Artsculture

'H2Oil' Tears up the Tar Sands

Documentary focusing on Fort Chipewyan becomes a powerful tool for climate change activists.

By Dawn Paley, 9 Oct 2009, TheTyee.ca

h2oil-tar-sands.jpg

Scene from 'H2Oil', showing at the Vancouver International Film Festival.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

When Lionel Lepine's plane landed in London, England in August after a long flight from northern Alberta, his initial reaction was culture shock. It was Lepine's first time flying overseas. The occasion was the Climate Camp for Action, an event now in its third year, which brings together hundreds of grassroots activists who are willing to take direct action in the fight against climate change.

Lepine didn't expect his decision to leave his home in Fort Chipewyan and head to London with his friend George Poitras to make headlines across Canada. But sure enough, it did.

"My first impression of this climate camp was that it was strictly focused on coal mining and other kinds of mining," Lepine, a member of the Athabasca Cree First Nation, told The Tyee from his office in Fort Chipewyan.

The two men used visuals and workshops to explain how the tar sands are affecting their community. They also showed a film called H2Oil, which will be screening Sunday and Monday as part of the Vancouver Film Festival.

"In the U.K., people just assumed Canada was this perfect, green country, nothing going wrong over there. They assumed that Canada was the best of the best," said Lepine. "Of course they're not going to give you guys the ugly truth of what's really going on," he told those in attendance at the Climate Camp.

"Once they were aware that there is this tar sands things going on in northern Alberta and Canada, all of a sudden, all of their attention was focused on us, so we sorta became almost like movie stars over there," he said with a chuckle.

Their words inspired Climate Campers to action. "We managed to recruit probably about 300 people, if not more, I think there might have been about 500 people who followed us down the streets of London," said Lepine. Complete with oily props and stained Canadian flags, the anti-tar sands march though London's financial district garnered coverage on the BBC and major Canadian news outlets.

A different approach to protest

Macdonald Stainsby, who works with Oilsandstruth.org, also attended the Climate Camp. He thinks that the decision at Climate Camp to focus on Indigenous community members from Fort Chipewyan marked a shift away from what he called "the usual nature of white, middle class organizing."

The public outcry against the tar sands that followed may have caught some Canadians off guard, but for Stainsby, it represents another level of climate activism, which many North Americans may not be familiar with.

"We did not have to start off with a discussion about various ways that capitalism can be reformed to deal with the climate crisis," Stainsby told The Tyee by phone from his home in Edmonton. "The main banner that people had to walk under just to get into the camp said 'Capitalism Is Crisis.'"

Want to See 'H2Oil'?

H2Oil will screen twice as part of the Vancouver International Film Festival. The first screening is on Sunday, Oct. 11 at 6:30 PM and the second is at 1:15 PM at the Vancity theatre on Oct. 12. The second screening will be followed by a panel presentation with Walsh and members of the community of Fort Chipewyan.

Stainsby thinks the Climate Camp stands out from mainstream environmental organizing in Canada by offering affected communities centre stage, by telling (not asking) people in power what changes need to be made, and by ensuring that large non-governmental groups act as followers and allies, but not as leaders of climate campaigns.

In the same vein, he thinks that H2Oil has had an impact precisely because the film focuses on the struggles of the people in Fort Chipewyan. "The film is a good window into why things went so well at the Climate Camp," says Stainsby, emphasizing the centrality of the stories of the people of Fort Chip in inspiring people to action.

'Downstream from most destructive project on planet'

Shannon Walsh, the director of H2Oil, didn't set out to make a film that would become the hallmark the international climate justice movement.

"In the beginning, to be honest, I didn't even know what the tar sands were," she told The Tyee from her cell phone in Edmonton, where the H2Oil is screening as part of the city's yearly film festival.

Indigenous people "are the people who have been raising the alarm, who have been courageous enough to actually take their struggles further and get people aware of what's actually happening," said Walsh.

The film, a feature-length documentary, weaves a narrative between aerial views of the tar sands, the natural beauty of the Athabasca region, and the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, all the while rooting itself in the homes and gathering places of people living in Fort Chipewyan.

"The river flows in our direction, so we are downstream from the most destructive project on the planet, and we always say, had the river flowed south, you know those mines, they would either be non existent or they'd be the most environmentally friendly, safest plants in the world because it would be their people who would be affected, not us," said Lepine.

"But the fact is, the river flows in our direction. I don't think they really could care less about who pays the price, as long as they get that oil out of the ground and they make the money off it."

H2Oil will screen twice as part of the Vancouver International Film Festival. The first screening is on Sunday, Oct. 11 at 6:30 PM and the second is at 1:15 PM at the Vancity theatre on Oct. 12. The second screening will be followed by a panel presentation with Walsh and members of the community of Fort Chipewyan. [Tyee]

Dawn Paley is a Vancouver-based journalist who writes for The Dominion and others.

35 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • seth

    2 years ago

    lets nuke the tar sands

    We could "green" up the Tar Sands quite a bit by using nuclear steam instead of natural gas for producing the oil. We'd need about 12 gigawatts of reactors to do it. Would be a great start to a GHG free Canadian nuclear industry and energy market.

    No help for the natives unfortunately. However, we are a little as ten years away from a civilization destroying climate and global warming tipping point. We need to start mass converting from fossil fuel use to clean electricity immediately.

    When we are done the oil sands can shut down.

    Canada's share is 150 gigawatts of baseload power. That's one nuclear plant taking up a couple of acres or 1500 giant windmills in farms occupying 400 sq miles of land every month for 12 years.

    Mass produced nuclear power is by far the least expensive green energy available, at less than $1000 a kilowatt. As we replace natural gas/oil generation, we can use electric heat and heat pumps to replace the gas/oil furnace, and a massive nationwide natural gas vehicle conversion to replace oil.

    Nuclear waste will be reused as reprocessed fuel in Gen 3.5 nukes, or as fuel in generation four nukes like Sandia's new product. The tiny bit of Gen 4 nuclear waste is no more dangerous than the original uranium.

    The nuclear payback would be only a few years paid for by the end of oil imports and the export of Canada's domestic oil production. An enormous job boosting nuclear domestic and export market would be created.

    India has already committed to 450 gigawatts and China to 120 of nukes. The Republicans in the US Senate are holding out for a miniscule 100 gigawatts in the climate bill, but its a start,

    Canada needs to stop being a millstone dragging down China and India's global warming efforts, and get this job done.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    The Four Horsemen of the NucleApocalypse :

    Cost, Waste, Proliferation, Safety.

    The nuclearistas need to build up fast before the expertise retires into the glowing sunset.

    But those beautiful frissons of promise keep decaying into leaden reality
    :
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=1

    Terrorists haven't weaponized sunbeams :

    http://re.pembina.org/

  • southdeltawalker

    2 years ago

    See this film and more you can do!

    Films can inform and inspire and there is lot happening this month regarding Climate Change if you are inspired to do more.

    Oct 24 is International Day Of Climate Acton. There will be marches held all over the world. There will be a march in Vancouver starting 12:30 pm at the peak of the Cambie St. Bridge. Link for further info:
    http://wildernesscommittee.org/take_action/climate_change_day_action

    There are 1500 marches and events being held in 120 countries. Here is link:
    http://www.350.org/about/blogs/action-spotlight-100000-hill-canadas-parliament-hill

    To those out of town or can't make the VIFF screening, when H2OIL is released on DVD, make a suggestion for purchase to your local library. The library is funded by our tax dollars and getting progressive/environmental films into the library is an 'action" you might want to do.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    sunbeams and warm fuzzy bunnys

    So far solar costs including pumped Hydro are coming at $15000 a kw and a wind project on lake Ontario was budgeted at $30000 a kw. Solar boiler projects in the desert use so much water that they can't get approval.

    The problems with the Finnish reactor are concrete and steel problems that happen anywhere you tried to build a bridge with a new design with corrupt government inspectors approving every bolt. Imagine how much the first Chevy Volt has cost - are the next 1000 produced going to be the same cost.

    Obviously the Russians,Indians and Chinese with at lot more experience than Americans in new nuclear technology aren't buying it. Westinghouse isn't buying it either.

    A mass conversion to mass produced nuclear will save our asses. Nothing else will. Unfortunately for Big Oil, the nukes will put them out of business - and they make ten's of trillions of dollars annual. They fight back dumping millions of dollars into astroturf organizations like Pembina. Big Oil loves wind and solar - they know none of it will make a dint in their profits.

