Skip to main content

View Diary: Update: Canada "Ghost Train"on Fire Hours Before Runaway (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm. I didn't realize Bakken was that bad. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    Certain things Canadian do deserve bashing.  But not all.  Did you see the Daily Show last week where Jason Jones did a comparison of the U.S. and Canadian banking systems?

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 02:34:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Canadian vs. US banking systems? Yawn!! (0+ / 0-)

      why don't we discuss baby seal hunts, poutine, Terry Jacks, Celine Dion first?

      In any event, a major dig at the tarsands is the poor EROEI (i.e., the amount of energy that it takes to extract the gunk) which results in about 22% higher "wheel to wheel" emissions according to a European study (only 12% according to a US study)

      In any event, in this respect the Europeans regard the shale oil (not to be confused with oil shale, which is even worse, much worse in fact!) to be worse than the tarsands:

      The agreed baseline is based on calculations by the oil industry’s ‘CONCAWE’ body. The oil industry estimate that, on average, producing one megajoule of energy for transport fuel causes 88.3 grammes of CO2.

      According to the Commission’s proposal, different fuels and sources of fuel (or ‘feedstocks’ as they are known) get different ‘default values’ for their carbon intensity.

      The default value for petrol made from conventional crude oil in the proposal is 87.5 g CO2/MJ. Petrol made from natural bitumen (i.e. tar sands) = 107 g CO2/MJ; shale oil = 131.3 g CO2/MJ; coal-to-liquid = 172 g CO2/MJ; gas-to-liquid = 97 g CO2/MJ.

      link

      Plus there are all the issues involved with fracking (potential ground water contamination - which of course is also an issue with the tarsands), the larger footprint of the Bakken field, and the release of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the Bakken (which to my knowledge is not an issue with the tarsands).

      Basically it comes down to a value judgement which is worse - methinks it would depend on who hires the higher priced lawyers to argue their side!   My point here is that it is really weird to me how the tarsands are continually dissed (and rightfully so) while the Bakken basically gets a pass.

      •  Americans are much better mythologizers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SoCalSal, Roadbed Guy

        than we are.  We belong more to the Oliver Cromwell school of portraiture.  Warts and all.  Maybe Americans like to demonize the tar sands to draw attention away from the Bakken Field.  

        We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

        by Observerinvancouver on Sun Jul 07, 2013 at 05:41:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site