fishingbc
Active Member
Take the time to sign the online petition, 17,000 + have signed and counting
http://www.notankers.ca/
http://www.notankers.ca/
TANKERS ON THE BC COAST
- Thread starter fishingbc
- Start date
Sushihunter
Active Member
Sorry, but my boat runs on gasoline - and it's not getting any cheaper.
Drill in Alaska, and put oil rigs on the coast and cut out the mad mullahs of the middle east.
We have more oil over here than there is in Saudi Arabia - why do we let them set the price of oil?
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Hey Sushihunter I guess you in fact don't care much for fishing, harvesting and enjoying our west coast marine life. Why, because oil spills, in addition to climate change, fish farms, habitat destruction and over fishing will push many marine organisms over the edge. Give your head a shake man and think more about things then just your bank account.
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
The last thing we need is easier access to oil and gas, which we, as a province, should be moving away from.
Sushihunter
Active Member
Don't let the propaganda go to your head.
I do care about the enviroment - I just follow actual science - not the emotional gum flapping of enviro-fascists like Al Gore and David Suzuki, neither of whom do not have a degree in climatology.
If you read the website at notankers you may notice that they want an outright ban on all tankers and all methods of transporting oil to market. In other words: NO OIL - PERIOD.
If they were saying "no tankers, but here is a better, safer way to transport oil", then I might be inclined to listen to them.
You are giving these snake-oil salesmen far too much credit.
Sushihunter
Active Member
Yes, ALL new tankers must be double hulled. Single hull tankers are quickly being cut into scrap.
Sushihunter
Active Member
Please explain what we should be moving toward, if we are moving away from oil.
Electric powered boats? Steam powered? Nuclear powered? Sail powered?
Oil is not evil - if not for oil, none of you would enjoy the lifestyle you have today. You'd be plowing fields with oxen to keep fed.
Sushihunter
Active Member
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2699b272-8fed-4da6-8c2a-d54390f7d54b
Friday » March 21 » 2008
'Potentially vast' oil resources under the Arctic
U.S. firm lays claim to nearly all of what it says will be 400 billion barrels
Randy Boswell
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, March 21, 2008
A U.S.-based company that has controversially laid claim to nearly all of the Arctic Ocean's undersea oil said yesterday that new geological data suggest a "potentially vast" petroleum resource of 400 billion barrels.
That figure is backed by a respected Canadian researcher who recently signed on as the firm's chief scientific adviser.
Las Vegas-based Arctic Oil & Gas has raised eyebrows around the world with its roll-of-the-dice bid to lock up exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from rapidly melting areas of the central Arctic Ocean, currently beyond the territorial control of Canada, Russia and other polar nations.
The company, which counts retired B.C. senator Edward Lawson among its directors, has filed a claim with the United Nations to act as the sole "development agent" of Arctic seabed oil and gas.
The firm acknowledges that the Arctic's petroleum deposits are the "common heritage of mankind," but has argued that the polar region requires a private "lead manager" to organize a multinational consortium of oil companies to extract undersea resources responsibly and equitably.
The Canadian government has dismissed the company's "alleged claim" over Arctic oil as having "no force in law," but experts in polar issues have raised alarms about the firm's actions, saying they could disrupt efforts to create an orderly regime for exploiting resources and protecting the Arctic environment under international law rather than a marketplace model.
In its latest statement about the polar seabed's "enormous reserve potential" for petroleum deposits, Arctic Oil & Gas cites recent scientific evidence that huge, floating mats of azolla -- a prehistoric fern believed to have covered much of the Arctic Ocean during a planetary hothouse era about 55 million years ago -- decomposed soon after the age of the dinosaurs and exist today as "vast hydrocarbon resources" trapped in layers of rock below the polar ice cap.
Jonathan Bujak, a former geoscientist with the Geological Survey of Canada who now works as a private consultant in Canada and Britain, is described in the Arctic Oil & Gas statement as confirming the "highly probable validity" of recent research pointing to rock layers "extremely rich" in "hydrocarbon precursors" throughout the Arctic basin.
