Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree19Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 15th, 2017, 02:02 PM   #21
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,283
@RTL and post #20. Most of your post is factually incorrect. The benzine and other toxins you claim are added to bitumen is a fantasy from the minds of fanatics. Diluent is either upgraded crude or a blend of light oils and condensates that would have been sent right down the same lines if they hadn't been directed to be used as diluent. So not only are there are more toxins being shipped, one could argue that they are less harmful because they are being diluted by the heavy oil.

And as you should know, I am one of the leading AGW proponents on this site, but keep in mind that the economy still needs to burn hydrocarbons for many things. Recyclables to drive long distance trucks, trains an aircraft are decades or more away.

Even with the evil of heavy oil and bitumen production, Canada only contributes 1.7% of the world's man-made CO2.
RNG is offline  
Old March 15th, 2017, 04:19 PM   #22
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
@RTL and post #20. Most of your post is factually incorrect. The benzine and other toxins you claim are added to bitumen is a fantasy from the minds of fanatics. Diluent is either upgraded crude or a blend of light oils and condensates that would have been sent right down the same lines if they hadn't been directed to be used as diluent. So not only are there are more toxins being shipped, one could argue that they are less harmful because they are being diluted by the heavy oil.

And as you should know, I am one of the leading AGW proponents on this site, but keep in mind that the economy still needs to burn hydrocarbons for many things. Recyclables to drive long distance trucks, trains an aircraft are decades or more away.

Even with the evil of heavy oil and bitumen production, Canada only contributes 1.7% of the world's man-made CO2.

Thanks from right to left
Sabcat is offline  
Old March 16th, 2017, 11:26 AM   #23
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
@RTL and post #20. Most of your post is factually incorrect. The benzine and other toxins you claim are added to bitumen is a fantasy from the minds of fanatics. Diluent is either upgraded crude or a blend of light oils and condensates that would have been sent right down the same lines if they hadn't been directed to be used as diluent. So not only are there are more toxins being shipped, one could argue that they are less harmful because they are being diluted by the heavy oil.

And as you should know, I am one of the leading AGW proponents on this site, but keep in mind that the economy still needs to burn hydrocarbons for many things. Recyclables to drive long distance trucks, trains an aircraft are decades or more away.

Even with the evil of heavy oil and bitumen production, Canada only contributes 1.7% of the world's man-made CO2.
This is from a National Geographic article I've kept on tab or a few years....not treehugger.com! So, tell them they're making up fantasies about the risks of allowingtoxic, corrosive dilbit to flow through long pipelines underground, through aquifers and under major rivers...like the Missouri:
Will Tar Sands Pipeline Threaten Groundwater?

Dilbit carries hazardous chemicals such as cancer-causing benzene and toxic heavy metals such as arsenic. Because it also contains particles of sand, the environmental groups say, dilbit is much more corrosive than oil alone, thus more likely to cause leaks.

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a co-author of a recent report by the Defense Council, said that piping dilbit is “like sandblasting the inside of the pipe,” making pipes 16 times more likely to leak than when they are carrying regular crude oil.

Keystone XL would pass over the heart of the aquifer, cutting through the Sand Hills of Nebraska, a region of grass-covered dunes that contains one of the largest wetlands ecosystems in the United States. The region's porous ground acts as a thick sponge, environmentalists say, allowing oil to soak into the aquifer more easily than it would if the soil were more solid.

So, who am I to believe: you and assurances from the lobbyists and industries seeking to make money off this/or environmentalists who have little to gain...if any from opposing tarsands pipelines?

I have to add a caveat about motivated reasoning from both those working in or making money from this industry/and those against, is that I am well aware there are fake enviro players...largely financed by hacks like Warren Buffet, who seems to have gambled and lost on his bet that the pipelines wouldn't be built. Obama's waffling on this issue is not likely from any real concern about environmental consequences that could occur after he's out of office, but rather because Buffet is a major financier of the DNC and placed his bets on shipping unconventional oil by rail, as demonstrated by buying up some railways and having hundreds or thousands of tanker cars produced to carry shale kerogen and dilbit to refineries and ports by rail.

So, I am well aware of all the fakery that goes on with almost every public issue as "friends" turn out to be people and groups taking money from an alternative side of an issue that's just put on a coat of green paint. The difference here is that railways connect major cities and could be a danger to large populations, rather than poor and destitute indian bands out in the middle of nowhere. Once again, let's recall that this "safe" DAPL was rerouted at least once by residents of Bismark North Dakota! Standing Rock and the reservation town of Cannonball count for absolutely nothing in the eyes of US governments...even more so when there's a president in the White House with a direct financial interest in making money from the DAPL project!

But, in the end, a publication like National Geographic has a reputation at stake when it comes to accurate reporting on all environmental issues; so I'll take their reporting and sources more seriously than I will the shit that get churned out by all the various fronts with an interest in destroying the planet for money now!
right to left is offline  
Old March 16th, 2017, 11:29 AM   #24
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Keep munching your popcorn and stay on the sidelines! I am interested in issues in themselves/not playing games:left vs right, liberal vs conservative etc.
right to left is offline  
Old March 16th, 2017, 01:44 PM   #25
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
This is from a National Geographic article I've kept on tab or a few years....not treehugger.com! So, tell them they're making up fantasies about the risks of allowingtoxic, corrosive dilbit to flow through long pipelines underground, through aquifers and under major rivers...like the Missouri:
Will Tar Sands Pipeline Threaten Groundwater?

Dilbit carries hazardous chemicals such as cancer-causing benzene and toxic heavy metals such as arsenic. Because it also contains particles of sand, the environmental groups say, dilbit is much more corrosive than oil alone, thus more likely to cause leaks.

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a co-author of a recent report by the Defense Council, said that piping dilbit is “like sandblasting the inside of the pipe,” making pipes 16 times more likely to leak than when they are carrying regular crude oil.

Keystone XL would pass over the heart of the aquifer, cutting through the Sand Hills of Nebraska, a region of grass-covered dunes that contains one of the largest wetlands ecosystems in the United States. The region's porous ground acts as a thick sponge, environmentalists say, allowing oil to soak into the aquifer more easily than it would if the soil were more solid.

So, who am I to believe: you and assurances from the lobbyists and industries seeking to make money off this/or environmentalists who have little to gain...if any from opposing tarsands pipelines?

I have to add a caveat about motivated reasoning from both those working in or making money from this industry/and those against, is that I am well aware there are fake enviro players...largely financed by hacks like Warren Buffet, who seems to have gambled and lost on his bet that the pipelines wouldn't be built. Obama's waffling on this issue is not likely from any real concern about environmental consequences that could occur after he's out of office, but rather because Buffet is a major financier of the DNC and placed his bets on shipping unconventional oil by rail, as demonstrated by buying up some railways and having hundreds or thousands of tanker cars produced to carry shale kerogen and dilbit to refineries and ports by rail.

So, I am well aware of all the fakery that goes on with almost every public issue as "friends" turn out to be people and groups taking money from an alternative side of an issue that's just put on a coat of green paint. The difference here is that railways connect major cities and could be a danger to large populations, rather than poor and destitute indian bands out in the middle of nowhere. Once again, let's recall that this "safe" DAPL was rerouted at least once by residents of Bismark North Dakota! Standing Rock and the reservation town of Cannonball count for absolutely nothing in the eyes of US governments...even more so when there's a president in the White House with a direct financial interest in making money from the DAPL project!

But, in the end, a publication like National Geographic has a reputation at stake when it comes to accurate reporting on all environmental issues; so I'll take their reporting and sources more seriously than I will the shit that get churned out by all the various fronts with an interest in destroying the planet for money now!
Check out the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board and its ethics.

I'm not denying that a little benzene and such isn't going down the pipelines, but that isn't unique to blended crude. In fact, as I explained, it would be in higher concentrations if the diluent alone was being shipped. So that is at best a misleading statement, or, IMO a lie by implying that this is due to the heavy oil.

Just admit that you're a fanatic and be done with it, or look for some facts outside of the popular media.

The other issue is that the oil, even "dilbit" to use your nomenclature is lighter than clays or minerals and lighter than water. And it's immiscible with water. So the natural tendency of a spill underground is to move upwards towards the surface. It is spills on surface getting into rivers and lakes that the worst environmental repercussions occur.

Plus oil spills, even heavy oil spills can be treated by bioremedial treatment, essentially adding fertilizer to the contaminated soil. In this case the fertilizer acts not in the traditional way but as a "vitamin" for bacteria that ingest the hydrocarbons.

I have been responsible for remediation of some 60 year old oil treating facilities that used surface pits for that long months. They can be reclaimed in three Alberta years. I say Alberta years because on a good year there are only 7 months warm enough for the bacteria to be active.

Last edited by RNG; March 16th, 2017 at 01:54 PM.
RNG is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 12:34 PM   #26
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Check out the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board and its ethics.
Are you going to tell me they're not completely in the tank for oil...all kinds of oil development? I wager I can trust them as much as I can trust big oil-funded think tanks analysis on climate change issues.

Quote:
I'm not denying that a little benzene and such isn't going down the pipelines, but that isn't unique to blended crude.
Then, why did you write this in post#21: " Most of your post is factually incorrect. The benzine and other toxins you claim are added to bitumen is a fantasy from the minds of fanatics."
Are you just assuming that you can sell the industry's line until you're called on it and then adopt the fallback positions?

Quote:
In fact, as I explained, it would be in higher concentrations if the diluent alone was being shipped. So that is at best a misleading statement, or, IMO a lie by implying that this is due to the heavy oil.
I didn't say...cause I don't really care what else is in the mix besides dilbit! The facts are that in previous spills in rivers and lakes, the diluent chemicals separate and rise to the surface, while bitumen sinks and leaves a toxic, heavy mess at the bottom of the river/or lake.

Quote:
Just admit that you're a fanatic and be done with it, or look for some facts outside of the popular media.
Off the top: this is why I get so fucking sick of engineers and techies who have specialized, streamlined knowledge in one..and usually only one area of expertise, and are village idiots about everything else in our world! I don't have to be working in this field or be an expert to be able to understand that this is the most toxic branch of a toxic tree!

I do read a fair amount on a range of climate and environment issues in recent years, and all the attempts by media flacks to bait and switch "pipelines vs rail shipments", or "our economy can't function without oil" don't distract me from the point I leave in my signature line.
Everyone who's a hardliner on environment issues is a "fanatic" to all of the people(not just those with a direct vested interest in oil) who prefer living in denial to being willing to do what's necessary to end the crisis.

