Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not sure how a oil drilling is compared to Exxon except the volume. How many oil drilling platforms spill oil per year should be your comparison which is with these facts..
It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.
Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.
Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections
With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.yaleclimateconnections.org
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?
View attachment 473213
View attachment 473212
View attachment 473211
Because they are more concerned about forcing us into communism and "green" is the new red.
Because they are more concerned about forcing us into communism and "green" is the new red.
Don't worry, conservatism is still the old stupid, and that won't ever change.
If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
Not sure how a oil drilling is compared to Exxon except the volume. How many oil drilling platforms spill oil per year should be your comparison which is with these facts..
We don't drill tar sands ... we strip mine ... after the field is exhausted, someone will have to pay to replace the bedrock rubble, sub-soil and then top-soil ... all without revenue ... or just leave the toxic residue behind and trash the region with poisons ... with today's technologies ... those tar sands ain't going anywhere, tomorrow we'll have safer options ...
www.capp.ca
Is there an oil pipeline to Asia from Texas? If not how else would the oil be shipped from Texass to Asia?It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.
Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections
With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?
View attachment 473213
View attachment 473212
View attachment 473211
If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
Is there an oil pipeline to Asia from Texas? If not how else would the oil be shipped from Texas to Asia?It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.
Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections
With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?
View attachment 473213
View attachment 473212
View attachment 473211
Does Canada not know how to build a pipeline east to its coast to ship oil to Asia?
So let me understand your knowledge of geography that I learned in grade school.Is there an oil pipeline to Asia from Texas? If not how else would the oil be shipped from Texass to Asia?It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.
Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections
With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?
View attachment 473213
View attachment 473212
View attachment 473211
Does Canada not know how to build a pipeline east to its coast to ship oil to Asia?
I know, it makes as much sense as building a pipeline south to ship it to Asia...What is wrong with a pipeline in Canada built to the Pacific for shipping to Asia?So let me understand your knowledge of geography that I learned in grade school.Is there an oil pipeline to Asia from Texas? If not how else would the oil be shipped from Texass to Asia?It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.
Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections
With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?
View attachment 473213
View attachment 473212
View attachment 473211
Does Canada not know how to build a pipeline east to its coast to ship oil to Asia?
On which side of Canada is Asia? On the east coast as you evidently believe "build a pipeline east"
or according to the map Asia is to the west. HMMM...build pipeline to the east to ship oil to Asia???
View attachment 474167
If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
I never said the Canadian government would pay for it. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote.If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
I agree we have the technology to replace the tailings ... but why are you assuming the Canadian government is going to pay to do this? ... they have a checkered history in such matters ... how many abandoned strip mines in Canada are sitting un-remediated? ...
Folks living in the Tennessee River valley are still waiting for Oak Ridge to be properly remediated ...
Ok. I suspect China owns a great deal of many things.If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
China owns a major share in Canadian tar sands production.
Ok. I suspect China owns a great deal of many things.If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
China owns a major share in Canadian tar sands production.
So there's no benefit for the US to have another supply of crude oil?Ok. I suspect China owns a great deal of many things.If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
China owns a major share in Canadian tar sands production.
The point is that Keystone XL export pipeline benefits China not the US.
I guess based on that logic you don't believe there is any benefit for the US to purchase anything from companies from other countries, right?Ok. I suspect China owns a great deal of many things.If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
China owns a major share in Canadian tar sands production.
The point is that Keystone XL export pipeline benefits China not the US.
"Canada’s oil sands industry is committed to reducing its footprint, reclaiming all lands affected by operations, and maintaining biodiversity. Oil sands reclamation is an ongoing process during the life of the project. Oil sands operators must develop a plan to reclaim the land and have it approved by government as part of any project’s approval process.If you are talking about the open pit mining of the tar sands, I wouldn't expect technological improvements to change that. The shallow stuff has to be mined. There aren't any other options. So whatever technological improvements in mining operations occur that would most likely be about efficiency of the operation, not elimination of surface mining operations. So I doubt it would change the environmental impact much. The environmental impact decision rests with Canada, not the US. It's their land.We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...
Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”
Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.
There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...
With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...
As for the land and water being ruined I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion, but would assume the Canadian government does. I would also assume they have more information than you. So unless corruption is involved, I would expect them to weigh the pros and the cons and make an informed decision. Wouldn't you?
I agree we have the technology to replace the tailings ... but why are you assuming the Canadian government is going to pay to do this? ... they have a checkered history in such matters ... how many abandoned strip mines in Canada are sitting un-remediated? ...
Folks living in the Tennessee River valley are still waiting for Oak Ridge to be properly remediated ...
www.capp.ca
www.capp.ca
Fusion, (an energy with a future)!It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.
Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections
With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?
View attachment 473213
View attachment 473212
View attachment 473211
