Author Topic: tar sands  (Read 58597 times)

Berlynn

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
    • View Profile
    • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com
tar sands
« on: April 14, 2008, 12:27:30 PM »
The proposed tar sands development is the largest industrial project in human history, according to the Sierra Club.  So, I was happy to learn that their attempt to stop the Kearl project via the courts has been successful!

(This isn't yet on the website, but is copied from my inbox.)

Quote
Key victory for Sierra Club on the Kearl Tar Sands Mine

On March 5, 2008 the Federal Court allowed Sierra Club Canada/Pembina’s application for judicial review against the proposed Kearl tar sands mine on grounds that the Environmental Assessment Panel did not explain how an intensity-based approach to emissions reduction would reduce the climate change impacts of the project to insignificance. The issue has been referred back to the Panel for reconsideration.  

Thanks to Sean Nixon of Ecojustice—now the challenge is to turn this issue into a matter of national concern, and to provide all Canadians (not just Albertans) with clear understandings of the implications of the tar sands.

The good news is that we have established that emissions intensity is not a reasonable way to reduce GHG emissions and that climate change must be treated seriously in environmental assessments of development projects.   Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club Canada, said: “In effect, the Federal Court is saying that this hypocrisy has to stop.”  The next step will be to see if Imperial Oil appeals the decision and what the regulatory panel will say in its amended approval.
Never retreat, never explain, never apologize--get the thing done and let them howl.  -- Nellie McClung

Mandos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5759
    • View Profile
    • http://politblogo.typepad.com/
Re: tar sands
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2008, 12:34:07 PM »
I wish them lots of luck.  In a world of rising oil prices (falling supply and rising demand) and no alternative to replace it on the scale which it is used, it's going to be an unhill battle.  Harder than old-growth forest battles.

Berlynn

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
    • View Profile
    • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com
Re: tar sands
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2008, 12:48:29 PM »
That's why it's so nice to see a victory!  I'm all about celebrating the small stuff these days.  Like the trail of 3 and 4 y.o. kids that just passed by on the sidewalk across the street, how they still stop to look at birds and trees and neighbourhood cats without reminders to do so.

We should all be 3 or 4 again!  ;)
Never retreat, never explain, never apologize--get the thing done and let them howl.  -- Nellie McClung

Toedancer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13966
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2009, 12:21:56 PM »
Huff Post/Tar Sands/Harper-Obama-Iggy

Quote
But the author of Tar Sands wonders even if Obama listens to the environmentalists will he be able to refuse Canada's hardline Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper -- a George Bush crony, and, like Bush, the son of an oil executive -- rose to power with the support of his native, oil-rich Alberta. Harper needs American oil money to prop up his government. Still, what Harper thinks may no longer be very important. The country has tired of his manipulative brand of realpolitik, and many guess his term in office is finite.

These days, Harper sustains a rickety minority government by adopting liberal policies that are completely foreign to his political nature. An awkward man at the best of times, these painful efforts are like witnessing the public performance of a country musician trying to learn reggae.

The Canadian whose opinions are most likely to interest Barack Obama is Michael Ignatieff**, a former director of Harvard's School of Government, and a close personal friend of Obama insiders Lawrence Summers and Samantha Power. Ignatieff has taken up the reins of Canada's Liberal party. And it is Ignatieff who holds the future of Harper's embattled government in his hands. In addition to their pro-environmental stance, Ignatieff's party traditionally has very little sympathy with anything that makes one region of the country disproportionately rich and powerful to the disadvantage of the rest of Canada.

What we've all been thinking. Harpo is sitting lame-duck.
"Democracy is not the law of the majority, it's the protection of the minority." -Albert Camus 1913-1960

Toedancer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13966
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2009, 02:08:15 AM »
I wasn't sure where to post this.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1201222/

Which is a joke on itself. Meantime I really liked one comentor: "The Bilderberg Group has decided that the US debt of 57 trillion and growing will be paid for by plundering Canadian resources. That's a fact."

Don't hear much in Canuck media/bloggers about this rape.
Canada/U.S. sitting in a tree.....
U.S./Canada are failures.
http://earthblips.dailyradar.com/story/ ... openhagen/
"Democracy is not the law of the majority, it's the protection of the minority." -Albert Camus 1913-1960

scott

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
    • http://watertalk.org
Re: tar sands
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2009, 12:43:26 PM »
Hot air fuels carbon-capture pact

Politicians may use Thursday's announcement as a conference prop

Quote
Carbon dioxide might be an invisible gas, but the Alberta government is doing its best to use it as a political smokescreen.

Look no further than Thursday's announcement of $865 million in taxpayers' money for Alberta's first major pilot project for carbon capture and storage (CCS).
...
After a year of backroom talks and negotiations between government and private companies, we are now looking at another "few years" of backroom talks and negotiations. Shell and its partners will not move ahead on the pilot project until they have government funding, regulatory approval and a properly engineered plan. "Construction will only begin after all of these aspects have been addressed successfully, with the aim to start operations in 2015," according to a Quest news release.

