PDA

View Full Version : Tar Sands spill in alberta that no one knows how to stop.


Fedaykin
07-24-2013, 02:56 AM
http://grist.org/news/no-one-knows-how-to-stop-these-tar-sands-oil-spills/

Welcome to the future of dino powered economies. As the "easy to access" sweet crude dries up, it'll become more profitable to do more risky things like trying to extract underground tar sands, which will result in messes like this.

“This is a new kind of oil spill and there is no ‘off button,’” said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace who teaches a course on energy policy and environment at the University of Toronto. “You can’t cap it like a conventional oil well or turn off a valve on a pipeline.

“You are pressurizing the oil bed so hard that it’s no wonder that it blows out. This means that the oil will continue to leak until the well is no longer pressurized,” which means the bitumen could be seeping from the ground for months.

Let's inject pressurized steam into the ground to liquify the tar so we can suck it up. What? No way to release the pressure should something go wrong? Pfht, stand aside there's money to be made!

Rohirrim
07-24-2013, 06:23 AM
Of course, when they build the Keystone pipeline, they'll be extra safe and careful. "Trust us." Ha!

I think that's what BP said about deep Gulf drilling.

Pony Boy
07-24-2013, 06:27 AM
http://grist.org/news/no-one-knows-how-to-stop-these-tar-sands-oil-spills/

Welcome to the future of dino powered economies. As the "easy to access" sweet crude dries up, it'll become more profitable to do more risky things like trying to extract underground tar sands, which will result in messes like this.

“This is a new kind of oil spill and there is no ‘off button,’” said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace who teaches a course on energy policy and environment at the University of Toronto. “You can’t cap it like a conventional oil well or turn off a valve on a pipeline.

“You are pressurizing the oil bed so hard that it’s no wonder that it blows out. This means that the oil will continue to leak until the well is no longer pressurized,” which means the bitumen could be seeping from the ground for months.

Let's inject pressurized steam into the ground to liquify the tar so we can suck it up. What? No way to release the pressure should something go wrong? Pfht, stand aside there's money to be made!

Great .... an opinion from a left wing liberal Greenpeace professor .....:rofl:

Fedaykin
07-24-2013, 06:31 AM
Great .... an opinion from a left wing liberal Greenpeace professor .....:rofl:

Nice ad hominem, and sad inability to differentiate between an opinion and a fact being relayed.

B-Large
07-24-2013, 06:38 AM
Petroleum will fail to dominate the energy markets when it is neither fiscally or environmentally prudent to extract it.

I am going to bet price will phase out oil much quicker than environmental issues...

Pony Boy
07-24-2013, 06:47 AM
Nice ad hominem, and sad inability to differentiate between an opinion and a fact being relayed.

Right nothing but the facts from an energy analyst with Greenpeace ........... he has no dog in this fight.

Fedaykin
07-24-2013, 06:56 AM
Right nothing but the facts from an energy analyst with Greenpeace ........... he has no dog in this fight.

Didn't say that. Try again.

Pony Boy
07-24-2013, 07:00 AM
It's really cool when you can force your kid to promote Greenpeace and the gays at the same time, maybe we can put a little tar sand in his hair too.

Fedaykin
07-24-2013, 07:03 AM
It's really cool when you can force your kid to promote Greenpeace and the gays at the same time, maybe we can put a little tar sand in his hair too.

And now we're just off to non-sequitur land. Typical.

houghtam
07-24-2013, 07:39 AM
Right nothing but the facts from an energy analyst with Greenpeace ........... he has no dog in this fight.

Care to address specific points in the article, Mr. Environmental Scientist?

Rohirrim
07-24-2013, 08:18 AM
Imagine what the oil companies would do if organizations like Greenpeace didn't exist?

Rigs11
07-24-2013, 08:21 AM
Let's try the rightie way of solving this, ignore it and less regulation! right pony?

Blaze erupts on Gulf of Mexico rig after natural gas blowout

A fire erupted on a drilling rig off the Louisiana coast that was surrounded by a “major cloud of gas” after it experienced a blowout, officials said late Tuesday.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/24/19652537-blaze-erupts-on-gulf-of-mexico-rig-after-natural-gas-blowout?lite

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 08:52 AM
Let's try the rightie way of solving this, ignore it and less regulation! right pony?

