Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In-state oil fields don't all meet standard {California}
San Fransisco Chronicle ^ | February 10, 2013 | David R. Baker

Posted on 02/11/2013 5:11:59 AM PST by thackney

Environmentalists often call oil from Canada's tar sands the dirtiest fuel on Earth, because the complex process of extracting it spews huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.

But by that standard, some of the crude oil pumped in California is just as dirty. In a few cases, it's even worse.

Several California oil fields produce just as much carbon dioxide per barrel of oil as the tar sands do, state data show. A handful of fields yield even more. All of them are fields that have been pumped for years and now need injections of steam to squeeze out more oil. Power plants create the steam, releasing greenhouse gases in the process. The gases build up in the atmosphere, slowly warming the globe.

In the past, few people knew or cared about the "carbon intensity" of California crude. Now, however, that intensity is helping fuel the fight over a key California policy to combat global warming.

The state's "low carbon fuel standard" requires fuel producers to lower the carbon intensity of the products they sell here 10 percent by 2020. To comply, oil companies will probably have to blend more advanced biofuels into their gasoline and diesel.

But California refineries might also have to stop using some of the crude pumped here in the Golden State, according to an industry trade group.

That carbon-intensive oil would be exported abroad, while the state's refineries would import more low-carbon oil to take its place. And since both the imports and exports would travel in ships - ships burning fuel and releasing carbon dioxide - the added maritime traffic could increase greenhouse gas emissions rather than cut them. The policy, in other words, could backfire.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: energy; oil

1 posted on 02/11/2013 5:12:04 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney
Power plants create the steam, releasing (")greenhouse gases(") in the process. The gases build up in the atmosphere, slowly warming the globe.

What exactly is a "greenhouse gas"? Are they sure of the effects? Are they "building up in the atmosphere". Is the globe warming? Are they sure about this?

2 posted on 02/11/2013 5:29:53 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

The statement implies the gasses warm the atmosphere.

That is of course wrong. The greenhouse theory says the increased presence reflects reflected thermal energy back into the atmosphere. Absent the greenhouse gas buildup the radiated heat would escape back into space.


3 posted on 02/11/2013 5:35:33 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

They don’t care! Their sole purpose is to destroy industry in the U.S. They don’t seem to have a problem with other counties exploiting their resources, including oil in the Gulf of Mexico,it is only we Americans that are incapable and incompetent. They wish to punish us by keeping us dependent upon foreign suppliers sucking the wealth out of our economy.


4 posted on 02/11/2013 9:11:44 AM PST by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney
If those environmentalist were honest the total carbon dioxide that all of them breath out combined is more than all of the total carbon dioxide that is exhausted to the air from all of the production of the Canadian Tar sands.
But of course that's just something that they would not allow the general public to see or know.. it's a agenda that they have to protect.
What is it ? for every human to live from oxygen, that human would need at least one tree, so ? if that one human needs one tree to live off it's oxygen then would it not in return that that very same tree use up that carbon dioxide from that human ?
5 posted on 02/13/2013 3:07:00 PM PST by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson