Peaceful Protest Underway against Tar Sands Oil Pipeline

[evnow]

Why Transcanada really wants Keystone pipeline ? To extract more money, ofcourse.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/oil-price-spread-costing-canadian-producers-big-bucks/article2230517/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While refineries in Cushing pay WTI prices for their feedstock, refineries 640 kilometres south pay about $20 per barrel more for Light Louisiana Sweet, which like all fuels heading into U.S. ports, trades at or near the Brent-based world oil price. Incidentally, those prices have been in triple-digit territory since the beginning of the year.

That is a great deal for the refineries in Cushing that get a crack spread of around $25, compared to a spread of about $5 for those that have to pay Brent-type world oil prices for their fuel.

But for Canada’s oil patch, which exports more than two million barrels a day to the U.S., the $20 or more price discount that has prevailed all year amounts to $40 million a day, or about one and a quarter billion dollars a month in lost petro-dollars.

 

[Herm]

Thank you, Andy, for the literature. If one looks at the most optimistic estimates of tar sands GHG emissions, perhaps Alberta's PR is in the same ballpark. One interesting point is that the overall emissions go up significantly with in situ extraction, even as it is touted as an improvement because of the reduced impact on the landscape.

The traditional method of getting oil is to just suck it out of the ground, with no processing.. the moment you have to spend energy to make the oil then your CO2 footprint will go up.. just as if you made oil by a CTL or GTL process, my guess is that you will lose 50% of the energy making oil out of coal.. thus doubling the CO2. The simplest process is a methane to methanol conversion.. that one you only lose 20% of the energy upgrading the fuel.

There has been talk of using small nukes onsite at the oil sands to lower the energy cost.. it may happen if oil gets high enough and small nukes become available at reasonable cost. Most likely CO2 induced AGW will be completely debunked by then and no one will bother.

 

[abasile]

There has been talk of using small nukes onsite at the oil sands to lower the energy cost.. it may happen if oil gets high enough and small nukes become available at reasonable cost.

Why not simply use the small nukes (which are a great idea IMHO) to power EVs, and forget the whole nuclear->bitumen->SCO->gasoline/diesel->exhaust pathway? :lol:

Most likely CO2 induced AGW will be completely debunked by then and no one will bother.

It would sure be nice for humanity if you were right. However, the safest approach for our children and grandchildren is to make decisions based on the increasingly strong scientific consensus supporting AGW. Lest any reader suppose that I am politically motivated, let me just say that I am not an Obama fan. Actually, it looks like I'm going to have to hold my nose no matter who I vote for in the Republican primaries and in the main election.

 

[evnow]

Most likely CO2 induced AGW will be completely debunked by then and no one will bother.

"Let us keep smoking - most likely cigarette to cancer link will be debunked".

 

[AndyH]

Most likely CO2 induced AGW will be completely debunked by then and no one will bother.

Sigh. Come on, Herm - you are smarter than this!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U[/youtube]

Barry Bickmore is Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young University. His research specialties are low-temperature geochemistry and geoscience education. In this presentation, he discusses how he moved from being a climate change "skeptic" to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. He then discusses how it is that people like him can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.

 

[Herm]

"Let us keep smoking - most likely cigarette to cancer link will be debunked".

Well, you either get cancer or you get Alzheimer's and get fat.. what a choice!

BTW, there is some movement to produce zero nicotine cigarettes, break the addiction.

 

[Herm]

Why not simply use the small nukes (which are a great idea IMHO) to power EVs, and forget the whole nuclear->bitumen->SCO->gasoline/diesel->exhaust pathway? :lol:

I would prefer an electric, keep the nukes at the power station.. a bunch of safe little ones instead of a 1GW monster.