Could be worse. Could use more regulation to arbitrarily reward friends and harass enemies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/17/us-wind-farms-under-fire-for-bird-kills/?test=latestnews

Bronco Yoda
07-24-2013, 09:17 AM
Let's try the rightie way of solving this, ignore it and less regulation! right pony?

Blaze erupts on Gulf of Mexico rig after natural gas blowout

A fire erupted on a drilling rig off the Louisiana coast that was surrounded by a “major cloud of gas” after it experienced a blowout, officials said late Tuesday.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/24/19652537-blaze-erupts-on-gulf-of-mexico-rig-after-natural-gas-blowout?lite


Unless of course it's on their land. Then all of a sudden it's 'somebody should be protecting us from this sort of thing'. :giggle:

alkemical
07-24-2013, 09:44 AM
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2013/06/bp_oil_spill_cleanup_ends_in_m.html

BP oil spill cleanup ending in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, Coast Guard and BP say




http://apr.org/post/cause-exxon-oil-spill-arkansas-under-investigation

Cause Of Exxon Oil Spill In Arkansas Under Investigation

houghtam
07-24-2013, 09:58 AM
Unless of course it's on their land. Then all of a sudden it's 'somebody should be protecting us from this sort of thing'. :giggle:

Interesting that you say that, as the story alkemical linked below says exactly that. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, three of the more conservative states you'll find, are contesting the idea that the area is "cleaned" and are still lawyering for more federal funding for cleanup efforts. Yet Beavis said these spills were always overstated, and damage was far less extensive than the media would have you believe.

So which is it guys? Why would conservative state officials be overstating damage so they can get more of those beloved federal tax dollars they hate so much?

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 10:05 AM
Why would conservative state officials be overstating damage so they can get more of those beloved federal tax dollars

Your question answers itself.

houghtam
07-24-2013, 11:23 AM
Your question answers itself.

It may. But for those of us who have lived it or seen it firsthand, the damage isn't ever "overstated".

And then there's you.

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 01:26 PM
It may. But for those of us who have lived it or seen it firsthand, the damage isn't ever "overstated".

And then there's you.

"I saw something once, therefore nothing is ever exaggerated."

Makes sense.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007428,00.html

houghtam
07-24-2013, 02:49 PM
"I saw something once, therefore nothing is ever exaggerated."

Makes sense.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007428,00.html

"I don't like paying for things and I want cheaper oil, therefore EVERYTHING is exaggerated."

Makes sense.

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 03:58 PM
"I don't like paying for things and I want cheaper oil, therefore EVERYTHING is exaggerated."

Makes sense.

Don't think I ever said everything is exaggerated. I just happen to think that when people at large operate out of fear, especially within fear of the unknown... exaggeration is often the most likely first reaction.

A semi-related but interesting read.

http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=111

houghtam
07-24-2013, 04:18 PM
Don't think I ever said everything is exaggerated. I just happen to think that when people at large operate out of fear, especially within fear of the unknown... exaggeration is often the most likely first reaction.

A semi-related but interesting read.

http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=111

And yet, just like everything else, you invent a premise, then find evidence to support it.

The fact of the matter is that there are those of us who have experienced the effects firsthand (myself being one of them), and who have lived for extended periods of time in affected communities (myself being one of them). What I'm telling you is that you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

For the millionth time, go to some of these places you're talking out of your ass about and see for yourself. Try telling the residents they're exaggerating. See what kind of response you get.

Post a video, if you can. We'd all enjoy the laugh.

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 05:40 PM
And yet, just like everything else, you invent a premise, then find evidence to support it.

The fact of the matter is that there are those of us who have experienced the effects firsthand (myself being one of them), and who have lived for extended periods of time in affected communities (myself being one of them). What I'm telling you is that you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

For the millionth time, go to some of these places you're talking out of your ass about and see for yourself. Try telling the residents they're exaggerating. See what kind of response you get.

Post a video, if you can. We'd all enjoy the laugh.

