Skip navigation

Shifting Sands: Part VII

Looking for solutions to the carbon conundrum

SHAWN MCCARTHY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:29 PM EST 03/02/08

Sequestering emissions could be a win-win. But it won't be cheap. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Dr Demento from Canada writes: This article is a joke. It fails to mention the most cost effective and proven method of producing huge amounts of base energy without ANY greenhouse gas emissions - nuclear power.
  2. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Yup I like the nuclear power option.
    But what if we don't try to change global warming?
    . We would consume less energy to heat homes and business therefore less pollution.
    . We would have a longer growing season, less crop failure, maybe two crops a year.,
    . We would reduce imports of food products grown in the south, we can grow them in Canada.
    . We could move crop production further north.
    . We could finally open the North West Passage
  3. My Moniker is Better from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada, although some of your points are correct, but I would like to point out that those are simply half of the picture.

    You may be right about the heating costs, but remember that during the summer, we will increase the use of the air conditioner, thereby canceling any savings we make from the winter. Also, at least in inter we can put on more clothing to reduce heating costs. In winter, there is not much further we can go than to strip down to our swim suits.

    With regards to crops, remember that earth is a closed system, and what nutrient resources, ie: fertilizer, we have are limited. Also, the amount of viable farming soil is fast depleting due to unsustainable farming practices. Monoculture farming is also a problem because the farming system is linear. You extract nutrients to feed the crops, harvest what you want and the rest is garbage. Personally I'd like to see a greater shift to crop cycling.

    If farming shifted northwards, remember that those living near the equator will start depending on us for food instead. This would simply be a shift of who is exporting and who is importing, and although economically profitable for us, remember that this is merely a shift, and in all likelihood, only the extremely wealthy will benefit thus the disparity between the rich and the poor will only increase.
  4. My Moniker is Better from Canada writes: This is what I get for not proofreading my posts =P...

    Also, at least in winter we can put on more clothing to reduce heating costs. In summer, there is not much further we can go than to strip down to our swim suits.
  5. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Preaching global warming is similar to preaching abstinence. Everyone talks about it being a good idea, but very few practice it.
  6. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I don't understand why the environmental groups are not backing CO2 sequestration as the solution it is. This is a solution that does not shut down the oil and gas industry but still works towards CO2 reduction. I would have thought they would see this for the innovative solution it is. The government in Alberta is likely to fund part of this and the oil industry seems interested in getting involved as well. Seems like a solution that doesn't rely on taxing everyone to death.

    If there are any posters from the environmental groups, why are you not lobbying for this rather than the unrealistic solution of shutting down oil and gas development.
  7. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: A point often missed in the CCS discussion is the potential for siting ethanol plants along the pipeline and burying their CO2 as well since about 45% of the biomass turns into CO2 during fermentation.

    It's a double benefit as this is a net decrease in total CO2 not just a saw off.

    How' this for an idea on how to pay for it?? Up the gst about 2%!

    Then consumers are helping to pay for the emissions from the tailpipe. The companies would be paying more income tax relative to writing off the cost against taxes and the government would be able to bank and sell any carbon credits generated. Since the government would be one of the largest parties in the market they could probably get a better price.
  8. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: If we are serious about reducing GHG the government needs to increase the CO2 tech credit above the $15 and put a carbon tax on the fuel as ultimately it is the consumer that has to pay not some company, as a tax will do 2 ,reduce activity and the economy in general or require the company to pass it on to the ultimate consumer or in this case the polluter.
  9. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Folks all good points but I hardly ever hear a word about the new technology being developed by Petrobank for extracting oil from the sands.

    If my understanding is correct it will significantly reduce ghg's and is already being used on a small scale.

    Long term it is hard to beat the nuclear option.

    Good discussions if we can keep the goofs out of it.
  10. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: 'While the figures sound daunting, proponents say carbon capture would add only $3 to $4 to the cost of producing a barrel of upgraded synthetic crude from the oil sands.'

    That statement is not correct. The added cost ranges from $2 to $13 depending on the facility in question; and those numbers are from the Pembina Institute.

    They just prefer to only mention the lower part of range.
  11. martha stewart from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: 'I don't understand why the environmental groups are not backing CO2 sequestration as the solution it is.'

    Most so-called 'environmental groups' are not interested in solutions. They thrive on maintaining crises and fear. If this problem was solved their donations would shrink faster than the problem.

    If this really was the doomsday scenario they say it is, they would fully support the only viable option - nuclear energy. But of course they don't. Why? Because... ummm... oh yes, Chernobyl!!! And... oh yes, the 'waste' has to be stored somewhere until we learn how to process it... ummm... oh yes, Three Mile Island almost happened... ummm... oh yes, this solution does not involve Green social engineers telling people how to live.

    What I don't understand is why Dion, as a citizen of France, does not fully support nuclear power. That provides 80% of France's power and is the ONLY reason they are even close to their Kyoto targets.
  12. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: A point often missed in the CCS discussion is the potential for siting ethanol plants along the pipeline and burying their CO2 as well since about 45% of the biomass turns into CO2 during fermentation.

    It wouldn't be necessary to build the ethanol plants along the CCS pipeline. Compressor stations could be used to build a gathering system across the entire province.

    It's just a matter of money.
  13. E. Biggs from Canada writes: For the first time in a long time we are actually having a discussion.

    I would really like to know if any of you have invested in any of the oil sands companies. I have some money in three oil sands outfits but as I am a senior on a pension I have limited funds as my wife insists in eating three times a day.

    I happen to believe that if more of us invested in the oilsands and as shareholders held the companys feet to the fire and demanded action on the ghg issue that more might be achieved.

    Naive????
  14. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: 'That statement is not correct. The added cost ranges from $2 to $13 depending on the facility in question; and those numbers are from the Pembina Institute.'

    As an estimate, there is no 'correct' answer w/o detailed engineering costs. Perhaps others have refined the estimates.

    The point that needs to be made, however, is that it is far more costly to retrofit an existing plant that was not designed for this technology, than it is for a greenfield (ie brand new) site.

    With oilsands production now at around 1 million barrels/day, forecast to rise to 4 or 5 million barrels/d by 2020 (again just an estimate) it should be incumbent that all new plants be designed with CCS in mind.

    Many have made this argument when it comes to new coal fired generation plants in the US and more importantly in China. Given the 30-40 yr life of a coal fired plant (same order of magnitude for an oilsands plant) all new facilities should be mandated to allow economic (relatively speaking) retrofits for 'clean coal' (ie CCS) technology.

    These same conditions should be mandated for all new oilsands expansion plans.
  15. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: The title of this article is of course extremely misleading. The Leduc Redwater 'deposit' is a hydrocarbon pool contained in a carbonate reservoir. Flushing it with CO2 experiment has nothing to do with oil sands and bituminous sands. One also have to appreciate the not so subtle hint about ARC energy... wink wink invest, it's green. This sentence 'Indeed, it may be the silver bullet that allows the world to arrest climate change even as the globe consumes growing of amounts of fossil fuels to energize emerging economies like China and India.' is truly a monument of ignorance doubled with propaganda: the Climate is always changing and the assumption CO2 emissions are at the source of change is yet unproven and nature is on its way to debunking the AGW fairy tale. So no one is going to stop climate change. period. Now here is the kill: '“The economics are serious and the economics are going to be a problem,” Mr. Page said. But if government imposes a significant price on CO{-2} – either through a cap on emissions or a carbon tax – “then it begins to close the gap.” So precious financial resources will be sunk to develop some technological marvel based on the faulty integration of facts. And it ain't going to be cheap... The dubious references to the goreacle and the eager claim of Dr Gunter to be part of the political award with its hypocritical leader is showing how pathetic some Canadians have become to climb in the bandwagon. Here comes the smoke and mirror comparison of the article: 'Abu Dhabi, an oil-rich member of the Persian Gulf state United Arab Emirates, has entered the field with plans to capture up to 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and inject it into aging oil fields to enhance recovery.' This has nothing to do with CO2 sequestration since it's just the same than what ARC is doing in Redwater: enhanced recovery of hydrocarbon that has nothing to do with AGW and oil sands! To be followed...
  16. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Part two: 'However, environmentalist John Bennett of climateforchange.ca said taxpayers should not be subsidizing highly profitable oil firms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that governments should regulate steep reductions' Here we are some envrionment lobby group becomes de facto a reference... All this is fine as long as companies make profits but where are those lecturers when gas prices sink? And the infomercial continues: 'On the other hand, Petrocan's planned upgrader will be located about 40 kilometres northeast of Edmonton, in the neighbourhood of ARC's Redwater site. So conceivably, Petrocan could sell CO{-2} to ARC, which would then use it to enhance oil production. As a minority partner in a Weyburn, Sask., enhanced oil project, ARC has had a front-row seat at Canada's largest carbon capture and storage effort. ' And the tone continues like a Suzuki pamphlet: 'Ultimately, the driver behind carbon capture in Canada is likely to be Big Oil's fear of losing its $100-billion bet on the oil sands.' Fear of what? People not driving their cars and not heating their homes when -30c outside? ' There is a growing worry climate concerns – notably the growing call for climate change action in the United States – will trump economic ones, and force companies to rein in emissions, notes David Keith, a director at the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary, and a member of the recent federal-provincial task force on CCS.' Here we go another Professor jumps in the bandwagon and becomes an obligatory genius expert on the subject... 'Dr. Keith said. “And you are not going to manage it without moving aggressively on carbon capture and storage.” Yes give Dr Keith your money... Of course the Globe and Mail saved the 'Oil Sands and Global Warming' theme for the week-end... so readers can think about it and 1) invest in ARC on Monday 2) feel good about the Nobel peace prize canadian effort! Suzuki is next!
  17. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Part three:

    Jean Malice from Calgary forgot to mention to other readers outside of Alberta that the Earth is not really a sphere, but rather more like a plate.

    Best not to venture near the edge or you will fall off and be lost forever.
  18. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Ontario and global warming...Ontario still produces 95% more GHG than the rest of the world. They contribute more to global warming than most in the world. How can we stop them from this crime they commit? They seem to want to point fingers rather than accept blame. They seem to think if they blame those in their country that can somehow escape their role in solving this global crisis. We must act now, the world can only stand so much hypocrisy.
  19. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: If there are any posters from the environmental groups, why are you not lobbying for this rather than the unrealistic solution of shutting down oil and gas development. ' I'nm not 'one of trhem' but I can point out the flaws they aren't mentioning.. First, CO2 'capture' takes about 8% of the thermal efficienct so a 44% efficient power plant becomes only 36% efficient, increasing the total costs and emissions by 22%. Second, if there is water in the 'storage' you produce a strong 'carbonic acid' which may eat through the 'caprock' and release the cxo2 back. We have no longterm data on this, soi it may be useless. Third, it required miles of pipeline and then there are limited wels suitable for 'enhhanced oil recovery' which is the only objective backed by the oil industry. Most of those *already* use CO2 injection and are nearing their end. It is a 'last ditch' method. As a technology, it loses to just replacing the current 35% 1960's era plants with moden 44% efficient unuits, thus saving fuel and emissions in one package. And instead of wasting power and money with this idiocy, you can powder (50 mesh or smaller) common deposits of magnesium silicate rocks and spread it over the ground to 'weather'. As it turns to clays it absorbs CO2 naturally from the air without requiring capture and related expenses.
  20. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Ian St. John, you make some interesting points. However, unlike the G&M article, you're leaving out cost information. It is possible that your preference for newer types of thermal power plants would be more cost effective than the carbon capture methods described in the article. Can you find any cost estimates for your competing vision? However, you'd still have to find a technology to solve the oil and gas industry's problems. Any ideas about that? I thought it was a great article. The image the future begins to get a little clearer. Cost numbers on the table for discussion. Real technology that can be evaluated and compared against other possible solutions. Just think, per the article: 'By some estimates, it would cost $16-billion over 20 years to build and operate a system that would capture 20 megatonnes of CO{-2} per year by 2020' This is new green technology I can get behind. Do you have any idea how many engineering and construction jobs a project of that size would create? The permanent plant operating jobs wouldn't be bad either. Anyways, now we have a straw dog to kick around while we figure out our next moves. Looks like the greens might have to move on to some other cause after we find that we don't have to shut the oil sands plants down. Great stuff! There's still at least one fly in the ointment though. It appears that energy costs will go up if we take on the types of projects the article describes. This will do nothing for Central Canada's manufacturing sector. However it would provide a bonanza of (western based) jobs for laid off workers in the east. The shifting to the west for the country's economic center would continue.
  21. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: '... Most so-called 'environmental groups' are not interested in solutions. They thrive on maintaining crises and fear. If this problem was solved their donations would shrink faster than the problem. ...'

    BINGO! As solutions come forward, the topic drifts towards areas the greens have no training in. Kind of hard to have an opinion about a technology you know nothing about.

    Wind turbines and solar panels capture the imagination. The problem is that you can't run cities and industries with their power and still allow citizens to have jobs and compete economically with the rest of the world.

    No, you're going to need to know about gas turbines, heat exchangers, pumps and piping to get in on this one. The kids who've been coming out of engineering schools dreaming about wind farms might have to learn a bit about basic old technology methods after all. Or, we can continue to hire American engineeirng contractors or import engineers from around the world who know more about these things - but that's a whole different subject for another day.

    I wonder what Alan Burke's position is on this?
  22. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose ,
    the reason environmentalists don't back carbon sequestration , we have only ever seen technological solutions to pollution problems after legistlation closed the door to status quo pollution .
    If Canada placed a moritorium on oils sands expansion, until CCS was developed we might see some action. Obviously oil sands expansion is only in the interest of the companies who are already fabulously wealthy .Let those companies pay , and prove that their expansionist dreams won't harm the Earth.
  23. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Now we are getting somewhere - but not far enough. In my lengthy experience with the Industry, I was an officer of one of the two major companies that became Encana ... involved directly in the Weyburn CO2 project. I have tracked it ever since and remained abreast of the science that has been improved by it. Having said this, it must also be recognized that this is by no means the first such application. ESSO and Shell had similar projects in the same old sea bed (Williston Basin) but further south. I believe that there are others that have been initiated since. And there are many more that could be. That basin lends itself very well to enhanced recovery by CO2 injsction. Rather than wasting space here, on the science, I suggest that you Google your way into 'miscible flood' or 'co2 injection' or 'underground carbon sequestration'. There are many fine articles available. I prefer to deal with the economic, political and managerial issues that have to be addressed. The point is, the science is good and readers here do not have to wonder about it. When we did the work-up on the Weyburn project, it almost did not get the green light - in fact it sat still for years until the go-no go threshold was so close it was almost too late. The main reason was the cost of a pipeline for the CO2. That is what I remember best. We looked carefully at piping the stuff from oil sands and the Empress liquids plants. At that time we needed somthing like ten times the volume to make that work. Remember such a line would have been much longer and the reserves much smaller than a similar pipe into northern Alberta. Suffice to say that the oil sands now offers opportunity to capture easily enough to make this a 'no regrets' system - it will pay for itself. Business cannot be made responsible for a no-return investment like this. It has to be government sponsored but it will not be a burden. to be continued
  24. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Continued

    When inevitably the low ends of waste products in oil sands are turned into clean hydrogen to fuel the plants, to displace the waste of natural gas now being fractured into hydrogen and released CO2 the plants can engineer CO2 capture right into the initial build if a line is available.

    The main barrier that this (Alberta) government has to undertake and overcome RIGHT NOW before the line is available, is to re-appropriate from various companies, the crown and fee simple mineral rights that have no value other than with a CO2 miscible flood project that depends upon a publicly-sponsored CO2 line.

    Let me say it again .... Alberta seems to have scores of mineral rights holders that are doing nothing with the reserves but wait until a public sponsored line is put in place so that they can get rich at public expense. These reserves have to be re-appropriated in some way at least by ensuring that such holders are charged sufficient tarriff for the CO2 that they do not get another free ride. By this means the line can, with a little forethought, become a profitable one for the public.

    Again it seems that it is not science that stands in the way, it is leadership!

    Let's get the show on the road or Heaven's sake.
  25. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: Anyone who needs a perspective on this question should log on to Google Earth, go to Fort McMurray and view it and the surrounding area from an altitude of 40 km. The resolution is not brilliant but the scars from the pits and other workings are unmistakable. The next question to ask is, who, if anyone is going to be able to clean this mess up?
  26. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: What that? ...

    Do I hear crickets?

    Few things kill a party faster than talking about engineering details.

    Study up Greens. There's going to be more of this.

    BTW, great post Rudy Krueger!
  27. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St. John,

    Thanks for outlining some of the issues with CO2 sequestration. Still seems to be the best answer we have available for controlling CO2 given the demands for energy.
  28. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Woody Forrest, any viable technology which be applied to mitigating the impact of global warming is fine with me as long as it doesn't make the problem worse. As an energy source I lean toward nuclear and wish we had seen much more research into fusion technology.

    Sequestration of carbon appears to me to be a potentially effective strategy if it results in safe and stable capture. What's needed, I guess, beyond the technological aspects is a solid economical reason for the companies to do it. This is where a carbon tax or cap-and-trade mechanism could come into play. I believe that the companies themselves should bear the brunt of the cost rather than pushing the results of not doing anything onto the rest of us (see 'Tragedy of the Commons'). No doubt they'll pass costs through to their customers but at least then it will be the users who pay, in proportion to their usage, providing incentive for becoming more efficient in their usage.
  29. freelix the cat from Canada writes: congrats to globe for another well written article in the ongoing series.
    it would be interesting to explore concepts of alternative energy from other sources.
    apparently the oil is going to run out someday and the world's economy would simply fall into an abyss. many in the horse and buggy trade never saw any sense in the 'infernal combustion dew-daw'.
    again, thanx for the series.
  30. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: If one were to fly over the area today, one would see huge lakes of fresh water overlaying old tailings ponds that were the result of existing technology when the plants first started. What one would not see is the large areas that have been reclaimed and are supporting flora and fauna au natural. There is a herd of wood buffalo grazing on the old Syncrude infill. You can't see it because that was the point. The licenses of these operators require this in all cases. The old lakes are both a blessing and a curse. Given the immense public benefit from these operations (the corporate owners were they the same ones, would be breaking even around now), it is not too much to expect that the universities turn their attentions to practical solutions rather than creating another generation of spoilers and complainers. There are many promising technologies for solidifying the tailings in the old ponds so that the over-layer of fresh water can be re-used in the plants sparing the Athabasca River some of the draw. Last year I worked on an oil sands project while waiting out a non-compete restriction on my other business (not oil related). I saw the huge improvements in water use and other environmental plusses. Unless a person is simply negative or neurotic by nature, so that they would rather dwell on the down side - there is so much hope and so much to be proud of here these conversations should be truly upbeat. Why do the nay-sayers not get on board to pressure government to do the right things rather than throwing rocks at companies like Suncor. Many of the senior officers in these organizations have been forced to conclude that for a lot of critics, there is nothing they can do to please. They have to be politically correct - I don't. So to all the nutcases out there - grow up, take some responsibility. For normal Canadians, there is a level of base contempt not spoken of but reserved for uninformed belly-achers. I hope you feel it daily.
  31. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: David K, as I understand it, when the mines stop producing in about 50 to 100 years from now, they'll be filled back in and the processing plants will be left standing as huge monuments to a dead industry. The filling in of the mines is actually on-going. I believe Syncrude has filled in their first mine site, or are on the way to completing this (they have more than one mine). The filled in mines will leave depressions in the earth (equal to the volume of oil removed) that will fill in with water. These have been labeled 'end-ponds', and there has been some study on whether these will ever support plant and animal life. I believe that over a long period of time this will happen, but it hasn't been successfully demonstrated yet. The above ground tailings ponds won't be left in place as the companies want to mine the oilsand that lie under them. I suppose the end ponds will be used for tailings ponds before the final shut downs. Where else to put the last bit of process water after extraction? Maybe there'll be some money put towards treating the water in the end-ponds. Water treatment plants might someday be built for this. I doubt they will knock down all of the processing plants and ship them south. This would cost a fortune, but maybe some of the equipment would be re-usable elsewhere, or have a value as scrap metal. I haven't read anything about how the Alberta government wants to take care of this. It will be interesting for my future grand, or great grandchildren to see how it all works out. There is a 1942 vintage oil sands plant abandoned at Bitumont, just NE of Ft. McKay. It's now a provincial historic site. I wonder if the same fate awaits Syncrude or Suncor.
  32. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Ian thanks for the education.
  33. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Final note My wife and I ere in the middle of it during some of the last bad years. When rant-and-rave people try to wreck this industry rather than help it, they disgrace thousands of fellow Canadians and Americans that literally invested their lives in making the place work. I do not think that this blog allows the use of individual names so I won't give you any of them - but I could. People who worked themselves into early old age, some who died in mishaps keeping the old places running or trying to make new technology work in harsh environments. The oil sands has been the set-up grounds for innovative industrial relations, heavy truck and shovel technology, flotation separation technology applicable around the world, cold weather metallurgy, freeze-up protection such as use of heat tracing and safe insulation. The list is vast. This operation has given as much to the world in technological advancement in proportion to spending, as the US military while pursuing what is a totally peaceful aim. While living in Ontario and working in Scarborough for a manufacturer, we landed an oil sands contract just when the 3 Mile Island crisis shut down the nuclear industry for a quarter century. We felt we had experienced divine intervention. The spin off economic value to Canada and to the United States has been enormous. Determine to fix the problems rather than sink the place. It is a good thing that swearing is not allowed in this blog or I would be happy to introduce a few new words for the down-siders.
  34. Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: Unfortunately, the article only deals with the capture of CO emissions and pumping them back into the ground. Solving the environmental ills of the oil sands extraction process will take a lot more. Just as important, at least for Albertans, are the huge tailing ponds that are created as part of the heavy oil extraction process. These ponds contain 'pure poison' and it is already clear from early testing, carried out on samples taken from local water table and watersheds, that the 'plume' from the ponds is migrating. The seepage from these ponds will in time very likely contaminate, not only the local water table but also the surrounding watersheds on a grand scale. It is unbelievable that the importance of this issue concerning the oil sands bonanza seems to be so poorly understood, and that it is almost never mentioned by the media. Apparently, no conditions are being placed on the oil companies by the Alberta Goverment, to treat the huge qantities of tailings that go into these ponds and that in fact are becoming enormous 'dead' lakes. Failure to force the oil companies to clean up the tailings, as a licencing condition, will leave the people of Alberta with a terrible legacy, which will, sooner or later, have to be dealt with by the taxpayers, long after the oil companies have taken their profits and gone home.
  35. John Cameron from Rd Deer, Canada writes: The issue of EOR and the profits from it and the reversion of mineral rights is an important one for sure.. Presumably the formations involved can store a lot more CO2 than what is required for the EOR process.
    Maybe this aspect can be addressed by special royalty rates for EOR ie depending on the ratio of government to company funding?

    Presumably the suppliers of the CO2 will b e glad to get rid of it but at first the CO2 will have some economic value and then once oil production from the reservoir is finished it all becomes pure cost. Who will get the carbon credits generated over the cycle and in what proportion?

    Another issue with CSS is the standards for injection quality- I have no idea what they would be but mingling various sources would require a minimum CO2 content, etc etc.

    CSS is not the only solution to sequestration but it has a number of projects and engineering underway.
  36. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Alan Burke, I saw your response thanks. I understand your interest on the environmental side (that is a very good thing). It's just that I've been itching to move on to the technology side of this. By all means stick around for the next stage. But you and Glen are going to have to find other things to talk about ;-)

    As Rudy Krueger points out, there will be a lot of haggling over who pays. While we are figuring this out, we have to try to keep our industries competitive with those in the rest of the world. This is not an easy problem to solve and there has been so much misinformation printed. The article is a breath of fresh air.

    G&M - What took you so long? Oh yeah, the LPC doesn't have had a finger in this one yet.
  37. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Reposted from another blog that has gone unanswered by Rudy Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada Rudy, you and others seem to take offence at concerns of Canadians living in other parts of Canada about the pace of the oilsands development, its environmental costs, and the poor performance of Alberta's Heritage Fund, suggesting 'go to Harvard and learn something that will allow you to fix things instead of criticising what others do with all their hearts and minds.' So, I'm curious what your opinion is of Harvard trained Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta (1971-1986) who was premier when the Syncrude Plant was approved and built (1973-1978). It seems to me he has been quite outspoken on the very same issues that the G&M has been raising this week, and that other readers have commented upon in this forum. During his tenure, he had a 'Czar' who was responsible for the orderly pace of development of the oilsands, a position that was eliminated in the subsequent Klein gov't. He apparently was appalled at the 'mess' that out of control development had created after a helicopter tour of the region a few years ago, and has increasingly been outspoken about his concerns on behalf of Albertans (and Canadians). Coincidently, (perhaps prompted by the G&M series) he was on CBC Radio's The Current yesterday (Thursday) talking about these issues. I will post the link to the interview once it is updated on their website. Is he allowed to raise the same issues? It seems it would be tough for you and other Albertans to discount his criticisms as easily as you do others'.
  38. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: '... Solving the environmental ills of the oil sands extraction process will take a lot more. Just as important, at least for Albertans, are the huge tailing ponds that are created as part of the heavy oil extraction process. These ponds contain 'pure poison' ... Apparently, no conditions are being placed on the oil companies by the Alberta Goverment, to treat the huge qantities of tailings that go into these ponds and that in fact are becoming enormous 'dead' lakes. ' Erik, you are misinformed. Could you please expand on your 'pure poison' comment? The tailings are primarily sand and fine clay. There are heavy metals that occur naturally and come from oilsand ore. There is a bit of oil floating on the top of the ponds. The heavy metal, fine clay and oil can be removed from the water. The sand dikes for the tailings ponds will go back into the ground so that the ore under the ponds can be mined. There will be end-ponds, and these are problematic. It might be easier to discuss the real problems, if you avoided your false 'pure poison' rhetoric. Note that inside the extraction plants, the oil, water and tailings (sand) are ever present in open preparation vessels. There is no need for special breathing equipment. This would be mandatory if the tailings were 'pure poison'. Think about it.
  39. Don Quixote from the Banana Belt Ont., Canada writes: Check out Petrobanks, their THAI technology of extracting oil from the sands is a lot more environmental friendly than the present mammouth operation.
  40. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I will probably get jumped for this but as a senior tax payer I would have no problem with a carbon tax if I could be assured that the money was going into research and development of infrastruture which would benefit industry and the country as a whole.

    What would happen if something like NRC were charged with the research to determine the best method if reducing the problematic issues with this industry. I would then suggest creating a regulatory body comprised of Gov., industry and some environment people tooversee the implementation and compliance.

    While I partially agree that the industry should bear the majority of the costs I also believe that this is an industry that has benefit for the entire country and therefore I might suggest that Gov either Alta or Canada control the collection and pipeline and charge fees to the industry thus offsetting the costs.

    The above is from somebody who has the interest in the industry but very little expertise or knowledge.

    Stupid?????
  41. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: I appreciate your comments Rudy.
    It's the sound of a pioneer, hard work and determination CAN solve problems. In my experience it's a little tougher to do when you have to drag along with you a bunch of negativity but who are plenty willing to share in the benefits later.

    On a slightly different note I am wondering if it might be feasible to repower some farm machines with steam- directly burn biomass like straw.
    No wasted energy making it into ethanol first and making some farms energy independent from oil.
    I suppose there might also be the possibility of small scale biofuels becoming more affordable if a couple of skid mounted components using computer controlled processes could be designed and mass produced cheap enough. Or would that just create a bunch of wastes scattered all over the place?
    Same for methane gas from manure.
  42. Dan Belaney from Peace River, Canada writes: There is a lot of nonsense posted here. Most 'environmental groups' have a more balanced view of carbon capture and storage than the government-industry fearmongers. Note, the Pembina Institutes website is full of references to carbon capture as part of the solution - going back 5 years - hey they even costed it out. Industry and Government have been talking about it while doing nothing. Where there is divergence is on who pays for it. Make the companies do mandatory carbon capture and storage and no public subsidies to do so.
  43. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Preston Manning on unfettered development: Preston Manning...And I particularly raised this idea that I think Alberta's ripe for a real, concrete marriage between genuine conservation and market-based economics. Where do you see evidence for that? Where's the demand? ----- PM:Well, first of all, the environment for the last five years has shown up as the No. 2 issue, right behind health care in Alberta. Secondly, the growth of these environmental groups -- and these are not all left-wing extreme groups, many of them are very conservative-type groups -- and the numbers of them, the budgets of them, the meetings, the attendance at their meetings, exceeds those of all the provincial parties put together. The fact that the Green party, without much money and really much of a campaign at all, gets 3,000 or 4,000 votes in my old riding, finished second in Wild Rose federal riding, which is one of the most conservative ridings in the country, these are all signs in the wind. And also when I speak to younger audiences -- as I do particularly at the universities -- one of the few issues that seem to motivate younger people to actually consider getting involved with either interest groups or political parties is the environmental one. The example I used at the Tory convention was the ranchers in southwestern Alberta. These people are, as I say, rock-ribbed fiscal and economic conservatives, they've resisted government intervention in their industry more than any other portion of the agricultural sector, and yet they love that land, they're committed to preserving the eastern slope rivers. I say the key question isn't are they red Tories or are they blue Tories, I think they're green Tories, and if someone could articulate that, that's an idea I think whose time has come. And again my question, more to Albertans, was, 'Would you be interested in pursuing and refining and developing that idea?'
  44. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: The big clash is inevitably going to be in the oil sands, isn't it? You're either going to use most of the water in northern Alberta for those operations or you're not. How do you deal with that? ----------- Preston Manning:Well, at least pose the questions. Is there a way to deal more responsibly with, first of all, how we energize the oil sands extraction? We can't continue to use a high-premium clean-burning fuel like natural gas to energize the production of oil sands, so the faster the scientific community, the technological community, the industry -- and people are working on this night and day -- can improve that situation the better. We can't continue to use the volumes of water Alberta is using at the rate we're doing, and is there a place for market mechanisms there to start valuing that resource at its true value and measure our use of it and price it correctly? There are no simple answers to these questions, but I think they're ones that should be front and centre. Am I wrong in suggesting that, historically, Alberta leaders have won office more by running against Ottawa than by talking about Alberta's internal issues? I haven't heard you speak about federal-provincial issues yet.----- Preston Manning Well, in the old West, I think, particularly when the West was not as strong as it is, and certainly Alberta wasn't as strong as it is, a lot of provincial politics centred around grievances that could only be dealt with -- or people felt should be dealt with -- by the federal government, but that's now one of the differences between the old West and the new West. Alberta's able to take care of most of its domestic regional problems very well itself, so there's not that list of grievances to be dealt with, but there are new challenges...Does Alberta want to lead, or does it want to put the wagons in a circle and say, 'To heck with the rest of the country.' I'm not interested in the latter option.
  45. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhoa: and your qualification in enhanced recovery is? Agitprop. As for Peter Lougheed he is entitled to his opinion and of course it is ironic to see some Pembina Institute troll endorsing a conservative former premier... LOL
  46. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: E. Biggs from Canada writes:'... if I could be assured that the money was going into research and development of infrastruture...'

    Fat chance of that. Any tax will just disappear into General Revenue and be frittered away on vote-buying boondoggles and politically attractive but economically idiotic schemes.
  47. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhoa: and your qualification in enhanced recovery is? Agitprop.

    Do you mean like WAG? Reservoir, Ops or Facilities? Never mind. I think we've already learned all of your expertise in two posts. Go grab a planimeter and measure your shadow - you'll find it is quite small (contrary to what you may think).
  48. Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks takes exception to my use of describing the tailings from the oilsands extraction process as 'pure poison'. He appears to indicate that the tailings are benign and quite harmless to the environment. Whichever name we place on the talings, it is already clear that the the heavy metals and compounds thereof, which they contain, are infiltrating the local watertable and as well as the Athabasca watershed. ( Amongst others, refer to a recent CBC documentary on the subject.) The contaminants are showing up in fish in the watershed and the local population, who for generations have been dependent on the fish as a food source, have been warned against eating it on a regular basis. As a professional engineer, who has worked in the environmental field for 40 years, I know how difficult it is to completely prevent seepage from a relatively small sewage lagoon even when it is lined with synthetic liners. To completely prevent seepage from the huge (probably unlined) tailings ponds created in Ft. McMurray, is almost impossible, as the evidence is already showing. Therefore, these ponds are going to have adverse impact on the environment. Ask yourself: who in the end will benefit from the oil extaction process unless the environment is safeguarded at the same time? During the 20th century goldmining companies came and went in northern Ontario. Many of them left poorly constructed, leaking tailing ponds after themselves when they either went out of business or took their profits somewhere else. The taxpayers of Ontario ended up having to deal with this legacy deacades later at a cost of 100's of $M. I can see history repeating itself in Alberta, on a much larger scale. I say again: unless the oil companies, which presently operate in Ft. McMurray, can find a way to prevent and pay for serious degradation of the environment, whether it be air or water, they should not be licenced to continue. Think about it!
  49. Godfried Wasser from Canada writes: This is the best comments stream I have ever read at the Globe and Mail. Lately I was thinking about cancelling my subscription because of the partisan loud mouths not only in the commentaries but especially in the headlines! Comments like above may change my mind.

    Thank you contributors for your insights even though some displayed a bit of malice.
  50. arne bessel from calgary, Canada writes: It is a shame (or maybe it was done on purpose) that the fellow here does not give us any numbers to digest or for him to support his words.
    And words is all he has to offer (Like most green house gas gassers).

    Green house gas production now equals 20,000,000 tonnes/year from oil sands production.
    That is only 2.7% of all the green house gas produced by Canda in a year. Canda produces 747,000,000 tonnes/year.

    And - - the world apparently produces 31,000,000,000 tonnes /year.
    Canada produces only 2.4% of the worlds annual green house gas.

    So what is going on here? Be aware folks. We are not the problem here. The left wing media, universities, and so called environmental people are pushing this. In an effort to do who knows what. Just loike the days of life ending acid rain, ozone depletion and sleepless night you all had worying about atomic bombs not that lobg ago.

    We seem to have a bunch of public servants making a living telling us we are the biggest problem in the world.
    We are not.
    Man made green house gas is not the cause of global warming. You all should be aware of that by now.

    Arne Bessel

    It
  51. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao unmasked! LOL
  52. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: arne bessel from calgary, Canada writes: 'We seem to have a bunch of public servants making a living telling us we are the biggest problem in the world.'

    Arne, I'm all for saving taxpayer dollars on frivolous research, so perhaps you can save us all a few bucks with your insights.

    It seems to me that as a province, with roughly 10% of the poulation, Alberta emits something like 33% of the GHG. And with the projected growth in the oilsands at exponential rates, this percentage can only increase.

    Now, I don't know if the numbers that you report for GHG emissions of oilsands operations includes the emissions of utilities that deliver electricity to the plants/upgraders (typically col fired), but that is peripheral to my question.

    How is it that there appears to be a very strong correlation between the very small percentage of the population who continue to claim, as you do, that AGW plays no role in climate change, with the fact that they appear to reside in Calgary or other parts of Alberta?

    Any further insight you'd care to offer?
  53. alberta clipper from Canada writes: I have just finished reading a book entitled' Taken by Storm' which is a detailed account on how climate models are derived. It is a demanding read and I doubt that anyone with a liberal arts background could read and understand it, but, after reading it I have an uneasy feeling that most of the world is off on a wild goose chase with respect to CO2 and its effect on the world's climate. What is needed at this time are studies that challenge the current model. These studies are presently suppressed which is not the way science is designed to operate. We are on the threshold of spending untold amounts of money based on a model of the world that is at best shakey and NOT proven.
  54. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'... strong correlation between the very small percentage of the population who continue to claim, as you do, that AGW plays no role in climate change, with the fact that they appear to reside in Calgary or other parts of Alberta?'

    If you're suggesting that lieu of residence establishes a cui bono interest, you might instead ask why such a large proportion of the more fanatical extremists come from provinces that hope to use an artificial AGW 'crisis' as a pretext to rake off money from Alberta.
  55. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes:

    I'm all for building a firewall around Alberta to contain its emissions, but unfortunately, that dosn't appear to be possible.

    I guess your ideology is based upon what Preston Manning describes as 'The Old West'. (see my post at 02/02/08 at 11:35 AM EST).

    A shame you didn't devote your time and energy to helping to solve the problem within Alberta, but perhaps you haven't yet renewed your American passport for the new border crossing rules.
  56. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Arne Bessel, you've hit the nail right on the head if you accept the 'science' that this is all man-made. Seems to me, there are more than a few chicken littles running around that seem to think shutting down our economy will save the planet. That isn't to say we shouldn't be taking steps to control pollution and GWG emissions, but let's get a grip on the bigger picture.
  57. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Well guys the quality of the posts was great while it lasted but the last few have been going down hill. Degenerating into the usual rants. Bye
  58. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky, you guess badly. Stick to what you know and can establish.

    What IS possible, of course, is to some extent 'firewall' Alberta against the threat of abuse of process to steal even more money from us.
  59. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: Rudy Krueger from High River--- Very good comments on CO2 being pumped back into the ground.

    Thanks and have a good day
  60. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall

    Well GlynnMhor, as has been pointed out in earlier posts by others, I understand you live in the US, so why you continue to say 'we' is a bit disingenuous. I, also, don't know what you are trying to accomplish here if that is the case (which you have yet to deny).

    In any event, I'll take my cue from E. Biggs and sign-off. I think I am getting pulled down to your level of debate.

    Cheers
  61. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'Well GlynnMhor, as has been pointed out in earlier posts by others, I understand you live in the US...'

    As *I* said in my more recent post, you guess badly.

    Seriously, I told some clown that Skywall existed in hyperspace, and he decided that must mean in the US, and I must therefore be american. For you to think that I actually am american on that feeble basis explains why you have been so easily misled by the AGW hypesters.
  62. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Sorry, not 'hyperspace', but 'cyberspace'.

    I've been reading too much Analog lately, I guess.
  63. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: My Moniker---Most Canadians don't use air conditioning so hardly an offset. Plus no more idealing cars to keep warm or just to start them. The earth is not a closed system, tons of stellar matter enters earth daily. Most Canadian farmers summer fallow or crop rotate now. Using food (corn) to make fuel is folly and is already causing a shortage of food in Mexico. We need to rethink how to cope with a normal cycle of global warming. We need to think positively, enough 'Chicken Little'
  64. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada writes: 'Most Canadians don't use air conditioning so hardly an offset.'

    Other than in Calgary, where the evenings are cool, I would say that large numbers of Canadians use A/C.

    In Winnipeg or Toronto the hot humid summers are well nigh unbearable without it.
  65. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: I don't get it. They are talking about methods to increase production when the world needs an 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel production. What am I missing?
  66. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes:'... when the world needs an 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel production. What am I missing?'

    Missing is the fact that the world has no need of a reduction in fuel production.

    There are several problems with the whole Kyoto-ite Anthropogenic Global Warming paradigm, not least of which is the fact that in the face of continually increasing GHG concentrations, global average temperatures have not been rising for the past six years or more:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  67. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: The same old BS, GlynnMhor. Untrue as anyone can see from my website using data from sources like the Hadley CRU and NASA/NCDC/NOAA
  68. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Both the Hadley CRU and NOAA data show continuation of the longterm trend of temperature rise - see my figures 35 and 36. Figures 27 and 28 focus in closely on the most recent years; there is a slowdown in warming since 2001, as there has been many times in the past, and it's predominated by southern hemisphere oceanic changes.
  69. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: The Peter Lougheed question opens up a very worthwhile conversation. Mr. Lougheed is addressing pace of growth. Because of who he is, the many boards of directors on which he sits, access to advice he has and because of his excellent mind, he knows things I may never know. On the basis of what I do know I offer these points personally. Alberta does not have a history of competently managing complex mega projects nor have we a defensible track record of controlling major EPCM contractors. I have tried for hours to describe the nature of the problems in this province, related to the manner in which the major engineering firms handle mega projects. I do not think the Globe and Mail can afford to publish this stuff - but it is not news anyway. Anyone in the mega project world here in Alberta, knows full well what is happening. So, as I understand it, Mr. Lougheed and others are imploring Alberta companies to pick up their feet a bit and stop stumbling while holding the oil sands in trust. Get competent and get confident before taking on another round of mega projects. Albertans should similarly push back. These wasteful and unnecessary cost over-runs are actually paid for by Albertans by the postponement of royalty collection while the gross over-runs of project costs are recovered. This is not necessary.
  70. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'The same old BS, GlynnMhor. Untrue...'

    Speaking of 'untrue', Alan, I was looking at your figure 14a 4 and trying to decide how you got those values for solar cycle length. For example, you have a data point in 1996 of about 11.7 years, yet that's the time of the mimimum of the peak-to-peak cycle that was instead 10.7 years in length (1989.6-2000.3).

    You seem to have paired identical datapoints plotted, as if you've plotted the trough-to-trough length twice, once at the initial minimum of a trough-to-trough cycle and then at the maximum of that cycle instead of using the peak-to-peak cycle length at all.
  71. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: GlynnMhor: Yup spent a lot of time in our most southernly city Toronto during all seasons. In fact one September it was the coldest I have experienced with the high humidity. The second coldest was Vancouver with their high humidity. I still say it's hardly an offset in energy consumption during warm cycles.
  72. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: GlynnMohr, you lose any credibility that you have on this issue when you start talking about 'firewall Alberta'. That pretty much tells me that you are a selfish, paranoid, individual who likely grew up in Alberta and still harps on about the NEP. Alberta would be in the toilet pretty quick if it separated. The corporate offices in Calgary would move out much as they did in Montreal. The universities would have a major problem recruiting and maintaining their staff because most faculty are not from Alberta and don't identify with the mentality that you align yourself with. It would revert, once again, to an exclusively resource-based economy and, unlike places like Norway, the lack of long term planning that has been the legacy of the conservative movement in Alberta, would doom this province to poverty within a generation or two. Sooner if the low emissions requirement for energy catches on and Alberta maintains its resistance to actually doing anything like what is proposed in this article.
  73. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'Both the Hadley CRU and NOAA data show continuation of the longterm trend of temperature rise...'

    It only takes looking at the data to see that you're not quite truthful, Alan. Temperatures just aren't warming like they were for your 1970-2000 trend of about 0.016 degrees per annum (0.5 degree over 30 years). From 2001 at plus 0.409 degrees, at the trend to which you would have us cleave, we would expect the temperature anomaly in 2007 to be plus 0.505, but instead it's plus 0.403.

    That 1970-2000 trend isn't living up to ecpectations.
  74. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Don't get me wrong, I believe in CO2 injection, if it enhances secondary recover of oil. Just don't ask the tax payers to foot the bill. The decision should be based on economics, and payed for by the oil industry.
  75. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Canada writes: 'GlynnMohr, you lose any credibility that you have on this issue when you start talking about 'firewall Alberta'. That pretty much tells me that you are a selfish, paranoid, individual...'

    Get over yourself.

    Someone else brought up the 'firewall' concept, (Rocky, I think) and I was just pointing out that it might be possible in a limited sense.
  76. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Dick, if I lived in Winnipeg again, I would not go without A/C, much less in Toronto.

    In contrast, in Calgary it would be nice to have for at most a couple of weeks a year.
  77. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada writes: '...I believe in CO2 injection, if it enhances secondary recover of oil. Just don't ask the tax payers to foot the bill. The decision should be based on economics, and paid for by the oil industry.'

    Well, the scheme proposed is not for enhanced recovery. That might be a happy side effect in some cases, but it's not enough to justify the infrastructure to do it.

    The reason taxpayers might be called upon to foot much of the bill is that it is NOT economic, but rather political.
  78. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: If it's political, then have a two tier system for oil and gas. Green folks pay a higher rate for their energy, similar to the two tier electrical wind power rate.
  79. martha stewart from Canada writes: Bobby Dy - I don't think you are correct to suggest that 'Alberta would be in the toilet pretty quick if it separated. The corporate offices in Calgary would move out much as they did in Montreal.'