 

[abasile]

Why not simply use the small nukes (which are a great idea IMHO) to power EVs, and forget the whole nuclear->bitumen->SCO->gasoline/diesel->exhaust pathway? :lol:

I would prefer an electric, keep the nukes at the power station.. a bunch of safe little ones instead of a 1GW monster.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't advocating cars with nuclear reactors on board, just that we use nuclear power to charge our batteries rather than inefficiently producing fuel. EVs really look good when the alternative is to use the tar sands...

 

[AndyH]

Thank you, Andy, for the literature.

My pleasure!

While I'm pretty sure the papers have numbers I can't speak to how representative they are. I only did one keyword search and grabbed the first couple of papers that jumped out.

I wonder if the apparent green-washing is akin to the gas industry saying that fracking isn't contaminating water supplies? Maybe tarsands crude releases the same CO2 levels as regular crude as long as we leave out the mining/processing part of the story?

 

[MarkBC]

I really liked the Barry Bickmore video. My only beef was his use of the word "Truth", when science is not about finding the truth. As he says there is always the possibility that a consensus is wrong so there is no such thing as scientific truth.

I can understand the justification for rejecting the Keystone pipeline but I don't think Americans have really grasped the gravity of their situation. In full disclosure, I am an ecologist and an engineer, currently working on designing coal mines. It's not exactly what I had in mind for my career, and at some point I will be moving on to better things, but for now, that's what I do. And I am the biggest fan of EV's and I own a Leaf.

The problem with rejecting the Keystone pipeline is that America needs oil, and it imports most of the oil it uses. Its domestic production is dropping fast and will pretty much end in the next few years. If currently off-limits areas are opened up, that will add a few years of marginal production.

Now in case you haven't heard, the US dollar is about to collapse. The status of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency is the only reason why Americans are able to continue importing oil and exporting little in return except dollars. 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's resources.

I would love more than anything for America to break free of its oil dependence but realistically, the chances of that happening before the US dollar hyperinflates is about 0.000%. Therefore, when America has no currency, how will it buy oil internationally? It won't. Therefore, its oil consumption is going to necessarily go down by about 70%, basically overnight.

How will that transition work out? Do you think Americans are going to take that sitting down? No! They are going to go out and demand oil, and the only oil source large enough to sustain them in any meaningful way for a while is Alberta.

Do I think this is a wise way to be moving forward? No. But it is inevitable.

The problem is that Enbridge, with the Keystone pipeline having been stalled, is now vigorously pushing to build the pipeline the other way -- to the Pacific coast so that Canada can export its valuable resources to China. Now, I'm all for helping other countries and all, but it seems to me that if there are energy shortages in North America then we should be trying to keep the energy here, not exporting it to corrupt overseas nations.

The Keystone pipeline would have gone through probably the most benign terrain on Earth. If there ever was going to be a place with a low risk of a spill, that was it. Now, instead they want to push the pipeline across the Rockies and thousands of salmon bearing waterways, then across the Coat Mountains to Kitimat. Then haul it with super tankers through treacherous channels that claimed a BC Ferry a few years ago. One way or another, all of Alberta's oil sand is going to be developed. Learn to live with it, because it's going to happen.

Sure we need to develop renewable energy systems and we should be doing it with 100% conviction because the world has about 35 years of oil left; we have already hit Peak Oil and the collapse of modern industrial humanity seems assured at this point. To build what renewable infrastructure we can requires oil. That is what we should be doing with our remaining oil, not shipping it to China.

 

[Herm]

A very astute analysis Mark.. that is why it is very important to control deficit spending and slow down the printing of dollars. Yes it may require cuts in federal and state spending (OMG!) but it could prevent riots and mass starvation if we cant import oil at reasonable prices (reasonable means being able to fill up your F150 at less than $150). An alternative to cutting spending is increasing business activity.. sometimes (when I get a buzz from cafeine) I propose a drastic temporary ban on all taxes, environmental, safety and other regulations with legal immunity from lawsuits for all business to expand. Yes it may be nasty but its only for a short time, perhaps a couple of years.