  • alive

    2 years ago

    first thing first

    When a shortage of any kind occurs, the first thing to do, is to ration whatever stock you have.
    Then you can begin to worry about how to replenish or replace the shortcoming.
    Keeping that in mind let us stop wasting power!
    There was a time when lights were turned off when nobody was in offices for instance.
    The list is endless, in reality we only need maybe 50% of what we consume.
    Restraint should be the first order of the day, then forget corporate profits and go for the best solution.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Radioglow bunnies and other fast-breeders :

    Yep, those crazy Yankees sure don't know how to make money on technology :

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

    When will they start taking lessons in massive tax-payer subsidized production cost control from Russia, India and China ?

    Maybe they will permit us to re-process their waste.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Saving Asses first

    Mass conversions are symptoms of irrational faith-wishes.

    Thrift and waste-watching will 'produce' Nega-watts :
    http://www.iea.org/textbase/Papers/2008/cd_energy_efficiency_policy/0_introduction/EffiRecommendations_web.pdf

    Dinting carbon profits by consumption restraint :
    http://www.good.is/post/inside-the-2000-watt-society/

  • Intention Pure

    2 years ago

    Thank you

    I am inspired by this story and forever grateful for those people who bring it to others attention that water is a hundred million times more valuable than any oil will ever be (except for hemp oil maybe - hee hee). Indigenous peoples' rights to water are very, very important and becoming stronger every day as discussed by activists in our communities Water Forum last night

  • seth

    2 years ago

    More claprap from the tory

    Say Red love those cutsie one liners and the irrelevant links without provenance from astroturfers. What one expects from sunbeams and fuzzy bunnies.

    We are comparing the expertise of relatively small cap American tech with little government support to Russian, Chinese, and Indian national priorities. The current American private industry nuclear approach would be like expecting Spaceship One to beat NASA to Mars.

    Your link's what little they give get their costs from old overregulated reactor builds one and two at time not mass production of new generation machines. For costs google westinghouse china nuclear. That's under construction $1100 a kilowatt - without armies of attorneys and years of regulatory hurdles. How about Areva's quote to Ontario $2400 a kilowatt not mass produced, and including armies of attorneys and regulatory officialdom.

    BCUC estimated a maximum of 20% in efficiency savings and most of that at many times the $1000 a kilowatt cost of mass produced nukes. We need 300% electricity growth to end GHG emissions and give us a chance at saving our asses. In fact very little conservation savings have any near term cost payback. Nuclear by eliminating domestic oil use has immediate payback.

    Nuclear waste can all be burned as fuel in gen IV reactors eliminating waste and proliferation, modern reactors have passive and negative feedback coolant systems eliminating accidents.

    Times a ticking. We have maybe only ten years and you moonbeam fuzzy bunnies have no answer that can take us off fossil fuels ever much less than in the next ten years.

    Risking the end of civilization and billions of dead, over warm feelings of blue sky renewables. Now thats "Green" thinking.

  • newphorik

    2 years ago

    Nukes?

    Where do we put the waste? Fort Chip?

  • kootowl

    2 years ago

    Nukes?

    No.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Trapping claps ...

    ... sure can't beat a perfect trifecta of the google-machine, corporate sales pitches (line up here for your massive tax-subsidies! this offer can not last!) and the BC Utilities Commission.

    Oh, I feel more fuzzy bunnies coming on :

    OECD/ IEA put costs no less than than $3200 /kW anywhere on earth:
    http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/WEO_2008_Power_Generation_Cost_Assumptions.pdf
    [table 4]
    Excluding decommissioning costs after 50 years worklife.
    Add storage costs for 3 millennia.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Peak U

    Then what, re-process for plutonium ?

    U3O8 even at $100/lb and current consumption of 70,000 tons global reserves expected to last no more than 70 years - one human lifetime.
    Then add waste storage.
    For 3,000 years.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    Fuzzy pitches Softballs

    The figures for nuclear in the OECD document comes from studies on old one at a time builds of generation 2 reactors and have been superceded by modern factory produced reactors. China bought 4 nukes from Westinghouse now under construction at $1100 a kilowatt - without armies of attorneys and years of regulatory hurdles while Areva quoted Ontario $2400 a kilowatt not mass produced, and including armies of attorneys and regulatory officialdom.

    These are onesey and twosey builds. Westinghouse on its web site claims $1000 a kilowatt for mass produced, one time nationwide NRC and environmental approval.They bet the farm on it in China.

