Tar-ism
June 26, 2008 4:53 PM Subscribe
Does Greenpeace use oil sand to power the Rainbow Warrior? You know, the ship it uses to ram Japanese fishermen?
What did you say? I can hear you over the sound of all these spotted owls I'm throwing into this wood chipper powered by leaded gas and polar bear tears.
posted by The Power Nap at 5:01 PM on June 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
What did you say? I can hear you over the sound of all these spotted owls I'm throwing into this wood chipper powered by leaded gas and polar bear tears.
posted by The Power Nap at 5:01 PM on June 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
^can't
posted by The Power Nap at 5:01 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by The Power Nap at 5:01 PM on June 26, 2008
Reckless, inflammatory hyperbole is always a great way to present your cause. It ensures that only people as willing as you are to disregard reason and intelligent discourse will want to sign up.
posted by chudmonkey at 5:05 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by chudmonkey at 5:05 PM on June 26, 2008
Can we somehow turn these guys and PETA against each other?
posted by Krrrlson at 5:15 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Krrrlson at 5:15 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
Thanks for fighting zero-emission nuclear power, greenpeace! These coal power plants are awesome.
Sincerely,
The environment
posted by mullingitover at 5:26 PM on June 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
Sincerely,
The environment
posted by mullingitover at 5:26 PM on June 26, 2008 [6 favorites]
@
I'm sorry,
I thought this was a joke thread. Forgive me if I consider the source when presented with heart-rending images of nature denuded by industry. I equate environmental messages from Greenpeace to nutritional facts from McDonald's. I don't lend much credibility to organizations that engage in paramilitary actions. If you approve of this try having your equipment sabotaged by naive eco nuts. I was clearing fire lines with my grandfather back in 96 when a group of these fools came into the equipment yard at night and jacked up the break lines on the trucks.
So please, please, sell me on them. Make me believe. Better yet, make Patrick Moore believe again.
posted by The Power Nap at 5:29 PM on June 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry,
I thought this was a joke thread. Forgive me if I consider the source when presented with heart-rending images of nature denuded by industry. I equate environmental messages from Greenpeace to nutritional facts from McDonald's. I don't lend much credibility to organizations that engage in paramilitary actions. If you approve of this try having your equipment sabotaged by naive eco nuts. I was clearing fire lines with my grandfather back in 96 when a group of these fools came into the equipment yard at night and jacked up the break lines on the trucks.
So please, please, sell me on them. Make me believe. Better yet, make Patrick Moore believe again.
posted by The Power Nap at 5:29 PM on June 26, 2008 [2 favorites]
I don't know. I'm Canadian (well, expat Canuck), I'm enviro-mental, anti-corporatist, grew up in the not-actually all-that-pristine wilderness of Northern BC, all that shit, but I'm not sure how much of a problem I have with the idea of Canada being self-sufficient in fossil fuels while they are still the energy source that matters, or getting Dubairiffically rich through exports as the supplies get scarcer and dearer worldwide, at the cost of messing up some mostly-empty territory up in the frozen narth.
Yeah, I know, it's complicated, and I'm probably underinformed about the enviro impact, and being glib helps nobody. But I do find it hard to plump down comfortably on either side of the arguments for or against.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 PM on June 26, 2008
Yeah, I know, it's complicated, and I'm probably underinformed about the enviro impact, and being glib helps nobody. But I do find it hard to plump down comfortably on either side of the arguments for or against.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 PM on June 26, 2008
There's a certain class of organization or individual associated with advocacy that has "jumped the shark," so to speak, where I can no longer take anything they say seriously, no matter how right or heroic they might actually be on their subject of choice.
Greenpeace, PETA, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, ELF, Earth First and many workers unions could petition in favor of getting me free blowjobs and ice cream sundaes, and I'd still think they were crazy.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:40 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
Greenpeace, PETA, Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, ELF, Earth First and many workers unions could petition in favor of getting me free blowjobs and ice cream sundaes, and I'd still think they were crazy.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:40 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
First, I visited Alberta a couple of years ago. Flew to Calgary, rented a car, and drove up the Icefields Parkway. It's some of the most spectacular scenery anywhere. Highly recommended that you do it before all the glaciers finish melting.
Second, we did see some of the then idled tar sands equipment. You drive right past it on your way to the national park. You can read that fact a lot of ways.
Third, Greenpeace is neither PETA nor Earth First!, the latter probably being the group that sabotaged Power Nap's yellow machinery. Greenpeace is more into hanging banners and camera hogging. And if you want to find some terrorists, go look up the french paramilitary assholes who bombed and sank the first Rainbow Warrior killing a bona fide journalist in the bargain. How many people have Greenpeace actually murdered in their campaigns?
posted by localroger at 5:50 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
Second, we did see some of the then idled tar sands equipment. You drive right past it on your way to the national park. You can read that fact a lot of ways.
