Sands of Time

The Sands of Time?

The rocketing rise in the cost of a barrel of oil could, at least in theory, favour attempts to develop alternatives to this declining (and rather dangerous) resource. Having said that, it could also make things worse by encouraging people to exploit what were, until recently, regarded as marginal deposits. One such are the tar or bitumen sands of Fort McMurray in Alberta (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/11/fossilfuels.pollution) that could, in theory, make Canada the second largest oil producer in the world. The trouble is that the tar sands are messy to extract.

470 square km of forest were removed to get access to the deposits, giant excavators are used to remove the sand and masses of water are used to separate the oil from the sand. The last activity results in great lakes of toxic waste. Even worse, although it is estimated that obtaining a barrel of conventional oil generates 30 kg of carbon dioxide, a barrel of tar sand oil produces about a 120 kg. This could rapidly turn Canada from one of the ‘good boys’ in terms of greenhouse gas generation to a serious offender. It is natural that Canadians argue that they currently produce relatively little carbon dioxide per capita and that they need the oil profits for their economy to grow.

Tar Sands Go Nuclear

TAR SANDS GO NUCLEAR!!!

While the idea has been discussed and debated since the oil sands has come into existance, it looks as though Alberta’s oil sands could finally be turning to, of all things, nuclear power to satisfy the outrageously large demand for electricity. The ambitious project, spearheaded by the local subsidiary of a mega-conglomerate, is focused on loosening up large quantities of bitumen encased in limestone. As usual, both investors and environmental activists looking for up-to-the-second facts and opinion are turning to the blogosphere.

NEI Nuclear, a well-respected blogthat offers news and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry, observes that while the idea of nuclear power in the oil sands has been considered before, “[it] looks like this is an idea with some staying power.” NEI Nuclear has been chronicalling the goings-on in the oil sands and has seen its fair share of smoke and mirrors in regards to nuclear energy powering oil sands projects they seem confident that the big name involved in the concept indicates that action could be close at hand. The difference? “This time, the name involved is Royal Dutch Shell.”

Dirty to the Last Drop

Dirty and wasteful to the last drop

Oil sands development is one of the most environmentally wrong-headed ideas ever

WILLIAM MARSDEN

The Gazette

Thursday, July 10, 2008

In some ways, shipping 61 per cent of our oil and gas production to a foreign country while both Canada and the world is running out of the stuff might be considered a good thing, but you would have to be fairly twisted - or just plain stupid - to go along with the reasoning.

Which just about sums up where Canadians are today when it comes to managing their most vital resource: fossil fuel energy.

In a nutshell, we continue to expand our fossil fuel exports into the United States while our conventional natural gas and crude oil supplies begin to dry up.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, which keeps track of world supplies, at its present rate of production Canada could be out of conventional natural gas in six years. That doesn’t mean every well will have run dry by 2014. That just means we will no longer have enough production to supply our needs. That will pose a horrendous situation both for the millions of Canadians who rely on natural gas to heat their homes and for the industrial sector that uses it to manufacture a wide variety of products, including fertilizer to help grow the cheap food to which we have become perhaps too blithely accustomed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: dirty oil, emissions, fertilizer, greenhouse gas, harper, heat homes, marsden, oil sands, oilsands, stelmach, stupid to the last drop, tar sands | No Comments »