    Unlike Montreal, where the stupid language police and other reasons contributed to the flight, there was a logical economic reason why all those corporate head offices moved to Calgary. For one thing, most are related to oil - most notably Imperial Oil, which left TO not Montreal for obvious reasons. On the contrary, I would expect that more would move to Alberta because corporations are driven by $ and multinational corporations do not care about national boundaries or sentiments.

    North America now works more north-south than east-west. I can see many American companies eagerly moving to Alberta (which already has the highest proportion of Americans and, BTW, the best educated population) but can't see why any would move to Montreal or TO, in an Alberta-less Canada.
  80. martha stewart from Canada writes: 'The Ontario Auto Industry and Global Warming.'

    Now there's a story we'll never see in the G & M.
  81. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: A couple of myth busters:

    Consumption of hydro-carbon fuels is not going to dramatically reduce much less disappear until the base product disappears. China and India, so-called developing countries, are chug-a-lugging everything from coal to gasoline at the major project to the individual level. The Tata Nano is the sign of things to come, as that company attempts to have one family in seven, in India, driving a gas fueled two cylinder car. Therefore, production will become clean when the combination of regulatory bodies and market price make green technologies viable.

    I may be wrong but Alberta land titles are fee simple that revert to the Crown. In short, if Alberta left Canada, the Crown would get the land and we would have refugee Albertans living in the diaspora.
  82. Doug Lavers from Melbourne, Australia writes: The planet is currently 1.04 degrees F COOLER than this date last year, and the rate of increase of this figure is unsettling. If it increases much more, much of Canadian wheat production will be in jeopardy.

    This is just a way of making the politically incorrect comment that possibly the world has just entered a major cooling cycle, and the debate about carbon dioxide is completely irrelevant.
  83. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Doug L ... there were climatologists, cited by 'deniers', who predicted by observing solar activity that the Earth will enter a major cooling period by 2012 to 2015.

    We may be on the way to that situation, which simply underlines the fact that climate is not stabile but constantly changing, often in defiance of human input and speculation.
  84. martha stewart from Canada writes: Larry Robinson from white Rock writes:'In short, if Alberta left Canada, the Crown would get the land and we would have refugee Albertans living in the diaspora.'

    Now that's interesting. How can Quebec then try to take all that land added to that province much later... different arrangement.

    Oh well. As is written in the Alberta Old Testament, there is a promised land near the ocean where Lotus blossoms fill the air and salmon leap... you have probably already noticed Alberta refugees moving to your neighborhood, the first settlers in the coming wave. Perhaps a few wet years there will remove the red from their necks.
  85. Howard Beale from Canada writes: Larry Robinson, you're comments are usually interesting and definitely have a value added component. However your reference to land titles is an instance where you've clearly lost it.

    When Sweden and Norway separated, was the system of land titles an impediment? What about the Czech Republic and Slovakia?

    Present day Canada is a remnant of the 19th century mindset that saw the super powers of the day travel around the globe while arbitrarily drawing national borders.

    If Canada didn't exist in it's present format do you really think this is what the citizens of the various regions would choose to become?
  86. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: The problem with the mainstreaming of ecological concern/attention is things quickly turn absurd as people who never question something as obvious as a garbage dump/plastic wrap economy turn their attention to 'solving' this problem. Nuclear is not an option, it's not just long term but also short term unviable. There is an excellent article in Utne Magazine on this point recently. Secondly, the Oil Sands mega destruction project. Pumping CO2 is about as ecological as... as using matches to put out a fire. The problem is wasting resources, not taking seriously the natural environment (considering it an economic externality) and first and foremost: Social Justice. Any talk of Green/Eco/Sustainable that does not address these things is Greenwash: The new norm in the mainstream media. What is most scary is that when these idiotic schemes backfire then the still uninformed public will think it was environmentalists driving the absurd agenda. 'Environmentalists' like BC minister Kevin Falcon with his pet highway expansion project. Please Globe stop running these 'cold fusion' type pseudo-business/science/ecology articles. This is really topical right now and just taking BS at face value isn't going to work much longer! And if you want to know my solution? It's called bicycles! Yes, we do have need for more useful petrochemicals. But until we start taking the obvious, proven and effective (such as bicycles in the city) seriously... then all the rest is just distraction. If we can't figure out how to let people get around the city without fearing for their life forcing them into cars... then how on earth are these miracle cures going to be anything but boondoggles? Oh wait, I forgot, our official religion is pseudo-technology/pseudo-science: The unquestioned beleif in the NEW product.
  87. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: 'Consumption of hydro-carbon fuels is not going to dramatically reduce'

    If consumers will not reduce demand, then we will need to dramatically limit production to have a hope in hell of mitigating severe climate change.
  88. The Bubble from Canada writes: GlynMhor is at it again:
    For all of you who don't know, GlynMhor is an American who works for the oil industry, he admitted it to a few of us a week ago when we were talking hockey.
    His words are pure propoganda from Big Oil.
  89. The Bubble from Canada writes: Nuclear Engery is the only way to go now, it's obvious, the numbers from the Oil sands only add up to disaster.
  90. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Doug Lavers, Australia, not to worry, it's not global cooling, it's just La Nina lowering temps. 1.7 C. An El Nino will come along and increase temp. 3.0 C. But then they really don't fully understand La Nina.
  91. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Pater, how would reducing production help the situation? The consumer would just go to other countries and the CO2 is still produced. Canada just goes without. The feds and provinces would increase taxes for the lost economic benefit and no impact to CO2. Makes as much sense as going on a hunger strike to solve the problem with similar results

    I believe that we must work the demand side of this problem by encouraging conservation or do as is suggested in the article continue to produce but sequester the CO2
  92. aldyen donnelly from Canada writes: First, let me join Godfried Wasser congratulating y'all for a great series of postings. Second, let me say that I agree that CCS needs to be part of our GHG mitigation plan. Third, let me say that I believe that climate change is a real issue and that we need to take action to stop the fast climbing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. Now, let me take you back to Arne Bessel's early remarks. GHGs from the oilsands production are important--at somewhere between 20 and 30 million tCOe per year. But it is simply not true that the oilsands producers' aggregate emissions account is either the largest or fastest growing in our national GHG inventory (which you can peruse at http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2005_report/ta8_2_eng.cfm). All of the following sectors generate more total GHGs than the oilsands producers, are growing their GHG discharges faster than the oilsands and are easier to 'fix': natural gas pipeline venting systems & flares, commercial buildings (heating and cooling systems); the gasoline-powered SUV and small truck fleet; and the heavy duty commercial diesel truck fleet. Large and cheaper (relative to the cost of CCS) reduction opportunities include: capturing and converting natural gas gathering, processing and delivery system losses into useful energy; upgrading commercial building heating and cooling systems; after-market modifcations of existing SUV and light truck engines/power trains enabling existing light truck owners to fuel switch and cut emissions; getting long haul commercial freight off the road and back onto rail; and after-market engine upgrades to cut heavy duty diesel truck emissions. We burn 5-10 times as much diesel per tonne-kilometer of useful frieght that we ship by truck as we would burn when that freight moves on the rail. If you are planning to spend my tax dollars, I would like to see these projects in the line up ahead of (but not necessarily instead of) CCS.
  93. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Doctor Business,

    I take from your comments that you don't think sequestration of CO2 is a solution. You would rather see people drastically cut their consumption. Great idea but how.?The GHG issues has been around for years and people don't seem to be convinced they should do anything. I am not criticizing your perspective but wonder how you can change people's willingness to change when all the work to date has not convinced the public to take action. That is why I like this story about sequestration which does not rely on the consuming public making any changes while still reducing CO2. If we can then get people to conserve great but thus far I don't think we can count on that option being effective
  94. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Aldyen,

    A great post. Plenty of good ideas that don't stop the economy but still contribute to solving the issue.
  95. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor is an American who works for the oil industry, he admitted it to a few of us a week ago when we were talking hockey.'

    Haw haw haw haw... you're good for a laugh from time to time, Bubbles.
  96. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: ... how would reducing production help the situation? The consumer would just go to other countries and the CO2 is still produced. ...

    Sorry, I left out the word: worldwide. Reduce worldwide fossil fuel production.

    It worked for CFC's.

    OPEC already uses quotas on production. They just need to be adjusted to take into effect the atmospheres' carbon carrying capacity.
  97. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: The only race, sadly, is to the bank. The only people talking about cutting CO2 emmissions inside Alberta is the marginalized Green Party. Even their Premier won't pretend to talk to other Premiers. Albertans feel too hard done by, to heed the rest of the country's concerns about anything.
  98. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Howard ... one of the peculiarities of Canadian land titles is that, at least in Western Canada, the title to the land is fee simple with rights of reversion to the Crown.

    As North-west Territory land was being surveyed, Central Canada (actally Canada) began to discover the possibility of resources. By the time south-east Saskatchewan was surveyed, the Crown was withholding mineral rights from the owners, in fee simple.

    There are still a few landowners in southeast Sask. who have retained mineral rights, my aunt being one, and they are literally in a Jeb Clampett position unless they sell those rights, even then they get a big wack. My aunt has five wells on her land. She spent a lot of years in poverty to become oil rich.

    However, by the time surveying got to Alberta ... no mineral rights. That is why you do not have any Jeb Clampetts with wells pumping money into bins.

    The exploration companies participate in bids on Crown land. They pay royalties to the province, which by constitutional agreement and Supreme Court case, has the rights to those royalties ... see Danny Williams, Alan Blakeney.

    But, if you check your land title - you do not own the land free and clear.

    In short, Alberta was screwed before you were Alberta.

    Alan Pater ... good luck convincing OPEC to dramatically cut back on production. Can you spell Gulf War III?

    In short, Alberta was screwed before al A
  99. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan P. Burke of climateputrefaction.com, so the warming is not global anymore hey? Well AGHGW signal cannot be detected over the North Atlantic as proved by a recent peer reviewed article, where else? 85% of Antractica is cooling but you only talk about the 15% that's warming... funny your global warming theory not only now applies to the very recent past 20 y instead of the entire industrial era of the beginning, and it's not even global, it's local. If you keep increasing populated areas and temp stations near cities northern hemisphere warming will be strong no doubt... good for you Alan P.. Funny how nature is now suppressing the AGW signal... bad nature! hey Burke! Stop denying you're changing your tune Alan P... LOL But hey even your idol Chaudedurit is at it too, denying...: 'Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. 'One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,' he told Reuters, adding 'are there natural factors compensating?' for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities. He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. 'There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,' he said.' Chaudedurit attitude says it all: What are those people who are interested in the true science instead of the political fraud? That's getting a lot of 'single excuses' debunking the Mann garbage and the zealot consensus...
  100. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes:'In short, Alberta was screwed before you were Alberta.'

    The Crown, in this case, is not the government of Canada but the government of Alberta. Or as it is sometimes put 'The Crown in right of the Province of Alberta'.
  101. martha stewart from Canada writes: doctor business - Your solution is bicycles. I see you are from the one tiny corner of Canada where that would make sense much of the time though that will be quite the commute from Maple Ridge to Vancouver, etc. And it will make sense in more parts of Canada if The Warming does come as some predict.

    But, in the meantime, the bicycle people of East Asia are all hoping to get cars...

    Alan Pater - Could you please explain to me how one could possibly encourage the worldwide reduction in the production of fossil fuels... other than simply running out of them, or some global epidemic decimating the world population. Sounds nice but it seems to defy everything we know about human nature and economic behaviour... I can see how per capita use can be reduced by higher costs but I'm baffled by your grand but simplistic suggestion.
  102. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Glyn M ... the Crown is represented by the Lt. Gov. who in turn is approved by the Gov. Gen. who is approved by Liz.

    And we wonder why Quebec thinks we're still tied to the UK?

    Albertans would have to shoot or capture the Lt. Gov. and have him/her approve the land transfer which of course would be contested by the forces of the Gov. Gen.
  103. Fog Hat from Canada writes: NUKES!!!!!

    Why is it so difficult for everyone to comprehend what the answer is?!?!?!
  104. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Been into some of that west coast herbal pipeweed, have you, Larry?
  105. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: We could get rid of three quarters of the streetlights in our cities as long as the rest of them were cut back in lumens by 50% and made full cutoff so they spilled no light horizontally.

    That would save millions of dollars a year for cities which could be put to good use in public transit systems or other infrastructure.
  106. Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth from Blythe.Ga., United States writes: What about oil from shale?
  107. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Oilshale has the same sorts of problems that oilsands do, except that the shale is not anywhere near as porous as sand. That means higher costs for extraction and processing. For example, I don't think SAGD would work at all, much less as efficiently as it does for sands.
  108. martha stewart from Canada writes: Would be easy to 'capture' the Gov-General. Could be lured to the CBC outpost in Calgary by some promise of another book signing by Margaret Atwood or a personal appearance of The Suzuki.

    Tis a goofy line of thinking though. Possesion is nine tenths of the law and who could or would do anything about it. The US would be thrilled at this development. So... the TO militia? The stoned forces of BC? The Saskatchewan Roughriders? Its all too silly... but fun.
  109. Concerned Observer from Canada writes: Hello Woody Forrest. I missed your knowledgeable comments for a while. Now, I'm pleased to read them again. << >> But now 'ad rem': In the Jan.25, 2008 G&M article 'Alberta green plan puts PM on the spot' I found the info that Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach plans to create '... a government-industry council that will look at implementing carbon capture technologies, in which the carbon dioxide produced from power plants and ... is intercepted and injected back into the ground.' I understand, that the carbon sequestration and storage may be justified in such cases, where no better way exists of getting rid of GHGs . << *>>But sequestering them from coal fired power plants, looks to me like an engineering and economic misunderstanding . Why should we fight the Climate Change by mining, transporting and burning a lot of coal, creating massive amounts of GHGs and heat, just to sweep those gases underground as a byproduct of generating electricity? <<*>>As far as I know, the clean electricity may be generated from various renewable energies (RE), which are abundant in our country. It may feed the common grid, from which it may be distributed to all kinds of consumers, including industrial ones. Even in this stage, in which the intermittency of RE remains a problem to be solved, 'milking' every kWh from them could significantly reduce the overall GHG emission. And I know, that intensive research is being done in several countries on reducing that intermittency to minimum. <<*>> I understand, that some those coal fired plants would have to shut down, while some of them could stand by as a backup. Shutting down would not need to happen rapidly, as Ontario's Premier imagined before. The more newly installed RE converters would power the grid, the less electricity would be drained from the 'dirty' power stations. Until some of the latter give up. <<*>> This is just my engineering point of view -not economic one. What's your opinion?
  110. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, your rant about me is way off the mark. I haven't changed my tune; what I have done, as always, is examine multiple data sources, trying to put them into perspective. How you get from that the conclusion that I've only been talking about 15% of Antarctica is bizarre and untrue. Yes, it's climate change and yes, it's also global warming except that GlynnMhor insists that it isn't global if you consider little things like difference between the hemispheres, between land and ocean, and over periods of time a little longer than a few years (or a few days as you are inclined to do). I've also said nothing about it applying only to the last twenty years.

    What a piece of work you are; malicious to the core, fitting your name, and apparently also unable to form rational and objective thought. Well, your smear campaign won't work. My website speaks for itself. There's no point in trying to engage with you here in the hope of rational debate; you wouldn't know how to start.
  111. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: GlynnMohr, the lighting comment is one of the more sensible things that you have come up with of late. The amount of light used in Canadian cities is well beyond what is needed. It detracts from seeing the night sky. One of the things that impresses me about many U.S. cities, particularly in California, is that you can actually see the night sky from your backyard. There is nowhere near the level of light pollution there than here. It is exceedingly wasteful.
  112. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor, concerning your 3:50 PM EST posting, you clearly don't understand figures 27 and 28, 35a-d and 36a-d on my website, do you.

    The trend is still there. Recent changes have been dominated by the southern hemisphere oceans.
  113. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Fog Hat from Canada writes: NUKES!!!!!

    Why is it so difficult for everyone to comprehend what the answer is?!?!?!

    Because the greens are NOT looking for a solution. They are only looking for a fight. Victory, in their eyes, lies in the 'sustainable' past i.e. the circa 1900 family farm. Complete with monotonous, unbelievable, back-breaking labour, and fabulous selection of diseases that killed most people before the age of 50.
  114. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, that is a complete misrepresentation of the Northern Atlantic data. The concluding sentences of the paper were: 'Hence, while the change in ocean heat content over the North Atlantic can be connected to the decadal trend in the NAO, it is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse
    warming. Continued long-term monitoring of North Atlantic temperatures is needed to answer the question of whether the basin-average warming is reflecting anthropogenic forcing and/or natural variability.' Of course, you actually read neither peer reviewed publication but rather read some interpretation of it on a propaganda web site. Source:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1146436v1.pdf
    As for your claims about GW not being global, there is nothing fictional about that claim. If there is sufficient freshwater melting, the expectation is that Northern Europe will cool due to changes in ocean currents. The last time that happened was when Lake Agassiz drained through Hudson Bay. Of course, you actually read neither peer reviewed publication but rather read some interpretation of it on a propaganda web site.
  115. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan P. Burke of climatemilitarytouchyweenyfeely.com we know you are such an objective wiseman and your website is the ultimate truth. Check that one APB: ' From 90,000 assays published in over 180 peer-reviewed papers it was certain that CO2 levels were above 300 ppm for the entire period. They were 450 ppm in 1822, 370 ppm in 1858 and 415 ppm in 1944. There was no runaway warming in any case, and this is positive proof that CO2 levels are not related to global warming.' OOOOPS 'IPCC is quoted as claiming that world temperatures will rise 2.5-10°F in the 21st century. They neglected to note that the Report cited was from 2001, and that the exposure of the errors in that Report required an entire book by professional climatologists: Michaels, P. J., Ed. (2004). Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global warming. Lanham, MD:Rowan & Littlefield. They neglected to note that in 1981 the IPCC predicted a global temperature rise of 0.7°F by 1995; but the actual move was minus 0.3°. The IPCC also in 1981 predicted an Arctic temperature rise of 1°F by 1995; but the observed reality was minus 0.6°F. The IPCC is notoriously unreliable as a source of accurate predictions. Another example is: in 1990 the IPCC predicted a global temperature rise by the year 2100 as 0.7°F. By 1996 this was reduced to 0.4°F. See: Robinson AB, Global Warming, Access to Energy 1997;25(3):4.' from JM Kaufmann, PhD. Chemistry OOOPS that's a bit better than Alan P. Burke BSc....
  116. My Moniker is Better from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada, hey there. My reply to your latest post may be a bit late but I hope you find it on your next peruse...

    I wouldn't exactly be too hasty in making the claim about Canadians not using the AC. We definitely use it. Idling cars, that's true. Can't argue with you there. However I don't see many drivers idling to start their cars unless temperatures are 0 C give or take, so I would argue that its effects in the overall scheme would be comparatively negligible.

    In terms of the stellar material, again can't argue with you there. However, when I talked about the closed system, I was framing it around the argument of the limited resources we have on earth. As in, I wouldn't hold my breath for the next meteor shower to supply us with some mineral, etc that we are currently consuming at an unsustainable rate for example.

    In terms of farming, it's definitely a complex situation. On one hand, our populations are evermore increasing, and we need to keep up with food demands. And perhaps there are some farms that are rotating, but it's not nearly where we need it to be, and that's where my disappointment comes from. We need more farmers to take a step back and re-evaluate their impact on their crops and their soils, and we need our industries and consumers to support our farmers as well in this.

    I agree that the 'Chicken Little' groups don't help with the cause, but then again, they are only the extreme side of one group. The extreme side of the other group has those who only care about economic gain, and are in complete denial about the fact that we cannot sustain our current levels of consumption, and certainly not using the methods we are currently using. Also, the idea that we humans can consume and pollute, and still have no effect on the earth, I feel is more dangerous than being overly cautious than the Chicken Little types.
  117. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, the IPCC is not a 'special organization', it is a collection of climate scientists from nations across the world. Their job was to REVIEW all peer-reviewed data. There are no 'IPCC scientists' per se. The scientists are simply representatives of the climate research community. You speak of the IPCC and its reliability as if there is something that sets it apart from climate science. There is nothing of the sort. Political interference DOES occur. However, this occurs in the SUMMARY STATEMENT, where every word is negotiated line by line by political representatives from each country. In the last IPCC report, most of the outrage from the scientific community was directed at the report being too CONSERVATIVE.
  118. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Bobby Dy if 'the change in ocean heat content over the North Atlantic can be connected to the decadal trend in the NAO, it is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming. ' If that is not telling you that AGW signal is overriden what else? learn to read!
    But anyway i thought the science was settled? 'Continued long-term monitoring of North Atlantic temperatures is needed to answer the question of whether the basin-average warming is reflecting anthropogenic forcing and/or natural variability.' I guess not... or did you get it?
    So pal, Is it GLobal Warming or not? Not and since as you say there is nothing fictional about this claim, great, you see we agree...LOL
    Your Wikipedia knowledge is funny Beau Bidet... Are you expecting cold air masses to come from anywhere else than the poles? If yes, Please explain as it's going to be an interesting planet... are you the brother of A l'ane pisse beurre queue? LOL
  119. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, a Ph.D. in chemistry doesn't make one an expert. It's no better than my Ph.D. in biochemistry when it comes to independently interpreting the data. We may be better at navigating through jargon than someone with no experience in reading scientific literature. That is why I rely upon the leading international journals to assess the state-of-the-art in climate science. So far, you haven't cited anything from a leading international journal and where you have referred to work that was published in a leading international journal, you have misrepresented the contents (implying that you didn't read and presumably don't have access to the original work but rely upon someone with an agenda to re-present the data in light of their pre-determined point of view).
  120. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Bobby Dye writes: 'In the last IPCC report, most of the outrage from the scientific community was directed at the report being too CONSERVATIVE. '
    Bobby stop reading Suzuki and AlGore!
    'Over 115 scientists, including
    myself, signed a letter to the Secretary-General of the UN asking to
    curb the hysteria over climate change. Over 450 scientists signed a
    letter to an Energy Committee of the US Senate to do the same. Beginning
    in 1998, over 20,000 science or engineering degree holders signed a
    petition declaring that humans had not caused global warming. Claims of
    consensus and unanimity are powerful tools of mind control.' Joel M. Kauffman, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, University of the
    Sciences in Philadelphia, 1 Feb 08
    And your PhD. is from where exactly Bobby Bobby?
  121. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, another excerpt from the discussion of the paper: 'However, given the reported heat gain for each of the other
    world ocean basins (1, 2, 19) and the rising air temperatures,
    the relatively small basin-wide heat gain is plausibly
    attributable to anthropogenic forcing. The overall North
    Atlantic heat content change, equivalent to an average
    increase in the surface heat flux of 0.4 Wm-2, is the same
    sign yet slightly below the lower estimates of anthropogenic induced
    radiative heating, ranging from 0.6 to 2.4 Wm-2
    since 1750 (11). Presumably, other parts of the global ocean
    and climate system have taken up the remainder of the excess
    heat input.'
  122. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Their conclusion is their conclusion or not? Write to them not to me! And my PhD is in Earth sciences.
  123. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, it is clear that you don't understand science. The global warming hypothesis cannot be 'proven' because there is no controlled experiment that can be completed. We can't have a parallel universe where we increase CO2 in one and maintain it in another version of planet Earth. Any proposed mechanism, including the alternative hypotheses that have been bantered about by GlynnMohr for example, represent correlations. There is no way to perform a controlled experiment to critically test the hypotheses. The hypotheses can, however, be disproved through demonstrations that the correlations fall apart. GlynnMohr's claims that the correlations fall apart are not valid because the temperature will show variability superimposed on the trend. The last 6 years argument is absolute nonsense.
  124. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, yes the Earth Sciences people seem to be obsessed with trying to claim that the CO2 models don't hold. However, your Ph.D. is also not directly related to the field of study unless you specialize in atomospheric sciences. However, from what I can tell, your specialization has more to do with geology. Again, it is equally as irrelevant as mine.
  125. Doug Lavers from Melbourne, Australia writes: 'Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Doug Lavers, Australia, not to worry, it's not global cooling, it's just La Nina lowering temps. 1.7 C. An El Nino will come along and increase temp. 3.0 C. But then they really don't fully understand La Nina.'

    The biggest recently known El Nino [1998] raised the planetary temp by about 0.7 degrees C.
    Unfortunately I think that just blaming the current cooling on La Nina is wishful thinking, but I very much hope you are right.
  126. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: Glynn M ... I've done a little work with land titles in Western Canada. Alberta ain't going anywhere without approval of the Crown and would not even be accumulating the royalties they are today if not for Blakeney's Supreme Court challenge vis a vis potash control by Sask. You forget that the Federal Gov.t in 1980 enacted the NEP that deleted between $500M and $1B from Alberta provincial GDP. That act was presaged by the by Alberta's attempts to put the banks under provincial control in the 1930's and they were thwarted by the Federal Gov.t, read Central Canada banks. The fed.s have had Alberta under their thumb from the get go, and, probably no province is more justified in wanting some independence.

    Anyhow, Bobby Dy, nice to be so dismissive of any opinion that does not jive with your state of the art climate science journals. The IPCC is a politically based organization that includes scientists with an obvious agenda notwithstanding that they are toothless because the 'Bali Road Map' had not one agreed hard cap. or time line. Basically, a face saving document for an issue that is given lots of lip service .... But No Action.
  127. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Jean Malice, the criticisms about the CONSERVATIVE nature of the latest IPCC reports came from Science, not Al Gore or David Suzuki.
  128. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of [Organic] Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S. Retired. Doesn't have any discernible climate experience.
    http://www.usp.edu/chemistry/faculty/biography.asp?id=43
  129. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Alan Burke, moreover, he works at what is primarily and undergraduate university in Philadelphia in a city that contains several high profile postsecondary institutions. It's kind of like working at the University of Winnipeg (i.e., Tim Ball). His expertise is in chemical synthesis of small molecules, focusing on fluorescent molecules. The background is of interest to a lot of biological research but is completely irrelevant to the subject of discussion. That doesn't make him incompetent but it does mean that he has no special expertise that would make him any kind of authority on anything like this. Similarly, the 20,000 'scientists' that signed the petition (the Oregon petition) is primarily signed by people with little or no expertise and to call them all scientists, when most do not have Ph.D.'s, is a misrepresentation. Likewise with the other letters cited.

    Like I said, I have no special knowledge or expertise but I do know where to look for sound assessments of the state-of-the-art and what has been cited is not it.
  130. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan Pater - Could you please explain to me how one could possibly encourage the worldwide reduction in the production of fossil fuels...

    Certainly. The model would be the Montreal Protocol. It is successfully phasing out the production of CFC's, by international agreement. As we already have international agreement that CO2 is a big problem, it makes perfect sense to copy its example.
  131. Woody Forrest from Canada writes: This post is for Erik Dullerud who earlier today labeled tailings from the oil sands plants as 'pure poison'. The tailings are a mixture of mixture of water, sand, and clay, with some oil and traces of heavy metals. Google heavy metals and you will see that these include mercury and arsenic. Now consider the following: The oil sand plants' mine tailings are made up of things that came out of the ground - naturally occurring substances. So on a simple level, for the mine tailings to be 'pure poison' the mines have to be full of 'pure poison'. Anybody read anything claiming that? The oil sands are close to the surface near Ft. McMurray and Ft. McKay. The Athabasca River, and the tributaries that flow into it, literally run through the oil sands deposits. Hence the rivers and creeks naturally wash things in the oil sand into the river - including the same things you find in the mine tailings. So are the creeks and rivers flowing into the Athabasca, and the Athabasca itself FULL of (natural) 'pure poison'? Don't think so. I didn't get this impression when I canoed down the river. But then again, I didn't eat any of the fish. So, a Dr. John O'Connor published a report this year claiming that there are higher than acceptable levels of mercury in the Athabasca downstream of Ft. McMurray. The Alberta government has questioned his findings and methods. The issue has not yet been resolved, but anyone curious about this may read the info at the following links: >>> http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/news/great-disrespect-people-fort-chip/ http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/faqs/faq5-oil_sands.asp http://oilbusters.googlepages.com/suncor http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/s02-013.pdf >>> Erik Dullerud went on to point out some of his experience and his professional engineer status. Eric, I'm a professional engineer too, and have been licensed in four provinces over my near 30 year career. You are barking up the wrong tree.
  132. Doug Lavers from Melbourne, Australia writes: I do not believe sequestering carbon dioxide will be economically feasible; first of all, a vast amount of additional energy will be required to isolate the gas [in itself generating more gas], and secondly while more than half the world does not know or care about the problem this will be a recipe for Western de-industrialisation.

    In any event, the steep recent decline in planetary temperature [currently 1.04 degrees F over 12 months] seems to be tracking an extreme fall in solar activity, as proxied by the sunspot data. It appears to be nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

    As an amateur observer, I think a coherent theory of how long term climate works is beginning to emerge. It goes something like this:

    Solar geomagnetic output - effect on cosmic ray impact on earth [see Svensmark] - effect on low level cloud cover - rainfall/albedo. [ See CERN - Cloud Experiment]. This is consistent with recent rapid fall in solar activity [ ie paucity of sunspots] - frequent excess rainfall events throughout tropics - cooling planet. Also, because planetary temperature is an average, and I believe the tropics are fairly invariant , there is a geared impact moving towards the Poles.

    Overlays - Concentration of galactic cosmic radiation - Milankovich cycles - volcanic activity.
  133. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Pater,

    I am not sure the Montreal Protocol on CFCs is a good analogy. There were easy replacements for CFC's so it was a matter of implmenting those replacements.

    We have no replacements for fossil fuels at least not in abundance to deal with the growing demand.

    I support the idealism but do not think its as practical as just agreeing that we will reduce production of CO2.
  134. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan Pater - Hmmm. Well, first it looks rather obvious to me that the 'international agreement' about CO2 isn't exactly universal, and has not translated into much other than agreeing to agree.

    On CFCs it was much clearer cause and effect. More importantly, it was relatively simply to convert from using CFCs, had little or no impact on anyone's daily life, and did not involve some new tax burden or social engineering project. Absolutely no comparison to finding a replacement for fossil fuel energy.

    And, back in the real world, how big was 'Big CFCs'? It wasn't. There was no comparable size of industry or infrastructure or vested interests (both personal, corporate, and government). So you are comparing easy apples to enormously challenging oranges. And you are not really answering my question at all.
  135. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: Hendrick, the best replacement for fossil fuels available is to stop wasting it.

    Buildings in most parts of the world can be, and have been, heated and cooled using passive, zero energy methods. There are transportation systems significantly more efficient then automobiles running internal combustion engines.

    But apart from that, what are the choices? We have to act. We have to stop taking fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them, even if there is no viable replacement.

    As consumers, we can spend out hard earned dollars on local services instead of consumer goods shipped from halfway around the world. That sounds like a big improvement in quality of life for everyone, no?
  136. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Canada writes: 'The oil sand plants' mine tailings are made up of things that came out of the ground - naturally occurring substances.' Woody, I don't follow your logic here. By your definition, everything that comes out of a bitumen producing oil sands plant is composed of 'naturally occuring substances' (only when the bitumen is cracked could one argue that the synthetic oil was not naturally occuring). If I'm not mistaken, is it not a real concern of environmental groups and health officials that when a new dam is built for hydroelectric generation (ie James Bay project in Quebec) that the concentration of mercury in the water increases - which shows up in the fish caught and eaten from those waters? If that is the case, it sure seems reasonable to me that, over centuries, rivers and lakes would have established a certain stability in their concentrations of mercury and arsenic and hydrocabons. And if you disturbed the land by digging up the 30 m of overburden, or washing the millions of tons of oil sands that had been buried for eons, the concentrations of natural impurities in run-off or leached water from 'virgin' soil would eventually show up in the Athabasca R and Lake. Also, how do you account for the anecdotal evidence of aboriginal elders in Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan who suggest water/fish quality has changed noticeably in their lifetimes? Not something that would be readily apparent in a paddle through. I'm curious of your views on these points.
  137. martha stewart from Canada writes: Woody Forrest - What! The oil sands are natural!!! I thought that when the first explorers found them oozing into the Athabasca River that Big Oil had used a time machine to pre-destroy the 'environment'. Now I'm confused...
  138. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Concerned Observer, I spotted your comments at 8:01. I'm happy to respond to your questions with any information I can provide. I agree with your comment that CO2 capture and sequestration together are not a very elegant solution to the emissions problems. It seems that there's room for other methods to compete as the reported capital costs are high. As I posted earlier, the article at least gives some numbers. These are needed so that alternatives can be compared. I have seen electricity costs per kw-hr for solar, wind power and NGS operations. Someone now needs to come up the unit cost for electricity from a coal fired power plant fitted with the capture/sequestration equipment. The lowest cost source wins. Notwithstanding concerns about long term integrity of the sequestration, or government intervention, personal opinion won't figure into it at that point. To paraphrase my earlier comments - we don't generate electricity so that we can have power plants - It's the other way around. It seems to me that a lot of people look at wind turbines as a cool thing to build and the electricity they generate is incidental. lndustries have to power their factories with the electricity. Jack the electricity cost up and some factories will close or move (Hello Ontario!). If industries can stay viable with RE power sources then more power to them and the electricity providers. It seems like a simple concept, but many people seem to struggle with it. You mentioned hanging onto the coal plants for future back-up generating capacity. For that role, combined cycle gas turbine/heat recovery steam generator plants are better suited (you may already know this). They are very efficient and start up relatively quickly. However, they are expensive. If the board stays open long enough, we might have time for a few more exchanges. Cheers!
  139. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Pater,

    We are in agreement that conservation would be a good solution to this issue and would be a good idea in any event. I was confused because I thought you were talking about shutting down production which does not work because another country just steps into our shoes and we lose the economic benefit without solving the problem. The other issue I have is how do you get people to conserve. It doesn't seem they are interested even though there are some dire warnings about CO2 impacts. Even if GHG were not an issue, conservation of a limited resource makes sense to me.
    If we can't get people to conserve, approaches like CO2 sequestration seem like good initiatives to deal with CO2. Hopefully the conservation efforts will catch on which will deal with many issues (CO2, smog, water quality, high gas prices). Amazing with all those issues that people are still driving monster trucks to work with only 1 occupant.
  140. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, in your 8:46 PM EST posting, you claimed 'it was certain that CO2 levels were above 300 ppm for the entire period. They were 450 ppm in 1822, 370 ppm in 1858 and 415 ppm in 1944.'.

    Those figures are wrong, as does just about everything else you post once it is subject to scrutiny. Please see my (new) figure 3b which includes a graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1800 to 2005, from Antarctic ice cores and the Mauna Loa observatory (with links to the sources of the information).
  141. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: Hendrick, you missed my correction earlier. I meant to say: Reduce worldwide fossil fuel production.

    This would be by international agreement, perhaps similar to how the Montreal Protocol is phasing out production of CFC's.
  142. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: I found this article to be an excellent description of the carbon sequestration technologies, the problems and the possibility of implementation.

    The comments have been as informative.

    Thank you.
  143. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Pater,

    I did see the post. I believe you cannot reduce production without reducing demand which requires conservation. Lower demand lower production. If you lower production through some worldwide regulation without a demand change the price will go way up, economies will be in ruin. Canadian dollar would go to $1.50, manufacturers out of business. Whenever global markets are meddled with it doesn't end up well. I doubt you could get all the oil producing companies to agree on this anyway as CFC issue was about getting rid of hair spray, not heating fuels.
  144. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - Why would your 'graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1800 to 2005, from Antarctic ice cores' only go back to 1800 when they provide information that goes back so much further? Recall that blurb from Nature I posted...
  145. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Martha, I chose not to show the earlier years because they are essentially flat and unless I introduced a non-linear timescale on the X-axis, would have appeared (shudder) like a 'hockey stick' and I didn't want to see flames as the 'contrarians' tried to burn the stick.
  146. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: The value for the year 1010, Martha, was 279.5 ppm, increasing very gradually up to 282.9 ppm in 1800.
  147. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - OK. Interesting that the graph scale would hide such significant short term fluctuations. That should tell us all something about graphs.

    But, yes, best to leave the hockey stick fights to Hockey Night in Canada which, as Hedy Frey would say, is happening even as I type.

    Was just reading something today about how the Younger Dryas may have influenced the spread of humans in North America. No doubt about it, rapid climate change does demand adaptation.

    On the bright side, I find this thread, which actually discusses some potential solutions, a pleasant change from the usual rants about who loves the planet more... or is it who loves Big Oil more?
  148. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - Was typing away when you posted that last statistic... guess I was thinking of a longer time scale than that.
  149. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao, my point was to question the 'pure poison' comment. The ore in the mines is not poisonous, so why would the tailings be? There is some concentration of heavy metals in the ore and some concentration in the tailings (which is mostly sand) when they leave the plant and head for the tailings pond (BTW, we never worried about mercury when we cleaned the plant equipment - and my kids are all healthy). Current practice may be different, but when I was there, the sand was used to make the dike walls. There is no shortage of it and those walls are very thick. The waste water goes into the ponds and the fine clay particle are supposed to settle out, but this takes a long time. OK, so look at that scenario and try to come up with a viable way for the mercury to concentrate and then get into the river. I believe that any scenario would have a parallel one naturally occurring in the Athabasca River system, which has been around a lot longer than the plants. As I said earlier: Think about it. Your comments about water washing over the sites and going into the river are not realistic. Streams are diverted and site drainage is controlled. All of the refinery sites I know of have storm water containment ponds. These accept the things that wash out of the plant roads and sewers in melting snow or rain water. This water is captured and not allowed back into a river until it has been cleaned up. If that water can be cleaned, the tailings water shouldn't be much of problem. It's government regulation and economics, not technology, that determine what becomes of the tailings water. I expect that a lot of posters either don't know about the government regulation of the oilsands, or figure the government is asleep at the switch. I believe it's more accurate to say most posters (but not all) don't know the real situation. A lot of extreme claims can be easily dismissed.
  150. martha stewart from Canada writes: And Alan - Forgot to say that 'contrarian' is a very reasonable label to describe those who disagree with the consensus. Thanks.
  151. martha stewart from Canada writes: Woody - The most plausible bad news story that I have heard about that development is that migrating birds (waterfowl, shorebirds) that land in some of those ponds are dying... know anything about that?
  152. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks

    It seems to me your argument boils down to that there are containment areas and they never fail - ie 100% guaranteed no leakage or leaching over the whole operations (including the hundreds of km2 of tailings ponds, containment areas etc.)

    I find that one hard to accept - but a different discipline than mine.

    Cheers
  153. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Btw, I think the most prevalent means of mercury poisoning is through ingestion (in this case concentrating through the food chain) so not surprising to me plant workers are healthy. I presume you didn't drink the stuff :)
  154. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Martha Stewart, again I don't know what current practice is, but in my time there they used gas powered noise generators (bangers) to scare the birds away. These floated on the ponds and would periodically ignited a charge of natural gas and make a load bang (similar to the sound of a 12 gauge).

    I didn't hang out at the pond very much, but I don't recall seeing any dead birds (I've seen more along roadways hit by cars, but no one tries to ban cars over it). I suppose that if this was a major concern, you could skim the oil off the pond. Not technically very difficult to do, but another thing that would add to production costs. If the Alberta government deemed the bird problem to be unacceptable, there are ways of solving this. People claiming otherwise lack the necessary training to see a solution.
  155. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao, you're still ignoring natural drainage into the river. Why look for leaks in the pond dikes (which are huge - I've stood upon Syncrude's), when there's so much natural drainage into the river that cuts through oil sand deposits. The modern plants have been there for about 50 years. How long has the river been there?

    This subject is covered by some of the links I posted earlier. You don't need to take my word for it, you can give them a read.
  156. Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: Posting for Woody Forrest: Consider the following: 1. Concentration of elements and chemical compounds thereof are often very much lower in their ‘natural state’, where they have been lying in the ground for millions of years, than they after having gone through a mining refinement process. In fact, new compounds, which can be far more toxic that the original chemicals, can be formed through the refinement process. 2. It has been reported that waterfowl landing on the tailings ponds never take off again. Assuming this is correct, does this not tell you a storey? 3. Of course the Alberta Government will question a report that makes them and the oil companies look less than good. Hopefully more testing will be done soon to establish 'the truth'. 4. The evidence from the native population who has lived in the watershed for generations is that their environment is changing for the worse and that it was first noticed after the tar-sand extraction gathered momentum. (Here-say you will reply. We’ll see.) To deny that the present extraction process does not pollute the environment and that the water table is not likely being affected is akin to bury ones heat in the sand. Based on the contents of your postings on the Globe article, it is probably fair to assume you have an axe to grind through a connection with the oil industry? I have the following question for you: Considering the obscene profits the oil companies are posting, does it seem reasonable to you that the public should be stuck with cleaning up the mess after the last drop of oil has been squeezed out of the tar-sands?
  157. martha stewart from Canada writes: Thanks Woody. Tis tricky business to keep scaring birds away. In the Okanagan they use bangers to keep the starlings off the vinyards but they're quick learners and now sometimes barely flinch.

    On the bright side, they are quick learners, and there are plenty more fertile and attractive alternatives for stopovers on that migration path. No doubt the dam on the Peace River, which impacted the Athabasca delta, has had far more negative impacts on waterfowl and shorebirds than those ponds ever could.

    And come to think of it, if it were any kind of remotely significant problem, it would be front page news here.
  158. Kent Blaker from rock creek, Canada writes: The graphs of temperature tend to look like a cycle in roll over. There are a lot of things happening out there. La Nina, reduced solar flux, etc.
    We are not seeing the warming postulated by IPCC which indicatres that CO2 is not the problem they are leading us to belive.
    Climate change happens slowly and will not be a problem unless we go into another 'minimum', in which case we will be arguing about how to retain more energy in the atmosphere.
  159. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Eric, your really don't know what you're talking about when you make your claims about the 'toxicity' of the tailings water. If it was toxic enough to kill a duck after a few minutes of exposure, what would the vapour coming from the pond be like? You'd have to wear gas masks down wind of it. No one would be worried about mercury until that was dealt with.

    If you think you have a real concern, why don't you give Alberta Environment a call? I'm sure they would be entertained by your concerns. And when you get done with them, call up the Alberta Workplace Heath and Safety Dept., and ask them to check up on the workers who routinely stand over open vats of bitumen, water, and/or sand, shortly before much of it exits the plant for the tailings pond.

    This is all about your 'Pure Poison' comment. You are misinformed.

    Good night.
  160. ryan jensen from hamilton, Canada writes: Reading these posts remind me of once watching a couple in a pub on Church St. in Toronto have an argument. You can sense the hostility, can even feel the hostility, but neither one wanted to appear angry and let their passions show because they had an image to maintain.

    I came to this post to pick a fight. I'm angry an I want to fight. Geezuz fn my oh my people. This is our existence we are talking about here. I would think that the believers in global warming would display a little bit more bullocks.

    Maybe when they fall asleep by all your recital of 'facts' we can club them like they do the baby seals. Then we can implement the changes that are required.

    I imagine many of you are familiar with the --- its better to believe in God than not because if you do and there is no God, no problem. If you don't and there is a God your hurtin.

    Its sort of like that folkes. If we're wrong about global warming and the oil companies lost 10% of their profit, well then, my bad. If we're correct about global warming then its a good thing prudence was excercised.
  161. Peter Lucas from langley, Canada writes: Erik Dullerud refers to obscene profits earned by oil companies. I'm glad the oil companies are profitable - if thet weren't at these prices, they would stop exploration and development and consumers would find even more expensive gas and oil prices, as existing resreves dwindled.

    What is an obscene profit anyway? Is it dressed in scanty negligee and spike heels? Or is it a socialistic phrase used to describe those who risked and were rewarded?
  162. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Canada writes:'The hypotheses can, however, be disproved through demonstrations that the correlations fall apart.'