Third, Greenpeace is neither PETA nor Earth First!, the latter probably being the group that sabotaged Power Nap's yellow machinery. Greenpeace is more into hanging banners and camera hogging. And if you want to find some terrorists, go look up the french paramilitary assholes who bombed and sank the first Rainbow Warrior killing a bona fide journalist in the bargain. How many people have Greenpeace actually murdered in their campaigns?
posted by localroger at 5:50 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
localroger, I'd read the fact that you drove past idled tar sands equipment on the way from Calgary to the Icefields Parkway to mean that you had taken one hell of a detour.
posted by Flashman at 6:03 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Flashman at 6:03 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
Buried beneath the ground, in Colorado and Utah, are a trillion tons of oil shale. Throughout the 20th century, oil companies tried and tried again to unlock the energy contained in these rocks. To date, all efforts have failed. But every twenty or thirty years, when energy prices spike, a new attempt is mounted. Perhaps peak oil will make these rocks cost effective. But like the tar sands, harvesting the shale will leave as much environmental mess as coal mining.
posted by netbros at 6:05 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by netbros at 6:05 PM on June 26, 2008
Maybe it's just because I'm a Canadian who heats his home with natural gas, but what Canada needs to do is 1) give 6 months notice and then step out of NAFTA (which would require us to continue to export some 60% of our natural gas to the US, even if our citizens have need of it), and 2) stop wasting so much natural gas on the tar sands.
posted by nobeagle at 6:29 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by nobeagle at 6:29 PM on June 26, 2008
Stupid fucking Greenpeace. My buddy 'worked' for Greenpeace in Vancouver one summer as a university student. He said it was difficult to adjust to a normal job in subsequent summers because "man, when things got too tense, my boss and I would go out on the deck and smoke a joint until everything was mellow."
This is a completely unwarranted judgement of Greenpeace because this was back in the seventies and I'm sure the organization is different and much more serious now but I'm still suspicious of them and it will take a lot to change my elderly mind.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 6:35 PM on June 26, 2008
This is a completely unwarranted judgement of Greenpeace because this was back in the seventies and I'm sure the organization is different and much more serious now but I'm still suspicious of them and it will take a lot to change my elderly mind.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 6:35 PM on June 26, 2008
Question for the Greenpeace-haters. Does your hatred of Greenpeace lead you to derive your information instead from "less extreme" environmental advocacy organizations and legitimate environmental scientists, or does it lead you to lump all "Greenies" into the same group of nutters?
What do you do when, say, the IPCC comes up with similar scenarios to those Greenpeace have been "scaremongering" about for years?
I ask as a professional Ecologist, who finds himself annoyed at occasionally being lumped in with the "Greenies" when speaking to lay-folk, but who takes some silent joy in the sight of Rainbow Warrior chasing those fishermen...
posted by Jimbob at 6:43 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
What do you do when, say, the IPCC comes up with similar scenarios to those Greenpeace have been "scaremongering" about for years?
I ask as a professional Ecologist, who finds himself annoyed at occasionally being lumped in with the "Greenies" when speaking to lay-folk, but who takes some silent joy in the sight of Rainbow Warrior chasing those fishermen...
posted by Jimbob at 6:43 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
The Japanese whaling ships deserve to be rammed and harassed. I thank those who are doing it.
posted by lathrop at 6:46 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by lathrop at 6:46 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm with stavrosthewonderchicken - I find a great deal of comfort in the 179 billion barrels of oil (second highest in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia) in Canada's back pocket.
I think of this as sort of an insurance policy for the future of our country. Sure, there are many, many issues to be worked out, but for now, I'll take it.
posted by davey_darling at 6:56 PM on June 26, 2008
I think of this as sort of an insurance policy for the future of our country. Sure, there are many, many issues to be worked out, but for now, I'll take it.
posted by davey_darling at 6:56 PM on June 26, 2008
What do you do when, say, the IPCC comes up with similar scenarios to those Greenpeace have been "scaremongering" about for years?
read it -> think about it -> decide.
posted by gman at 7:02 PM on June 26, 2008
read it -> think about it -> decide.
posted by gman at 7:02 PM on June 26, 2008
Flashman, now that I've looked up my old notes I realize you are right. That was an idled oil shale processing site we saw south of Canmore, not a tar sands processing site. I suppose there might be a smidgeon of difference between the two.
posted by localroger at 7:12 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by localroger at 7:12 PM on June 26, 2008
Two Alberta posts in two days! Yay AlbertaFilter! One about a museum full of dead gophers, another about the oil sands industry. Throw in one more about West Edmonton Mall and there you go, you've summed up the entire province.
posted by painquale at 7:26 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by painquale at 7:26 PM on June 26, 2008
I'm with stavrosthewonderchicken - I find a great deal of comfort in the 179 billion barrels of oil (second highest in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia) in Canada's back pocket.
I wouldn't get all that comfortable.
The US consumes 9,253,000 barrels/day (388.6 million gallons/day) of Gasoline. That's A DAY. And that's just the US.
Do the math. 179 billion barrels of oil isn't really all that much. Especially since Canadian oil companies will export the bulk of it.
posted by tkchrist at 7:45 PM on June 26, 2008
I wouldn't get all that comfortable.
The US consumes 9,253,000 barrels/day (388.6 million gallons/day) of Gasoline. That's A DAY. And that's just the US.
Do the math. 179 billion barrels of oil isn't really all that much. Especially since Canadian oil companies will export the bulk of it.
posted by tkchrist at 7:45 PM on June 26, 2008
localroger, I'd read the fact that you drove past idled tar sands equipment on the way from Calgary to the Icefields Parkway to mean that you had taken one hell of a detour.
Good point, and it also illustrates the problem with Greenpeace's "environmentalism for dummies" approach. The equipment localroger most likely saw on his way to Icefields Parkway was idled conventional or portable drilling rigs used in the industry in the foothills of the Rockies.