Mr. Bujak, who previously worked for PetroCanada as a petroleum geologist, co-authored a landmark 2006 study in the journal Nature that first detailed the ancient azolla explosion that shows up today in Arctic seabed core samples.
Neither Mr. Bujak nor Mr. Lawson could be reached for comment yesterday.
Scientists have predicted that global warming could leave the entire Arctic virtually ice-free for months at a time within 20 years. That prospect has hastened a scramble among nations with a polar coast -- namely Canada, Russia, the U.S., Norway and Denmark, which controls Greenland -- to try to strengthen their scientific claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to extended territorial sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean floor.
A report issued last week by the European Union's top two foreign policy officials also highlighted the looming international struggle over Arctic oil deposits.
Authored by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Europe's commissioner for external relations, the study pointed to "potential consequences for international stability and European security interests" as the retreat of Arctic ice makes shipping and oil and gas exploration a reality in the region.
Noting the "rapid melting of the polar ice caps," the report noted that "the increased accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region is changing the geo-strategic dynamics of the region."
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Friday » March 21 » 2008
'Potentially vast' oil resources under the Arctic
U.S. firm lays claim to nearly all of what it says will be 400 billion barrels
Randy Boswell
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, March 21, 2008
A U.S.-based company that has controversially laid claim to nearly all of the Arctic Ocean's undersea oil said yesterday that new geological data suggest a "potentially vast" petroleum resource of 400 billion barrels.
That figure is backed by a respected Canadian researcher who recently signed on as the firm's chief scientific adviser.
Las Vegas-based Arctic Oil & Gas has raised eyebrows around the world with its roll-of-the-dice bid to lock up exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from rapidly melting areas of the central Arctic Ocean, currently beyond the territorial control of Canada, Russia and other polar nations.
The company, which counts retired B.C. senator Edward Lawson among its directors, has filed a claim with the United Nations to act as the sole "development agent" of Arctic seabed oil and gas.
The firm acknowledges that the Arctic's petroleum deposits are the "common heritage of mankind," but has argued that the polar region requires a private "lead manager" to organize a multinational consortium of oil companies to extract undersea resources responsibly and equitably.
The Canadian government has dismissed the company's "alleged claim" over Arctic oil as having "no force in law," but experts in polar issues have raised alarms about the firm's actions, saying they could disrupt efforts to create an orderly regime for exploiting resources and protecting the Arctic environment under international law rather than a marketplace model.
In its latest statement about the polar seabed's "enormous reserve potential" for petroleum deposits, Arctic Oil & Gas cites recent scientific evidence that huge, floating mats of azolla -- a prehistoric fern believed to have covered much of the Arctic Ocean during a planetary hothouse era about 55 million years ago -- decomposed soon after the age of the dinosaurs and exist today as "vast hydrocarbon resources" trapped in layers of rock below the polar ice cap.
Jonathan Bujak, a former geoscientist with the Geological Survey of Canada who now works as a private consultant in Canada and Britain, is described in the Arctic Oil & Gas statement as confirming the "highly probable validity" of recent research pointing to rock layers "extremely rich" in "hydrocarbon precursors" throughout the Arctic basin.
Mr. Bujak, who previously worked for PetroCanada as a petroleum geologist, co-authored a landmark 2006 study in the journal Nature that first detailed the ancient azolla explosion that shows up today in Arctic seabed core samples.
Neither Mr. Bujak nor Mr. Lawson could be reached for comment yesterday.
Scientists have predicted that global warming could leave the entire Arctic virtually ice-free for months at a time within 20 years. That prospect has hastened a scramble among nations with a polar coast -- namely Canada, Russia, the U.S., Norway and Denmark, which controls Greenland -- to try to strengthen their scientific claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to extended territorial sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean floor.
A report issued last week by the European Union's top two foreign policy officials also highlighted the looming international struggle over Arctic oil deposits.
