FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Alberta and Oil





southy
Hey

I was born in Alberta, Canada, but I don't live there now. I was wondering what all you thought about them and refining the oil sands.

I know it has a huge impact contributing to global warming and everything, but then again, it has a huge impact on their's, the rest of Canada's and the whole world's economy.

Would it be better to halt the production of petrol from the area, or refine the 600 billion dollars worth of oil there?

My opinion, it's to become socialist so that we (Canada) gets all the money anyway, instead of all the American companies who put plants there and get it all for themselves (except for a few fees).

What do you think?
LumberJack
I am from Alberta as well, and I hate to say it, but we have lots of Oil Sands, but we are going to have a hell of a time extracting it. Truth is, we don't have enough water here to do so. The Alberta government placed a moratorium on any additional refineries in the Southern part of the Province due to such a low water table. So, either, Albertans give up water in order to get the oil, or we are going to start thinking harder. Personally, I would just rather the oil stay in the ground.


southy wrote:
Hey

I was born in Alberta, Canada, but I don't live there now. I was wondering what all you thought about them and refining the oil sands.

I know it has a huge impact contributing to global warming and everything, but then again, it has a huge impact on their's, the rest of Canada's and the whole world's economy.

Would it be better to halt the production of petrol from the area, or refine the 600 billion dollars worth of oil there?

My opinion, it's to become socialist so that we (Canada) gets all the money anyway, instead of all the American companies who put plants there and get it all for themselves (except for a few fees).

What do you think?
ZealousZ
i think they should keep going until canada's debts are paid off, and then stop

as for the global warming factor, it would definitely be a good contribution to stop, but there are definitely other parts of the world dealing a much bigger impact, especially china
wanha1
ZealousZ wrote:
i think they should keep going until canada's debts are paid off, and then stop

as for the global warming factor, it would definitely be a good contribution to stop, but there are definitely other parts of the world dealing a much bigger impact, especially china


I think it's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't conserve because some other nation also contributes; that other nation uses the same silly logic and no one attempts to preserve the environment at all.
LumberJack
ZealousZ wrote:
i think they should keep going until canada's debts are paid off, and then stop

as for the global warming factor, it would definitely be a good contribution to stop, but there are definitely other parts of the world dealing a much bigger impact, especially china


What is the rush in paying our debts? I would rather save our environment then tear it all up, just so the US can feed its oil habit cheaply. There is better things we can do with our money then trying to become debt free really quickly. As long as we are making reasonable payments, there is so many other things that are needed right now. Like my roads fixed.
bongoman
well necessity is the mother of invention, the higher the price of conventional crude is, the more incentive there is to mine the Alberta oil sands. Though as time goes by, there will likely be more ways discovered on how to more efficiently extract the oil from the oilsands without resorting to using water. I mean the reason they use water is because its a way of separating the oil from the bitumen, so water is not the only way of doing it it just happens to be the cheapest method available so far, but I am sure its only a matter of time before cheaper methods of extraction are made available, we just need to find out how
suntzu3500
bongoman wrote:
well necessity is the mother of invention, the higher the price of conventional crude is, the more incentive there is to mine the Alberta oil sands. Though as time goes by, there will likely be more ways discovered on how to more efficiently extract the oil from the oilsands without resorting to using water. I mean the reason they use water is because its a way of separating the oil from the bitumen, so water is not the only way of doing it it just happens to be the cheapest method available so far, but I am sure its only a matter of time before cheaper methods of extraction are made available, we just need to find out how


Oil's valuble enough that i can't see why they'd have a problem pumping it from the great lakes, if necessary... A water pipeline for a new refinery is nothing, not really a big deal, even if it is thousands of miles long.
bongoman
the issue is not whether or not a pipeline can be built from the great lakes, it wouldn't be that expensive in the short term but the long term effects ecological of doing this would be catastrophic. I mean we are already heading towards very heavy fresh water shortages in the future in North America and Europe, and right now its a very big problem in many third world countries (including many parts of Africa, and some parts of the middle east). So if we can avoid problems like that, why aren't we? Lets not forget that oil sand production is not cheap since it is synthetic oil, it's a very involved process, unlike conventional crude oil extraction. So the price of a barrel from Alberta vs. one from say an OPEC country is not going to be the same. The fact that the price of oil is high is the only reason they're even up there in Alberta
indeedwrestling
A lot of people fail to notice that in the process of pursuing "green" energy, they actually use more fossil fuels than they create. The question is whether you're using carbon-negative or carbon-positive byproducts!
LumberJack
suntzu3500 wrote:
bongoman wrote:
well necessity is the mother of invention, the higher the price of conventional crude is, the more incentive there is to mine the Alberta oil sands. Though as time goes by, there will likely be more ways discovered on how to more efficiently extract the oil from the oilsands without resorting to using water. I mean the reason they use water is because its a way of separating the oil from the bitumen, so water is not the only way of doing it it just happens to be the cheapest method available so far, but I am sure its only a matter of time before cheaper methods of extraction are made available, we just need to find out how


Oil's valuble enough that i can't see why they'd have a problem pumping it from the great lakes, if necessary... A water pipeline for a new refinery is nothing, not really a big deal, even if it is thousands of miles long.


The necessity of a pipeline thousands of miles long, should tell you that it should be scrapped.
Related topics
Oil price!!!
The effects of oil prices
Oil costs messing with US trade
The truth about oil...
What is your price for gas?
$100 oil "possible". Full story on NEWS24.COM
BUSH'S Poll Numbers Up
Why is the USA in Iraq?
DIY Oil Cooling
Oil Peak and Industrial Society
Biodiesel
Oil prices: Supply and demand, price gouging, or ???
New car generation
What's great about your country?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Economics and Marketing

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.