is the same thing, but nobody dares to open the debate, it affects the large Swiss banks, than large French and English companies. This affects almost all the aeronautical, metallurgical, petroleum and energy industries, etc.

As for the oil sands, the majority of Canadians and Americans are against this extraction process, as well as the pipe line.
There is also oil in the golf of St-Laurent and on the coasts of Gaspesie, we know this for a long time, however drilling is not authorized.

The people decide not much, just at 4 years go to make an X on a ballot, difficult to choose, between the good, the bad and the ugly, when they all have a nice speech.


Andre
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 21/04/13, 12:29

Andre wrote: B ......
As for the oil sands, the majority of Canadians and Americans are against this extraction process, as well as the pipe line.
.....


and yet:

Canada: Oil sands oil extraction to double in ten years

leblogenergie June 2011

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) in its 2011 15-year forecast of Canadian oil production confirms and even increases the forecasts made the previous year (FIG., June 2010 Forecast). The good performance of crude oil prices and the growth of investments in the exploitation of the oil sands ($ 13 billion in 2010 and $ 16 billion expected in 2011) allow this professional group to forecast a doubling in ten years of the extraction of oils from the oil sands. They would go from 1,5 million barrels / day in 2010 to 3 million barrels / day in 2020 and reach 3,7 million barrels / day in 2025. These volumes correspond substantially to those of the low CERI assumption made l last year.


Total Canadian oil production, which would drop from 2,8 million barrels / day in 2010 to 4,2 million barrels / day in 2020 (FIG.) Would continue to fuel by a powerful network of continuous pipelines to the Gulf from Mexico, the American oil refineries.

Note: taking into account various treatments of bitumens in "upgraders" or dilution which transform them into more fluid products for pipeline transport and treatment in refineries, the total volumes of products that will be delivered after these process gains, will exceed 5,2 million barrels / day in 2025.


http://www.leblogenergie.com/2011/06/ca ... x-ans.html
0 x
Other
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 3787
Registration: 17/03/05, 02:35
x 12




by Other » 21/04/13, 16:14

Hello
Monthwatts

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) in its 2011 15-year forecast of Canadian oil production confirms and even increases the forecasts made the previous year


We all know that the exploitation of the oil sands is disastrous on the ecological level, despite the regular advertisements that it plays on TV on the new safe and clean technologies of their method, when the big oil companies pay for advertising. on their means of extraction there is something to ask questions.
When Chinese oil companies participate and become shareholders in the oil sands, they should be even more worried.

Do you think these oil people will ask the government to hold a referendum to find out if they are going to exploit the oil sands?
Just try to oppose you at the nuclear power plant at the coal mine, yes we can demonstrate, but after a while it goes away.
Yet the last election in Canada is a political party that has (affinities) with the oil companies that was elected, an election that is won, with money, advertising messages, and an organization, most often based on promises, the voter likes to be told what he wants to hear, once the people are in power happy, not happy, they are 3 years to do what they want within the framework of the constitution, even if it means reshaping the laws, after the last electoral year it’s bonobons, plans for bridges, roads, hospitals, lower taxes (even the month before the election, the police will issue fewer tickets do not make too many dissatisfied among the small voters. (this is the reality behind the scenes, of the power in place ..)

I think you mix with the few decision makers, and the majority of the common people.
the businessman does not see things like the worker, the lumberjacks ..

Andre
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 206 guests