Authored by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Europe's commissioner for external relations, the study pointed to "potential consequences for international stability and European security interests" as the retreat of Arctic ice makes shipping and oil and gas exploration a reality in the region.
Noting the "rapid melting of the polar ice caps," the report noted that "the increased accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region is changing the geo-strategic dynamics of the region."
© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
quotelease explain what we should be moving toward, if we are moving away from oil.
I recently attended an informative lecture by Guy Dauncey at Royal Roads called "The Great Climate Challange: Practical Solutions that Work" - and there are multiple alternative energy sources that do not have the adverse effects oil and gas does. Unlike fossil fuels, there is no single solution - but a combination of available resources specific to an area is required. For our coast - tidal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric come to mind - 85% of BC's electricity is from our current hydro dams - the rest is imported. Using the other resources locally on smaller scales would absolutely suffice.
Also, have you noticed all the hype about hybrids? plug-in hybrids? fuel cells? an incredible amount of research is going into alternative fuels. As far as powering boats go - hybrid will not work because there is no way to absorb energy (this is done in hybrid cars by braking, coasting, and downshifting on hills (last one is only for toyota)). However, fuel cells are quite promising and are being implemented into the transit system - given the required R&D, they could also power large and small boats.
If you want more detail I'd be happy to post (I love talking about this stuff) but this is really pushing the boundaries of a fishing forum.
Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that we currently have no problem getting the oil and gas we need - so why allow these oil tankers in our waters? I see no benefit - we will have just as much oil and gas as we do now except there will be a risk of a catastrophic disaster. And why increase our ties to oil and gas - society has to and will, however slowly and reluctantly, move away from oil and gas. One way to encourage this is high gas prices - reducing them would only increase the use of gas and effectively slow progress.
Dudds
Sushihunter
Active Member
quote:Originally posted by Captain Dudds
quote
I recently attended an informative lecture by Guy Dauncey at Royal Roads called "The Great Climate Challange: Practical Solutions that Work" - and there are multiple alternative energy sources that do not have the adverse effects oil and gas does. Unlike fossil fuels, there is no single solution - but a combination of available resources specific to an area is required. For our coast - tidal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric come to mind - 85% of BC's electricity is from our current hydro dams - the rest is imported. Using the other resources locally on smaller scales would absolutely suffice.
Also, have you noticed all the hype about hybrids? plug-in hybrids? fuel cells? an incredible amount of research is going into alternative fuels. As far as powering boats go - hybrid will not work because there is no way to absorb energy (this is done in hybrid cars by braking, coasting, and downshifting on hills (last one is only for toyota)). However, fuel cells are quite promising and are being implemented into the transit system - given the required R&D, they could also power large and small boats.
If you want more detail I'd be happy to post (I love talking about this stuff) but this is really pushing the boundaries of a fishing forum.
Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that we currently have no problem getting the oil and gas we need - so why allow these oil tankers in our waters? I see no benefit - we will have just as much oil and gas as we do now except there will be a risk of a catastrophic disaster. And why increase our ties to oil and gas - society has to and will, however slowly and reluctantly, move away from oil and gas. One way to encourage this is high gas prices - reducing them would only increase the use of gas and effectively slow progress.
Dudds
Yes, all these other sources of energy are good and should be explored, but for most, we are just not there yet.
Hybirds just won't work in a boat, but they are also not that great in cars either. While the technology works reasonably well, there is a little problem about batteries that must be replaced after about 2 or 3 years - very expensive!
Fuel cells while promising, are not there yet. Ask Ballard Power about that.
Hydro-electric is probably our best source of power, but there is this little problem of daming rivers and killing fish.
There are lots of little hydro projects being built by private business all over the province - we have two of them being built here in Tahsis now - one within sight of my home, the other just over the hill near Zeballos. But oddly, I can't power my boat from them.
You worry about the oil tankers. Just how many of the 320 tankers that move down our coast yearly have run aground and spilled their oil? Oh, that's right - none.
Sure, there are things that we could do to make it safer - double hulls being one, but an outright ban on tankers is just not workable.
