Previous  1  2

Take a look for yourself...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/02/1217675110

   

I used to know Schindler. He is an interesting guy and an actual authority on Limnology.

   

I've forgotten more about limnology than that clown will ever know. Limnology is the study of limbs, right?

   

Yes, but only very sexy limbs. At my age if I was studying Limnology, I would be listed not as a player, but a dirty old man.

Just in case someone does not know what I am talking about, my education background says an illustration is worth a thousand words:

Not studied in Limnology


Studied in Limnology

   

I think there may be more to it than just that. Seems there's going to be some exploitation of oil sands in Utah.
Of course the Utah sands will be "cleaner" than the Alberta sands are, I'm sure.

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2012/ ... s-midwest/

   

Cuz he's a friggin' hypocrite. See my above post about Utah.

   

I'm not sure what calling something what it is makes him a hypocrite. Interesting article about the Utah field. The link quotes a proponent as saying that it is going to be a much cheaper way of pulling the oil out of the tars sands. You have to wonder what will happen to the price of oranges, lemons and limes.

and speaking of lemons,

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2013/ ... -industry/

'But, as the saying goes, when life hands you lemons, make lemonade.

So how do oil sands producers and advocacy arms like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) make lemonade out of this?

They can do so by looking at the study and its findings as an opportunity. The peer-reviewed study shows that the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have risen roughly at the same pace as oil sands development in six nearby lakes.

This should beat back the skeptics who have denied that producing bitumen from the northern Alberta muskeg is responsible for polluting the environment.

Which means time, brainpower and money shouldn’t be spent any longer on fighting this, but rather on finding ways to reduce the pollution from oil sands extraction and production.'

Which would be a good start for these companies that are hoping to make billions out of their projects.

   

Maybe the first question that should be asked is if the level of pollution is harmful, and at what level it would be come harmful.

Rather than jumping instantly into plans to try and reduce something.

   

If you read the report on the study linked in the OP you will see that it is not at dangerous levels, at least according to the study. Natives in the area have been reporting an increase in the number of fish caught with cancerous lesions for at least a couple of years.

But more importantly is the corelation between the increase in tar sands activity and the increase in the problem chemicals over the same time frame. With exponential growth of the oil production will come exponential problems for the water. Now, before any further expansion is allowed is the time to ensure it would be an environmentally benign project.

   

Really, you miss the obvious hypocricy in slamming Canadian oil sands "cuz they're dirty" while having given the go ahead for MORE oil sands and shale oil development in the US

Wow.

   

Nobody really knows at what concentration the PAHs or compounds in question become harmful. There are guidelines, but they tend to be conservative, so you can easily pass the guidelines and still see no effect And then you can see an effect, but not necessarily a significant one--fish with smaller gonads maybe, impacts on benthic invertebrate populations, difficult-to-quantify sublethal effects. And then maybe you get some measurable effects. like not catching as many fish, or higher levels of bioaccumulative toxic compunds appearig in breast milk of humans. It's really hard to draw the line of where you say "OK, substantive action is required now."

   

oooooh

   

Well, I can't say as I've heard any "skeptics" claim that oil production is pollution free. I think they're saying it ain't as bad as the usual gang of "worst-case sceanrio" addicts claim it is in Alberta.
In Alberta's case, an IHS CERA report indicates that the WTW environmental cost is about half of what the commonly claimed cost is. You can take the source for what it is.
Even NASA has claimed that the crap put out by oil sands development is equivalent to a large power plant. That ain't bad considering the size and scope of the oil sands develoment.

I do agree however that development shouldn't be a free-for-all. There should be solid, enforceable environmental controls. It's certainly better than spending billions of dollars on 1500MW of wind power, a la Dolton McNuggets, to go from 75% emissions-free power generation to 75% emissions-free power generation. And no, that second 75% isn't a typo.

   

The part of the quote that you got from my post was from this oil industry paper.

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2013/ ... -industry/

Do you have a link to the IHS Cera study? Or the windmill figures?

   

Previous  1  2