    Decommissioning cost are irrelevant as the sites are will be nuclear as long as we have a civilization.

    The Nuclear waste and fuel issue problem is blown well out of proportion by propaganda from Big Oil/Coal and associated astroturfers like Pembina. All of it can be reused as reprocessed fuel in Gen 3.5 nukes,or as fuel in generation four nukes. With modern efficient generation 3.5 reactors able to use reprocessed and thorium fuels, a huge eighty year current supply of natural uranium, thorium fuel five times as abundant as uranium. and orders of magnitude more efficient fast breeder reactors like Sandia and Toshiba new designs there is sufficient nuclear fission fuel to last hundreds of years.

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Seth

    The argument for breeder reactors has been around for many years and makes sense. However, the primary argument against them has been that the key element for making nuclear bombs, Plutonium, can also be produced by them.

    Has that situation changed?

  • seth

    2 years ago

    Breeeders

    The old fast breeders could make plutonium out of uranium just like any reactor like the Candu.

    A good example of a modern gen IV fast breeder is the Lifter or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

    It takes Thorium-232, turns it into U-233 in the reactor then fissions it creating heat to run a helium gas turbine generator. The system should scale well from 50 to a 1000 megawatts.

    You can't make atom bombs out of it -- U-233 can't support a runaway reaction like U-235 or Plutonium can. There is no catastrophic meltdown possible as the fissionables condense and stop fissioning when they get too hot. A one gigawatt reactor could run for a year producing only ten pounds of radioactive waste and the fission byproducts have a half life of 300 years instead of over 10 thousand years for previous generation reactors.

    The reactor runs at normal atmospheric pressure no containment building is necessary. It could be placed in any commercial building. There is enough known deposits of Thorium in the US to supply the world's power needs for a thousand years.
    Costs are expected to be as low as $200 a kilowatt generating power for a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour.

    Enlightened Greenies are waiting with interest for the details on the new Sandia Right reactor.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Don't hold your breath

    You haven't mentioned the high cost of fuel fabrication: 1. the high radioactivity of U-233 chemically separated from the irradiated thorium fuel. Separated U-233 is always contaminated with traces of U-232 (69 year half-life but whose daughter products such as thallium-208 are strong gamma emitters with very short half-lives). Even though this confers proliferation resistance to the fuel cycle, it results in considerably increased costs.
    2. There are similar problems associated with recycling thorium itself due to highly radioactive element Th-228 (an alpha emitter with two-year half life) present.
    3. There is also a real concern about the weapons proliferation risk of U-233 (which might be separated on its own). Designs like the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor address this concern.
    4. There are a range of potential technical problems (not yet satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing solid fuels.

    5. An enormous amount of development and research work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, a project that seems unlikely to be realized while (or where) abundant uranium is available. India's interest in this research seems likely to wane as it gains better access to uranium markets.

    It does hold potential in the long term but it won't do much to address the current crisis, in my view.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    Fast reactors are here

    The Shippingport/Radkowsky Thorium Reactor worked quite nicely on Thorium fuel into the 1980's The fuel rods were a problem to build but once fueled the reactor could have run for decades. Candu's have been successfully run on thorium fuel.

    It would be be very difficult to make a bomb with U-233. In fact nobody has or would ever bother. Much easier to use plutonium or enriched uranium.

    The liquid flourine thorium reactor (LFTR) has resolved all the issues with the thorium/U233 cycle in any case as the fuel never leaves the reactor.

    Toshiba has a small 10 Mw fast sodium breeder reactor that is ready for 2012 service, and will run for 30 years on reprocessed fuel. It is up for NRC approval. Sandia labs has a 300 mw sodium unit designed and has found a partner to built it. Once again more nuclear waste going in to fuel fast metal breeders and service is imminent not years away.

    India's new 450 gigawatt nuclear conversion is completely dependant on a working thorium breeder reactor as part of the overall reactor mix. They have one working and one under construction. China and Russia also have units under construction.

    Reprocessing uranium based fuel rods has been done successfully at a commercial scale in several countries but at a higher cost than virgin uranium supply. As the latter cost increases reprocessing becomes more attractive.

    If the US, Canada and Europe could see its way to spending money on nuclear power research more of these reactors would be only a few years away. Unfortunately the green no nukes types supported by Big Oil money have managed to all but shut down the nuclear industry.