Quote:
The other issue is that the oil, even "dilbit" to use your nomenclature is lighter than clays or minerals and lighter than water. And it's immiscible with water. So the natural tendency of a spill underground is to move upwards towards the surface. It is spills on surface getting into rivers and lakes that the worst environmental repercussions occur.
Again, you are just assuming that petro critics are all idiots who haven't read anything! Like I touched on previously, the Kalamazoo River Disaster that Enbridge left behind directly proves your little theory is fraudulent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
The Kalamazoo River oil spill occurred in July 2010 when a pipeline operated by Enbridge (Line 6 burst and flowed into Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. A six-foot break in the pipeline resulted in one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history (the largest was the 1991 spill near Grand Rapids, Minnesota). The pipeline carries diluted bitumen (dilbit), a heavy crude oil from Canada's Athabasca oil sands to the United States. Following the spill, the volatile hydrocarbon diluents evaporated, leaving the heavier bitumen to sink in the water column. Thirty-five miles of the Kalamazoo River were closed for clean-up until June 2012, when portions of the river were re-opened. On March 14, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered Enbridge to return to dredge portions of the river to remove submerged oil and oil-contaminated sediment.
Quote:
Plus oil spills, even heavy oil spills can be treated by bioremedial treatment, essentially adding fertilizer to the contaminated soil. In this case the fertilizer acts not in the traditional way but as a "vitamin" for bacteria that ingest the hydrocarbons.
Here's the problem now that we have environmental research and environment monitoring agencies under attack in the brave new world of post-Harper and Trump: the oil disasters that have occurred recently..like BPGulf-Horizon, are happening in a brave new world (and this was under Obama) where federal regulators are former oil execs, the agencies are defunded, the research is defunded also, scientists have to sign non-disclosure agreements, media are barred from disaster zones during and long after cleanup attempts, so people living along the Gulf, especially those in the fishing industries can't trust what they're told by federal regulators anymore...and certainly neither can consumers who may still be poisoning themselves by eating seafood taken from the Gulf in areas still contaminated by unknown amounts of carcinogens in the water..or at the bottom..thanks to that corexit crap!

Anyway, this is how it used to be done; and notice how long and how permanent some of the damages are when a typical oil spill...the kind that can be expected even after the oil gets through the pipeline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_...nmental_impact

Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.[33] Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.[8][34]

In 2003, fifteen years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the remaining oil was lasting far longer than anticipated, which in turn had resulted in more long-term loss of many species than had been expected. The researchers found that at only a few parts per billion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons caused a long-term increase in mortality rates. They reported that "species as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks and killer whales suffered large, long-term losses and that oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover."[35]

In 2006, a study done by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau found that about 6 miles (9.7 km) of shoreline around Prince William Sound was still affected by the spill, with 101.6 tonnes of oil remaining in the area. Exxon Mobil denied any concerns over any remaining oil, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of the studies they had done: "We've done 350 peer-reviewed studies of Prince William Sound, and those studies conclude that Prince William Sound has recovered, it's healthy and it's thriving."[36] However, in 2007 a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.[32]

The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years afterwards. As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.[37]

On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. Scientists who have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod may eventually die out.[38] Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 US gallons (60.56 79.5 m³) to of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles (725 km) away. Some of the oil does not appear to have biodegraded at all. A USGS scientist who analyses the remaining oil along the coastline states that it remains among rocks and between tide marks. "The oil mixes with seawater and forms an emulsion...Left out, the surface crusts over but the inside still has the consistency of mayonnaise – or mousse." [39] Alaska state senator Berta Gardner is urging Alaskan politicians to demand that the US government force ExxonMobil to pay the final $92 million (£57 million) still owed from the court settlement. The major part of the money would be spent to finish cleaning up oiled beaches and attempting to restore the crippled herring population.[39]


The problem today is that regulators are even more co-opted by the industries than before. This is a permanent problem/not some temporary mishap!

Quote:
I have been responsible for remediation of some 60 year old oil treating facilities that used surface pits for that long months. They can be reclaimed in three Alberta years. I say Alberta years because on a good year there are only 7 months warm enough for the bacteria to be active.
I say you're wrong and even if you knew you were wrong, you wouldn't tell me or anyone else on the outside, because your job depends on keeping this operation going regardless of all else!

And when I went back to post #21, I noticed I missed this previously:
Quote:
Even with the evil of heavy oil and bitumen production, Canada only contributes 1.7% of the world's man-made CO2.
Actually the only source I came up with among first page source material that had all the relevant data, puts Canada's share of global CO2 emissions at 2%/not 1.7. But regardless, our small population has a per capital carbon footprint in the range of the world's top offenders: US, Australia, Saudi Arabia; and that is more relevant than just posting the totals. on a per capita emissions basis, Canada ranks #9 on the list of top 20 carbon emitters:
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists
And let's not forget that if oil was still at $100 per barrel...as tar sand investors were expecting, these developments would be way ahead of where they are now...even under Justin Trudeau, it wouldn't be much different than if our Trump-Stephen Harper was still in Ottawa.