The real action is northeast of Edmonton, and the crappy excuse for a website in the FPP didn't even show pictures of what a moonscape it is. The Greenpeace site uses some sort of media player that failed to load in my browser, as well as some basic snarky messages. Totally uninformed (kind of like localroger's comments), and this dumbed-down, inaccurate, halfwitted attack on an industry the Canadian establishment has sworn to protect is doomed to fail.
If foreigners are going to threaten one of our key industries, can't they at least try a little harder?
posted by KokuRyu at 7:49 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
Good point, and it also illustrates the problem with Greenpeace's "environmentalism for dummies" approach. The equipment localroger most likely saw on his way to Icefields Parkway was idled conventional or portable drilling rigs used in the industry in the foothills of the Rockies.
The real action is northeast of Edmonton, and the crappy excuse for a website in the FPP didn't even show pictures of what a moonscape it is. The Greenpeace site uses some sort of media player that failed to load in my browser, as well as some basic snarky messages. Totally uninformed (kind of like localroger's comments), and this dumbed-down, inaccurate, halfwitted attack on an industry the Canadian establishment has sworn to protect is doomed to fail.
If foreigners are going to threaten one of our key industries, can't they at least try a little harder?
posted by KokuRyu at 7:49 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think of this as sort of an insurance policy for the future of our country.
Frankly, I wish we didn't have that insurance policy. I wish we were working to develop lower emission technology, rather than extracting oil in one of the most polluting ways possible. I'd call it more of a dead weight that is going to prevent us from making any progress in reducing our GHG emissions. Call me naive, but I think oil is more the past than the future.
posted by ssg at 8:29 PM on June 26, 2008
Frankly, I wish we didn't have that insurance policy. I wish we were working to develop lower emission technology, rather than extracting oil in one of the most polluting ways possible. I'd call it more of a dead weight that is going to prevent us from making any progress in reducing our GHG emissions. Call me naive, but I think oil is more the past than the future.
posted by ssg at 8:29 PM on June 26, 2008
Reckless, inflammatory hyperbole is always a great way to present your cause.
It seems pretty popular in this thread.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:34 PM on June 26, 2008
It seems pretty popular in this thread.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:34 PM on June 26, 2008
If foreigners are going to threaten one of our key industries, can't they at least try a little harder?
Well, we already got a bunch of your hockey teams. We're going after Tim Horton's next.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:42 PM on June 26, 2008
Well, we already got a bunch of your hockey teams. We're going after Tim Horton's next.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:42 PM on June 26, 2008
Especially since Canadian oil companies will export the bulk of it.
Nah. Once America collapses into a savage patchwork of warring fiefdoms, madmax jonesing for oil and water, we'll just absorb the northern ones that seem useful into Greater Canada, and let Texas take the rest.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 PM on June 26, 2008
Nah. Once America collapses into a savage patchwork of warring fiefdoms, madmax jonesing for oil and water, we'll just absorb the northern ones that seem useful into Greater Canada, and let Texas take the rest.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 PM on June 26, 2008
I'm a Canuck who's a little disgruntled that we're relying on tar sands. They should be a last-means resource: we're no where near the point where they should be used.
There are two big problems with tar sands: consumption of water and tailings pollution. Every barrel of oil extracted from the sands uses several barrels of fresh water, rendering it unfit for consumption. That's just not smart: if there's one thing humans need more than oil, it's fresh water. The other problem, tailings, is an environmental nightmare: it's poisoning thousands of lakes — again with ruining fresh water — and creating moonscapes that won't support plant life for decades if not centuries.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 PM on June 26, 2008
There are two big problems with tar sands: consumption of water and tailings pollution. Every barrel of oil extracted from the sands uses several barrels of fresh water, rendering it unfit for consumption. That's just not smart: if there's one thing humans need more than oil, it's fresh water. The other problem, tailings, is an environmental nightmare: it's poisoning thousands of lakes — again with ruining fresh water — and creating moonscapes that won't support plant life for decades if not centuries.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 PM on June 26, 2008
Alberta: the coolest of the Canadian provinces! Here in Montana, we think of Albertans as semi-Montanans. Good people.
posted by davidmsc at 9:48 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by davidmsc at 9:48 PM on June 26, 2008
five - I've heard the number bandied about (Radio/CBC) that it takes approximately 50 barrels of water for 1 to make 1 of oil from tarsand.
moonscape - actually, at night... literally hell or Dante's inferno... miles of fire/light/machines raging, ripping, digging...
posted by jkaczor at 9:48 PM on June 26, 2008
moonscape - actually, at night... literally hell or Dante's inferno... miles of fire/light/machines raging, ripping, digging...
posted by jkaczor at 9:48 PM on June 26, 2008
After the '70's initial oil "crunch" when our great Western neighbour Albertans regaled themselves with 'Let the Maritime Bastards freeze in the dark' placards, it is with reluctant schadefreude that I giggle and Damn the Saudis and Albertans to an equivalent After-Life.
posted by malwilde at 10:28 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by malwilde at 10:28 PM on June 26, 2008
People say we have an 'addiction' to oil, and it seems to me that things like shale oil and tar sands are like moving from ecstasy and cocaine to mainlining diluted bathtub meth. It just smacks of desperation. And 179 billion barrels? That's actually not much. World consumption is, according to this PDF 85 million barrels a day, or 31 billion barrels a year. So the oil sands amount to 5 years of global use, although it does work out to about 250 years worth of Canada's actual use. It's about 37 years for the US.
As far as total proven reserves, the world as a whole has just 1.2 trillion barrels of proven reserves left, enough to last about 38 years. Now, of course every year more oil is discovered, increasing the size of the proven reserve. Which is great. But i believe we discover less oil then we use although I can't find any stats on that.