    Nonetheless reactors like the LFTR are the answer to the questions of nuclear waste disposal, proliferation, safety and fuel availability. It is the latter that will hasten development as we begin the mass conversion from fossil fuels with the current Gen 3.5 reactors.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    me dumb

    I realize now Gary that you were referring to my first "Breeder" discussion. The properties I listed are particular to the Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor or LFTR not to the general use of thorium as a breeder fuel which is what the the Indians are doing. The LFTR uses its own innovative Thorium to U233 fuel cycling process.

    Your discussion refers largely to the difficulties the Indians are facing with extracting fuel from their Thorium reactors for use with conventional Gen 3.5 machines. Hopefully they've solved the problems.

    With the relative abundance of uranium and spent fuel today and the orders of magnitude greater efficiency of the Sandia and Toshiba Sodium Fast Reactors we shouldn't need Thorium fuel anytime soon. The Indians have vast reserves of thorium and little uranium so their interests are more strategic than economic.

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Seth

    If the now-spent fuel rods pose a huge disposal / storage problem, and if the new-style reactors can reduce this waste by orders of magnitude, that would seem to me to be a considerable plus argument for using them.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    Fuel rods a burning

    Follow the news on the Sandia Right Reactor and hope.

    It is also possible that the Republicans will force Obama to spend a lot more on nuclear research as a condition of support for his climate bill.

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    LIFTR

    In reply to, GWEST:

    1) Sounds like common industrial process, hard Gamma emitters are routinely used in industry. The cost of the automated liquid fuel processing is an issue, and undoubtedly will add significantly to the LIFTR’s costs, while other advantages of LIFTR will result in reduced costs. Some very smart people have analyzed and run experimental fuel reprocessing and concluded the cost will be entirely reasonable. In the end build the damn thing & find out. What you want to invest >100X the cost of development on wacky Corn Ethanol instead ( as is happening)?

    2) Th-228 is a minor matter, included in dealing with Thallium 208.

    3) Now you are contradicting yourself. The high radioactivity of the U233 makes it entirely unsuitable as a Weapons material, and nobody’s ever used it. Why build a much more difficult LIFTR for a extraordinarily difficult bomb material, and easily detectable, when the simplest reactor imaginable, a basic graphite pile reactor (plans available on the internet and that’s what North Korea is doing), will produce copious amounts of PU-239, the proven & preferred weapons material from commonly available Uranium reactor fuel.

    4) Yeah, like any serious technology ever invented. Spend the trivial amount on R&D and it will either be resolved economically or determined to be uneconomical. Mission accomplished.

    5) Define enormous? You are still thinking business-as-usual, wait-for-disaster energy policy. India is well on the road to the Thorium fuel cycle, and CANDU’s can burn thorium, as well as LWR’s can use a mixed thorium fuel. Uranium is so cheap, and Government’s are more interested in subsidizing O2 gobbling, CO2 belching, terrorist funding, expensive fossil fuels & so-called “renewable energy” scams, so it just ain’t being done very much at present.

    The current crisis will ONLY be addressed with Nuclear Fusion and/or Fission. And that means use competent people (not politicians or industry lobbyists) to determine the best possible technologies, and attempt to build one of each, at least to the point of determining whether a) infeasible, b) feasible but not economical c) economical – build it d) a genuine Black Swan – a total game-changer. You sure won’t succeed sitting on your butt whining about routine technical difficulties – while 100’s of trillions of dollars of wealth, billions of lives and the Earth’s entire ecosystem is in jeopardy due to government inaction.

    See Kirk Sorenson video on LIFTR:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

    and PowerPoint presentation here:

    http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/LFTRGoogleTalk_Bonometti.ppt

  • Fiat lux

    2 years ago

    Who is going to guard the

    Who is going to guard the abandoned nuke power stations for 100,000, or whatever years?

    Has a safe disposal method been found for the discarded rods ? What are they doing with them now ?

    In any case, what do we need that huge amount of electricity for, except to replace a few horsepower of human labour with many times of other forms of energy, like electricity and oil, and call it efficiency ?

    Ed Deak.

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    fiat lux

    Ed, why on earth would an abandoned nuclear power station have to be "guarded"?

    Seth has aleady anwered your question re fuel rods.

    Do you REALLY believe "human labour" could replace the energy from hydrocarbons and electricity?

