[cualcrees]

FTA:
"We’ve highlighted many times the unmitigated environmental horror of the Alberta Tar Sands, but one aspect which we haven’t pointed out is the impact on migratory birds. A new peer-reviewed report has just been released by the NRDC which details the impact on avian populations from continued exploitation of these unconventional fuels."

Link

[mefistofeles]

At current prices its hard to see how Tar Sands production can eve continue.

[KrellEnergySource]

A bigger threat to birds.....

http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2008/03/ ... -each.html


But it is one more strike against the tar sands mining. As if any more were really needed.


Brian

[mos6507]

If I ever have another cat I think I'll take them outside on a leash.

[vtsnowedin]

Skim through it and you find that the 166 million (amazing how precise the number is) are what might be killed over 30 to 50 years. A lot of hype here.

[RdSnt]

My own suspicion has been that the number was higher than that, and I once did a back of the envelope based on some industry energy usage numbers that put the number at about 8/1 (for just the oil production step)."

link

What do you mean by "just the oil production step", the mining and extraction of tar from sand? or the conversion of that tar to something usable?

[eastbay]

Maybe this is how all the birds died in the soon to be released movie, The Road.

[Maddog78]

Very interesting.
Iggy is trying to make nice to Alberta.


Iggy loves Alberta?

The Alberta oilsands will allow Canada to stand up to the U.S. on everything from Arctic sovereignty to rewriting NAFTA, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday.

Ignatieff told a town hall meeting in a Gastown pub that Canadians are just starting to understand “how powerful the oilsands make us.”

He told an overflow audience crammed into the pub’s tiny back room that he toured the project in August.

“It is awe-inspiring,” he said, adding that the controversial project boasts enough oil to last the rest of this century.

“We’ve got oil reserves there that are just staggering in size. It changes everything about our economic future. It changes everything about Canada’s importance in the world.”

Ignatieff’s comments came in response to a question from a woman in the audience, who used the term “tarsands” – a description used by opponents of the project.

“This is where a chill falls over the room because everybody expects me to say they’re terrible and shut them down,” said Ignatieff. “Absolutely not.”


..........snip.............



“Energy policy in our country is a national unity issue,” he said. “The dumbest thing you can do – and no Liberal must ever do it – is run against Alberta, make Alberta the enemy, isolate Alberta.”

[Dreamtwister]

He has the right idea, but he's about 10 years too late. I have my doubts about the sands ever returning to profitability.

[DaleFromCalgary]

The only thing protecting the Liberal party in Alberta are the game laws. But it is nice to see Ignatieff recognizing reality. He spent most of his life in the USA, so perhaps he realizes by what a thin thread the energy supply of North America hangs from.

Re: terminology. Yes, the opponents like to use "tar sands". In the business, oilsands generally refers to all types of the deposits, below and above ground, while tarsands means just the exposed deposits in Athabasca. One doesn't see protestors angry about the Cold Lake or Peace River deposits because those are underground and there are no spectacular visuals for television.

The protestors have been useful to ensure that the Athabasca Tar Sands operators clean up their act, but they live in a dream world if they think they can shut them down completely. Alberta (and Canada) depend too much on them. Alberta's conventional oil peaked in the 1980s or so, and today we only pump one-third as much with three times as many wells. My family's wells pump 733 barrels per month on a quarter-section, and that is considered a good performer today.

[Blacksmith]

I don't believe it a Liberal that actually has some grasp on reality.

Trudeau must be turning over in his grave.

[Maddog78]

Funny column


WARNING: Don't read it if you love the Canadian Liberal Party.

Kelly McParland: A primer for Michael Ignatieff on the realities of Liberalism
Posted: January 20, 2009, 11:00 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Kelly McParland, Canadian politics



Reading these two columns on Michael Ignatieff by Colby Cosh and John Ivison, you have to wonder whether the new Liberal party leader knows anything at all about the organization he's in charge of.

Mr. Ignatieff continues to make pronouncements and occupy positions that utterly ignore traditional Liberal party thinking. He pointedly refused to equivocate on support for Israel's right to defend itself or pander to the party's conviction that by refusing to take a strong stand in favour of any particular party or position it could masquerade as an "honest broker" and avoid any responsibility no matter how events eventually played out.