My view is we should be investing more in nuclear power.
posted by delmoi at 11:06 PM on June 26, 2008
As far as total proven reserves, the world as a whole has just 1.2 trillion barrels of proven reserves left, enough to last about 38 years. Now, of course every year more oil is discovered, increasing the size of the proven reserve. Which is great. But i believe we discover less oil then we use although I can't find any stats on that.
My view is we should be investing more in nuclear power.
posted by delmoi at 11:06 PM on June 26, 2008
Does your hatred of Greenpeace lead you to derive your information instead from "less extreme" environmental advocacy organizations and legitimate environmental scientists, or does it lead you to lump all "Greenies" into the same group of nutters?
The "less extreme" choice.
The thing is most people in this thread who are shitty with Greenpeace do care about the environment. I personally despise them and their irrationally anti-nuclear ilk because they fucked up our chances back in the 70s and 80s to move to nuclear power en masse and reduce our carbon emissions for the past 30 years.
posted by Talez at 12:13 AM on June 27, 2008
The "less extreme" choice.
The thing is most people in this thread who are shitty with Greenpeace do care about the environment. I personally despise them and their irrationally anti-nuclear ilk because they fucked up our chances back in the 70s and 80s to move to nuclear power en masse and reduce our carbon emissions for the past 30 years.
posted by Talez at 12:13 AM on June 27, 2008
Davey: I find a great deal of comfort in the 179 billion barrels of oil (second highest in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia) in Canada's back pocket.
I would too, Davey, except that Harper can't wait to give as much of it to the Americans as he can to get into their cool club.
takes approximately 50 barrels of water for 1 to make 1 of oil from tarsand.
I looked into that a while back, and I think it was more along the lines of 5 or 6 to 1, not 50. They think they can get it down to about 3 to 1 with more work.
Now Greenpeace and other eco groups are starting to make noise south of the border, trying to get a boycott of tarsands oil. I'm no huge fan of the environmental cost, and I think that the Albertan lobbyist is of course nothing more than a paid mouthpiece, but he does raise one very good point that I think is being overlooked bu the eco groups.
Specifically: "On a macro level, there's not much common sense behind the environmentalist drive to divert oil sands product to faraway locations.
If the pipeline to the south is shut off, heavy oil will be shipped in gas-emitting tankers to China or India where it will be given a dirtier refining and burned in less fuel-efficient cars.
Besides, once the oil is floating on the high seas, any U.S. boycott could be circumvented by international brokers directing tankers to unload at any U.S. port, notes Mar. "
posted by barc0001 at 1:04 AM on June 27, 2008
I would too, Davey, except that Harper can't wait to give as much of it to the Americans as he can to get into their cool club.
takes approximately 50 barrels of water for 1 to make 1 of oil from tarsand.
I looked into that a while back, and I think it was more along the lines of 5 or 6 to 1, not 50. They think they can get it down to about 3 to 1 with more work.
Now Greenpeace and other eco groups are starting to make noise south of the border, trying to get a boycott of tarsands oil. I'm no huge fan of the environmental cost, and I think that the Albertan lobbyist is of course nothing more than a paid mouthpiece, but he does raise one very good point that I think is being overlooked bu the eco groups.
Specifically: "On a macro level, there's not much common sense behind the environmentalist drive to divert oil sands product to faraway locations.
If the pipeline to the south is shut off, heavy oil will be shipped in gas-emitting tankers to China or India where it will be given a dirtier refining and burned in less fuel-efficient cars.
Besides, once the oil is floating on the high seas, any U.S. boycott could be circumvented by international brokers directing tankers to unload at any U.S. port, notes Mar. "
posted by barc0001 at 1:04 AM on June 27, 2008
I'm for it if they make a fair exchange: take all of the oil out (and I don't care if they use nuclear-generated steam to do it), but then repair the surface damage, pay off the local first nations out of the profits, and declare the site finished for humanity forever. Make it 50,000 square miles of nature reserve you aren't even allowed to fly over.
posted by pracowity at 1:39 AM on June 27, 2008
posted by pracowity at 1:39 AM on June 27, 2008
Alberta: the coolest of the Canadian provinces! Here in Montana, we think of Albertans as semi-Montanans. Good people.
The rest of Canada also thinks of Albertans as semi-Montanans. The affective evaluation of that is less positive though.
posted by srboisvert at 2:58 AM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
The rest of Canada also thinks of Albertans as semi-Montanans. The affective evaluation of that is less positive though.
posted by srboisvert at 2:58 AM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, we already got a bunch of your hockey teams. We're going after Tim Horton's next.
August 8, 1995 was a sad sad day for us.
for me, the sale of our first corporation to the Americans was a harder kick in the nuts.
posted by gman at 3:46 AM on June 27, 2008
August 8, 1995 was a sad sad day for us.
for me, the sale of our first corporation to the Americans was a harder kick in the nuts.
posted by gman at 3:46 AM on June 27, 2008
I find a great deal of comfort in the 179 billion barrels of oil (second highest in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia) in Canada's back pocket.