In a national emergency all fuel will be diverted to food transport and emergency services.. and you will be out of luck getting to work if you dont have a Leaf parked in your dwy being charged by your solar panels.

 

[Electric4Me]

Do I think this is a wise way to be moving forward? No. But it is inevitable.
<snip>
One way or another, all of Alberta's oil sand is going to be developed. Learn to live with it, because it's going to happen.

The odds of this happening as you describe are extremely high, human nature being what it is. However, I feel that just because some resources are available, does not mean that they have to be extracted. Pollution of all kinds needs to be avoided.

As a Canadian expat. I'm extremely disappointed in Canada's "we're going to extract this **** come hell or high water, regardless of how bad it is for our local or the global environment" attitude. If the US pipeline is successfully blocked, and the Canadians run it over the Rockies, they're just making things bad for themselves later.

 

[DaveEV]

The problem with rejecting the Keystone pipeline is that America needs oil, and it imports most of the oil it uses.

You see - that's the biggest fallacy of the Keystone pipeline - the primary reason for building it is so that Canada can access markets outside of the US by the way of the major shipping ports in Louisiana. There's already a plenty of pipelines to get that oil into the USA.

Watch this video with Congressman Gerald Connolly on CPAN: Congressman Rep. Gerald Connolly talks about Keystone XL Pipeline

This week, the House of Representatives pushed approval of the Keystone XL PIpeline.

However, Congressman Gerald Connolly points out that the pipeline would make it possible to export Canadian oil sands oil, and would lead to increased prices at the pump in states like Oklahoma. Currently, tar sands oil stacks up at Cushing, Oklahoma refineries. With the new pipeline, that oil would go overseas, and domestic gasoline prices will go up. You don't hear about that from republicans. This clip is just over three minutes, and comes from C-SPAN video- from a hearing, therefore not subject to copyright.

Connolly tried to get an amendment passed to limit the oil carried, and make it be used ONLY in the USA, but republicans prevented that amendment.

 

[abasile]

I agree with Herm that our government's current deficit spending is not sustainable and should be reined in. The US government is way too large and inefficient. I'm not pointing fingers at any one particular part of the government, as there is incredible waste and bloat in every department/agency that I am aware of. Unfortunately, there does not seem to exist a political party that takes fiscal discipline seriously, recognizes the gravity of the environmental and energy challenges we face, and respects the conservative social values held by a huge number of Americans.

Back to the pipeline, the real problem is that the great majority of Americans are content to consume petroleum products inefficiently. Why is it the case that so many of us need full-size pickup trucks (with perpetually empty beds) to complete our manhood? This leaves our nation vulnerable in multiple ways.

The pipeline battle is secondary. What's really needed is to more aggressively work to decouple our economy from petroleum, while reducing our use of other fossil fuels as well. However, advocating a rise in gasoline taxes amounts to political suicide. The battle is in the court of public opinion.

 

[thankyouOB]

I always wonder why an electrical engineer or a coal extraction engineer wants to or thinks he (not usually a woman) is competent to dispense serious economic analysis and advice. I am not talking about the relatively simple task of advising about investing, but true economic analysis of the kind that wins Nobel Prizes or gets you appointed to a tenured seat at a major university.

I wont unpack it here; suffice it to say I have a day job and no time for that.
Also, suffice it to say that much of what is put out above (by our resident rightwingers) about Tar Sands (and confusing it with a US domestic supply) and how to get the US out of our immediate economic malaise will not survive any scrutiny by anyone who knows anything about economics.

Flame me if you want, but you cant equate household economics (with regard to overspending) and what a nation needs to do to stimulate its economy.

 

[abasile]

I always wonder why an electrical engineer or a coal extraction engineer wants to or thinks he (not usually a woman) is competent to dispense serious economic analysis and advice. I am not talking about the relatively simple task of advising about investing, but true economic analysis of the kind that wins Nobel Prizes or gets you appointed to a tenured seat at a major university.