Been on the gulf coast numerous times since the predicted apocalypse. Can't say much that was predicted came to pass.

houghtam
07-24-2013, 05:43 PM
Been on the gulf coast numerous times since the predicted apocalypse. Can't say much that was predicted came to pass.

You mean like local business owners losing business and tourism going through the floor? Let me guess...it was all concocted.

LOL

Bull****, you've never been there.

Eldorado
07-24-2013, 07:18 PM
So, this thread went full retard in near record time.

BroncoBeavis
07-24-2013, 10:53 PM
You mean like local business owners losing business and tourism going through the floor? Let me guess...it was all concocted.

LOL

Bull****, you've never been there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301002/BP-oil-spill-Why-claims-Gulf-Mexico-historys-worst-oil-spill-cynical-spin-campaign-ever.html#ixzz0w7XRyChE

Biggest damage to tourism was from political fearmongering and hyperbole. Right in line with what Mr Crichton was saying.

houghtam
07-25-2013, 06:44 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301002/BP-oil-spill-Why-claims-Gulf-Mexico-historys-worst-oil-spill-cynical-spin-campaign-ever.html#ixzz0w7XRyChE

Biggest damage to tourism was from political fearmongering and hyperbole. Right in line with what Mr Crichton was saying.

Yeah, it wasn't due to the poor availability of seafood, layoffs due to poor business or any of that.

I love it, Beavis. No one can post a graph or chart without you whining and crying about how graphs and charts are Baaaaaaah-d...but post an article (by a British newspaper about a British company) with pictures (see? there's no oil in the sand...it's all gone!), and you all of the sudden know what you're talking about.

You. Don't. :approve:

And this still leaves unaddressed the original point of the thread, which is about tar sands oil. Good luck with that.

Johnykbr
07-25-2013, 07:49 AM
So, this thread went full retard in near record time.

Try and find one on the politics board that doesn't in under two pages. Damn near impossible.

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 08:59 AM
Yeah, it wasn't due to the poor availability of seafood, layoffs due to poor business or any of that.

The "poor availablity of seafood" was mostly due to a federal fishing ban. If you read that Time article I posted below, you'll see that the fish themselves for the most part fared just fine. Any long term impact on tourism had more to do with media hyperbole and hype than any actual oil on the beaches.

And we can go into the specifics of tar sands if you like. But I don't see the point so long as the hiptards' position remains stern opposition to anything not Unicorn-powered. LOL

houghtam
07-25-2013, 09:09 AM
The "poor availablity of seafood" was mostly due to a federal fishing ban. If you read that Time article I posted below, you'll see that the fish themselves for the most part fared just fine. Any long term impact on tourism had more to do with media hyperbole and hype than any actual oil on the beaches.

And we can go into the specifics of tar sands if you like. But I don't see the point so long as the hiptards' position remains stern opposition to anything not Unicorn-powered. LOL

Yep, and nothing will change as long as the more money at any cost crowd believes that natural and man-made disasters are just trumped up opportunities for more federal money.

Like I said, you see something, you have your own explanation, you find evidence you think that supports it. It's how any good research is done!

LOL

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 09:20 AM
Yep, and nothing will change as long as the more money at any cost crowd believes that natural and man-made disasters are just trumped up opportunities for more federal money.

Like I said, you see something, you have your own explanation, you find evidence you think that supports it. It's how any good research is done!

LOL

Yeah, real research is "I saw something kinda sorta like it first hand once. Therefore it's always cataclysmic everywhere."

The sad part is you think this is a risk you can just turn on or off. In reality less domestic drilling and pipelining equals more supertankers floating around the coasts. And if history has shown anything, it's that an accident with one of those things is when the SRHTF.

Oh and there's that whole middle class/jobs aspect you claim to care so much about. LOL

houghtam
07-25-2013, 09:31 AM
Yeah, real research is "I saw something kinda sorta like it first hand once. Therefore it's always cataclysmic everywhere."

The sad part is you think this is a risk you can just turn on or off. In reality less domestic drilling and pipelining equals more supertankers floating around the coasts. And if history has shown anything, it's that an accident with one of those things is when the SRHTF.