It's great for Alberta. It's not so great for Ontario and Quebec, where manufacturing is tanking due to the rising Canadian dollar, which you have to buy in order to be able to buy Canadian oil. And I guarantee that the Bloc Albertain isn't going to like sending equalization payments to Ontario.
posted by oaf at 4:29 AM on June 27, 2008
It's great for Alberta. It's not so great for Ontario and Quebec, where manufacturing is tanking due to the rising Canadian dollar, which you have to buy in order to be able to buy Canadian oil. And I guarantee that the Bloc Albertain isn't going to like sending equalization payments to Ontario.
posted by oaf at 4:29 AM on June 27, 2008
tk, even assuming somehow Canada consumes even within an order of magnitude of what the US does, from your figures the oil supply should last for at least 50 years. Since it's more like an order of magnitude less, assuming consumption roughly maps to population, it might last up to 500 years.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 5:02 AM on June 27, 2008
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 5:02 AM on June 27, 2008
Oh bah, delmoi beat me.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 5:03 AM on June 27, 2008
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 5:03 AM on June 27, 2008
Make it 50,000 square miles of nature reserve you aren't even allowed to fly over.
Parks with no visitors are difficult to preserve. Compare the public's attitude toward the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge versus, say, Yosemite.
posted by ryanrs at 1:41 PM on June 27, 2008
Parks with no visitors are difficult to preserve. Compare the public's attitude toward the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge versus, say, Yosemite.
posted by ryanrs at 1:41 PM on June 27, 2008
All I can say is... think what you want about *some* the methods of Greenpeace, but pay attention to the facts of the matter first.
"Reckless, inflammatory hyperbole is always a great way to present your cause..."
FACT: I've reviewed the statements that Greenpeace Canada made in their website, and they are factually accurate. The same data is cited and verified in numerous news articles, studies, and surveys, some which I cite in this comment. If you have any specific doubts about any particular piece of information, I would be glad to check it out for you.
"If foreigners are going to threaten one of our key industries..."
FACT: This campaign isn't being done by "foriegners", but by Greenpeace Canada, which has over 100,000 members, with offices in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The Greenpeace Canada campaign is not some sort of attack out of the blue, but is actually in response to a $25 million, three year long taxpayer-funded PR campaign approved by Canada's government to bolster the reputation of Alberta's tar sands oil. Greenpeace Canada is responding to the health and environmental concerns of the locals, many of whom are indigineous people, which threatens their ability to hunt, fish, and even drink the local water. This doesn't reflect the social cost the locals are facing, with out of control inflation, widespread drug abuse, prostitution, housing shortages, attacks against women and natives, homelessness that causes numerous people to freeze to death every year,
It arguably doesn't even touch upon the social cost of the development, which has led to widespread inflation, homelessness, and people literally freezing to death as a result.
FACT: A caustic, hot water extraction is used to recover the bitumen from the oil sands. Each cubic metre of mined oil sands requires up to 3 cubic metres of water and produces about 4 cubic meters of slurry waste, all of which must be stored. Conservative government estimates say that the consolidation of the mature fine tails (MFT) in the settling ponds will take around 150 years. Environmentalists suggest even longer, as some of the pollutants will tend to accumulate, and also because these lakes of toxic tailings are still being added to.
FACT: The process of oil sands mining is very, very destructive of the local environment, which requires clearcutting the forests, scraping off the topsoil, and the creation of the world's largest tailings ponds. The largest of these are in the Mildred Lake Settling Basin, which has a water surface of 13 km2 and contains over 400 × 106 m3 of fine tailings. Its processing draws upon -- and threatens -- the nearby Athabasca river system, which is, in some places, a mere 150 feet away. These "tailings ponds" contain a toxic brew of naphthenic acid, trace metals, and other pollutants. The ponds are so toxic that birds die upon landing on the water, as approximately 500 ducks did this April, when devices intended to scare away birds were inadequate to do their job at the Syncrude site.
There have been several leaks of oil and tailings into the river since the 1960s, when Suncor began excavating the first mine. This company admitted in 1997 that its tailings pond was then leaking approximately 1,600 cubic metres of toxic fluid a day into the Athabasca River.
FACT: The existing solution to cleaning these lakes of tailings is the longterm creation of large amounts of microbially produced methane, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times those of conventional oil and gas production [currently tar sands production emits 27 megatonnes per annum and is expected to rise to 108-126 megatonnes by 2015]. Thus, the tar sands are now poised to become Canada’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gas. Additionally, tar sands production is expected to multiply as much as four to five times by the year 2015 to meet growing demands in the U.S. Conservative estimates show that greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands could leap from 27 to 126 million tonnes by 2015.
FACT: Water samples from Lake Athabasca, into which the river of the same name drains, show elevated levels of several known toxins and carcinogens. Arsenic, mercury, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were all present in levels “sufficiently high to present a risk to either humans or wildlife.” While all residents in the region of tar sands mines are exposed to health risks from the massive industrial development, it is the indigenous people of the area whose health is most at risk due to their traditional reliance on fish, moose, cattail, and other “country” foods. The pollutants bioaccumulate in their food sources, generation after generation.
FACT: Fort Chipewyan, on the shores of Lake Athabasca, 200 km downriver from Mildred Lake, is a small community of about 1,000 mostly indiginous Cree, Dene (Chipewyan) and Métis, are dying in alarming numbers from a variety of cancers and autoimmune disorders such as lupus and Graves’ disease. The situation was first exposed in 2006 when the town’s doctor went public with his findings that in this small community of 1,000, he had diagnosed at least three cases of a rare bile duct cancer that normally afflicts only one out of 100,000 Canadians.
Leaders of Fort Chipewyan’s two First Nations, the Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan, have recently joined 55 organization across Alberta in calling for an immediate moratorium on any approvals for new tar sands extraction projects.