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Bribe of Nuclearistas

    Thankfully, the well-intentioned honest nuker brokers won't need to resort to these tactics in advanced future-forward jurisdictions like China, India and Russia:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nuclear-alert-pms-bribe-boosts-dumping-of-waste-768490.html

    ... because Big Nukers just wouldn't want to end up like Big Oil.

  • jericho

    2 years ago

    hijacking

    Man, so easy to shift comments from the main focus of the article to an argument about what technology will be our next saviour...pure distraction.

    Having been and worked in the Athabascan region which includes just a portion of the Northern Alberta tar pit developments I can say how 'important' the tar pit developments have been to the economy of not just Alberta but almost every province in Canada.

    Some 100,000 workers from all over Canada and as far as Somalia, fabrication shops throughout North America busy due to the development and much more...these projects tentacles reach far and wide and as dependent we are to fossil fuels to produce and deliver all our goods there is now a similar dependence on the incomes, some exceeding $200,000 for trades workers, and the subsiduary economies throughout the world.

    There are no easy answers, however, the projects should be have to conform the highest order of environmental responsibility including eliminating all water and atmospheric pollution and emissions.

    Open pit mining should be stopped immediately as it creates a haze of smog throughout the development areas, upsets during upgrading the tar creates significant atmospheric emission releases however no work is being done to stop this pollution and emissions. Technology and effort is totally allocated to development of more pits and sags and not cleaning up past present and future environmental destruction.

    I would really like to see the movie and compare it to my own experiences.

  • sicntired

    2 years ago

    Tar sands???

    Most seem to be off on other tangents.The fact is that the tar sands are being "developed"at a rapid rate to supply the American behemoth even though the cost of production makes any profit that is made at a minimum.This destruction of the environment and poisoning of the land can never be justified and the amount of water needed is far beyond justification.The pipeline will be an even worse disaster not to mention the danger of an oil spill.Alberta gets rich at the expense of the rest of the planet.Anyone that believes the oiul industry when it promises to rejuvenate the land is too long on the pipe.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    sicntired

    ...the American behemoth, or the Chimese one. It's a choice.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-advocates-for-oil-sands-tout-security-of-supply/article1320732/

    * OCTOBER 13, 2009, 7:39 A.M. ET

    OIL FUTURES: Nymex Crude Tops $74/Bbl On Econ Optimism

    ***

    The grim message

    U.S.-based Consumer Energy Alliance says cutting back on Alberta Crude would only increase dependence on Middle East oil.

    OIL RESERVES, IN BILLION OF BARRELS

    Saudi Arabia: 264

    Canada: 178

    Iran: 136

    Iraq: 115

    Kuwait: 102

    Venezuela: 99

    Abu Dhabi: 92

    Russia: 60

    Libya: 44

    Nigeria: 36

    Kazakhstan: 30

    U.S.: 21

    THE GLOBE AND MAIL / SOURCE: CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Which one?

    ...the Chimese(sic) one

    Very interesting!

  • G West

    2 years ago

    This:

    The current crisis will ONLY be addressed with Nuclear Fusion and/or Fission.

    Seems overly naive and overly confident at exactly the same time.

    In fact, anyone who minimizes the dangers and problems inherent in 'any' technological 'fix' as a panacea for problems created over generations is likely selling snake oil behind his/her back.

    As for the 'value' of the nuclear industry as a cheap and easy solution to anything, I can put you in touch with some folks in Ontario who'd like to talk to you about Bruce Power.

    Cheers.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Bitumen Sands Viable

    Got me over a barrel there, G West. I blame Mr. Qwerty.

    Alberta is back on a safe 'play'. Oil is expected to stabilize near $75 for a few years.

    "Per-Barrel Operating Costs Down to $33
    Already there are signs that costs are coming down. Suncor's per-barrel operating cost declined to just over $33 per barrel during the first quarter of 2009, down considerably from the $41 per barrel cost reported during the last quarter of 2008. Other major oil sands producer Syncrude, a consortium operation which includes ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) among its owners, is also targeting a reduction in per-barrel operating costs to $33 this year. With these lower operating costs, Suncor estimates that it will still generate a double-digit return from its existing operations, even at crude prices in the high $40 to low $50 per barrel range.

    As a result of these cost reductions, analysts have now revised their breakeven cost for new oil sands projects from $80 to $100 per barrel to something closer to $60 a barrel. ..."