I would add that, as Chinese officials have put forward in climate negotiations, "legacy" emissions need to be the most important part of the calculations/not annual emissions of recent years; since Co2 stays in the atmosphere for anywhere between 100 and 1000 years before natural carbon sequestration processes remove it. I know US is #1 by far in legacy emissions, England #2 thanks to starting that industrial revolution first, but Canada has to be way up there also in the top 5.

And, then there's the unsettling fact that the numbers posted likely by every country, are way underestimating their actual emissions! Because the Earth's atmosphere is unable to lie, and as I posted previously, annual CO2 increases are now rising 3ppm annually, or three times as fast as they were in 1960! If these countries were doing more than smoke and mirrors, there might actually be some evidence of a slowdown in the actual numbers.

And, then there's methane CH4 emissions! The carbon bomb getting set to go off at a time when less money is being allocated for research to try to determine roughly how big of a problem are CH4 emissions today, and we'll collectively be as prepared for it as the trilobites were to the "Clathrate Gun" going off 250 million years ago!
right to left is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 12:44 PM   #27
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,283
I worked in/with heavy oil from 1978 till my retirement in 2009. I've been there, done that and know way more about it than you.

The Alberta Resources Conservation Board is not only not in the pocket of big oil, it is hated by big and little oil.

And a question. If the bitumen is so toxin to rivers, why is it that among others, the Athabasca river flows through the heart of the surface bitumen deposits, as it erodes the banks it breaks of chunks of bitumen bearing sands, some of which float for a while because of the vegetation stuck to it, and yet is considered part of the pristine environment that needs protecting?
RNG is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 01:22 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,951
Where are these dad burn tar sands at? It has to be Manitoba, Alberta or Saskatchewan. I always got those three mixed up in geography class
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old March 18th, 2017, 10:55 AM   #29
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I worked in/with heavy oil from 1978 till my retirement in 2009. I've been there, done that and know way more about it than you.

The Alberta Resources Conservation Board is not only not in the pocket of big oil, it is hated by big and little oil.

And a question. If the bitumen is so toxin to rivers, why is it that among others, the Athabasca river flows through the heart of the surface bitumen deposits, as it erodes the banks it breaks of chunks of bitumen bearing sands, some of which float for a while because of the vegetation stuck to it, and yet is considered part of the pristine environment that needs protecting?
That sounds like the difference between lakes, rivers and watersheds that have oil naturally slowly seeping up through the ground vs oil spills in environments where the biota have never experienced the arrival of petro products before.
right to left is offline  
Old March 18th, 2017, 11:02 AM   #30
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Where are these dad burn tar sands at? It has to be Manitoba, Alberta or Saskatchewan. I always got those three mixed up in geography class
Mostly northern Alberta. There are many other places in the world that also have tarsands deposits. What's made the Alberta tarsands so popular and the first to have major development is their proximity to markets and existing oil production infrastructure...and pliant governments!

The greatest danger of this development will be greatly enhanced if it expands to other sources around the world. As the last sources of conventional oil dry up and deposits in Venezuela or India are also developed, all this new glorious technology we hear about..cutting the costs of extracting bitumen and upgrading it to useable products will also move on and carbonize the rest of what's left with this world.
right to left is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
1000%, canada, correct, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canada PM says ready to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump excalibur Current Events 34 November 18th, 2016 12:34 PM
How to move to Canada (if Trump wins) Sabcat Political Talk 7 November 8th, 2016 11:05 PM
Medicare spending $1000 lower than projected goober Healthcare 16 September 3rd, 2014 08:38 PM
Immigration Bill Now Over 1000 Pages excalibur Current Events 11 May 29th, 2013 12:38 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.