AndyH
Well-known member
Perspective on the scale of the tar sands extraction process and what it's leaving behind.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM[/youtube]
Koch Brothers' Activism Protects Their 50-Year Stake in Canadian Heavy Oils
Long involvement in Canada's tar sands has been central to Koch Industries' evolution and positions the billionaire brothers for a new oil boom.
AndyH said:Wonder why there's such a strong push to get the tar sands crude to a US refinery?
How many permanent jobs do you reckon this pipeline will provide, and in which country?mrradon said:AndyH said:Wonder why there's such a strong push to get the tar sands crude to a US refinery?
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS
All that appears to be very correct, Herm. But there's more to the story and it's coming out in bits and pieces.Herm said:China is also willing to refine it, if they can get the tar to a west coast port. The Gulf refineries have lots of tar processing capacity, due to the falloff in Venezuelan tar production.
AndyH said:Does that sound like a good plan to you?
Normal spills aren't that easily cleaned up - even by current 'out of sight, out of mind' practices. But we already have bitumen flowing through US pipelines - and the leak that happened in Michigan more than a year ago still isn't cleaned up - and both the pipeline company and EPA reps on the scene admit they didn't expect it would be this bad - and have no idea how to clean it.Herm said:AndyH said:Does that sound like a good plan to you?
Yes it does, any job and the money it brings to a community is welcome.. pipeline spills are rare and easily cleaned up..
A new Cornell University study claims that the pipeline could actually have a negative impact on the economies of the states it would pass through.
The already existing Keystone I pipeline, which runs 2,100 miles from Alberta to Illinois, began operating in 2010; in the two years since, 35 spills have occurred. In the pipeline’s first year of operation alone, its spill rate was 100 times TransCanada’s projection.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM[/youtube]Herm said:shipping it overseas is far more dangerous. I also believe a US refinery will do a cleaner job refining the tar than anyone else.
Can you help me find information on why exporting needs an executive order? Though I suspect it's a moot point since we're exporting plenty of finished products today from our tax-free export zone.Herm said:Also, since its refined on US soil all it takes is an executive order to prevent the refined product from being exported, if we get desperate enough... much easier than trying to get hold of that refined product in China. If the demand in the US picks up then it will be sold here, no foreigner will get preference.
Gack. He's really concerned - but in his next bout of dancing fingers he says:Herm said:Robert Rapier lands a devastating blow on Keystone XL protesters:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/07/16/environmentalism-is-a-profitable-business/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"I want to preface this column by saying that I am very concerned about climate change. The rapid growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows no sign of abating, and I have concerns over what this will ultimately mean for the climate. The fact is that we are conducting a global experiment with the atmosphere, and predictions of severe consequences as a result should be taken with the utmost seriousness."
Having said that, I think it is important to maintain a healthy scientific discourse on the matter. “The science is settled” is just not a statement that I am comfortable with, and I am uncomfortable labeling those who question climate change with something that evokes comparisons with Holocaust denial.
The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons
This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.
Really? Where?Herm said:Andy, you dipped quickly into name calling.
The simple fact is that suggesting there's no consensus is exactly one of the denialist tactics that goes back through the fossil fuel industry to Heartland et al to the tobacco companies.AndyH said:... This is nothing more than a denialist talking point quickly dipped in high fructose corn syrup...
This is the line that put bitumen spills on the wider map back in 2010, when Enbridge pumped over a million gallons of tar sands bitumen through a pipe rupture and into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Known as the Dilbit Disaster (dilbit is diluted bitumen), this spill demonstrated that while conventional oil spills can be catastrophic, responding to bitumen spills is much harder.
But bitumen and diluted bitumen aren’t actually a kind of crude oil (the IRS actually relieves tar sands streams from some taxes for this very reason), they’re a different beast altogether, as the spill responders at the Kalamazoo River learned the hard way.
Enter your email address to join: