51–60 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not given "all the parameters of the environment" it is common to assume STP: Standard Temperature and Pressure. I think that's 20 degrees Celsius, 105 kPa of air pressure.
Well, under those conditions I would call bitumen a 'semi solid'. It is not hard in the sense of an actual solid, you can deform it but it definitely does not flow like a liquid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not given "all the parameters of the environment" it is common to assume STP: Standard Temperature and Pressure. I think that's 20 degrees Celsius, 105 kPa of air pressure.
Well, under those conditions I would call bitumen a 'semi solid'. It is not hard in the sense of an actual solid, you can deform it but it definitely does not flow like a liquid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are in lipstick on a pig territory here. Tar sands are horrific in environmental terms, one of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels in their production and the cause of devastation of huge areas of wilderness. By the time the stuff is made into balls or whatever the vast majority of possible damage has already been done.
Well, I wasn't advocating tar sands here, I just repeated the info I got from the article. However, it is a reality that this industry exists, so sure it might be better to not extract tar sands at all, but as long as it's happening anyway why not make it as clen as possible?
so, you make pellets. Then you have to mix them with some "light" oil produced during the production of pellets. So you still have to transport them together. I cannot really understand how this is better than carrying oil directly.
It's in the article. Easier to clean up a spill if it happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions that it's more environmentally friendly. The balls float on water and apparently can't be poaked easily. That's a plus in my book.
I think we are in lipstick on a pig territory here. Tar sands are horrific in environmental terms, one of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels in their production and the cause of devastation of huge areas of wilderness. By the time the stuff is made into balls or whatever the vast majority of possible damage has already been done.
Many of which ship direct to the United States. One is even produced IN the United States (Bakersfield, CA).
On a wells-to-wheels basis, Canadian oil sands are only 6-8% more carbon-intensive than typical light crude (e.g. Saudi), and it comes from a politically-friendly country that supports female rights, human rights in general, and is not bombing their neighbours.
What you say regarding disruption of large areas of wilderness is true when it comes to tailings ponds, but you should also be aware that the vast majority of recent development (and probably most go-forward) is via in-situ extraction that does not require those tailings ponds.
Source: I am a chemical engineer and work directly in this industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not only trading it for environmental saftey. As mentioned in another comment, using these balls you don't have to rely on specialized rail waggons anymore. So, while you may lose some space due to inefficient packing, you could easily make that up by using lots more of (assumedly) cheaper general-purpose/coal waggons.
Specialized rail wagons aren't expensive compared to other parts of the transportation costs - if you have the option of 5 specialized wagons or 6 "cheap" wagons, then using 5 wagons is cheaper.
This is weird. Pipelines are the cheapest, most efficient, and safest way to move large amounts of oil. How is something which renders oil impossible to transport via pipeline a step forward?
Does anyone see the irony in this? "We admit this is utterly dangerous for the environment so instead of sending it out in liquid form we're now going to send it out in small pellets so they can then be transformed and it can pollute the world exactly where we want it to pollute."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are in lipstick on a pig territory here. Tar sands are horrific in environmental terms, one of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels in their production and the cause of devastation of huge areas of wilderness. By the time the stuff is made into balls or whatever the vast majority of possible damage has already been done.
You should be aware that there are a number of oil sources that are far more carbon-intensive than the Canadian Oil Sands. Many of which ship direct to the United States. One is even produced IN the United States (Bakersfield, CA). On a wells-to-wheels basis, Canadian oil sands are only 6-8% more carbon-intensive than typical light crude (e.g. Saudi), and it comes from a politically-friendly country that supports fem…
'Strip-mining the boreal to extract the tar sands and processing the oil makes the sands much more damaging to the climate than conventional oil.
“I believe the carbon intensity of extraction and processing for the oil sands is about double that of conventional oil,” Homer-Dixon said.'
http://grist.org/article/this-could-be-the-end-of-canadian-t...
I guess this is an inconvenient truth based on the downvoting.