Funny how the straight truth on something is told in the most obscure places.http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/168478126.html"By far the largest source was oil runoff from land into drains, from oil changes, municipal and industrial wastes and other sources: 363 million gallons. Bilge cleaning and other routine ship maintenance added 137 million gallons, four times the tanker spill average.Air pollution from vehicles and industry deposited hydrocarbon particles equal to another 97 million gallons; natural seeps added 62 million gallons; offshore drilling discharges accounted for 15 million gallons.So that’s the first thing to understand. It’s not tankers and pipelines doing most of the polluting. It’s you and me.""The facts are clear. The most widely cited source is a graph prepared by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which shows that 75 per cent of greenhouse gases from all types of crude occur when the gasoline, jet fuel and diesel are burned by the end user.Yes, there are variations in emissions on the remaining quarter. Emissions from mined oil sands crude are slightly higher than steam extraction, which is slightly higher than conventionally drilled and pumped crude. The most greenhouse gas-intensive crude used in North America is California heavy crude, which is conventionally drilled."Dan
I still believe it is irresponsible to ship Bitumen out of the north through those tiny inlets. If you need to ship it east send it down to Vancouver where the port is monitored better and where there is more control over the traffic. Also, the sea lanes are MUCH bigger.Simon
SimonThe Dutch tanker terminals are offshore a ways, wonder if that would work? What about Prince Rupert for Bitumen? Nat gas is not so bad, it evaporates pretty quickly. Tim
"I still believe it is irresponsible to ship Bitumen out of the north through those tiny inlets. If you need to ship it east send it down to Vancouver where the port is monitored better and where there is more control over the traffic. Also, the sea lanes are MUCH bigger." As the article pointed out though, the biggest irresponsibility or hypocrisy is from the ones flying around trying to stop the development completely. As the same ones fighting the gateway are fighting the expansion of the one to Vancouver. They just are unable to take any responsibility for the lifestyle they live.Dan
Dan,Yes, I agree that those saying "just don't ship the oil" are hypocrites but I'm ignoring them at the moment. And yes Tim, NatGas can get shipped out of anywhere. Even refined products. But that refinery up north isn't going to happen, though it might be used as an excuse to allow the Northern Gateway project to proceed.I was in Calgary talking with my BiLs (3 of which work in the oil industry) and they say if Northern Gateway gets built Calgary will just explode. Either of the other two would help immensely too. Their "money" is on (I'm forgetting their names but) the one to Vancouver (Transmountain?) by KinderMorgan and TransCanada's pipeline to Cushing. They figure both those will be built.Simon
Their "money" is on (I'm forgetting their names but) the one to Vancouver (Transmountain?) by KinderMorgan and TransCanada's pipeline to Cushing. They figure both those will be built.SimonI agree, Transmountain is expanding an existing pipeline with right of way in place. Keystone will get approved the first business day after the US election regardless of who wins. LNG from Kitimat is also probably a given? Northern Gateway perhaps could happen but it would be a tough fight. There is almost no way that refinery could happen as that is not what the customers want. Refineries are the Rodney Dangerfield of the industry and it is easier to move crude long distance than it is refined products that must meet specific local requirements. I wonder if Harper is using Northern Gateway as a bargaining chip to be traded away as a sop to the enviro-movement?Tim <off to Toronto thence Washington DC in early October>
If I understand the original article correctly, the author is saying "we already pollute a lot so we shouldn't worry about polluting some more".
More like "Let he who is without sin...."?Nobody who drives a car, takes a bus or airplane, heats their home, plugs in a computer, fridge or stove or even eats food transported by truck is completely innocent? Now clearly we need to limit the sin as much as possible but those suggesting that we can somehow afford to run the country as a modern entity while stopping export of our resources are smoking some of BC's best. Tim
"If I understand the original article correctly, the author is saying "we already pollute a lot so we shouldn't worry about polluting some more". " Wow, that takes some strong bias to come to that understanding.Dan
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time.