    Other behemoths:
    Oil Importers - 2006
    (millions of barrels per day):

    1. United States 12.22
    2. Japan 5.10
    3. China 3.44
    4. Germany 2.48
    5. South Korea 2.15

    As for nuclear; the best thing would be to farm it out as a P3 to a French company. The French love nuclear power. They export 18% of the power they produce and this makes them the largest exporter of electricity in the world.

    They have around 59 nuclear power stations.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

    A few Canadian's are still scared of it.

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    speaking of Bribes

    OilbertaRedTory says: "...Bribe of Nuclearistas..."

    Woopedy-F'kin-doo, that is really impressive. How about the bribes paid to farmers to despoil the wilderness with enormous Wind Turbines, How about the $1,390,000 in bribes Mr. Censorship-of-the-Press Ted “the natural gas king” Turner paid to Greenpeace for their anti-Nuclear stance. And Rockefellers (Oil & Gas) and Joyce Foundation (Coal). How about your Gerhard Schroder, Mr. Shutdown all German Nuclear Power Plants, getting a cushy job on Russia’s NG supplier Gazprom’s Board of Directors, after leaving his mess behind in Germany? “.. please, Mr. Putin, don’t turn off our Gas this winter, we’ll behave, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on it…”

    As for the hyped up nuclear waste in your article, no problem, I will bury my one cup of Nuclear Waste generated if all my lifetime’s worth of Electrical Energy was generated by Nuclear, on my property, if you bury your substitute 110 tonnes of radioactive Coal Solid Waste you generate during your lifetime on your property. And also you should bag up the 580,000 cubic meters of CO2 you will produce, and store it on your property. That will be a column of about 1 km high. Good luck on that. (We may give you a free pass on the SOx, NOx, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead etc that you will dump in the environment).

    Also, I don’t see why you should get away with burning up that 420,000 cubic meters of oxygen for free, whereas I don’t burn any for my Nuclear Power. How about a reasonable charge of $1 per cubic meter, that’s a bill to you for $420,000 for wasting the Earth’s Oxygen needlessly. Will that be cash or charge?

    OilbertaRedTory says: “... because Big Nukers just wouldn't want to end up like Big Oil…”

    Ain’t going to happen. Why? Because Nuclear Energy is not significantly based on a commodity as fossil fuels are. Nuclear is more like automobiles – anyone can make them. The average Middle East barrel of Oil costs $4 per barrel to pump out of the ground. Last year they were selling it for $140 per barrel and $200 per barrel was in sight, had it not being for Bush’s Financial Meltdown. 3,400% profit on each barrel. A gravy train like that will likely never occur again – ever. Nuclear fuel is small fraction of Nuclear costs, and countries like India can turn to domestic thorium, or breed their own fuel, or simply buy a 10 yr inventory – a small volume – you can’t do that with fossil fuels.

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    Nuclear Power is salvation for the Tar Sands project

    Jericho says: “… Man, so easy to shift comments … to an argument about what technology will be our next saviour …”

    That’s where you’re wrong. As a matter of fact, the Tar Sands is all about Nuclear Power. The whole project shouldn’t even been allowed to begin without using Nuclear Energy for Process Heat & Electricity. Nuclear energy could reduce the Tar Sands GHG emissions down to maybe 10% of what they are now. It is your type of attitude that is putting the entire project in jeopardy and jobs for the 100,000’s of workers who will work there in the future.

    Make no mistake about it, it is highly likely that Canada will be compelled to close down the Tar Sands project once the international pressure to deal with Climate Change becomes unbearable. It will be a bit late to convert to Nuclear by then. Start now, get the job done, 100’s of thousands of Canadian jobs saved, and a big boost for Canada’s exports.

    As an example of the unbelievable, corrupt, moronic stupidity of the Alberta Government and their failure to embrace Nuclear. They are planning to spend $2 billion on a dubious scheme to capture & sequester 5 million tonnes of CO2, at a cost of $400 per tonne. That way the Oil Gang gets to abuse public land to sell Oil at a profit, gets to sell the NG to process the Oil at a good profit, and gets the taxpayer to pay for a $2 billion public relations exercise – to pretend they’re seriously going to cut CO2 emissions!

