Peak Oil News

 

  Login or Register
 
Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Forums Search
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Members
 Your Account
 Members List
 Ignore List
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
google
 
PeakSpeak
NICKNAME

Download TeamSpeak
What is PeakSpeak?
Peak Oil on IRC
 
Photo Album
Submit Photo
Peakoil.com is You!


member photos
 
Light Sweet Crude Oil
 
Member Quotes
I want my mommy!

Buggy

Suggest Quote

 
aspo08
 
ICM
Cisco & Net App Training
 
Canada: Pipeline aimed at oil sands raises green ire
Production; Extraction; ExplorationThe federal government should prevent the proposed Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline from providing fuel for oil sands production because of global warming issues, several environmental groups argued at a regulatory hearing yesterday in Edmonton.

The amount of natural gas needed to power the oil sands could double by 2015, according the National Energy Board. The additional gas required in the oil sands is roughly the volume expected to move down the Mackenzie pipeline, a 1,200-kilometre link that would connect the Mackenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories with northern Alberta.

"Why shouldn't the National Energy Board set some rules about contracts of the end-use of Mackenzie gas?" Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in an interview. "Why not try to make this a green pipeline rather than just feeding Canada's greenhouse gas emission by fuelling the tar sands?"

The issue has been raised before and has been dismissed by Mackenzie's main backer, Imperial Oil Ltd., controlled by Exxon Mobil Corp., but the environmental groups yesterday highlighted a detailed map drawn up by TransCanada Corp., a gas pipeline company that is working on Mackenzie. The map, available on TransCanada's website, shows proposed new links in Alberta to move Mackenzie gas to the oil sands.

Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas -- than coal. Oil sands are already a major emitter of carbon dioxide and will become an even bigger source if aggressive development continues unabated.

The Sierra Club, alongside the Pembina Institute and others, wants to see the Mackenzie gas replace coal as fuel for existing power plants in Alberta, which are among the dirtiest industrial operations in Canada. Using gas in the oil sands has been derided for years as a bad idea, burning a clean hydrocarbon to convert raw bitumen into usable synthetic oil, an arduous process that produces large amounts of greenhouse gases.

Oil sands production is predicted to triple by 2015, greatly increasing emissions, though emissions per barrel are projected to fall. The environmental plan being prepared by the federal Conservative government is expected to focus on emissions per barrel, rather than absolute emissions, allowing the oil sands development to continue essentially unrestricted.

Globe and Mail

Posted on Wednesday, February 28 @ 04:04:28 PST by waegari
 
Related Links
· More about Production; Extraction; Exploration
· News by waegari


Most read story about Production; Extraction; Exploration:
Does Thermal Depolymerization Solve the Problem of Peak Oil?

 
Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

 
Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 Send to a Friend Send to a Friend

 
Associated Topics

Consumption; Demand; PricesEnviromental Headlines; Climate Change

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Atom News FeedRSS 1.0 News FeedRSS 2.0 News FeedRSS Forums Feed