So, why did they hold a news conference now?

Well, because Thursday was the last day Knight and Raitt would be in Canada before jetting off to England for the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, a meeting of government ministers from around the world promoting co-operation on CCS. Thursday's signing ceremony gives the ministers political cover. They can show up in London waving the letter of intent in front of anyone who's been reading headlines about Alberta's "dirty oil" and Greenpeace protesters chaining themselves to oilsands equipment.
...
Shell and its project partners reserve the right to use the captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery. That means injecting the liquid gas into old oilfields to force out more oil that is then refined and burned-- producing more emissions of carbon dioxide. Using CCS to recover more oil might make sense economically but calling enhanced oil recovery "carbon sequestration" in the context of reducing global emissions is, environmentally speaking, a fib.

This is why industry favours carbon sequestration over other forms of greenhouse gas reduction. They can suck up huge pools of tax dollars to fund thier own operations while carrying on business as usual for years to come.
One struggle, many fronts.

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2009, 04:21:18 PM »
While CCS in the tar sands is getting hundreds of millions - Nova Scotia, not to be outdone is investing a few millions itself.
Quote
A hunt is underway in Nova Scotia for an underground location to store carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants.

It's part of a federally funded study to find out whether a technology known as carbon capture can help Nova Scotia Power reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
CBC  

My favourite line in the whole story is: The potential is "enormous," said David Fanning, with the province's CCS research consortium.

To put it into some focus - these are the same folks that have not been able to do anything with the 'other' tar sands, the ones in Sidney.

Quote
2007:

    * Jan. 10 - Engineers to drill into bedrock beneath north and south ponds: samples restricted to the route for channeling water from Coke Ovens Brook and Wash Brook to Sydney Harbour
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Berlynn

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
    • View Profile
    • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com
Re: tar sands
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2009, 05:04:40 PM »
Perhaps the wrong thread for this but I want to let you all know I have decided to demonstrate solidarity with this bunch.  First, I will talk with doc and other healers.  I'm thinking 1-2 days/week over 6 weeks should be manageable.

Quote
Activists plan hunger strikes for climate justice

Simon Butler
10 October 2009


Climate change is deadly serious. Predicted water shortages, rising sea levels, crop failures and dangerous weather events threaten the lives of billions within decades unless action is taken now.

Australian climate activist Paul Connor is one of many who are deadly serious about stopping it. He will go without food for more than 40 days, fasting on water only, to draw attention to the global warming emergency.

Connor is an organiser of the Climate Justice Fast — an internationally coordinated protest hunger strike that will begin on November 6, the date of UN climate change talks in Barcelona and the last day of negotiations before the Copenhagen talks.

The fast involves more than 60 climate activists from 13 countries. Some of the hunger strikers will fast for a few days or weeks, but others have pledged to continue right through the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.
Never retreat, never explain, never apologize--get the thing done and let them howl.  -- Nellie McClung

shaolin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2009, 04:55:44 PM »
Tar Sands in Focus.

Blog by the UK Tar Sands Network.  I think they must've set up after activists from the Indigenous Environmental Network spoke at Climate Camp last summer.  They recently did an action at Canada House, during the 'COP out camp out' in Trafalgar Square.  

It feels like I read more about the tar sands over here than I would do if I was in Canada...

Boom Boom

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9962
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 08:03:58 PM »
Ontario, Quebec sing different oilsands tune when cash beckons

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/considers%20easing%20environmental%20standards%20fuel/2721456/Ontario+Quebec+sing+different+oilsands+tune+when+cash+beckons/2718408/story.html

EDMONTON — After months of publicly denouncing the oilsands for its environmental footprint, the Quebec and Ontario governments are in Alberta this week with entrepreneurs looking to land supplier contracts with companies developing the resource.


The Quebec government asked businesses from that province to participate in the economic mission to Edmonton this week for the National Buyer/Seller Forum — a conference dedicated to oilsands investment — saying the projects in northern Alberta provide la belle province with "good business opportunities."


Ontario has also sent a delegation, including its economic development minister, to work with companies in that province hoping to cash in with oilsands contracts.


The missions come only a few months after Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario's environment minister decried the oilsands during the Copenhagen conference on climate change. The two provinces said they don't want their greenhouse gas cuts contributing the lion's share of national reductions simply to offset rising emissions from the carbon-intensive oilsands.


More than 35 Ontario companies and six regional economic development organizations from that province are in Edmonton with Economic Development Minister Sandra Pupatello.


"When it's good for Alberta, it's good for Ontario, and when it's good for those two, it's good for Canada," Pupatello told conference representatives Tuesday.

Boom Boom

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9962
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2010, 08:09:56 PM »
EU considers easing environmental standards for fuel

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/considers%20easing%20environmental%20standards%20fuel/2721456/story.html

excerpt:


OTTAWA — The European Union is considering weakening its proposed environmental standards for fuel in response to a lobbying effort from the Harper government to protect Canada's oilsands, newly released documents have revealed.