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
fist of all ships do have accidents. how about the barge that flipped at robson bight last summer and leaked diesel everywhere, and how about the queen of the north - the fact is if you increase traffic, there are going to be more accidents. It is ridiculous to argue that there is no risk of a tanker sinking.
actually hybrids are very successful as cars. they have more than doubled conventional milage and continue to increase efficiency. Your comment about battery life is very very very misguided - 2-3 years?? are you kidding?!? they are warrentied for 8 years for toyota. Most cabs in victoria are prius's and i've talked to them about it - they are going 400k without problems. i don't know where you pulled that number from. also, battery technology is advancing very fast - lithium-ion batteries (much higher energy storage than the current nickel metal hydride) are on the brink of being mass produced. they were scheduled to be out in the 2009 prius but have been delayed because of safety reasons (they run very hot). but they will be around soon and will greatly improve hybrids. Also, I stated that hybrids wouldn't work in a boat and why, then you proceeded to argue that they wouldn't work in a boat??? this does not make sense.
I agree that dams are an environmental hazard - the reservoirs created release an incredible amount of carbon dioxide, not to mention the negative effects on fish - but as far as bc goes, it is done and little additional harm is being done by using the resource. what i was saying is that we should use the other energy sources to build onto our current energy production.
fuel cells are improving quickly. As I said before, they are being integrated into the transit system here in bc. there will be 20 fuel cell busses for the 2010 olympics. by the way the fuels cells for these busses are Ballard Power Cells - so yes i think they are ready. they have much to improve on i'm sure, but they are ready.
If your vehicle was a plug in hybrid, which will be available in a few years (2010 according to toyota and GM), then you could power it off the little dams in your area. I realize this is looking a ways into the future, but if you had a fuel cell boat or car, the hydrogen fuel could also be produced by the local dams/wind/solar/any electrical source. my whole point is that we're reinforcing yesterday when we should be anticipating tomorrow.
I don't understand why an outright ban on tankers is not workable. according to the site posted for this topic, oil tankers have been banned for the last 35 years and the threat is the removal of the ban. So for the last 35 years no oil tankers has worked - why is it not workable now?
actually hybrids are very successful as cars. they have more than doubled conventional milage and continue to increase efficiency. Your comment about battery life is very very very misguided - 2-3 years?? are you kidding?!? they are warrentied for 8 years for toyota. Most cabs in victoria are prius's and i've talked to them about it - they are going 400k without problems. i don't know where you pulled that number from. also, battery technology is advancing very fast - lithium-ion batteries (much higher energy storage than the current nickel metal hydride) are on the brink of being mass produced. they were scheduled to be out in the 2009 prius but have been delayed because of safety reasons (they run very hot). but they will be around soon and will greatly improve hybrids. Also, I stated that hybrids wouldn't work in a boat and why, then you proceeded to argue that they wouldn't work in a boat??? this does not make sense.
I agree that dams are an environmental hazard - the reservoirs created release an incredible amount of carbon dioxide, not to mention the negative effects on fish - but as far as bc goes, it is done and little additional harm is being done by using the resource. what i was saying is that we should use the other energy sources to build onto our current energy production.
fuel cells are improving quickly. As I said before, they are being integrated into the transit system here in bc. there will be 20 fuel cell busses for the 2010 olympics. by the way the fuels cells for these busses are Ballard Power Cells - so yes i think they are ready. they have much to improve on i'm sure, but they are ready.
If your vehicle was a plug in hybrid, which will be available in a few years (2010 according to toyota and GM), then you could power it off the little dams in your area. I realize this is looking a ways into the future, but if you had a fuel cell boat or car, the hydrogen fuel could also be produced by the local dams/wind/solar/any electrical source. my whole point is that we're reinforcing yesterday when we should be anticipating tomorrow.
I don't understand why an outright ban on tankers is not workable. according to the site posted for this topic, oil tankers have been banned for the last 35 years and the threat is the removal of the ban. So for the last 35 years no oil tankers has worked - why is it not workable now?
Similar threads