Oh and there's that whole middle class/jobs aspect you claim to care so much about. LOL

And now you're just jumping from thread to thread rehashing arguments that have already been discussed. Your "transporting oil is dangerous, so what's the big deal about a pipeline" argument has already been discussed. The indiscretions and negligence of the company contracted with Keystone pipeline (not to mention big oil in general) are well documented and many.

But sure, keep burying your head in the (tar) sand. I'm sure you'll be first in line with the "nothing to see here, folks!" when the next disaster inevitably happens. Meanwhile, the oil company that gets a slap on the wrist and the (likely) conservative elected officials will laugh all the way to the bank, while more and more of those small businesses you claim to love go out of business.

Eldorado
07-25-2013, 11:44 AM
Try and find one on the politics board that doesn't in under two pages. Damn near impossible.

I said 'near record' you damn commie. learn to ****ing read.

/straw man/
/ad hominem/
/straw man/




















Am I doing this right? :ouwknow:

Fedaykin
07-25-2013, 11:55 AM
And we can go into the specifics of tar sands if you like. But I don't see the point so long as the hiptards' position remains stern opposition to anything not Unicorn-powered. LOL

I'm not opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels while we have to. I'm opposed to the idea that we should continue to invest in a dino powered economy (and subsidizing the **** out of it) instead of pushing hard for other sources of energy.

As a long term play, it's about a stupid a strategy as you can have, from both an economic and environmental perspective.

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 12:26 PM
I'm not opposed to continuing to burn fossil fuels while we have to. I'm opposed to the idea that we should continue to invest in a dino powered economy (and subsidizing the **** out of it) instead of pushing hard for other sources of energy.

As a long term play, it's about a stupid a strategy as you can have, from both an economic and environmental perspective.

How exactly do WE "invest" in dino energy? And the subsidy thing is mythological. If an oil company gets the same kind of tax deductions every other American industry gets, you suddenly call it a 'subsidy'

It's convenient, but not really accurate.

alkemical
07-25-2013, 02:43 PM
What's the ROI/benefit to Oil Subsidies? Is it keeping the price at the pump down? How does this impact earnings reports for profits by companies that claim profit? Is that profit real, or adjusted due to the funding a company receives?

BroncoBeavis
07-25-2013, 03:29 PM
What's the ROI/benefit to Oil Subsidies? Is it keeping the price at the pump down? How does this impact earnings reports for profits by companies that claim profit? Is that profit real, or adjusted due to the funding a company receives?

Paraphrasing from the following:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

The largest BigOil "Subsidies" go towards:

Buying oil for the national strategic petroleum reserve.

Tax breaks for farmers who don't pay federal fuel taxes for the roads they don't drive on and...

low income energy assistance.

In other words, in any meaningful terms, they're not really subsidies to "Big Oil" at all. Just a nice talking point for the scapegoaters.

barryr
07-25-2013, 07:27 PM
The liberals love to demonize oil companies, but continue to want this country to have to deal with the ME for its oil, who ironically go against subjects the liberals supposedly are so in favor of such as equal rights for women and gay marriage. Liberals run away when discussion comes to the way women are treated in that region. Instead, they spend time talking about it for this country, like most don't already agree with any of that. It just doesn't take much courage to so any of that, but they are too scared to talk about Islam, with the only time they bother to do so is proclaim all religion is bad.

Johnykbr
07-26-2013, 07:31 AM
I said 'near record' you damn commie. learn to ****ing read.

/straw man/
/ad hominem/
/straw man/




















Am I doing this right? :ouwknow:

Well played, good sir. Well played.

alkemical
07-26-2013, 08:31 AM
Paraphrasing from the following:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

The largest BigOil "Subsidies" go towards:

Buying oil for the national strategic petroleum reserve.

Tax breaks for farmers who don't pay federal fuel taxes for the roads they don't drive on and...

low income energy assistance.

In other words, in any meaningful terms, they're not really subsidies to "Big Oil" at all. Just a nice talking point for the scapegoaters.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05-2/Lobbying%20ROI.jpg

The ROI on lobbyists doesn't make me feel that the subsidies are in the publics best interest. Anyone who is a free market person would be making a poor argument for giving redistribution of wealth to a profitable enterprise. That's a bad platform to support.