He also appears determined to ignore the fact western Canada is a secondary member of Confederation, to be tapped for revenue but otherwise ignored as much as possible, and regularly criticized as selfish, divisive or unpatriotic when it questions the higher priority justifiably accorded to Ontario and Quebec. He now seems to have gone so far as to praise the oilsands as a crucial and desirable asset Canada can use to good effect in its relations with the U.S., a notion Conservatives have appreciated for some time but Liberals have rejected because the oilsands obviously are located in the wrong part of the country.

He clearly has a long way to go. In recognition of this, we offer him this primer on traditional Liberal party beliefs and activities:

Liberals take a strong stand only when it might win them votes, and only until they get those votes, after which they are no longer obligated to recall or own up to anything they might have said earlier.

Liberals champion the party as the protector of national unity, while only choosing leaders from Ontario or Quebec.

Liberals enjoy boasting of Canada's "special relationship" with the United States, while sniggering at all things American and reassuring themselves of Canada's innate superiority. Liberals enjoy mocking American cultural values and products, while consuming them in large quantities and warning against any barriers that should impede their ability to maintain imports. Liberals habitually deride American political traditions, except those they copy, which they do regularly.

Liberals are the party that came withing one percentage point of fumbling away the country in 1995, and now brag of having championed the Clarity Act, introduced in the aftermath of the near-disaster to prevent them doing anything so stupid ever again.

Liberals have run their past two national campaigns on a promise to spend tens of billions on long-term, open-ended entitlement programs mixed with sweeping tax cuts, and now assail the government for spending liberally and contemplating tax cuts.

Liberals survived for decades almost solely on fat contributions from major corporations, while simultaneously denouncing Conservatives as the party of big business. Jean Chretien, a Liberal prime minister, finally cut off the corporate welfare payments, but only after he'd benefited from them for 30 years. The party still hasn't adjusted, and staged a public revolt when the current Prime Minister outlandishly tried to force them to raise money from actual voters, like other parties do.

Liberals support taking a leading role in the fight against global warming, as long as that role is limited to signing treaties which then don't have to be put into effect.

Liberals are the party that finally tamed Canada's deficit through sweeping cuts to social spending that affected schools, universities, hospitals and other crucial services. The Liberals are currently warning darkly that the Conservative government could attempt to offset anticipated short-term deficits through sweeping cuts to future spending, which could affect schools, universities, hospitals and other crucial services.

[Maddog78]

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/energy/story.html?id=1820567

CALGARY -- The Alberta government shot back at international oil sands critics Thursday, releasing two reports that argue crude produced from the sticky sands in the northern part of the province is not as devastating to the environment as previously believed.

The reports, commissioned by the Alberta Energy Research Institute, show direct greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta's oil sands are on average about 10% higher than emissions from other sources of crude refined in the United States. Other studies have put this number closer to 40%.

snip..........................

[hillsidedigger]

Aren't they expending the energy equivalent to 2 barrels of oil in order to yield 3 barrels of oil? As well, the stated reserves number for the tar sands (300+ billion barrels) should be divided by 3.

It's seems that would nearly triple the pollution involved compared to oil that requires very little energy to produce.

[hardtootell-2]

We are in an era of decline, having used up most of the easy and clean resources of our finite planet. The last 50% of the usable resources will create ALOT more pollution when exploited. For example- the low quality (semi legal) coal mines in China, mountain top mining in the Appalachians and of course the Oil sands...

Just wait until resource wars become more widespread.

I don't think the end will be pretty.

[smallpoxgirl]

Great! So you guys can go back to digging Mordor's Pit.

Exactly. It's not about greenhouse gasses. It's about water use, water pollution, giant piles of toxic muck, and enormous open strip mines.

[frankthetank]

I still have the "60 Minutes" episode saved to disk about there tour of the oil sand operation. The amount of water and natural gas used it pretty immense. The stated reserves should account how much energy it takes to extract that crap.

[hardtootell-2]

I still have the "60 Minutes" episode saved to disk about there tour of the oil sand operation. The amount of water and natural gas used it pretty immense. The stated reserves should account how much energy it takes to extract that crap.

AND, if we intend to still live on this planet, the cost (esp energy cost) of environmental remediation should be included. That is what environmentalist call the "real cost".