A new discussion paper to be debated by a panel this week suggests that European officials will remove restrictions on fuel from the oilsands in its draft legislation, pending "further review."


The standards must still go through a period of consultations and several months of debate prior to adoption or a veto by the European Parliament, but the concerns raised in the meantime by Canadian officials appear to have prompted a change.

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Re: tar sands
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2010, 07:50:50 AM »
Quote from: Boom Boom
snip
Ontario has also sent a delegation, including its economic development minister, to work with companies in that province hoping to cash in with oilsands contracts.
'nudder snip
"When it's good for Alberta, it's good for Ontario, and when it's good for those two, it's good for Canada," Pupatello told conference representatives Tuesday.

GCOS, now Suncor, was the first oil mine and was totally owned by the Pew family. The polls you occasionally hear about are done through grants from them - it was totally a private initiative. (Everybody thought he was mad - he could not get any investors.)

Syncrude, the second plant was partially owned by the gov't of Ontario through Ontario Hydro. They owned the power plant until Syncrude bought it in the 80's. The governments of eastern Canada have a history of investment in the tar sands.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
tar sands
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2010, 10:33:48 PM »
That David Schindler gyu is at it again.
 
From the Edmonton Sun:
 
Heavy metal warning for Fort Chip residents
 
It is, of course, an opinion piece and spends about 40% of its' copy describing and defending the Alberta governments view of this scientific gadfly's work. But some does manage to get through:
 
 
Quote
EDMONTON — The oilsands industry is boosting the amount of toxic metals in the Athabasca River, as well as in the area surrounding the plant sites, University of Alberta aquatics ecologist David Schindler told Fort Chipewyan residents on Monday.
[/COLOR]

 
and
 
 
Quote
Contrary to what government and industry says, not all the toxic metals in the river are from natural sources, he said Tuesday.
[/COLOR]

 
There are two reasons for a :puke:reaction. One is the veracity and implications of Dr. Schindler's study, the other is the Alberta government's response.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
tar sands
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2010, 02:29:11 PM »
(first an uncalled for snarky quip)
 
Ya know - them Americans are good - just not fast.
 
If you had read Schindler's report in the about post - you could see that "this report from the President’s Cancer Panel"(thank you, Marcia at FDL) says about the same thing (just later) .... we are being killed by the environment around us.
 
Here is the report, it is a pdf of over 200 pages - so here is part of Marcia's take on it:
Quote

 

It talks about all the environmental hazards that may contribute to cancer, devoting an entire chapter exploring each of six kinds of exposures that may contribute to cancer:
  • Exposure to Contaminants from Industrial and Manufacturing Sources
  • Exposure to Contaminants from Agricultural Sources
  • Environmental Exposures Related to Modern Lifestyles (things like automobile pollution, airplane travel, and cell phones)
  • Exposure to Hazards from Medical Sources
  • Exposure to Contaminants and Other Hazards from Military Sources (pointing to 900 abandoned military sites that are Superfund sites)
  • Exposure to Environmental Hazards from Natural Sources (things like radon and naturally occurring arsenic)

Why are we subjugated to all this kaka?
 
She quotes from the actual report - where the Edmonton Sun quotes from a provincial spokesperson:
 
Quote

The prevailing regulatory approach in the United States is reactionary rather than precautionary. That is, instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated. Moreover, instead of requiring industry or other proponents of specific chemicals, devices, or activities to prove their safety, the public bears the burden of proving that a given environmental exposure is harmful. Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety.
 
U.S. regulation of environmental contaminants is rendered ineffective by five major problems: (1) inadequate funding and insufficient staffing, (2) fragmented and overlapping authorities coupled with uneven and decentralized enforcement, (3) excessive regulatory complexity, (4) weak laws and regulations, and (5) undue industry influence. Too often, these factors, either singly or in combination, result in agency dysfunction and a lack of will to identify and remove hazards.(her bolding)

Sound familiar - the oil sands manage to pollute, defile and generally corrupt that air/water/soil of northern Alberta and indeed the world because government, the ultimate manager, allows it to happen.
 
For fun and profit it is easy to come up with money for the mystic 'cure for cancer' ... it is somewhat more difficult to strive to prevent the conditions for cancer arising. That would mean upsetting the almighty people that bring you unbreathable air and undrinkable water.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Holly Stick

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
    • View Profile
tar sands
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2010, 02:33:50 PM »
Pembina Institute basically calls the Government of Alberta liars. About time.  And they explain exactly what liesa are being told:
 
Quote
The Government of Alberta yesterday made false claims about greenhouse gas emissions from the province's major industrial polluters. The claims were included in a government news release and backgrounder (1) detailing results from provincial greenhouse gas regulations for the year 2009...

http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2014
Economics is a human creation, borders are human creations and nature doesn’t give a damn about these things. - David Suzuki

 

Return To TAT