FACT: The environmental impact downriver of the oil sands mining was never tested adequately, and is only now starting to be tested for. There have been many highly disturbing test results from independent sources, including from Suncor oil, whose estimates projected arsenic levels 453 times higher than the acceptable levels, with a cancer risk in the effected area equivalent to 450 extra cases of cancer in a population of 100,000.
FACT: A government air quality report from Nov. '07 said that hydrogen sulphide levels in the Fort McMurray area have increased up to 68 per cent in the eight years since monitoring began.
FACT: The extraction of the oil requires burning vast amounts of natural gas - effectively one barrel of gas to extract two of crude. Some estimate that Fort McMurray and the Athabasca oil sands will soon be Canada's biggest contributor to global warming. It is also linked to an emurging acid rain problem, effecting areas as far away as Saskatechewan.
FACT: The Bush administration is seeking a "fivefold" expansion of Canadian oil production in a "short time span". Accomplishing this will require "streamlining regulatory approval", which threatens to ignore growing environmental concerns.
FACT: The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed into law last year, specifically bans federal agencies from buying fuels that produce more greenhouse gases than conventional oil. This would include purchases by the military and the postal service - far and away the two biggest consumers of fuel in the United States. The author of the section, Democratic congressman Henry Waxman of California, has said it was meant to block government agencies from forming contracts "specifically to promote or expand the use of fuel from tar sands," but not to block purchases of "generally available fuels" that might contain "incidental amounts" of oil sands product.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a proposed, national "low-carbon fuel standard," which could penalize gasoline marketers in the United States who rely on oil sands production. The standard is similar to one which recently passed in California.
In a recent conference call with reporters, Mr. Obama's energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said it will be up to the industry to invest in technology that allows for oil sands production without "unacceptable impacts" on the environment.
An Obama administration would set standards that, without such environmental improvements, would discourage refiners and gasoline marketers from relying on oil sands production, Mr. Grumet said. Mr. Obama, who represents the coal-dependent state of Illinois, has endorsed the use of "clean coal," which requires the same kind of expensive carbon capture and storage technology that is envisaged for the oil sands.
Ultimately, are we really upset at what Greenpeace is doing in regards to *this* problem? Are they somehow violating the rights of Albertans with their website... or not doing enough?
posted by markkraft at 2:31 PM on June 27, 2008 [10 favorites]
"Reckless, inflammatory hyperbole is always a great way to present your cause..."
FACT: I've reviewed the statements that Greenpeace Canada made in their website, and they are factually accurate. The same data is cited and verified in numerous news articles, studies, and surveys, some which I cite in this comment. If you have any specific doubts about any particular piece of information, I would be glad to check it out for you.
"If foreigners are going to threaten one of our key industries..."
FACT: This campaign isn't being done by "foriegners", but by Greenpeace Canada, which has over 100,000 members, with offices in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The Greenpeace Canada campaign is not some sort of attack out of the blue, but is actually in response to a $25 million, three year long taxpayer-funded PR campaign approved by Canada's government to bolster the reputation of Alberta's tar sands oil. Greenpeace Canada is responding to the health and environmental concerns of the locals, many of whom are indigineous people, which threatens their ability to hunt, fish, and even drink the local water. This doesn't reflect the social cost the locals are facing, with out of control inflation, widespread drug abuse, prostitution, housing shortages, attacks against women and natives, homelessness that causes numerous people to freeze to death every year,
It arguably doesn't even touch upon the social cost of the development, which has led to widespread inflation, homelessness, and people literally freezing to death as a result.
FACT: A caustic, hot water extraction is used to recover the bitumen from the oil sands. Each cubic metre of mined oil sands requires up to 3 cubic metres of water and produces about 4 cubic meters of slurry waste, all of which must be stored. Conservative government estimates say that the consolidation of the mature fine tails (MFT) in the settling ponds will take around 150 years. Environmentalists suggest even longer, as some of the pollutants will tend to accumulate, and also because these lakes of toxic tailings are still being added to.
FACT: The process of oil sands mining is very, very destructive of the local environment, which requires clearcutting the forests, scraping off the topsoil, and the creation of the world's largest tailings ponds. The largest of these are in the Mildred Lake Settling Basin, which has a water surface of 13 km2 and contains over 400 × 106 m3 of fine tailings. Its processing draws upon -- and threatens -- the nearby Athabasca river system, which is, in some places, a mere 150 feet away. These "tailings ponds" contain a toxic brew of naphthenic acid, trace metals, and other pollutants. The ponds are so toxic that birds die upon landing on the water, as approximately 500 ducks did this April, when devices intended to scare away birds were inadequate to do their job at the Syncrude site.
There have been several leaks of oil and tailings into the river since the 1960s, when Suncor began excavating the first mine. This company admitted in 1997 that its tailings pond was then leaking approximately 1,600 cubic metres of toxic fluid a day into the Athabasca River.
FACT: The existing solution to cleaning these lakes of tailings is the longterm creation of large amounts of microbially produced methane, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times those of conventional oil and gas production [currently tar sands production emits 27 megatonnes per annum and is expected to rise to 108-126 megatonnes by 2015]. Thus, the tar sands are now poised to become Canada’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gas. Additionally, tar sands production is expected to multiply as much as four to five times by the year 2015 to meet growing demands in the U.S. Conservative estimates show that greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands could leap from 27 to 126 million tonnes by 2015.
FACT: Water samples from Lake Athabasca, into which the river of the same name drains, show elevated levels of several known toxins and carcinogens. Arsenic, mercury, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were all present in levels “sufficiently high to present a risk to either humans or wildlife.” While all residents in the region of tar sands mines are exposed to health risks from the massive industrial development, it is the indigenous people of the area whose health is most at risk due to their traditional reliance on fish, moose, cattail, and other “country” foods. The pollutants bioaccumulate in their food sources, generation after generation.
FACT: Fort Chipewyan, on the shores of Lake Athabasca, 200 km downriver from Mildred Lake, is a small community of about 1,000 mostly indiginous Cree, Dene (Chipewyan) and Métis, are dying in alarming numbers from a variety of cancers and autoimmune disorders such as lupus and Graves’ disease. The situation was first exposed in 2006 when the town’s doctor went public with his findings that in this small community of 1,000, he had diagnosed at least three cases of a rare bile duct cancer that normally afflicts only one out of 100,000 Canadians.
Leaders of Fort Chipewyan’s two First Nations, the Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan, have recently joined 55 organization across Alberta in calling for an immediate moratorium on any approvals for new tar sands extraction projects.
FACT: The environmental impact downriver of the oil sands mining was never tested adequately, and is only now starting to be tested for. There have been many highly disturbing test results from independent sources, including from Suncor oil, whose estimates projected arsenic levels 453 times higher than the acceptable levels, with a cancer risk in the effected area equivalent to 450 extra cases of cancer in a population of 100,000.
FACT: A government air quality report from Nov. '07 said that hydrogen sulphide levels in the Fort McMurray area have increased up to 68 per cent in the eight years since monitoring began.
FACT: The extraction of the oil requires burning vast amounts of natural gas - effectively one barrel of gas to extract two of crude. Some estimate that Fort McMurray and the Athabasca oil sands will soon be Canada's biggest contributor to global warming. It is also linked to an emurging acid rain problem, effecting areas as far away as Saskatechewan.
FACT: The Bush administration is seeking a "fivefold" expansion of Canadian oil production in a "short time span". Accomplishing this will require "streamlining regulatory approval", which threatens to ignore growing environmental concerns.
FACT: The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed into law last year, specifically bans federal agencies from buying fuels that produce more greenhouse gases than conventional oil. This would include purchases by the military and the postal service - far and away the two biggest consumers of fuel in the United States. The author of the section, Democratic congressman Henry Waxman of California, has said it was meant to block government agencies from forming contracts "specifically to promote or expand the use of fuel from tar sands," but not to block purchases of "generally available fuels" that might contain "incidental amounts" of oil sands product.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a proposed, national "low-carbon fuel standard," which could penalize gasoline marketers in the United States who rely on oil sands production. The standard is similar to one which recently passed in California.
In a recent conference call with reporters, Mr. Obama's energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said it will be up to the industry to invest in technology that allows for oil sands production without "unacceptable impacts" on the environment.
An Obama administration would set standards that, without such environmental improvements, would discourage refiners and gasoline marketers from relying on oil sands production, Mr. Grumet said. Mr. Obama, who represents the coal-dependent state of Illinois, has endorsed the use of "clean coal," which requires the same kind of expensive carbon capture and storage technology that is envisaged for the oil sands.
Ultimately, are we really upset at what Greenpeace is doing in regards to *this* problem? Are they somehow violating the rights of Albertans with their website... or not doing enough?
posted by markkraft at 2:31 PM on June 27, 2008 [10 favorites]
FACT: The Alberta tar sands projects are among the most retarded ideas we Canadians have e'er conceived.
I would love to see the tar sands developments stopped. I don't think there's an icecube's hope in hell that they will be.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:35 PM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
I would love to see the tar sands developments stopped. I don't think there's an icecube's hope in hell that they will be.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:35 PM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just one point: regardless of what you think about ramming whaling ships, Greenpeace does not do that. You're thinking of the Sea Shepards. Greenpeace engages in nonviolent actions. Nonviolent. Not ecoterrorism. You may not like their tactics, but that doesn't make it ok to lump them in with real terrorists like, say, Al Quaeda.
Also, for those who snark and say they don't believe Greenpeace: why not? Brent Spar notwithstanding (and, yes, any 40-year-old international organization will make a mistake), Greenpeace has been right about most things, and have often taken a lot of heat for being willing to push the environmental envelope. Global warming, the rainforests, loss of ocean biodiversity, and so on.
In fact, they still take a lot of heat. The director of Greenpeace in the the Amazon wears a freaking bullet-proof vest to protect himself from logging-industry threats on his life. Snark all you want while that guy risks his life to protect those forests.
posted by lunasol at 7:11 AM on June 28, 2008
Also, for those who snark and say they don't believe Greenpeace: why not? Brent Spar notwithstanding (and, yes, any 40-year-old international organization will make a mistake), Greenpeace has been right about most things, and have often taken a lot of heat for being willing to push the environmental envelope. Global warming, the rainforests, loss of ocean biodiversity, and so on.
In fact, they still take a lot of heat. The director of Greenpeace in the the Amazon wears a freaking bullet-proof vest to protect himself from logging-industry threats on his life. Snark all you want while that guy risks his life to protect those forests.
posted by lunasol at 7:11 AM on June 28, 2008
Too bad all the mouth breathers have long since left but it must be noted that markkraft kicked their collective asses. With, you know, actual facts.