    And the correlations upon which the AGW hypothesis depend are only valid for 1960-2000 or so. Prior to and after that time range there is no good correlation between the models the IPCC offers and the observed temperatures.
  163. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'GlynnMhor, concerning your 3:50 PM EST posting, you clearly don't understand figures 27 and 28, 35a-d and 36a-d on my website, do you?'

    Well, my resistance has collapsed. I have to say, Alan, that you have not understood anything about the failures of the IPCC modelling and the implications of the recent absence of warming.
  164. Doug Lavers from Melbourne, Australia writes: While these comments have been collecting, the planetary temperature has moved from 1.04 to 1.09 degrees COOLER than 1 year ago.
    [AMSU -A 1 km satellite measurements.]

    Why do I have the feeling that the AGW debate is about to be relegated to history? Given a choice between 1.5 degrees of warming or 1.5 degrees of cooling, I know which I would choose every time.
  165. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: ryan jensen from hamilton, Canada writes:'Geezuz fn my oh my people. This is our existence we are talking about here.'

    Oh, quit your hysterics. The core of the problem is that our existence is not at all threatened no matter what we do.
  166. My Moniker is Better from Canada writes: In the wise and hilarious words of the legendary comedian, George Carlin, 'The planet? The planet is fine. The people, are f***ed! Difference!'
  167. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Doug Lavers from Melbourne, Australia writes: 'Why do I have the feeling that the AGW debate is about to be relegated to history?'

    Wishful thinking? A sense of entitlement in the face of loss?
  168. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Doug Lavers try La Nina ' model outlook of ENCO conditions for January 2008' at
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml
  169. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: My Moniker, Idling cars, I guess you haven't been up north, or in Calgary this past week were they were idling school buses over night, or at local coffee shops.
  170. Bob Van Derlay from Toronto, Canada writes: Erik Dullerud refers to obscene profits earned by oil companies. Here is what really happens to the profits. In most accounting courses we learn the profit and loss statement does not tell the story. Look to the Cash Flow or Sources and Disbursements statement to see what is really going on. Here is one from a tar sand company in 2006.

    Cash in 4.5 b$

    Cash disbursed

    Invested mostly in Canada 3.5 b$
    paid down some debt 0.7 b$
    paid to shareholders 0.1 b$
    left over addition to cash at year end 0.2 b$

    Apart from the very low payout to investors, where is the obscenity?
  171. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Larry Robinson 'by the time surveying got to Alberta ... no mineral rights' Albertans got screwed! We issued checks to Crown, Indian and Freeholders in Alberta. I guess we made a mistake. To get the mineral rights one had to pay extra for land, many didn't.
  172. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: So much of what is posted in this blog is without any basis in fact. When one sees a rock one does not look for a second person with whom to have a long and tedious debate about whether the rock is a rock. That would be considered marginally insane. Why then are facts swept aside and in their place completely fabrications introduced then debated to death? When the oil sands was first being developed, some of the solvent used as part of the separation process, carried through into the original tailings ponds. Now, not only the new plants but the old ones (retrofitted) capture the naptha with very expensive devices simply called naptha recover units. Shell's process does not use naptha at all. Waterfowl have been endangered near the oldest tailings ponds during warm weather, not by toxics but by slicks of bitumen that rise to the surface and are recovered. To avoid this the operations have fired propane cannons for several decades. These make noise, nothing else. They scare away wildlife very effectively. The old smell problem came from sour naptha - the solvents. A new extraction process is agruably ready for use and is called, 'Bitmin'. It has been in development for decades and has proven itself in large scale trials. It separates the sand and bitumen right at the mine site. Between this and other technology developed my major companies in Canada, all the old problems are gfast disappearing. Water consumption with these new technologies is very low relatively speaking and much of the river water drawn in can be re-used in relatively short timeframes. Oil sands nearly bankrupted Sun Company. Syncrude share units changed hands like a stolen car for decades. Nobody made money there until the mid-1990's. On a life cycle basis the industry is only now profitable. On 40 years it has not earned much at all. Again, support is harder to give than criticism. It requires you to put down the laptop on occasion and actually do something!
  173. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: At the risk of being tedious, I am going to repeat a note I left here earlier in the week regarding the macro economics of the oil sands and Alberta oil in general.

    There were articles in the G&M earlier in the week from which inferences could be drawn that Alberta has not stewarded its resource as well as, say Norway or Alaska. The evidence given was the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund - being as low as it is.

    I wish to point out once again that the sovereign nations with oil wealth have either squandered it into Swiss bank accounts and waste by corrupt rulers or have banked it.

    Alberta is not a sovereign nation. Its wealth has been tapped off by the rest of Canada at an annual average rate of more than a billion dollars for more than 50 years. The present value of that appropriation is more than $220 billion.

    That pays for a few dozen Liberal party Red Book lie packages, the transcontinental railroads, the boundless price of keeping Quebec in the fold and a lot of other Canadian eccentricities that good ole Norway never had to consider.

    So, to the blabbermouths, we'll listen when you start handing back all them goodies so as to earn the right to criticize.
  174. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rudy Krueger, again a great post. Your knowledge is considerably more current than mine.

    For anyone who is interested, the Oil Sands Discovery Center at Ft. McMurray has published a fact sheet on the extraction process. It can be found at:

    http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oilsandsstory/pdfs/extraction.pdf

    BTW, if naphtha was present in the tailings water in concentrations high enough to immediately harm birds, they wouldn't need the natural gas canons to scare away birds. They could just periodically light off the top of the pond!

    For anyone thinking you could actually do this, please understand that naphtha vapourizes very easily (at least in the summer). If there was that much of it being vented to the atmosphere, you'd need an air emissions permit for the pond (which I doubt would ever be granted), and the operating companies would be wasting a fortune in naphtha. There are good reasons why this doesn't happen.
  175. Counterspinner tells the truth from Canada writes: I find the title rather misleading 'Oil sands and Global Warming' as I am in the midst of one of the coldest winters that I can remember. And still no David Suzuki to explain this to me.....
  176. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Rudy Krueger from High River seems to enjoy a good yarn.

    In his latest polemic he suggests that all problems with water quality have been solved because the naphtha has been removed from today's operations. And either he or someone else suggested that the majority of the tailings ponds were from by-gone operations , so don't worry folks.

    I guess the obvious question, therefore, is why are today's operators not being forced to clean up the heritage tailings ponds to today's standards now that they are quite profitable? Rudy seems to know where many of the skeletons are buried.

    And what about the dangerous levels of arsenic and mercury that have been reported downstream of the oil sands operations? These chemicals cannot be removed through a naptha recovery unit.

    I personally find what is insane is simply shrugging off yesterday's problems because the industry was not profitable then. 'Everything has been solved...move-on folks.' Ya right.
  177. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: The link I posted was altered when I cut and pasted it. For some reason the underscores have been removed and the 'sands' between them has different script. It was supposed to be:

    http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oilsandsstory/pdfs/extraction.pdf

    In case this gets changed in the upload, it's .../oil[underscore]sands[underscore]story/...
  178. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Well, nobody that I know of has ever suggested leaving behind the old problems. Yes sir, I do know where the old problems are located - most of them anyway. No sir I do not enjoy a good yarn - that is why I have been attaching all the 'good yarns' spun into this blog as though they were facts. If the oil sands operations had shut down in 1997 like we had planned at one time, there'd be nobody with the financial strength to address these matters. In fact you would not even be aware of the possibility of their existence. You have something to criticize and real confidence of the correction of these problems precisely because the industry has hope and a future. If that is the only reason you can find to support the Industry, it should be reason enough. We can go back anf forth across Canada and the United States a hundred times and find thousands of left-over problems associated with the mistakes of past generations. The refineries and chemical plants, packing houses, leather tanneries, effluent plants, soap plants, auto wreckers, foundaries and thousands of other plants that lined the Great Lakes and the entire fresh water system to Thunder Bay ... When environmental considerations became important the owners of these lands scurried like roaches to get rid of the land before it got encumbered with tktle caveats. Underground tanks for service stations all across North America were only caught up in reasonable control in the 1990's. Gas wells and oil wells giving off seepage of greenhouse gasses that were up to 25 times as damaging to the atmosphere compared to CO2 - only stopped in the 1990's by regulation. n the United States the problems were so bad and the responsibilities so buried behind layer after layer of property divestiture that they had to set up a 'super fund' of public-private money to address it all. Here we have honest companies standing by their commitments. Arrogance is ignorance exercised in front of an audience.
  179. Robert MacDonald from Canada writes: They want the government to give them the money? Ha! We should slap them with higher royalties and then legislate a law that requires them to sequester C02. There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be doing so already, since all these giant corporations are already rolling around in more profit than they can imagine.
  180. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Well, there goes the neighborhood again
  181. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Perhaps the two oil sands operation veterans Rudy Krueger and Woody Forrest might wish to take a trip together to Israel and visit the famous Dead Sea.

    As many will know, the Dead Sea is below sea level, so over many millions of years, the minerals in the watershed have been carried into the lake where they remain. Through evaporation the concentration of the chemicals and minerals in the water is completely saturated, with the specific gravity of the water being well above zero.

    As I experienced, when you swim in it, it feels like being a cork - impossible to sink. On the beach there are fresh water showers to wash off the Sea's residues. The black mud from the sea is used by some to smear over their bodies as they would do in a spa.

    But, what everyone is warned not to do is to open your eyes underwater - this can result, apparently, in temporary blindness - the eyes being much more sensitive that the skin.

    And there's a reason they call it the Dead Sea - it's dead. Kinda like those tailings ponds. I doubt many operators go in for an afternoon dip.
  182. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky, I don't know what Rudy Krueger's plans are, but maybe we could do this... You can pretend you're Alan Burke and I'll be GlynnMhor and we can spend the rest of the day kicking the heavy metal contamination issue around.

    Can we short circuit this? The methods used to detect the mercury have been questioned. That mercury is there is well known, and much of it is naturally occurring. They are also issues with the lack of a good baseline data for the level of mercury before the plants were in operation.

    You have to look at the concentrations of mercury in the overburden and ore in the mines, the size of the mines, the size of the tailings ponds (huge), the amount of mercury in the ponds, and the amount of mercury flushed out of the ground by creeks and streams. As I already posted, the natural process of dumping (trace amounts of) mercury into the river has been going on since the river and the oil sands have been there. Apparently pulp and paper mills and other industrial operations also contribute.

    When you get done sorting through all that, make your best case. FWIW, I'm going to wait until more testing of the river sediments and fish samples is complete before I start pointing fingers.
  183. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Ryan J,

    You said you were looking for a fight but I suspect you are in bed now. The jist of the posts are polite because the exchange of practical solutions shows that its in everyone's best interest to find solutions that are practical in reducing pollutants without shutting down the oil and gas industry.

    Its only when the views get extreme that people feel threatened and start hurling insults. Like so many issues there is a middle ground that is the most constructive way to solve these problems.
  184. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: FWIW, I'm going to wait until more testing of the river sediments and fish samples is complete before I start pointing fingers.

    And that is the point Woody, you or anyone else doesn't know definitively.

    So when you earlier suggested:'A lot of extreme claims can be easily dismissed', which I took to mean was in response to my query about 'how do you account for the anecdotal evidence of aboriginal elders in Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan who suggest water/fish quality [tested with high levels of mercury] has changed noticeably in their lifetimes?', I found it quite surprising given that you are an engineer practising in this area. Even might I say a bit arrogant, or maybe defensive, given your past work experience there.
  185. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao, the Dead Sea is dead because of the salt concentration in it. This happens because it's at a low spot and cannot drain. The salt has accumulated over time. If you wanted to, you could remove the salt from the water. This wouldn't change the long term status of the sea and would be a great waste of effort and money. The oil sand plant tailings ponds are also pretty much 'dead' as you point out. Not my field, but I'm confident that very little if anything grows in them. However, they're not meant to be there forever. The water can be cleaned (a large but finite task, unlike the Dead Sea situation), and the dike material will go back into the ground (I'll sidestep the difference between old and new processes). These things can be cleaned up. Unlike Mr. Krueger, I don't have current cost data. However I have seen how dirt can be moved around on a large scale. We're going to be left with end-ponds at grade level - not elevated ponds with dikes. The end ponds are problematic for growing things, at least in the short term. If you want to worry about something, worry about the end ponds. Most of what's going on is taking very large piles of dirt and moving them around, until most of it is back in the ground where it came from. Based on my knowledge of the situation, that's what you have to work with if you're looking for a smoking gun.
  186. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: If there is to be a carbon tax on Alberta Syncrude it should be added onto the cost of a barrell and the importing province or state would pay the tax. It's not up to the people of Alberta to pay the carbon tax for Ontario or California autos that use Alberta oil. Pretty simple stuff.
  187. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: '... If the board stays open long enough, we might have time for a few more exchanges. Cheers! ' > Thank you, Woody, for your invitation for 'a few more exchanges'. I understand you are very busy, so I'll try not to exploit too much of your time. But I was looking for some infos about small sized (ca. 300 kW) hydrogen gas fired turbines and could not find them on Internet. I searched the Google, but got overwhelmed by the amount of irrelevant answers. From many thousands of those sources I checked just ca. 400, then got tired and gave up. If you know a manufacturer who makes similar turbines I would appreciate a short info about him/her.
    You may e-mail me at: stjsaw131127@yahoo.com
    and I will explain you, in return, some details of its applications. I think, YOU WILL be interested in it.
  188. Andy P from Vernon, BC, Canada writes: One of the better discussions recently.....kudos to the posters with something real and substantive to say and Kudos to the G & M for the whole series of articles...great stuff...My head hurts but I think I know more than I did and hour ago.
  189. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao, I solve problems for a living and have to consider public safety in everything I do. If the people of Fort Chip believe they have health problems due recent changes in their world, then that is serious and has to be handled carefully.

    These boards are for exchanging ideas. Unfortunately some of the ideas are a little 'out there' and based on misunderstandings or lack of knowledge. When I can, I like to shed a little light on things where it might do some good.

    We both know the mercury and health issues are still in play. The health problems could easily be real, and the mercury issue false. Then we'd have to look for other causes for the problems. That's all I've got on this one.

    By all means keep digging. You may eventually find something (a sincere comment).
  190. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Jean, did you just finish using the planimeter to measure your shadow as I suggested earlier? I forgot to tell you not to do it in the dark - guess that's why you waited for sunrise. 'Any water highly concentrated with HCl in contact with a thin membrane separating it from a least concentrated fluids will be bound by osmosis to dilute the highly concentrated fluid, hence the problem!' Simple answers from a simple mind. 'Recent scientific research however, discovered 11 types of bacteria in the water... In the southern sector, mushroom-like hills from a mixture of minerals and sand ... The salinity of the Dead Sea in the upper water layer is about ten times that of the Mediterranean Sea - about 30%. The water in the Dead Sea is therefore heavier, which is why people swimming in the Dead Sea float; they can even read a paper while lying on their back in the water. This weight of the water mineral-laden is even more concentrated in the lower water layers on the floor of the Dead Sea,... The dry climate, led to rapid evaporation, leaving the salt and minerals in the lake ... The Dead Sea receive additional mineral supply from salt and b>sulphur springs on its shores.... People suffering from Psoriasis have found the Dead Sea atmosphere and swimming in the sea very helpful.... Smearing mineral rich Dead Sea mud on the body, provides a healing process for the skin, and broadens the capillary veins.' Go back to the shadows, Jean.
  191. bob london from Canada writes: Jean Malice: Since you seem to be the brain today or at least had enough coffee to wake up, why was the record amount of CO2 in the atmosphere just prior to the last ice age? Based on Al Gore's thoughts (hahaha) it would have caused the world to bake not freeze? What is the chance this whole CO2 thing is half baked because not too long ago (1975-86) our brilliant scientists were threatining an ice age.

    What changed other than 'environmentalists' marketing strategies for fundraising?
  192. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Over the decades quie a few companies have invested small fortunes in technology to remove precious metals from the oil sands. If the mineral bases could be removed, it is said, the value would exceed that of the oil itself. One company actually got a plant up and running just outside Suncor's original gate. It is today the building in which one of the mine equipment companies assembles and repairs their equipment. The plant never worked.

    Point is there is enough of various kinds of industrial metal of a variety of types in there to maybe make an industry one day. But it is so non-reactive that nobody has been able to access it. I have not heard about mercury - though perhaps it is one of the metals. In any event the notion of traces of this kind of substnce being found does not mean it is the fault of Industry. Whether it is dangerous or not depends on its form and whether it is being disturbed. Again though, I have enough knowledge of the issue at this point to say this is another tempest in a teapot.
  193. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Here is a highlight of the latest RealClimate post: '(...) At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking -(...) We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises 'input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics'. Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors (...)' LOL, Of course this is no climate science but pure politics. Sadly RC conveniently forgets to mention this one: ''*An advocacy group founded by former Vice President Al Gore plans to launch a $100 million advertising campaign next month aimed at pushing government and business to take action against climate change. An Alliance for Climate Protection spokesman said the ads are being produced by the Martin Agency of Richmond, Va., known for creating GEICO insurance television ads starring a talking lizard and Neanderthal cavemen.' $100 million for ONE campaign!!! This truly is the pot calling the kettle black...
  194. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: My Mistake I of course meant NaCL, NOT HCL...
    But Rocky Zhao doesn't even know that Halite is a mineral... Hilarious! But if Dea Sea and trailing ponds are 'kinda of the same' as Rocky suggested, we got a tourist industry to boot in Alberta!!!
    And yes Rocky, heavy minerals tend not to float... woaw rocky balboa discovers gravity!
  195. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: My Mistake I of course meant NaCL, NOT HCL...

    I had noticed the error, but I just took it to be part of your acidic writing style.

    Yes, halite is a mineral, but not the only mineral - hence the reason why the quoted section reads 'salt and minerals'.

    Jean, here's a tip - next time you buy mineral water and it tastes salty - it's a good sign you've once again been duped.
  196. Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: The quoted comment below is from a US reader to the recent G&M article: “The kinder, gentler energy superpower” by David Ebner and Barrie McKenna I think it is worth reading in the context of the debate above. 'Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: To The Bubble and Tony Conner: My concern about the oil industry in Alberta is that the same companies that have raped the environment, poisoned ground water, and caused plenty of human misery down here are involved with the extraction of oil in Alberta. As I mentioned in my comment to the part I article of this series, I spent most of my life cleaning up lakes, rivers, and streams in a five state area. As a result of my exposure to industrial chemicals in the water, I have multiple chemical sensitivity and will suffer from this disability for the rest of my life. I worry that the people of Alberta will be exposed to health problems similar to those that the big boys from the oil fields in Texas created in the United States. I urge the people of Alberta to take periodic water and soil samples and get independent labs to provide test results. If necessary, send the samples to another country. You do not want to have immune system disorders that relate to being poisoned with toxic chemicals. Trust me. You don't! If my comments are 'infecting' the debate up there, so be it. I truly wish all Canadians well. I like Canada. I have many Canadian friends and am very interested in what is going on up there. I learn a lot from the G&M articles and from the thoughtful comments that are posed in this forum. If I am incorrect with an observation that I make, please feel free to correct me. The main reason I visit this forum is to learn from all of you.' Amen! Have a good day folks.
  197. freelix the cat from Canada writes: surface area of planet earth = 197,000,000 sq. mi
    surface area 0f alberta = 255,000 sq. mi.

    someone is saying it's cold in alberta therefore entire planet is cold.
    oil companies etc. spending $16b over 20 yrs to implement capture of CO2.
    maybe they're doing this just because it gives them something to do.
  198. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes:'In case this gets changed in the upload, it's .../oil[underscore]sands[underscore]story/...'

    The G&M site uses underscores to tag for italics font, and asterixes for bold.

    You can go to tinyurl.com and for free convert URLs into shorter ones that use only standard letters and numbers.
  199. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: '... I understand you are very busy, so I'll try not to exploit too much of your time. But I was looking for some infos about small sized (ca. 300 kW) hydrogen gas fired turbines and could not find them on Internet.'

    Concerned Observer - Yes, today is a busy day. A few chores to be done then about 4 hours of football to watch!

    I have not done any work with hydrogen powered gas turbines. I was able to find a link (see below) that covered some of the pollution concerns. I see that you don't have to worry about CO2, but nitric oxides are a problem. The nigtrogen in the air used to make the combustion mixture will convert to NO during combustion (not a good thing for the ozone layer). There may be ways around this, but it doesn't look like we have found the silver bullet yet.

    http://www.engr.psu.edu/newsevents/EPS/v23n2_2007spring/green.html

    Sorry to decline, but I cannot exchange emails with you. I hope you can see why.

    Good luck with your research on hydrogen powered turbines. I'm sure we'll 'meet' again.
  200. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: I have to go to work (bo ho) so will not be back on this blog before it closes on this subject. As a parting point, Iobserve that this is the new form of news. Rather than reading and cursing, we get to have questions answered while they are still knawing at us. This is democracy in the media at last. The old line publishers are working overtime to take advantage of it before they get swamped by resisting the change. We will re-vitalize reading and discerning skills that teachers unsuccessfully tried to get us to learn in high school (ie what is slanted, what is informative, what we ought to do with knowledge). Our preferred sources will not be chosen by news paper editors but by our readership. It is a seriously good thing and I sure hope we learn fast how to use it, how to respect it and how to reward companies like the Globe who do a good job of making it available. In a year or so the 'poles' will be live and in real time - we will be able to tell manufacturers and publishers, the legal profession and our public services what we really think - but only if we show respect and composure in the manner of use. If this valuable opportunity is drowned in nonsense it will be a much longer time before it becomes the tool of democracy that it can be. The truth is one of our most prized posessions. It has to be worked on, fought for, protected, respected, prized, sought out and elevated to esteem. There is no place, even a 'fun' blog like this one, where untruth of any kind is fair game. My grandmother used to say, 'Rudy there are a lot of things said that come real close to the truth but they still aren't the truth and that's the hard part of learning.'
  201. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada

    You seem to know the hyml or blogger code on this site. How is it sometimes paragraphs work, and at other times they don't?
  202. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes:'I have not done any work with hydrogen powered gas turbines... The nitrogen in the air used to make the combustion mixture will convert to NO during combustion...'

    Hydrogen production from H2O also produces oxygen as a byproduct. Burning the hydrogen with the oxygen would eliminate NOx byproducts.
  203. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: How is it sometimes paragraphs work, and at other times they don't?'

    I can only surmise, but in my experience if I keep my posts under 1000 characters my paragraphs survive. I have seen posts longer than that with successful paragraphing, but I don't know how that works. In addition only 'standard' 7-bit ASCII characters work, and not even all of those (plus signs, for example, just don't appear).

    No accented characters (for french, german, spanish, etc) will normally appear correctly unless you exceed the 1000 characters and thus lose your paragraphs. Asterixes will tag bold font, but can be used only for one block in any post, while the underscores for italics font can be used repeatedly.
  204. Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes: CO2 can be usefully diverted to 'greenhouse agriculture' where 5% CO2 promotes rapid plant growth. CO2 can be cooled and disolved in sea water where it forms an inert stable slush(below 34 F) carbonic hydrate, heavy enough to fall to the sea bottom. CO2 can be injected under pressure into uneconomic coal or depleted oil measures, where it is absorbed. The natural cycle for most CO2 is through sea water absorption, which is then used by the Plankton group. 'Coccoliths', to form CHALK exoskeletons.....(the calcium being extracted from the sea's calcium chloride) The vast limestone measures of Niagara or the Rockies are made up of about 98% cocolith chalk and 2% corals and sea shells. A stark reminder of the high atmospheric CO2 levels in the 'Carboniferous Era' and how nature reacted laying down coal, shale, oil and limestones. Tax or regulate the tar sands oil companies too heavily and they will VOTE WITH THEIR FEET and move to the World's OTHER GREAT TAR SANDS AREAS. The USA has it's own ,down Arizona/Colorado way at Dirty Devil River and so has Russia. Trinidad and Venezuela have vast and as yet , unmeasured heavy oil/tar deposits. Alberta regulated the initial development by Great Canadian Oil Sands almost to death, in the early 60's ,and thus denied the citizens of that Province(and CANADA too) the bonanza that would have developed in the 'First Opec Crisis' had the oilsands been allowed to develop to their economic level, with-out the deliberate political interference and hindrance from Edmonton!
  205. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Keeping my posts under 1000 characters is one reason I limit my quotations of other people's posts, and also why I often write several shorter posts in responses to longer posts.

    For clarity, I use 'double quotes' for other people's stuff, and 'single quotes' for stuff quoted from outside the forum. If I have to modify a shortened quote I'll use [square brackets] to indicate something I've had to insert to make the context clear, but I try hard to preserve the original intent of the post being thus misquoted. I generally reserve italics for foreign words or phrases (typically latin) and either all UPPER CASE or bold for emphasis. All these are pretty standard and widely accepted literary tools.
  206. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Oh, yes, and I use an ellipsis (...) of exactly three periods to indicate that I've left text out of a quote.
  207. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alastair James Barry raises another use of CO2 which is beneficial and that is to promote plant growth. I was listening to a gardening show and they suggested CO2 release in a green house promotes fabulous plant growth. Not hard to believe given that CO2 is to a plant like oxygen is to us. I guess the problems is getting the CO2 to the plants without releasing to the atmosphere. Hopefully some improvements can be made using CO2 in green houses and hot house operations.
  208. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall

    Thx.
  209. freelix the cat from Canada writes: alastair james berry - further to your informative post, the trinidad oil sands, as you are no doubt aware, is being exploited in the main, for asphalt. fortunately for alberta the other areas you mention are dwarfed by the alberta tar sands.
    there is currently an overabundance of CO2, and this is the problem that
    needs solving.
    as for the taxes on the extractors this could easily be solved by waiting, but it really isn't an option so i have to agree with you.
    too many of us have 'easy' solutions that are really a balm to their constituents.
  210. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Uncle Glynn and Jean Malice: Why do you two leave in a huff after Bobby Dy engages you and then slink back once he's gone?
  211. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: Why is it that man is such a suicidal animal? What happens if there is a catastrophic failure of this CO2 sequestering technology and billions of tonnes explode into the atmosphere? Why do we always try to solve problems with technologies that in the end only cause us more problems? These are progress traps, and we're yet again walking right into them like a bunch of idiots. If there wasn't money to be made in the tar sands, this wouldn't be a problem at all. So it is our greed that will be our undoing. Instead of investing in clean energy (where or where is Tesla now?) we just search for ways to make it possible to stay at the trough. That's great. I'm sure with all those millions and billions of dollars, you'll be able to buy yourself your own cloud in heaven. WE ARE DOOMED, end of story.
  212. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: 'Uncle Glynn and Jean Malice: Why do you two leave in a huff after Bobby Dy engages you...'

    I hadn't noticed any such response.

    I can't be at the computer 24/7, though, and probably Jean can't either. I suspect you've fallen on a coincidence and made o'ermuch of it.
  213. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Canadian Patriot from United States writes: 'What happens if there is a catastrophic failure of this CO2 sequestering technology and billions of tonnes explode into the atmosphere?'

    Not much. Whay, you expect some disaster other than immediate impact damage from the explosion?

    The continually rising GHG levels don't seem to be doing the expected job of increasing global temperatures, so it's becoming more and more obvious that they do NOT dominate temperautre changes.

    We've had six years now of no warming:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  214. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gary, I just searched back to see what Dy had had to say, and nearly all of it was irrelevant.

    I pointed out the failings in his post but he never bothered to continue the conversation.
  215. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan Pater - Could you please explain to me how one could possibly encourage the worldwide reduction in the production of fossil fuels...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Excellent question, Martha; and to the right point. But you looked into the wrong place for response. You should ask this question any 3-rd year student of economy and he/she would give you the right answer on the spot: 'ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN, CHEAP AND STRONG COMPETITION AND WATCH THE FOSSIL FUEL HEGEMONY TURNING INTO HISTORY.' SIMPLE (???)
  216. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Canadian patriot.

    Carbon sequestration isn't like filling an underground balloon that could explode. The CO2 is injected into Rock formations that remain trapped in the areas between the rocks. At worst you may have some leakage but then the CO2 is justing going into the atmosphere today anyway. I can assure you this has been going on in oil fields for decades to promote better oil recovery and the CO2 underground has not been an issue. This is a viable technology.

    The biggest challenge is infrastructure costs and who will foot the bill. This is why I am dismayed by the lack of support for these initiatives by environmental groups. Their silence is deafening and leaves the impression that there is a big problem with the technology when there is not.

    Their lack of support stems from their preference to shut down development all together which is unfortunate because their is tremendous demand for oil sands production and this technology may help us to deal with both the demand for oil while reducing CO2 emissions
  217. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor, stop your distortions.

    From the Hadley CRU at:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    'The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2007. The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.'

    The CO2 concentrations continue unabated. As does global warming, especially in the northern hemisphere, on land. Details are on my website, with more links.
  218. freelix the cat from Canada writes: glynnhmor of skywall - just caught my eye. 'we've had 6 years now of no warming.'
    there's a bit of good news! a lot of the media seem to be going in the other direction. 'global warming' - it's just made up.
  219. Doug Lavers from Melbourne, Australia writes: 'Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes: CO2 can be usefully diverted to 'greenhouse agriculture' where 5% CO2 promotes rapid plant growth. CO2 can be cooled and disolved in sea water where it forms an inert stable slush(below 34 F) carbonic hydrate, heavy enough to fall to the sea bottom.'

    There is no such thing as a C02 carbonic hydrate slush. What does form is a methane [CH4] hydrate - completely different chemical - big problem for some undersea natural gas pipelines.
  220. freelix the cat from Canada writes: glynnhmor of skywall - did you see the posting by alan burke?
    he doesn't think you're telling the truth.
    oh, my! what is one to believe? they are spending all that money in california, europe - all over the place. billions and billions of dollars.

    i have faith in you glynnhmor - slay those dragons of doubt. i'll cheer you on. go get 'em glynnhmor!
  221. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: How significant can CO2 sequestration be?

    In other words, what percentage of current annual worldwide CO2 emissions could be permanently sequestered?
  222. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan P. Beurk of climateonanist.com even Chaude durit the IPCC chair acknowledge the pause... You should not try to be more royalist than the King... LOL
  223. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: You should ask this question any 3-rd year student of economy and he/she would give you the right answer on the spot: 'ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN, CHEAP AND STRONG COMPETITION AND WATCH THE FOSSIL FUEL HEGEMONY TURNING INTO HISTORY.' SIMPLE (???)

    Is this breakthrough concept from a 'Dilbert' cartoon? Do these students of economics have any specific technologies in mind? Or is it - 'Here's our flawless & beautiful concept, you technical guys figure out the details.'
  224. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Pater,

    I am not a petroluem engineer but in theory if all these hydrocarbons coming out of the ground are causing the CO2 problem. One would thing the amount of CO2 that could be injected into the ground is in the same proportion as came out. I would be interested in hearing more learned posters perspective on that as it is a good question.
  225. freelix the cat from Canada writes: glynnhmor - the lion sends a kitten with one tooth to do his job - that's no way to slay a dragon!
  226. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: A quick look at the topic of sequestration on wikipedia says that a power plant using that technology would burn 10-40% more fossil fuel, and that 80-90% of the resulting CO2 could be stored. A very small percentage would then leak into the atmosphere.

    So best case scenario is that 11% of the CO2 lands up in the atmosphere. Worst case is that 28% of the CO2 is emitted. Best to medium cases should be sustainable, as long as fossil fuel production does not increase. (Funny that increased production is always listed as one of the benefits of sequestration, reducing the viability of the system.)

    That is just for power plants and other large industrial emissions. For all the oil we waste driving around in cars and heating buildings, there is no viable sequestration technology. The solution there remains efficiency, it seems. Replace the cars and airplanes with trains. Replace the car-centered suburbs with walkable communities. Implement building codes that require zero net energy houses.
  227. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Pater

    Good post. You are correct, the CO2 sequestration deals with the CO2 produced with the production of oil and gas but the broader issue of burning fossil fuel still continues to be a challenge. I agree with and practice conservation but that is a bigger challenge for people in a vast country that has a cold weather climate.
  228. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: We have got to quit burning things to produce energy. Whether the byproducts are air pollution, global warming, loss of arable land, water waste or nuclear waste -- one thing is obvious: burning stuff is over.
  229. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: freelix the cat from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of skywall - did you see the posting by Alan Burke?'

    Yes, and though he admits that 2007 '... was the eighth warmest on record...' (clearly it had to have been cooler than seven previous years) he still says he thinks that the globe is warming. As I've said before, evidence that the globe was warming from 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 does not constitute evidence that it is warming now. Nor does it constitute evidence about the causes.

    And he claims that I'm distorting things!
  230. Jim Bo from Canada writes: glynnhmor - you keep sending these amature photo's of peoples backyard weather stations to counter a very complex phenomena. No wonder people call you a toothless kitten.
  231. Robert MacDonald from Canada writes: There's no such thing as global warming, the sun revolves around the earth and the world is flat, right GlynnMhor? haha
  232. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Jum, Robert, have you looked at the global temperatures lately? While warming is evident up to 2000 or 2001, it's no longer happening today.

    Given that we have had continually increasing GHG concentrations all this time, the absence of warming brings serious doubt on the idea that GHGs are the dominant factor in global warming.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  233. Robert MacDonald from Canada writes: You can distort any fact with other facts, its quite simple actually. You can argue 2 2=5 if you want, and I'm sure you could put together some pretty convincing paragraphs. When it comes to global warming, we have a huge planet, with a billion different ways to look at statistics, however the fact of the matter is the majority of people agree something needs to be done, and the majority rules.
  234. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert MacDonald from Canada writes: 'You can distort any fact with other facts... the majority of people agree something needs to be done...'

    So? That has nothing to do with the issue of whether the globe is warming, or the issue of what causes it.

    Obviously enough facts have been distorted, as you say, to convince large numbers of people, but in science, it is said, 'lies have short legs; they don't run far'.

    The AGW lies are running out of legs at present, and it will take some time before the political process catches up.
  235. Jim Bo from Canada writes: glynnhmor - you keep telling us its getting colder but everybody else keeps reporting warmer temperatures and even more important they keep reporting all sorts of impacts that result from the warming. IPCC has a good discussion about this. Coral bleaching, melting sea ice, vanishing glaciers. Your amature approach ignores this. You never talk about total radiative forcing and what could result from changes we are making to atmospheric composition.

    Tommorrow you will be posting all afresh, telling somebody else there is no AWG. Toothless kitten. I love it.
  236. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Robert McDonald,

    The majority may have agreed something must be done but the majority have also voted with their inaction that the something to be done better be by someone else. I wonder what that means for these initiatives when it comes to a vote. My guess is that everyone will walk away from this as a top priority as soon as they realize it means sacrifice. How many environmental groups are trying to put this on businesses to solve and governments to solve not realizing that the problem is us and we will need to consume less. Watch to see how the priorities change when personal sacrifice is involved.
  237. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall writes: 'it will take some time before the political process catches up.'

    Many believe the political day of reckoning for the naysayers will come this November, and become official when the new President is sworn-in, late Jan 2009.

    Will you be voting in any primaries?
  238. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Robert MacDonald from Canada writes: '...however the fact of the matter is the majority of people agree something needs to be done, and the majority rules.'

    But the 'majority' isn't actually DOING anything, is it? How many people who SAY they believe in man-made global warming have done ANYTHING to change their lifestyles? I'd bet not one in a hundred, or even a thousand. Hypocrisy is very much alive and well in the man-made global warming camp.
  239. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Jim Bo from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor - you keep telling us its getting colder but everybody else keeps reporting warmer temperatures...'

    Did you look at the temperatures? I have the impression you didn't bother. They're just not rising, and haven't been for the past six full years. That's way too long to be a temporary oscillation effect or other anomaly.

    'Coral bleaching, melting sea ice, vanishing glaciers. Your amateur approach ignores this.'

    These may well be evidence of the effects of the past warming, but do not say anything one way or another either about current conditions of no warming, nor about the causes for either the recent warming of 1970-2000, nor the prior warming from 1910-1940.
  240. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: Many believe the political day of reckoning for the naysayers will come this November, and become official when the new President...'

    The new president down there isn't likely to sign the US up for Kyoto any more than the current one or the previous one did.

    'Will you be voting in any primaries?'

    Of course not.

    I will probably be voting for Ron Stevens again in the expected upcoming election, though. That's assuming he runs again, of course.
  241. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: You should ask this question any 3-rd year student of economy and he/she would give you the right answer on the spot: 'ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN, CHEAP AND STRONG COMPETITION AND WATCH THE FOSSIL FUEL HEGEMONY TURNING INTO HISTORY.' SIMPLE (???) Is this breakthrough concept from a 'Dilbert' cartoon? Do these students of economics have any specific technologies in mind? Or is it - 'Here's our flawless & beautiful concept, you technical guys figure out the details.' <<<***>>> You guessed it in the option 3, Tony. Almost 100% correctly . If you'd replace the word 'concept' in the 3-rd option by the word 'challenge' it will become 100% correct: 'Here's our flawless & beautiful CHALLENGE, you technical guys figure out the details.' <<*>> Such a challenge issued by President J.F. Kennedy, in response to the launch of the Russian satellite 'Sputnik' , has resulted in project 'MERCURY' and in putting a man on the Moon. It has confirmed, that the competition, combined with both political will and team-work of willing 'technical guys' can sometimes attain the 'unattainable'. <<*>> I didn't expect 3-rd year students of economy to have 'some specific technologies in mind', that's why I have formulated their hypothetical answer just in general terms. The rest is up-to us. <<*>> P.S. I am a technical guy, too. Cheers. have learned that in their schools. I don't know
  242. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Jim Bo from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor You never talk about total radiative forcing and what could result from changes we are making to atmospheric composition.'

    The IPCC modelling includes all known forcings. Bring up this link from the IPCC site, and go to page 684, figure 9.5:
    http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb

    Also bring up this one:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    The 1910-1940 warming clearly visible on the HadCRUT3 temperature observations ran from about minus 0.51 to plus 0.01 (about 0.50 degrees) over thirty years. The 58-fold stacked model output shows minus 0.15 to plus 0.30 (about 0.45 degrees) over fifty years. The slope is way wrong (.017 vs .009 degrees per year) and so is the turn-over date from warming to cooling.

    The IPCC models just don't replicate the known observations prior to 1960 and after 2001, and are thus not reliable enough either to predict the future or to justify the conclusion that AGHGs dominate temperature change.
  243. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: You live anywhere near the Glencoe Club? Wasn't that where the idea for the Friends of Science was hatched?

    I also wonder if Jean Malice attended any of the meetings.
  244. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: As Tony Conner says, the majority of people, who we are led to believe are good AGW believers, are showing no sign of doing anything at all. I haven't seen any statistics that would indicate any change of energy-consumption habits whatsoever. These same people will not hesitate to blame the government for not fighting global warming and then turn round and buy a bigger house or an SUV! As long as people can afford extravagant consumption they will consume regardless of the consequences.
  245. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Squawk, GlynnMhor wanna cracker? Pieces of eight! Blow the man down! Squawk.
  246. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: Sorry, Tony Conner from Edmonton. The two last phrases : 'have learned that in their schools.' and 'I don't know' are the draft leftovers, which I forgot to delete. I was tired after sitting most of the day at the computer. I do apologize for that mess.
  247. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Alan Burke

    Good one. I had a chuckle.
  248. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: But don't stop at GlynnMhor's favourite fig. 9.5 - read on:

    '9.4.1.3 Variability of Temperature from Observations and Models

    Year-to-year variability of global mean temperatures simulated by the most recent models compares reasonably well with that of observations, as can be seen by comparing observed and modelled variations in Figure 9.5a. A more quantitative evaluation of modelled variability can be carried out by comparing the power spectra of observed and modelled global mean temperatures. Figure 9.7 compares the power spectrum of observations with the power spectra of transient simulations of the instrumental period. This avoids the need to compare variability estimated from long control runs of models with observed variability, which is difficult because observations are likely to contain a response to external forcings that cannot be reliably removed by subtracting a simple linear trend. The simulations considered contain both anthropogenic and natural forcings, and include most 20th Century Climate in Coupled Models (20C3M) simulations in the MMD at PCMDI. Figure 9.7 shows that the models have variance at global scales that is consistent with the observed variance at the 5% significance level on the decadal to inter-decadal time scales important for detection and attribution. Figure 9.8 shows that this is also generally the case at continental scales, although model uncertainty is larger at smaller scales (Section 9.4.2.2).    '
  249. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I am sure GlynnMhor doesn't think he needs defending but I respect his willingness to stand against the popular theory of global warming. Scientific history is riddled with popular opinion that ended up being wrong. To stand up against popular opinion takes tremendous courage and conviction. I admire GlynnMhor for doing that. For those who are feeling self righteous about global warming, lets not forget that Global Warming (sorry climate change) is a theory. I think presuming it is a fact is overly simplistic and egotistical. It suggests that science is all knowing at this point but I think its fair to say they the scientists are still learning it as they go. New information will raise new theories. Don't believe everything you read.

    In preparation for the upcoming criticism of my view, I believe in conservation of a limited resource. In that regards my actions align with whatever theory you espouse. Good luck GlynnMhor.
  250. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:

    'As many will know, the Dead Sea is below sea level, so over many millions of years, the minerals in the watershed have been carried into the lake where they remain. Through evaporation the concentration of the chemicals and minerals in the water is completely saturated, with the specific gravity of the water being well above zero.'

    I hope the specific gravity is above zero! If not, it would be weightless! How is it that a person with your level of scientific education doesn't know that the specific gravity of fresh water is one, not zero? PhD?
  251. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Farm Boy from Big City, Canada

    Yeah, I caught that one myself earlier, but figured let a sleeping dog lie. Same with Jean's HCl/NaCl error. Good find. :)
  252. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Farm Boy from Big City:

    To quote a recent post' 'Good one. I had a chuckle.'
  253. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Hendrick Larose, Einstein's 'Special Relativity' is also a theory. I might agree with you about GlynnMhor's courage and conviction being justifiable but for the fact that he continually spouts the same few sources taken out of context. I have routinely pointed to other studies and raw data analysis which he refuses to acknowledge, preferring, apparently, to off overly simplistic sound bites in an attempt to discredit the theories (not the plural) about climate change.

    Unfortunately, he also brings a very biased background as baggage; he's a 'semi-retired' oil-and-gas industry seismic analyst (possibly a geologist - but we don't know because he won't tell us). Because he hasn't the courage to show his true identity, unlike me, you should question his credibility.
  254. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Apparently, the Dead Sea has receded quite a bit from the beach area that I visited over twenty years ago - so technically, in that dry area, the s.g. of the Dead Sea did indeed become zero.
  255. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Sorry about the typos: 'off overly' -> 'offer overly' and 'not the plural' -> 'note the plural'.
  256. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Burke,

    I t could be your right. It could be GlynnMhor is right and its possible you are both wrong. The point was that I think people who stand up for a different viewpoint are an important part of our freedom. The way people belittle GlynnMhor is a bit uncomfortable since none of the scientific community knows for sure.

    By the way so what if he is an ex Oil Company exec. Are you suggesting that this is a problem or are you one of those conspiracy theorists who believe big oil is trying to cover up something. Many of the Oil Companies are supporters of CO2 reduction initiatives and are developing green technologies.

    Given my choice to believe theories believed by the unibomber vs Bill Gates, I will take Bill Gates every time
  257. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'GlynnMhor... continually spouts the same few sources taken out of context.'

    The observed temperatures are the context for the whole matter, Alan. And the basis for the assertion that anthropogenic factors dominate temperature increases is the modelling, since simple correlation does not work. But as can be clearly seen the modelling doesn't perform up to scratch either.

    And long discussions about spectral transforms for the models won't make the modelled predictions match the observations, which is a basic necessity for testing models.
  258. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: GlynnMhor... also brings a very biased background as baggage; he's a 'semi-retired' oil-and-gas industry seismic analyst (possibly a geologist - but we don't know because he won't tell us).'

    And other than giving me experience in modelling and analysing them, how does that create a bias? I have no particular cui bono interest except having to live within our society and economy as much as anyone else.

    'Because he hasn't the courage to show his true identity, unlike me, you should question his credibility.'

    Credentialism is a dead end. In any case, taking up a principled but unpopular stand has resulted in threats to my person, so I feel much better if the less fastidious of the fanatics cannot find me easily.
  259. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary

    Good points. But, given the context of the G&M series, why do these blogs need to, it seems, always degenerate down into a debate over whether climate change is real or not? At some point, t's time to move on, or move elsewhere.

    If the points were limited to 'No, I won't support paying for a CCS system for ALberta because I believe CO2 does not contribute to climate change' then fine. But to start bringing out the old 'hockey stick' and rehash old tired arguments on AGW, here, in this blog, does, in my mind anyway, open the person to ridicule.

    From my perspective, if you want to argue these points, go to a Terrence Corcoran blog - seems like a more suitable place.
  260. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: One last comment before the close: Most effort and energy is directed to the SUPPLY side of the problem which is well known and understood: little effort is given to the DEMAND side. If it was given the same weight we might see great improvement.
  261. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'... a debate over whether climate change is real or not?'

    No, Rocky, the debate is over whether human factors dominate the observed changes.

    True, Alan frets about trivial differences between different datasets, collated with slightly different methodologies. They all show the same overall trends, though.

    The question of how signifigant is the current absence of warming relates to whether AGHGs are the major cause. If so, then the current slippage in the 1970-2000 trend will soon reverse itself, and we'll see a return to warming.

    If not, then that will be not just clear, but overwhelming, evidence that factors other than the continually-increasing GHGs are the dominant drivers of the recent temperature increases.
  262. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao,

    Given the depth of commitment to this by society (everyone should do something as long as it isn't me), I think we have to recognize that the lack of agreement on GW is a problem for finding solutions. If we could instead of fighting about which theory is right and by how much focus on the fact that conservation of a scarce resource is the right thing to do then we could get some action in the right direction by believers and non believers. Right now the arguments have polarized peoples actions based on how strongly they believe. In fact the strength of their belief is altered if they have to sacrifice. Lets all agree that we need to conserve, create impediments to waste and tax credits to conservation efforts and not worry so much about whether the theories are right or wrong.

    I think people are offended (I know I am) by scientists who claim they know exactly what is happening and what the cause is. They just haven't been right enough in the past to gain my complete trust.
  263. Edgar Allen Poe from Brooms Brook, Canada writes: Alan Burke/ Glynmhor and others

    http://tinyurl.com/yr8hzc

    What do you guys think about Steve MacIntyre?

    Google Y2Kyoto and the sound of settled science. It is far from settled.

    Just curious Alan, all those temp. recordings you trumpet, how accurate are the gathering methods? See Steve MacIntyre.
  264. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I think people are offended (I know I am) by scientists who claim they know exactly what is happening and what the cause is. They just haven't been right enough in the past to gain my complete trust.

    I look at it a bit differently. It seems to me that a great deal of the opposition to AGW does come from the geologists/geophysicists who happen to be retired/semi-retired and know intimately the potential for CCS / miscible flood in Alberta/Canada.

    I'd rather see their knowledge and expertise utilized to solve a problem and an opportunity - real or imagined, rather that arguing whether 2005 was indeed hotter than 2006.

    Call me naive - I'd prefer to call it pragmatic.
  265. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes:'I think people are offended (I know I am) by scientists who claim they know exactly what is happening...'

    I'm personally offended by being outright lied to.
  266. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'I'd rather see their knowledge and expertise utilized to solve a problem and an opportunity - real or imagined...'

    That's just it; if both problem and opportunity are imagined, then there's no good reason to waste scarce resources on them.

    CO2 injection has its limits, and whether the increased extraction justifies the cost of doing it depends on the value of the extra oil. If or when the supply-demand relationship drives up the price of oil then it will make sense to spend the money to capture CO2 from somewhere and move it to the reservoirs without wasting taxpayers' money.

    And if the AGW crisis is also imaginary, then there is zero gain whatsoever from the sequestration side of the process.
  267. Quijote ex Ontario from Marbella, Spain writes: Global warming is a myth, and even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. The only thing that is important is to get away from dependence on islamic oil.
  268. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes:That's just it; if both problem and opportunity are imagined, then there's no good reason to waste scarce resources on them.

    Yeah, I'm not sure the resources are so scare. Like your skepticism of scientists, I am equally skeptical of CAPP, provincial politicians, and O&G p.r. depts. who make such claims (and it's not simply intuition).
  269. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'I'm not sure the resources are so scarce.'

    Well, in Alberta we're hard pressed to find enough workers to construct the current infrastructure, much less find more to build the vaguely proposed sequestration projects.
  270. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Dick Garneau from Canada writes: If it was given the same weight we might see great improvement.'

    There are a relatively few and large 'supplies' emitting the majority compared to the tens of millions of small 'end uses'. And you have to start at the beginning..
  271. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao,

    There is strong evidence of scare resources. The oil companies are seeing huge overspends on projects because of labour shortages and scarce qualified resources. With your skepticism of oil companies, surely you would agree they would not spend more on these projects just for the fun of it
  272. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor

    Lame.
  273. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor

    Lame.'

    I must say that post was not your best work.
  274. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao,

    There is strong evidence of scare resources. The oil companies are seeing huge overspends on projects because of labour shortages and scarce qualified resources. With your skepticism of oil companies, surely you would agree they would not spend more on these projects just for the fun of it

    Hendrick, this is called inflation. It is a result of too many projects on the go at one time - overwhelming the capacity of the economy.

    Inflation on mega projects comes about in the O&G industry for a number of reasons - too much competition for labour, gouging, and incompetent people entering the work force (at all levels including engineers /contractors/apprentices etc.) The latter drives up project costs - especially if it is on a cost-plus basis.

    There are currently something like 55 oilsands projects in vaious stages of development, as well as proposals fo muliple ppelines to the US (Chicago/Texas) p/lines to the Westcoast, and the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska pipelines.

    If one wanted to proceed with a CCS pipeline, it could be done, even if it meant simply delaying projects currently planned.

    This is no excuse.
  275. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'If one wanted to proceed with a CCS pipeline, it could be done, even if it meant simply delaying projects currently planned.'

    Except that those projects are going to be profitable, and thus justify the expenditure of resources on them. The CCS one isn't, so it would mean a real sacrifice in terms of opportunity costs.
  276. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Well, if the US proceeds, as many expect it will (post Bush), in penalizing oil sands production due to its high CO2 footprint, then the CCS may in fact be very profitable in terms of opportunity costs.

    (btw not too many Congressman or Senators know what a hockey stick is shaped like - maybe time to give it up).

    Got to go...

    Cheers
  277. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'Well, if the US proceeds, as many expect it will (post Bush), in penalizing oil sands production...'

    That doesn't seem very likely, actually.

    While hordes of leftists blame Bush and his administration alone for everything they don't like about US policy, the reality is that the circumstances that produced those policies haven't changed.

    The US isn't going to shoot itself in the foot by suppressing reliable oil sources like Canada to favour ones like Venezuela.
  278. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall: The US isn't going to shoot itself in the foot by suppressing reliable oil sources like Canada to favour ones like Venezuela.

    Stick to reading the squiggly lines (if that is in fact your area of expertise).

    Ar $3-$4 /barrel (if the costs reported are accurate) the US is not going to jeopardize its secure supply of oil sands crude from Canada for Venezuelan supplies. You've been listening to b.s. from Pierre Alvarez or Greg Stringham from CAPP for too long. In the US, 'Security trumps trade'.

    Besides, the oil sands producers can eat these costs and still be highly profitable selling to US refineries. Don't be so easily fooled. You appear to be much smarter than this.
  279. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: What a disappointment. The carbon conundrum is not a challenge --- produce more efficiently to reduce CO2 adn energy intensity and consume less. The biggest impact is consuming less. This is not difficult to do. Just take a look at the simple changes that Interface Floor made and how they institutionalized their approach and values around zero emissions. In doing so, they have changed their market and made exceptional profits.

    Doing more with less is good business and good for the environment. Figuring out how to sequester carbon after it's been released is not a prudent scientific endeavour. Figuring our how to emit less or none is the target we should be pursuing.
  280. Brian Broda from Toronto, Canada writes: Another point, by pushing CCS, the oil industry is able to look like they are doing something. As a result, they can defer big costs on their normal business operations by spending some spare change on CCS research and the associated media publicity and marketing. When things get really bad from the perspective of recognizing that CO2 emissions are really in need of attention, they can solicit the govt for, and likely get, handouts even though they are enormously profitable.

    Just me being cynical... but history has a way of repeating itself and I have seen this kind of approach before.
  281. Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada writes: Carbon sequestration may well be an important tool to buy us time in the battle against climate change, but at the end of the day it misses the point, which is to shift away from fossil fuels. We need to get serious about cutting waste (why do we need porch lights left on in broad daylight, or 60 televisions powered up in an electronic store? what's so bad about walking 2 blocks to the grocery store?), improving energy efficiency, and improving our use of renewable energy. As the saying goes, the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.
  282. martha stewart from Canada writes: Concerned Observer writes: 'martha stewart writes: 'Alan Pater - Could you please explain to me how one could possibly encourage the worldwide reduction in the production of fossil fuels...'
    ........................

    'Excellent question, Martha; and to the right point. But you looked into the wrong place for response. You should ask this question any 3-rd year student of economy and he/she would give you the right answer on the spot: 'ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN, CHEAP AND STRONG COMPETITION AND WATCH THE FOSSIL FUEL HEGEMONY TURNING INTO HISTORY.' SIMPLE (???)'
    ..............

    Hmmm. Sounds nice in impossibly vague theory. What 'cheap and strong competition' exactly? Please be specific. But let's keep it simple and just talk about cars for the moment. Let's keep it real and look at the exploding global car population. Let's factor in all the new infrastructure costs. Now, what kind of fuel? Electricity perhaps? From where? Heaven? And all those batteries... Simple???
  283. martha stewart from Canada writes: Roger Gagne from Calgary writes: 'As the saying goes, the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.'

    Good one Roger. Never heard that before. But you must admit, we did not go back to sticks. We moved onward with better 'stones' (iron, bronze...). They made life better.
  284. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Glynmohr you may want to check the following paper written by David Henderson, former Head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD, published in World Economics, Vol. 8, number 4 in the Oct.Dec. 2007 issue, page 203-222.
    His comment is a warning to policy makers that the sceintific issue is far from being settled and thus the presumption of IPCC be balanced by a more inclusive and verifiable process than it is now. It's worth noticing that this aspect of verification is at the heart of McKitrick and McIntyre work -climateaudit.org-. For instance the demonstration of Lonnie Thompson's data that are not even showing the same results in two papers published the same year with no reviewer question about it, is a worthy reading.
  285. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: '...McKitrick and McIntyre work...'

    Code word for 'hockey stick' for all of you non Calgary based Friends of Science geologist/geophysicists.

    From a G&M expose 'Mr. Cool and Friends' August 12, 2006:

    Over the past four years, a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory insiders, anonymous donors and oil industry PR professionals has come together to manufacture public consent for Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto. Through a Calgary-based society ironically dubbed the Friends of Science, they have leveraged Tim Ball and a handful of other 'climate skeptics' onto podiums and editorial pages across the country...

    'We started out without a nickel, mostly retired geologists, geophysicists and retired businessmen, all old fogeys,' says Albert Jacobs, a geologist and retired oil-explorations manager, proudly remembering the first meet ing of the Friends of Science Society in the curling lounge of Calgary's Glencoe Club back in 2002.'

    (note how GlynnMhor never answered my earlier query as to whether he lived close to the Glencoe Club)

    Looks like they moved off the editorial pages, onto the newspaper blogs.
  286. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Exactly, Martha Stewart:

    Better stones!

    And we got 'em right here in Atlantic Canada already... Nuclear Power, Hydroelectricity, Tidal Power, wind power...
  287. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'the efficiency of a typical existing power plant is around 38%'

    Better then your average internal combustion engine, but still not very good.

    Getting back to my previous notes. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldenergyresourcesandconsumption

    '
    industrial: 37%
    transportation:20%
    residential: 11%
    commercial: 5%

    The other 27% of the world's energy is lost in energy transmission and generation.'

    Of that, only the 37% used for industrial purposes are viable targets for sequestration. Assuming medium efficiency in sequestration technology, 80% of 37% = 30% of current CO2 may be able to be pumped under the ground.

    And we need, what? An 80% reduction? So the other 50% implies - no needs - a 50% reduction in fossil fuel production.

    That should not be a problem, for such bright, creative, modern, civilized people such as us. It looks very obvious that this can be achieved through efficiency gains.
  288. martha stewart from Canada writes: Robert Miller - I agree, to a point. If you've noticed in my many posts before, I'm a big fan of nuclear power, and tidal has plenty of potential in some sites (like your Bay of Fundy, assuming that doesn't diminish the delicious flavour of those Digby scallops). Wind power only helps when the wind blows, and solar power works best only on sunny days. As for hydro, makes sense depending on what needs to be flooded... but lots of potential run-of-the-river projects to be done with minimal impact (though try telling that to the enviros).

    But when you factor in all the infrastructure and conversion costs, and the mountains of toxic waste involved in the manufacture and disposal of batteries, no quite so sweet.

    None of these new stones is really all that simple and all have other costs (biofuels and ethanol being the worst methinks).

    And aren't you worried about those Franco-Aussi-Islamofascists on St. Pierre-Miquelon infiltrating that new NB nuke plant? Those b#stards!
  289. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: '... But let's keep it simple and just talk about cars for the moment. Let's keep it real and look at the exploding global car population. Let's factor in all the new infrastructure costs. Now, what kind of fuel? Electricity perhaps? From where? Heaven? And all those batteries... Simple???'

    martha, we need huge efficiency improvements. The age that includes wasting 80% of the energy we take out of the ground on automobiles is over. Tell me that spending time in traffic improves anyones quality of life. I've been there, done that. Time to move on.

    The automobile age was a glitch, a fad. It's over. Talk to your civic politicians about building walkable neighborhoods. (And don't tell me about our lovely Canadian climate. I grew up in Winnipeg, and walked 15 blocks to school every day as a kid. In January.)

    Cars and airplanes need to be replaced with trains. Have you ever taken the train across the country? It's wonderful! Ever been to a civilized place like Europe? via train? Very cool!
  290. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan Pater - Your numbers would make more sense if the vehicle population was not growing faster than the human population. There will be efficiencies gained primarily due to rising fuel prices but I'm thinking you are extremely optimistic. But why not be? Can't hurt.

    Interesting that 27% is lost in generation and transmission. Re the transmission part, would obviously be much better to keep the Burrard plant open instead of using electricity from the Mica dam north of Revelstoke. Why not lobby to get that up to state-of-the-art efficiency levels?

    I'd have much more optimism that 'such bright, creative, modern, civilized people such as us' could solve this if it was a Canadian problem... but it's not. Look west young man.

    Rocky Zhoa - Ah, the old conspiracy theory... evil Big Oil at work... vast resources, yet no sign of their work. When was the last time you saw an example of their devious propaganda printed in the G & M? .... Funny, it all seems to be just the opposite.
  291. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan Pater - I get your point but it makes much more sense in high density cities or places like Europe. Where we live its 25 km to the nearest town and we have absolutely no desire to get any closer to that traffic you mention. Been to Europe but didn't know one could get there by train;-)

    No doubt efficiencies all round could be improved, and will be improved because of higher oil costs. That's basic economics. And making electricity with natural gas is so stupid I can't believe they are doing that. Almost as stupid as ethanol.

    P.S. If Europe is 'civilised' I'm delighted to be a barbarian. Such lovely forests there. All the trees in straight lines...
  292. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Martha Stewart:

    The AFIFB (Aussi-Franco-Islamofascist ba$tards) of St. Pierre et Miquelon had better get any thought of getting their evil tentacles on our Nukes in the Province of the purple violet... I understand that NB is planning to double their number of reactors in the near future...

    One to deal with the AFIFB and the other to deal with those Albertans that call Atlantic Canadians, 'baby seal clubbers.'

    Ooopppss.... I mean that I am sure that these are solely for generating electricity...

    BTW ever been to Newfoundland or Cape Breton on a day when the wind wasn't blowing?

    Alan Peter from Vancouver:

    Geezzz, Mulroney just got rid of most of the trains and tracks in Atlantic Canada during his reign of terror. You mean that we actually should have been thinking beyond the present day back in the Lyin' Brian days...
  293. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, I've had the satisfaction of having seen one of your most malicious postings to date removed from this thread for having posted unsubstantiated, unjustified, libelous, obscene and offensive remarks made about me and another correspondent.

    I hope that this might turn around these discussions to the facts instead of the malicious ideas of someone who appears to be bent on personal destruction rather than the expression of objective, verifiable and justified opinion.

    No doubt you'll change your 'handle' now and do the same thing again and again, hiding behind the cowardice of your unsupportable rants. There's a line I won't let you cross over regardless of your current disguise. If you care to express real and objective opinions then I'll respect your right to do so. But on this forum, I hope that the editors will start to enforce some of their guidelines, posted below when you comment, to try to find solutions rather than just a soap box for flames.
  294. John Fedup from Canada writes: Carbon sequestration is just one solution. It may be coupled with future research to provide an even better solution. Scandia National Laboratories has demonstrated how sunlight together with a catylst can produce CO from CO2. The CO can be processed into a fuel. The same process may also work to produce hydrogen from water.

    Many companies in the biotecnology field are working to produce bio-fuels from CO2. A viable solution here could in fact be a sole source solution for CO2 recycling. Nuclear will be part of the solution also.

    Perhaps a prize of $10 billion tax free (plus a percentage for 20 years) for any organization that develops a viable CO2 recycling technology would induce some real action. Sadly, it may take 20 years to define what viable means.
  295. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: Part 1. Hello martha stewart. This is my response to the series of posts, triggered by your undoubtedly excellent question, ...', which you posted here on 02/02/08 at 7:24 PM : '... how one could possibly encourage the worldwide reduction in the production of fossil fuels<<*>> I understood, that you are interested in a 'big picture'of possible solution. So, I provided you, on 03/02/08 at 3:36 PM, with my general vision how to do it: .'ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN, CHEAP AND STRONG COMPETITION AND WATCH THE FOSSIL FUEL HEGEMONY TURNING INTO HISTORY.' <<*>> Later, on 03/02/08 at 4:51 PM, Tony Conner asked me three questions about the same vision: 'Is this breakthrough concept from a 'Dilbert' cartoon? Do these students of economics have any specific technologies in mind? Or is it - 'Here's our flawless & beautiful concept, you technical guys figure out the details.' <<*>> I have responded to these questions on 03/02/08 at 6:58 PM in the following way:<<*>> ' You guessed it in the option 3, Tony. Almost 100% correctly . If you'd replace the word 'concept' in that option by the word 'challenge' it would become 100% correct: 'Here's our flawless & beautiful CHALLENGE, you technical guys figure out the details.' <<*>> Such a challenge issued by President J.F. Kennedy, in response to the launch of the Russian satellite 'Sputnik' , has resulted in project 'MERCURY' and in putting a man on the Moon. It has confirmed, that the competition, combined with both political will and team-work of willing 'technical guys' can sometimes attain the 'unattainable'. <<*>> I didn't expect 3-rd year students of economy to have 'some specific technologies in mind', that's why I have formulated their hypothetical answer just in general terms. <<*>> The rest is up-to us. <<*>> P.S. I am a technical guy, too. Cheers. '
  296. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: Part 2. <<*>> And finally I got the response from you, on 04/02/08 at 12:11 AM. You wrote: 'Hmmm. Sounds nice in impossibly vague theory. What 'cheap and strong competition' exactly? Please be specific. But let's keep it simple and just talk about cars for the moment. Let's keep it real and look at the exploding global car population. Let's factor in all the new infrastructure costs. Now, what kind of fuel? Electricity perhaps? From where? Heaven? And all those batteries... Simple??? ' <<*>> Before I provide you with specifics, I draw my private conclusions from the above. << (1) >> You agree, that there is a need to reduce the production of fossil fuels. <<(2)>> In your opinion it '...Sounds nice in impossibly vague theory. '; <<(3) >> CLEAN, CHEAP AND STRONG COMPETITION should do the trick, where CLEAN is a synonym of existing Renewables (RE) in the first place, or technologically 'cleaned up' in the second place;. CHEAP is cheaper than fossil, what would require some paradigm changes in the design of RE converters; STRONG is stronger than fossil in both legislative and financial terms (e.g. using carbon tax, or something similar); COMPETITION - see at least the Kennedy's challenge, and maybe, the results of next election too; <<(4)>> If you want to know the entire 'smorgasboard' of specifics - read some literature. There is not enough room on this page to specify all details. So, I recommend at least: a) 'HEAT How To Stop The Planet From Burning', by George Monbiot; b) 'TOMORROW'S ENERGY Hydrogen, Fuel Cells. and the prospect for a CLEANER PLANET' by Peter Hoffmann; c) ' THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY' by Jeremy Rifkin. d) 'ENERGIEAUTONOMIE Eine neue Politik fuer erneuerbare Energien' by Hermann Scheer (in German language) ; e) Bimonthly journal 'New Energy' English version (www.neueenergie.net); f) Monthly journal 'Neue Energie' German version, but more comprehensive than the English (www.neueenergie.net); <<(5)>>Happy reading, Martha. Cheers!.
  297. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'What's lacking at the moment, he added, is the economic incentive for companies to invest the billions of dollars needed to build an integrated carbon capture and storage network.'

    Cap and trade is the only reasonable solution here. Carbon tax puts a drag on everything whereas Cap and Trade allows progressive companies to recoup their investments and avoid punative measures.

    As long as the caps are intensity based and get more stringent on a predictable basis, then industry is given plenty of forewarning and a mechanism to adapt without worrying that their competition can continue to profit off cheap but polluting business models at their expense.

    That's ultimately why we see so little change.
  298. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: I don't think too many people realize the unique position Canada is in now. We currently have about 1/3 of the world's recoverable oil.

    This means that based on trading power our little nation could influence the entire world if we can quickly focused ourselves on making this technology work.

    I'm a fiscal conservative and don't believe in big government programs because we simply don't need them. We should instead be using the government's oversight powers to create a business environment that will help these technologies flourish.

    Cap and Trade is one such mechanism.
  299. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: So, Jean Malice, may I ask where your supposed 'PhD' comes from or it's specialization? It just get piled higher and deeper every time you comment, it seems to me.

    Perhaps it was in exaggeration. Or perhaps advertising. Please let us know.
  300. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, would you mind providing an mnore specific and accessible link to your 'World Economics' article - I'm not a subscriber and I don't see an obvious title from what I can find online at:

    http://www.world-economics-journal.com/
  301. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Aah, Jean Malice, were you referring to this?

    http://www.world-economics-journal.com/fulltext.asp
  302. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: If I've shaken you out of your tree then I'm pleased. We each can read and form our own opinions. Won't you, please, do that from now onward?
  303. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: So consider this:

    The Uneven Build Up of Global Reserves
    Ways forward
    Rohinton Medhora

    The universal, large and uneven build up of international reserves is both a cause and a symptom of fundamental problems in the international financial system. The phenomenon represents several interlinked processes at play, so that 'root cause' sorts of arguments must be treated with care. There are broadly two sets of solutions to unwind the status quo, which is also not sustainable. One set deals with the economic imbalances between the US and East Asia. The other, which contains two distinct elements, deals with re-building the multilateral institutional arrangements that govern the provision of international liquidity by [a] reforming the IMF and [b] creating a multilateral facility into which nationally held reserves might be channelled. These proposals complement each other. Addressing the macro-economic imbalances will stem the continuing rise in reserves in East Asia, calls for protection against that region's exports to the US, and over-heated asset markets in both regions. IMF reform will re-create the global institution that is needed to survey and analyze trends in macro-economic and financial sectors the world over, and meet periodic episodes of illiquidity. It will also enable the creation of an SDR-based facility into which countries may place their reserves, for their own and the global good. Both tackle the phenomenon of excessive self-insurance. An effective international monetary fund is as much a global public good today as it was when considered at Bretton Woods sixty years ago.
  304. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Quoting,

    'There are broadly two sets of solutions to unwind the status quo, which is also not sustainable.'
  305. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Pater, your link fails to work because the embedded underscores are used by the G&M site to tag for italic font.

    If you go to tinyurl.com you can for free convert a URL into a smaller one that uses only ordinary letters and numbers.
  306. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: All of these comments were from following things I looked at on the web following the remarks of 'Jean mailce'.

    It's time to hear your alarm bell - wake up.

    Or give me a VERY good reason to snooze.

    Do me a favour and tell me why I can snooze past noon.
  307. martha stewart from Canada writes: Robert Miller - Never been to NFLD. Hear the place is crawling with some kind of Islamo-Fascist suicidal moose. And I've got white hair, so I'm a little worried about getting clubbed (and since I'm not so cute anymore, Linda McCartney won't protect me!) Sure looks pretty though - well, except for Rex Murphy.
  308. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: 'New Light or Fixed Presumptions?
    The OECD, the IMF and the treatment of climate change issues
    David Henderson

    Two leading international agencies, the OECD and the IMF, are now becoming more closely involved with climate change issues, in conjunction with finance and economics ministries within their member countries. This broader official involvement opens up an opportunity: it could lead to a more informed and less presumptive treatment of the issues. At present, however, there is no sign that the opportunity will be perceived as such. In both the agencies and national capitals, it is taken for granted that ‘the science’ can be viewed as ‘settled’, and that the established advisory process which governments have created is objective and authoritative. For reasons set out here, this is not the right point of departure. A new framework is needed—less presumptive, more inclusive, more watertight professionally, and more attuned to the huge uncertainties that remain. Besides dealing with specifically economic aspects, work in both agencies should be directed more broadly to creating such a framework.'

    http://www.world-economics-journal.com/WEJArticle.asp?Vol=8&Iss=4&Id=320
  309. Dave c from Calgary, Canada writes: John Cameron is right, we need to look at a variety of solutions to global warming. Nuclear is one that works in France, UK and Japan for energy. Nuclear would cut greenhouse gases in Ft. Mac as well. Ironically the first nuclear plant to be built in Alberta appears to be destined for Grande Prairie which is nowhere near Ft. Mac. E Biggs points out that it's good to see a discussion going on. It's a relief not to have to listen to rignt wing nuts (other than Jean Malice) telling us that global warming is normal. By the way, 10 years ago Agriculture Canada found that while 50% of crops grown in Canada would benefit from warmer temps and new areas avaiable to grow, 50% would find temps too warm.and crop yields would drop. I think that CO2 recovery and capture is a win,win win situation. Win - lowers CO2 levels in the environment Win - producing more oil and gas from exisitng sources Win - selling the technology to other couuntries which would lower development costs for us . We should also consider this: universities thrive on research. Our universities and technical institutes would benefit from funding provided by government and industry to find solutions. Let's start here by offering companies which invest in C02 recovery and research with tax credits and grants. Let's look into the good and bad sides of nuclear, let's reduce consumption by building more mass transit and giving railroads and lake freighters a tax break. This could be Canada's next opportunity if we react now.
  310. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Malice, thanks for a link, finally. And what appears to be an open mind. But I did post that link earlier. Economists might finally be coming to the realization that we need solutions, not a focus upon or denial of problems.

    How does it feel having been shaken out of your tree?

    (A cheap shot, I know, but I think that I deserve a few having been your too-frequent target). So please forgive me another probe:

    Are you Brian Klappstein in his Mr. Jekyll role? Traffic patterns suggest it.
  311. Michael G from Canada writes: Alberta vs. Earth... there is no science, just people that can't pay their mortgage.
  312. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm usually trapped by the "contrarians" into playing their game in these commentaries because they provide seductive and exclusionary links. I want to move beyond their distortive games.

    There are no simple one-sided problems or solutions in this world or beyond it. That was well recognized by the IPCC.

    If you disagree with my approach to providing criticism to those "contrarians" (sorry Martha - many are "deniers") then you can find me not hiding behind a pseudonym but providing a web link, suggesting that you form your own opinions. You can find me. Can you find them? No, they hide behind pseudonyms because they cannot face being held accountable for their opinions.

    I do so every day and I do not believe, GlynnMhor, your asserted danger behind providing your identity publically to a publisher like the G&M. You could provide a consistent point of view if you were to be constrained to one "handle", with its accountablity. You appear already to have done so, unlike many others. I am who I say I am. If the G&M chooses to protect identity, let us at least know that the poster is the same one each time who might be refused access for going beyond the terms of reference of commentary here. Like "Jean Malice".

    1/2
  313. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: My identity is here: http://climatechange.dynalias.com. Have the guts to stand behind your opinions and send me email. I'll respect your ideas and will not disclose your coordinates.

    I have received a paper contributed by one commenter which I've been unable to respond to yet because I refuse to let reign the BS that usually holds sway here. I want to give his ideas some thought. Not just a boilerplate reaction.

    I guess there must be a masochochistic streak in me for continuing to challenge many here but I'd prefer to find solutions. The precautionary principle is what we need to think about.

    Damn, I'm getting tired of this. Readers, please do your own research. If you'd like to add links to my website, please send me email; you'll find the coordinates at the bottom of my web page.

    But please go beyond the words expressed here in G&M commentaries. Don't be shy.

    2/2
  314. Michael G from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada ....Dear reader, don't forget that another BILLION people will move to Canada cause we flooded their homes, sorry, but put some sense in with your facts.
  315. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - "I'd prefer to find solutions" too. But since the real underlying problem here - of all of our environmental problems - is the global population explosion, I don't think there actually are any. At least none that will make life on the Titanic any better while she steams onward toward the inevitable. That doesn't make humans "bad." Its just what all living things do when they can: go forth and multiply as they say. We may like to believe that we are capable of enlightened rational behaviour - and we are as individuals - but as a species we are really no diffferent than the mountain pine beetle. For the past century or so conditions have been optimized for us and the rest is ecological history. On the "bright" side, global travel and current population densities ensure that a global pandemic will "fix" this problem - if our instinctive 'us vs them' herd behaviour doesn't lead us to nuclear oblivion before then.

    I think I hear the band playing on the deck now.
  316. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Thanks for the nice metaphor, Martha, and in difference times I might even slip below the waves to save you.

    But the Titanic was doomed from the start, avoidably. That ship of fools took off into the ocean oblivious to the risk and assured that she was unsinkable.

    We can avoid a similar fate.
  317. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Burke of climatedoctorphil.com I really enjoy your latest posting self analysis... denying is just around the corner! LOL Have a nice week mr. Burke.
  318. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan - My impression of that event is it largely boiled down to the ego of the captain,he hubris of the shipbuilders, and the competive instincts of the shipping line to prove they were the "best"... or, to put it another way, human nature. Once we have that "problem" solved the rest should be as easy as pie ;-)
  319. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes:

    My prediction is that someone will attempt to prove that the iceberg in question was unexpectedly there in 1912 due to either a warming or a cooling period, to support or contradict either one's position on AGW.
  320. Concerned Observer from ONTARIO, Canada writes: Marta Stewart wrote: "...On the "bright" side, global travel and current population densities ensure that a global pandemic will "fix" this problem - if our instinctive 'us vs them' herd behaviour doesn't lead us to nuclear oblivion before then.
    I think I hear the band playing on the deck now."
    > Martha, please, stop being so pessimistic. Please, please, please. I will miss you if that happens. Very, very badly (!!!) We still have a couple of chances: (i) learn from the Chinese 1 child limit; (ii) implement my suggestions posted on 04/02/08 at 10:47 AM and on 04/02/08 at 10:53 AM. So, cheer up my girlie, please.
  321. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Ex Alberta Premier (1971-1986) Peter Lougheed on the oil sands development and its affects.

    CBC Radio's The Current, Jan 31, 2008

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200801/20080131.html
  322. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: "I am who I say I am."

    Or maybe not; we can't tell and must rely upon your word.

    I'm not suggesting I disbelieve you, but you could in principle create accounts under other names, change your posting style, and try to bolster your case by making it appear more popular.

    On the other hand, my decision to protect my identity is due primarily to topics other than this one. And it must be remembered that the anonymity afforded allows one to express oneself freely and openly without fear of consequences. I am under no pressure to cleave to politically correct or popular positions on issues, for example.
  323. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao what are you? Lougheed personal PR squeeze?
  324. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Nope, just following up on what I wrote earlier (Posted 02/02/08 at 11:07 AM EST:

    "Coincidently, (perhaps prompted by the G&M series) he was on CBC Radio's The Current yesterday (Thursday) talking about these issues. I will post the link to the interview once it is updated on their website."

    He has another interesting perspective worth listening to. You've probably already heard it, but those outside of Alberta might not have.

    Doubtful he comments here...
  325. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: No GlynnMhor, it's verifiable from the links I have provided. I have the courage of my convictions and the willingness to be held accountable for them. You seem to lack the accountability but not the conviction.

    That's the difference between science and religion. Which item of the cathechisme will you deliver in the next topic?
  326. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Generally speaking, I think for privacy reasons, it's a good idea to remain anonymous - simply because it provides that much less info to data miners in generating a person's profile (political views, religious or professional affiliations, school alma mater etc). It's not difficult to find where someone lives (mailing address, phone number etc using canada411.ca etc) and combined with commercial mailing lists (mag subscriptions) develop a real intrusive profile.

    Besides, I don't want to one day be having a peaceful coffee "in the curling lounge of Calgary's Glencoe Club" and have GlynnMhor or Jean Malice come over and "accidently" spill a tall latte on my lap for something I may have written on a blog here at one time. :)
  327. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: "No GlynnMhor, it's verifiable from the links I have provided."

    You could also post as Michael G or as Robert Miller, for examples, and the links to which you refer would not give us a clue.

    And it's actually the religious who hold to 'courage of their convictions' and are willing to be martyred for the cause.

    I just hold forth ideas, and seek to enlighten the many naive readers who imagine all the AGW 'science' to be a slam-dunk reality.
  328. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, it seems we agree on one point; I'd prefer that correspondents here not be allowed to use more than one single "handle", something I have never done and will not do. I'd also like to see punitive action against anyone who impersonates another. Those measures might help to improve accountability without damaging freedom of expression.
  329. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Alan Burke writes: "I'd prefer that correspondents here not be allowed to use more than one single "handle", "

    This happens. I was posting on a political blog site where an official of an organization that was anti-Harper over the Income Trust issue was ranting and raving unreasonably, so I engaged him and another like minded individual who was posting as a hard done by senior (almost down to his last can of dogfood) due to the IT decision.

    At one point, he forgot to change monikers, and replied under the incorrect name - he got quite a bit of online bashing as a result. And I know some journalists who frequented the site also became aware of his duplicity.

    It happens. Offenders often end up hanging themselves, or sharp-eyed posters pick up on the switcheroo.
  330. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:"Offenders often end up hanging themselves..."

    It takes more work to support a web of lies than to simply stick to the one persona. Less to keep track of.
  331. robert mackidd from Canada writes: If we are going to have a carbon tax "Every Dollar Collected From the Tax" in western canada should be plowed back into research on the problem.

    All the research money (every cent) collected in the west should be spent in Western Canada.

    No carbon tax credit money should leave the region in which it was collected.

    It is pure stupidity for someone to think we should pay a Russian Company for Carbon Tax Credits.
  332. Peak Everything from Canada writes: All the climate issues aside, people should become more aware of the math. Math is everything. Rough calculations indicate that at North America's (US and Canada) present rate of oil consumption (~8 billion barrels/year) and a 2% rate of increase annually, the 175 billion barrels of oil reported in the oil sands will last approximately 18-20 years. If we remove the US from the picture, we would still only be able to stretch it about 50 years. Our global gas supply is dwindling, and will probably run out in 30 years. I can't imagine what the country will look like in 5 years, let alone 20 or 30 years. Our way of thinking will most certainly contribute to our demise. This is a finite planet, with finite resources. Just wait until fuel supplies become threatened. Everyone should also become familiar with the "Limits to Growth Study" from the early 70's (recently update to 2004). Big wakeup call. We are entering into an era of multiple resource depletion, and rapid population growth. Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are in decline, amidst increasing demands world wide. Something has to give when you have continued consumption of a finite resource. The main stream media (of which I consider most of what people access) are not reporting the real and pertinent information that a modern, educated society requires if we are to survive. Search the web for articles, and interviews, from Dr. A. Bartlett, and begin to understand the real limits we are facing. Go to http://www.globalpublicmedia.com and look for Dr. David Hughes as well to get a picture of what our world gas supply is like. People need to be enlightened, and should seek out the other news or information sources.
  333. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Peak Everything from Canada writes: "... 175 billion barrels of oil reported in the oil sands will last approximately 18-20 years."

    As demand outstrips supply, prices rise, and those 175 bbl become 350 bbl as more of the resource can be economically extracted.
  334. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: No problem with global warming or climate change. If needed, then these things can best be addressed after the last drop of energy is squeezed out of the sands!
  335. Steve McCullough from Orangeville, Canada writes: The argument concerning climate change as got to be one huge piece of misinformation. Archeological climatologists have repeatedly said that our planet has got through at least five ice ages. The earth has been through worse that this before humans first appeared. As for those who oppose nuclear power, there is strong proof that it is the cleanest form of power. Before we attack it, look at the arguments for this form of power. There are many other ways the earth warms up besides fossil fuels. Has anyone looked at the whole picture? From what I have seen, the answer seems to be no. One form, which can be used as a means of transportation and seldom ever talked about is water, air and magnetism. The water part was also mentioned on the Glenn Beck show. The Japanese and maybe other countries have been using air and magnetism in their transportation systems for a long while. I understand that the technology is there for this use in vehicles.

    The real problem for humans (never mind global warming) is pollution and bad health. There never seems to be the political will to fix this or if there is, it always seems to be a leftist answer. As for health, the public have only themselves to blame.
  336. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Steve McCullough from Orangeville, Canada writes: The argument concerning climate change as got to be one huge piece of misinformation. Archeological climatologists have repeatedly said that our planet has got through at least five ice ages. The earth has been through worse that this before humans first appeared."

    Exactly. The issue isn't about the survival of the planet but about the maintenance of technological civilization. For example, any major city can survive for only about three days with input from the surrounding rural areas cut off. And power shortages can bring things to a standstill even faster. None of these issues mattered when the height of technology was a stone axe.

    "The real problem for humans (never mind global warming) is pollution and bad health. There never seems to be the political will to fix this or if there is, it always seems to be a leftist answer. As for health, the public have only themselves to blame. "

    Call it 'sustainability' and 'environmental responsibility' aka don't foul your own nest. It has little to do with politics and everything to do with what country we want to live in and pass on.
  337. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Right on Steve, we can manage our technology but can't manage climate because we don't truly understand it. Even if we did, we don't have the power to effectively change it. All the atomic power capability of the world, does not equal a minor sun burst or an El Nino for that matter.

    I agree, folks should use their own name. Anonymity breeds contempt.
  338. Peak Everything from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes "As demand outstrips supply, prices rise, and those 175 bbl become 350 bbl as more of the resource can be economically extracted." I don't think you understand the concept or reality of this situation. Or perhaps this is the only part that you felt you could comment on. It is important to understand that regardless of how much oil there is, eventually it is not economically feasible to extract it. By the way, 175 does not equal 350, even for large values of 175... I think you are implying that it will last twice as long because of price conditions. The demand will always be there, and there isn't anything to replace it at any level to sustain our lifestyle. And this is the point. Industry and transportation will take a huge hit, which means that all of our goods (those that we will be available to transport that is), are going to cost a lot more. Farming will cost more due to higher fuel costs, and will also be impacted by resource shortages. Consider that most of our food in Canada is transported over 5000km, and comes from the US, or further. Just walk around the produce section of your local grocery store and check the labels. Mexico, California, Florida, Australia, New Zealand, China .....Canada provides a short supply of produce seasonally. It seems that all the focus has been on climate, which will pale in comparison to the issues mentioned above as we move forward through this process. That being said, climate changes are already impacting food production as well. Lastly, I would like to add the following link to an article that appeared in MacLean's magazine. http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071008_110103_110103&source=srch. I have read this book, and found it to be very enlightening, and at the same time sad. Money and politics, same old story.
  339. mark ruby from Canada writes: This is all a red-herring. Peak oil is now upon us, and with it the end of cheap oil. Anyone who has any doubt at all should read Matt Simmons excellent book,"Twilight in the Desert, The Coming Saudi Oil Shock And The World Economy" This will be as earth-shaking as was the industrial revolution. Our entire infrastructure in North America is designed around the concept of cheap oil. Our cities, our travel, our food production and distribution ,and almost everything else. The changes that will come in the near future ,as a result,will be mind-boggling. In order to survive this quantum change, we must start now. We must move away from reliance on oil, and the sooner the better. Our cities must be made energy efficient, our homes, our sources of food and heat etc. etc. As early as 2010, and in fact as early as next year, there is a good chance of a world shortfall of approx 2 million bbl per day of oil. What is the relevance? In short, spending astromical amounts of money on oil sands research and development at this time is fruitless, and in fact detrimental. Our entire view of this situation has to change. Our efforts must go into alternative areas, and we must not be swayed by the conflicted efforts of Big Oil, who will try their darndest to suck more and more of our precious resources away from the real problem.
  340. Bitumen Queen from Canada writes: Several things to consider in our overall quest to control pollution, percieved climate change, & our Canadian attempts at controlling natural global warming. Oil Sands are only a short term energy supply, what do we do if we limit or shut it down to meet Canadian and the American demand for energy? Climate change Naysayer's want to resort to candles, burning Coal & wood. Should we import all our Oil from offshore? We know that wind & solar can never be enough. Even with accelerated attempts to change & to get off oil and the Oil Sands binge, we would have to get more Oil & gas out of the artic, We know it's there, it's the next frontier to maintain our Canadian way of life in the our Northern Hemisphere. We must take action now to take control & get more natural gas from the Canadian artic. Besides NL, these areas are next to exploited. No more Natuarl Gas should be exported to the US, we must keep it here for our own reserve & use. Maybe the Nuclear "greener" option for energy production as in France is the way to go, except the French have a strong hold on most of our Urainiun resources. "Peak Oil" phobia supply problems have been with us for many years, it just gets more focused as we go on, and it continues on as "Mark Ruby" indicates. American domination of our resources has allowed Canadians to be very vunerable to high energy costs. WW 2 was essentially fought over energy, tarrifs, & world domination, this saga continues. We certinaly require change to contol pollution, and the effects on our environment, it will take time scientifically & politicaly. All Oil sands projects now & into the future should be made to change & only be approved if they produce their own fuel to minimize the use of clean Natural gas in the Oil Sands. Most important are the Dollars per BBL and resources alloted for the reforestation & rehabilitation of all mined lands for each project approved by EUB continue to be fully secured & guaranteed.
  341. Peak Everything from Canada writes: mark ruby from Canada writes: This is all a red-herring. Peak oil is now upon us, and with it the end of cheap oil. Anyone who has any doubt at all should read Matt Simmons excellent book,"Twilight in the Desert, The Coming Saudi Oil Shock And The World Economy" This will be as earth-shaking as was the industrial revolution.

    Very true Mark - and even more of an issue is the population crisis driving the consumption rates ...for a good listen or view of podcasts and alternative news sources, go to www.globalpublicmedia.com, and look for the most popular articles/podcasts/videos, and you will find Dr. Al Bartlett and his lecture about exponential growth. There are several other interesting podcasts as well regarding this simple phenomenon.

    We have peaked in many areas, and several more to come ....

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top