5 ms·

I think we are in lipstick on a pig territory here. Tar sands are horrific in environmental terms, one of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels in their produc

I think we are in lipstick on a pig territory here. Tar sands are horrific in environmental terms, one of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels in their production and the cause of devastation of huge areas of wilderness. By the time the stuff is made into balls or whatever the vast majority of possible damage has already been done.

Joe-Z 9y ago
Well, I wasn't advocating tar sands here, I just repeated the info I got from the article. However, it is a reality that this industry exists, so sure it might be better to not extract tar sands at all, but as long as it's happening anyway why not make it as clen as possible?
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Because making it as clean as possible still leaves it as something we shouldn't be doing at all! I truly believe this will be viewed as one of humanity's worst ideas once global warning properly kicks in.
calgaryeng 9y ago
You should be aware that there are a number of oil sources that are far more carbon-intensive than the Canadian Oil Sands. Many of which ship direct to the United States. One is even produced IN the United States (Bakersfield, CA). On a wells-to-wheels basis, Canadian oil sands are only 6-8% more carbon-intensive than typical light crude (e.g. Saudi), and it comes from a politically-friendly country that supports female rights, human rights in general, and is not bombing their neighbours. What you say regarding disruption of large areas of wilderness is true when it comes to tailings ponds, but you should also be aware that the vast majority of recent development (and probably most go-forward) is via in-situ extraction that does not require those tailings ponds. Source: I am a chemical engineer and work directly in this industry.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Alternative opinion: 'Strip-mining the boreal to extract the tar sands and processing the oil makes the sands much more damaging to the climate than conventional oil. “I believe the carbon intensity of extraction and processing for the oil sands is about double that of conventional oil,” Homer-Dixon said.' http://grist.org/article/this-could-be-the-end-of-canadian-tar-sands/amp/ http://grist.org/article/this-could-be-the-end-of-canadian-t... I guess this is an inconvenient truth based on the downvoting.
  - ajarmst 9y ago
    Thankfully, neither petroleum extraction nor climate science need be faith-based, so Homer-Dixon's personal beliefs aren't all that relevant. There are multiple studies (not funded by petroleum companies) that document why he's wrong (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014005/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/0140... is a good metastudy). Grist.org is hardly a neutral source on the issue. By all means, advocate for wide-scale reduction and elimination of the use of petroleum products. Demand that your representatives fight for carbon-neutral energy production. But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela over supporting an allied liberal democracy with a strong (at least in comparison) record of environmental stewardship and oversight on corporate activity.
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      Again the straw man, second time in this thread. And ask native Canadians about their experience in tar sands areas.
      - ajarmst 9y ago
        I don't have to. They're pretty vocal about it, and it is widely reported in the media (because liberal democracy with free press). Not all 'natives' necessarily agree (quite a few work in the industry). There are also a wide variety other Canadians who live and work in the area who have strong opinions, on multiple sides of the argument. This is hardly surprising, as it is a controversial issue, and it certainly won't stop being one. I bet that if I asked people (native or otherwise) about local fracking operations, coal mines, tailing ponds, power plants, refineries, offload and storage facilities, etc, etc, in any country I will find a bunch who would really rather they were somewhere else. I'm not sure why that's important to the discussion. As for the reported "straw man", you seem to be under the impression that I argued that tar sands were wonderful and that Canadians truly enjoy living near them. Which is, of course, a straw man. I made three points: (1) The assertion that Alberta bitumen mining has twice the C02 impact of other sources of petroleum is provably false and (2) If you do not change the demand for petroleum products and do not want to source them in Canada, you have to source them somewhere else. (3) Other sources aren't necessarily much more palatable, especially if you include factors like support of the economy of the country of origin and the source producer. Where's the straw man?

Joe-Z 9y ago

Well, I wasn't advocating tar sands here, I just repeated the info I got from the article. However, it is a reality that this industry exists, so sure it might be better to not extract tar sands at all, but as long as it's happening anyway why not make it as clen as possible?

Boothroid 9y ago
Because making it as clean as possible still leaves it as something we shouldn't be doing at all! I truly believe this will be viewed as one of humanity's worst ideas once global warning properly kicks in.

calgaryeng 9y ago

You should be aware that there are a number of oil sources that are far more carbon-intensive than the Canadian Oil Sands. Many of which ship direct to the United States. One is even produced IN the United States (Bakersfield, CA). On a wells-to-wheels basis, Canadian oil sands are only 6-8% more carbon-intensive than typical light crude (e.g. Saudi), and it comes from a politically-friendly country that supports female rights, human rights in general, and is not bombing their neighbours. What you say regarding disruption of large areas of wilderness is true when it comes to tailings ponds, but you should also be aware that the vast majority of recent development (and probably most go-forward) is via in-situ extraction that does not require those tailings ponds. Source: I am a chemical engineer and work directly in this industry.

Boothroid 9y ago
Alternative opinion: 'Strip-mining the boreal to extract the tar sands and processing the oil makes the sands much more damaging to the climate than conventional oil. “I believe the carbon intensity of extraction and processing for the oil sands is about double that of conventional oil,” Homer-Dixon said.' http://grist.org/article/this-could-be-the-end-of-canadian-tar-sands/amp/ http://grist.org/article/this-could-be-the-end-of-canadian-t... I guess this is an inconvenient truth based on the downvoting.
- ajarmst 9y ago
  Thankfully, neither petroleum extraction nor climate science need be faith-based, so Homer-Dixon's personal beliefs aren't all that relevant. There are multiple studies (not funded by petroleum companies) that document why he's wrong (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014005/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/0140... is a good metastudy). Grist.org is hardly a neutral source on the issue. By all means, advocate for wide-scale reduction and elimination of the use of petroleum products. Demand that your representatives fight for carbon-neutral energy production. But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela over supporting an allied liberal democracy with a strong (at least in comparison) record of environmental stewardship and oversight on corporate activity.
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    Again the straw man, second time in this thread. And ask native Canadians about their experience in tar sands areas.
    - ajarmst 9y ago
      I don't have to. They're pretty vocal about it, and it is widely reported in the media (because liberal democracy with free press). Not all 'natives' necessarily agree (quite a few work in the industry). There are also a wide variety other Canadians who live and work in the area who have strong opinions, on multiple sides of the argument. This is hardly surprising, as it is a controversial issue, and it certainly won't stop being one. I bet that if I asked people (native or otherwise) about local fracking operations, coal mines, tailing ponds, power plants, refineries, offload and storage facilities, etc, etc, in any country I will find a bunch who would really rather they were somewhere else. I'm not sure why that's important to the discussion. As for the reported "straw man", you seem to be under the impression that I argued that tar sands were wonderful and that Canadians truly enjoy living near them. Which is, of course, a straw man. I made three points: (1) The assertion that Alberta bitumen mining has twice the C02 impact of other sources of petroleum is provably false and (2) If you do not change the demand for petroleum products and do not want to source them in Canada, you have to source them somewhere else. (3) Other sources aren't necessarily much more palatable, especially if you include factors like support of the economy of the country of origin and the source producer. Where's the straw man?