Markkraft wins.
posted by tkchrist at 11:43 AM on June 30, 2008
Markkraft wins.
posted by tkchrist at 11:43 AM on June 30, 2008
Too bad all the mouth breathers have long since left but it must be noted that markkraft kicked their collective asses. With, you know, actual facts.
Markkraft wins.
But ironically, for making such a crass comment, you lose.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:51 PM on June 30, 2008
Markkraft wins.
But ironically, for making such a crass comment, you lose.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:51 PM on June 30, 2008
Crass? You don't hang around MeFi much, do you? tkchrist was the epitome of genteel.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:56 PM on June 30, 2008
posted by five fresh fish at 4:56 PM on June 30, 2008
You don't hang around MeFi much, do you?
No, five fresh fish, I don't. With only 6000-odd comments in nearly 8 years, particularly when compared to your 10,000+ in the last 7 or so, clearly I don't hang around MeFi much, relatively speaking.
But I'd venture, even with my obviously limited understanding of the folkways of the site and limited exposure to your writing, having only seen perhaps 8 or 9000 of your 10,000 comments, being the newb I so blatantly am, I'm not entirely surprised that you would find something inoffensive that I find unnecessarily unpleasant.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:27 PM on June 30, 2008
No, five fresh fish, I don't. With only 6000-odd comments in nearly 8 years, particularly when compared to your 10,000+ in the last 7 or so, clearly I don't hang around MeFi much, relatively speaking.
But I'd venture, even with my obviously limited understanding of the folkways of the site and limited exposure to your writing, having only seen perhaps 8 or 9000 of your 10,000 comments, being the newb I so blatantly am, I'm not entirely surprised that you would find something inoffensive that I find unnecessarily unpleasant.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:27 PM on June 30, 2008
Holy crow. "You don't hang around MeFi much" was an obviously inane statement... or so I thought, what with you having one of the most-recognized names on the site. Strange that you would take it as a serious response.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:19 PM on June 30, 2008
posted by five fresh fish at 11:19 PM on June 30, 2008
I am a strange man, I will admit that freely.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:37 PM on June 30, 2008
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:37 PM on June 30, 2008
markkraft, you make good points. Too bad Greenpeace chose to use none of it in their shitty, shitty, shitty website. If you're going to do something, why not do it right?
posted by KokuRyu at 12:32 AM on July 1, 2008
posted by KokuRyu at 12:32 AM on July 1, 2008
@
Some program, I think it was on ABC back in the early 90's, I can't remember the specifics, detailed the antics of the Rainbow Warrior. I was just 12, so I was still heavily indoctrinated by my family's beliefs and political orientation, but I found what they did reprehensible. They were rolling around in the pacific, looking for Japanese fishermen. They found a boat, and deducted that it must do some whaling on the side because of some equipment on the side of the deck. So they got their smoke belching, oil leaking, boat up to speed and rammed them, scraping the side of the fishing boat destroying the suspect equipment.
Say what you will, but when you take a multi ton vehicle and start running it into shit you cannot control all the factors and make sure you hit just your target. The unpredictable environment of the ocean only magnifies this. What if one of those fishermen got pitched overboard and crushed between the two boats? What if they ripped open a bulkhead or two and the boat started taking on water? I grew up around heavy equipment; I knew people who lost parts of themselves due to hydraulic pressure loss dropping blades, people who got crushed because a tie line broke. I saw the Rainbow Warrior do that and 1000 shitty ways to die ran though my head.
I'm sure Greenpeace doesn't do this anymore, I still dislike them and refuse to listen to them.
@
Interesting. I find it weird that the methane that the ponds are leaking isn't reclaimed for at the very least internal use.
posted by The Power Nap at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2008
Some program, I think it was on ABC back in the early 90's, I can't remember the specifics, detailed the antics of the Rainbow Warrior. I was just 12, so I was still heavily indoctrinated by my family's beliefs and political orientation, but I found what they did reprehensible. They were rolling around in the pacific, looking for Japanese fishermen. They found a boat, and deducted that it must do some whaling on the side because of some equipment on the side of the deck. So they got their smoke belching, oil leaking, boat up to speed and rammed them, scraping the side of the fishing boat destroying the suspect equipment.
Say what you will, but when you take a multi ton vehicle and start running it into shit you cannot control all the factors and make sure you hit just your target. The unpredictable environment of the ocean only magnifies this. What if one of those fishermen got pitched overboard and crushed between the two boats? What if they ripped open a bulkhead or two and the boat started taking on water? I grew up around heavy equipment; I knew people who lost parts of themselves due to hydraulic pressure loss dropping blades, people who got crushed because a tie line broke. I saw the Rainbow Warrior do that and 1000 shitty ways to die ran though my head.
I'm sure Greenpeace doesn't do this anymore, I still dislike them and refuse to listen to them.
@
Interesting. I find it weird that the methane that the ponds are leaking isn't reclaimed for at the very least internal use.
posted by The Power Nap at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2008
In 2007, the tar sands produced 1.157mbpd. In 2004, Canada consumed 2.294mbpd. I can only imagine the latter number has gone up in the last three years, and production growth of the sands is slowing. They claim it can reach 2.8mbpd by 2015, but really I'll believe that when it happens. Growth from 2006 to 2007 was 2.2%. If that rate remained constant, production wouldn't even hit 1.4mbpd by 2015.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:13 PM on July 3, 2008
posted by adamdschneider at 2:13 PM on July 3, 2008
« Older When blogging goes nowhere | You get the Leary you deserve. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by boo_radley at 5:00 PM on June 26, 2008