I'm not trying to argue for or against Keynesian economics. As you say, I am not an economist. However, it is a simple fact that our government's deficit is not sustainable over the long run. Honestly, I don't know whether the recent government "stimulus" was effective in preventing greater meltdown, or whether it was mostly a waste of money. The problem is, even before the stimulus spending was initiated, our government's spending was unsustainable and the stimulus was added on top of that. Unfortunately, our previous president was by no means a fiscal conservative. Then, under the current administration, we had unchecked spending without so much as a budget. We need spending discipline because our future ability to borrow, and finance existing debt, cannot be taken for granted.

Personally, I wish that more of the "stimulus" had been focused on reducing our addiction to oil. It would have been great to see publicly accessible DC Quick Chargers installed at government facilities around the country, for instance. (Their operation/maintenance could be privatized after a few years.) Now that Japan is covered with a significant network of DC Fast Chargers, we will soon find out whether the availability of this network does stimulate EV sales as expected.

 

[thankyouOB]

Unfortunately, our previous president was by no means a fiscal conservative.
Unpaid for wars-2; unpaid for drug benefit for seniors that also barred price negotiating with big pharma; unpaid for tax cuts-2; so your Bush bash is a pretty modest statement (with regard to the above source of deficit).

As to the below, that is straight from the Limbaugh/Hannity song book, and I think your colleagues here deserve a legitimately sourced citation for that assertion.
As to the debt and deficit, and more importantly financing further needed stimulus, the government can borrow currently at less than 0% if you account for inflation. (Check out the TIPS or consult with any economist; the interest being paid on T-bills is less than inflation over the same period.) We do have a deficit problem in the long run, but as many economists have pointed out, the best way to deal with that is to get the economy going. This contraction economics is not working out to boost the economy in Europe, it didnt work in Japan after their bust, and it won't work out here, either.

Then, under the current administration, we had unchecked spending without so much as a budget. We need spending discipline because our future ability to borrow, and finance existing debt, cannot be taken for granted.

You are just talking through your hat or broadcasting talk-radio foolishness.

 

[Herm]

I always wonder why an electrical engineer or a coal extraction engineer wants to or thinks he (not usually a woman) is competent to dispense serious economic analysis and advice.

Serious?.. this is a web site for people of similar interests to gather around and talk, no one gets paid for any professional advice. Is there any other topic besides electric transportation that so many conservatives and **liberals** have so much in common to talk about?. Open your mind.

Note: edited to remove incendiary term for liberals

 

[abasile]

As for lack of a budget, wasn't the federal government operating on Continuing Resolutions for a long time, until earlier this year?

I regard the stimulus spending as an economic experiment. Maybe it'll turn out to have been worth it, maybe not. In any case, permanently expanding the size of the federal government, which we've been doing, doesn't seem wise. One can argue about the best time to make cuts, and perhaps you are correct that right now is not the time, but I think it makes sense to at least have a timetable in place.

 

[thankyouOB]

Then, under the current administration, we had unchecked spending without so much as a budget. We need spending discipline because our future ability to borrow, and finance existing debt, cannot be taken for granted.

You run away from your own quote (above), which blamed the lack of a budget on Obama. He submitted a budget -- the House refused to negotiate it with him and the Senate. Then, in your response to me, you want it to appear that you did not do that.
Here is what you replied:

As for lack of a budget, wasn't the federal government operating on Continuing Resolutions for a long time, until earlier this year?

Admit it. This is just a Limbaugh/Hannity talking point to say Obama operated without a budget. Obama submitted a budget and the House refused to pass it. We are watching, once again, as the Tea Party and other right-wingers refuse to make government work because they dont like government or governing. Gridlock and tanking the economy is their goal because they think a reviving economy guarantees Obama's reelection.

This budget failure was not Obama's fault. This is the work or Congress, and especially the House. They are at it again this week. They would rather see the country suffer than see the economy improve in an election year. Now, they are even against tax cuts!