    One example of a nuclear alternative, the Hyperion Nuclear Reactor. With 70 MW thermal output, well suited for providing process heat in the Tar Sands. Cost C$32 million. See:

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/hyperion-power-generation-uranium.html

    With a zero CO2 output, it will produce 6.2 TWh of heat within 10 years, before needing refueling. Displacing NG, that will amount to 1.2 million MTs of CO2 avoided. Displacing Coal Thermal energy, that will amount to 1.8 million MTs of CO2 avoided.

    Cost of NG CO2 avoided = C$32 million / 1.2 million MTs = $27 per MT.
    Cost of Coal CO2 avoided = $17 per MT.

    Compare with the Alberta Gov’t CCS special of $400 per MT.

    That’s just using one fuel cycle. What about including two or three fuel cycles? Probably drops below $10 per MT.

    But there’s more to consider. We are also avoiding the cost of the Natural Gas or Coal fuel over the 10 year Hyperion fuel cycle.

    Taking NG @ a forecast price of $7 per GJ, and using a 5%, 10 year bond to finance the NG purchases, that yields a Present Value of $121 million, fuel cost.

    Taking Coal @ a delivered price of $50 per ton, that would be $43 million fuel cost.

    Conclusion. Each Hyperion Nuclear reactor used instead of CCS, would save $480 million in CCS costs, and $121-$32 million = $89 million in NG fuel costs, or $12 million in Coal fuel costs. IN OTHER WORDS ZERO CARBON IS NOT ONLY A FREE BONUS, BUT A MONEYSAVER!! AND THAT’S JUST FOR ONE FUEL CYCLE!!

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    Nuclear Education

    G West says:”…Seems overly naive and overly confident …dangers and problems inherent in 'any' technological 'fix' as a panacea for problems…”

    You, like most folks, have a fundamental misunderstanding of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear is a class of Energy. We essentially have three classes of Energy to power human civilization (discounting the Ecotopians who want to return to muscle power). That is:

    1)Fossil Fuel Energy; presumably you agree that it has to be replaced due to emissions problems and also depleting supply

    2)Renewable Energy, energy driven by the Sun mostly but also Nuclear Decay inside the Earth.

    3)Nuclear Energy, of which there is three subclasses: a) Fission, b) Fusion, c) more exotic forms such as Blacklight Power, Zero Point Energy & Anti-matter

    I would hardly call the enormous Nuclear Energy Class “a technological fix “. I don’t see how anyone can dispute the fact that Nuclear can, given sufficient time, replace the entirety of Fossil Fuels & Renewable Energy. France already mostly did it, as well as Japan and South Korea. I could give you a couple long lists of very different technologies that have good potential in both the Fusion & Fission subclasses.

    Also, take note I’m talking about the supply side of the Energy Equation. On the demand side, certainly improving efficiency and reducing waste is very cost effective and can make substantial reductions in Energy Consumption, or at least slow the growth of Energy Consumption. However, without Nuclear energy, those improvements are not going to sufficiently reduce fossil fuel consumption to prevent either Peak Oil or Global Warming catastrophe. On the other hand, Nuclear Energy can certainly prevent both of those, without improvements in Energy Efficiency, It will just take longer and cost more.

    Renewable Energy can help some, in specialized areas, but it can’t even come close to doing the job, without Nuclear, whereas Nuclear can succeed without benefit of Renewables.

    G West says:”…As for the 'value' of the nuclear .. put you in touch with some folks in Ontario who'd like to talk to you about Bruce Power..”

    Bruce Power Nukes 3 to 8 produced about 36,000 GWh of green electrical energy in 2008. Bruce 6 had a Load Factor of 95.2% in 2008. Compare with your average Ontario Wind Capacity Factor of 28%, and a poor correlation with demand. Total New Renewables (Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal) power generation in Canada 2008 was 3,000 GWh. Your bad example of Nuclear Power failure produced 12X the electrical energy of all the new renewables in Canada in 2008. And Bruce Nukes did not consume prodigious amounts of fossil fuels for complementary power, as your renewables did.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Yeechsts !

    Nukers and Oilers ; Supply-siders one and all. Soviet style centrally-planned production, maximized in-efficiencies to scare off private capital leaving only massive tax-payer costs, bottlenecked distribution, fuelling downstream self-immolating consumption of the real opportunities cost and lost.

    It's all so last century :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klooRS-Jjyo

    And the gamut of sales-hype to shame a Titan - expect delivery 2020 [ your results may vary ]

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.