What i'm looking for is trying to find the # of how much the subsidies influence pricing: Pump price, transportation costs, packaging (plastics that are petrol based), etc.




PS: the subsidies for farms, has to do with ethanol. Which relates back to the problem of monoculture. You do realize also, that most pesticides and fertilizers that are chemical in large ag use are petrol derived? Which further questions the use of subsidized petrol.

BroncoBeavis
07-26-2013, 09:21 AM
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05-2/Lobbying%20ROI.jpg

The ROI on lobbyists doesn't make me feel that the subsidies are in the publics best interest. Anyone who is a free market person would be making a poor argument for giving redistribution of wealth to a profitable enterprise. That's a bad platform to support.

What i'm looking for is trying to find the # of how much the subsidies influence pricing: Pump price, transportation costs, packaging (plastics that are petrol based), etc.




PS: the subsidies for farms, has to do with ethanol. Which relates back to the problem of monoculture. You do realize also, that most pesticides and fertilizers that are chemical in large ag use are petrol derived? Which further questions the use of subsidized petrol.

Not sure where you keep coming up with the subsidy angle. As I just finished pointing out. There really is no federal subsidy for big oil. The government buying oil for its own strategic purposes is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government waiving (transportation) taxes on farmers (for uses unrelated to publicly-funded transportation) is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government subsidizing energy costs for poor people is not a subsidy to big oil.

Where are you getting all these subsidies?

alkemical
07-26-2013, 12:30 PM
Not sure where you keep coming up with the subsidy angle. As I just finished pointing out. There really is no federal subsidy for big oil. The government buying oil for its own strategic purposes is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government waiving (transportation) taxes on farmers (for uses unrelated to publicly-funded transportation) is not a subsidy to oil companies. The government subsidizing energy costs for poor people is not a subsidy to big oil.

Where are you getting all these subsidies?

So the oil companies are lobbying for what? Raisins? Toilet Paper? Cookies?

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

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[7] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:
Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels.[8] However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion - a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the SPR, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products ca half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by 2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development. Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies. According to IEA onshore wind may become competitive around 2020 in the European Union.[19]

Maybe do a little more research into a topic other than finding one article that supports your incorrect view point.

If you want to dig in further:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=energy+subsidies

BroncsRule
07-26-2013, 04:28 PM
I said 'near record' you damn commie. learn to ****ing read.

/straw man/
/ad hominem/
/straw man/


Am I doing this right? :ouwknow:

You need to focus more on the personal attacks.

Idiot!

But keep after it. You're getting there.

Bacchus
07-27-2013, 04:38 AM
http://grist.org/news/no-one-knows-how-to-stop-these-tar-sands-oil-spills/

Welcome to the future of dino powered economies. As the "easy to access" sweet crude dries up, it'll become more profitable to do more risky things like trying to extract underground tar sands, which will result in messes like this.

“This is a new kind of oil spill and there is no ‘off button,’” said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace who teaches a course on energy policy and environment at the University of Toronto. “You can’t cap it like a conventional oil well or turn off a valve on a pipeline.

“You are pressurizing the oil bed so hard that it’s no wonder that it blows out. This means that the oil will continue to leak until the well is no longer pressurized,” which means the bitumen could be seeping from the ground for months.

Let's inject pressurized steam into the ground to liquify the tar so we can suck it up. What? No way to release the pressure should something go wrong? Pfht, stand aside there's money to be made!

I can't wait for the Keystone pipeline to deliver that tar sands oil through the U.S. only to be shipped to overseas markets. Maybe they should learn how to clean it up before building the pipeline... just saying.

Bacchus
07-27-2013, 04:39 AM
http://www.automotiveaddicts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nissan-leaf-ev-6.jpg

Bacchus
07-27-2013, 04:40 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/q_ctcsMOcN0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is really entertaining.

nyuk nyuk
07-27-2013, 03:03 PM
Of course, when they build the Keystone pipeline, they'll be extra safe and careful. "Trust us." Ha!

I think that's what BP said about deep Gulf drilling.

They did nothing without US Govt permission and the US Govt has since quietly restarted issuing permits to drill deep water off the Gulf Coast.

I fail to understand why you hold BP accountable for these assurances but not the feds.