KXL pipeline

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 399 of total 399 in this topic
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 3, 2014 - 12:55pm PT


Keystone XL will contribute dramatically to climate change. The State Department confirmed that tar sands fuel is up to 19% more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional fuel, and the tar sands industry admits that Keystone XL will lead to more tar sands production.

The total carbon pollution impacts of Keystone XL are the equivalent of putting 9 million cars on the road when considering the total emissions of tar sands and refining processes.

Contrary to claims made by supporters of the pipeline, the pipeline could end as many jobs as it creates with toxic spills in farmland or water resources.


http://act.350.org/letter/obama-keystone-frontpage/




rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 3, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
And isn't the oil going to be shipped to china..?
guyman

Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
Mar 3, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
All you GreenHouse folks need to take a chill pill....

or start walking.

And start paying $$$$$$$ in carbon taxes.

Mr. Prez Obama .... you are really screwed up in the head.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 3, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
You are not going to solve many problems by artificially increasing costs of supply. Infact you will make most problems worse.

The only solutions involve lower demand.

I'm for the Keystone pipeline. Because environmentally it's not a major issue in itself and it is a good project for people and the economy.

Want to make a difference and support a cause that can make a difference?

Get serious about Women's education and economic opportunities in underdeveloped nations. That will do more for global warming and the environment long term than anything else I have heard of.

Gerg

Trad climber
Calgary
Mar 3, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
^^^^
I couldn't agree with you more. I live in Alberta, gas will still be same price. Everyone here will have a hate on for you if you even mention how bad it is for the environment or we don't need it.
They say it will benefit me. How? i don't work in that sector so i won't be getting paid the huge, massive wages. Won't fix or sh**ty education system with tax breaks.
Nada!
Only for the fat cats and people in that job environment. I would like to see how it improves MY life in 5-10 years.
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Mar 3, 2014 - 02:24pm PT
All you GreenHouse folks need to take a chill pill....

or start walking.

And start paying $$$$$$$ in carbon taxes.

Mr. Prez Obama .... you are really screwed up in the head.

nice one guyman!

I like the start walking part
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 3, 2014 - 02:24pm PT
Let them eat cake!

John
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 3, 2014 - 03:39pm PT
This is knee jerk activism.

We currently use oil for almost all of our transportation needs. That isn't going to change any time soon. It makes little difference whether we get our oil from a Nigerian military dictatorship or the tar sands of Alberta. It is equally clean compared to the invisible emissions coming from your tailpipe. If those emissions were purple, people would get it, but they don't.

The aquifer part is a joke. Modern pipelines of this expense rarely leak, and for many decades the pipeline companies have had regular flights along their right of ways looking for anything amiss. Such as somebody building a house along the right of way, or a spill. We have oil pipelines all over our country. Yes, there are spills. It is a small amount. Nothing compared to what comes out of the tailpipes of every poster here.

Spills on land pipelines do not travel far. The notion that a pipeline will somehow pollute the Ogallala Aquifer is just a red herring. You should be asking about the constant spraying of pesticides and herbicides directly on top of that aquifer.

Have any of you Google Earthed what lies on top of the Ogallala Aquifer? Check it out. It is mainly center pivot irrigated crops, and the Aquifer is depleting far more rapidly than it is replenished.

Right now I am working in western Kansas. It is kind of like the moon. Every inch seems to be planted in crops. All of that short grass prairie and its ecosystem has been obliterated, and on top of that, we pay farmers direct subsidies. Not just a tax break. Actual checks from the Dept. of the Treasury.

I've been up here for a few weeks, and it is a tragedy. One of the only types of wildlife that I have seen are the ever present pheasants. They sure are pretty. Too bad that they come from Asia.

While you are admiring the lovely aquifer, you might tune in to a local AM station and listen to ads for genetically modified seed. Then you have all of the herbicides and pesticides which are applied in this quest to have a single species eco-system.

The Nebraska Sandhills are pretty, but a pipeline won't hurt it any more than a transmission line.

Get with the program and start fighting for a new, cleaner fuel. We are swimming in natural gas, but the fracking baloney is a distraction.

I've said it before, but the best way to help the environment is to cut your balls off or have your tubes tied.

I can't believe how far off we have gotten in the past thirty years. We all continue to use far more fuel than we need, and people think that riding a bike to work will help. It is importantly symbolic, but the per capita oil usage of even the cleanest American is far worse than your typical citizen of Bangledesh.

And we STILL pay farmers to use corn, one of the most valuable crops of all, to make ethanol, in a process that is useless. The red state farmers sure love the ethanol subsidy though.

Seriously. Just go look at the Aquifer on Google Earth.

edit: as per characters such as the Koch Brothers, they are indeed pretty evil dudes. They aren't into upstream operations (drilling and production). Their private empire is all downstream, and they aren't particularly liked by others in the oil industry as far as I can tell.
mike m

Trad climber
black hills
Mar 3, 2014 - 06:07pm PT
Why don't they just have it go through Canada instead of trying to "help" us.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 3, 2014 - 06:34pm PT
Because we dont want it in BC, and as far as I can tell it makes no sense to try and sell it to you either since the price per barrel in North America is too low.

They just want access to tide water, and now that the line from cushing to the coast is done? they are hoping to get to use it.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 3, 2014 - 06:42pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 3, 2014 - 06:48pm PT
The Alaskan pipeline has not had a single significant spill not caused by
a nutcase with a rifle. The only two significant ones were caused thusly
and only a couple of acres were affected. Building the KXL pipeline is
child's play compared to the AK and as long as they can keep drunk Dakotans
from shooting it there ain't gonna be any problems. This is a tempest in
a teapot.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 3, 2014 - 07:06pm PT
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 3, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
Yeah, It is actually GOOD to have more pipelines,oil is good for everybody and make sure you do not ride a bike.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 3, 2014 - 07:26pm PT
There might well be geopolitical routes in sight for the KXL. Europe has no teeth in threatening sanctions against Russia unless they look to the west. Before its all over i could see pipelines going east, west, as well as south. Grow up boys and girls, this is how the "real world" works.

Base, with rhetoric like you posted above how long can you feel safe in your scalp on this forum?
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2014 - 07:46pm PT
I say let's try to stop this thing!

President Obama said that he would reject Keystone XL if it significantly contributed to climate change. Now the evidence is in: An 830,000-barrel-per-day pipeline would allow Big Oil to dig up, refine, and burn more tar sands than they could with any other available options, which means the president must reject the pipeline.


http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-obama-reject-1?source=mo&id=92563-1145215-B68EGQx
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 3, 2014 - 07:47pm PT
Yes,grow up.

And you will do what the fossil fuel industry wants you to do ,and ,you will like it.

You will love your new pipeline.

New oppression = Old oppression.

And ,whatever you do ,do not ride a bike.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 3, 2014 - 08:19pm PT
Yeah, It is actually GOOD to have more pipelines,oil is good for everybody and make sure you do not ride a bike.

I rode mine to work today

Did you?

Pipelines are far safer than friend of BHO's, Warren's, trains.


The real reason Barry's so opposed to Keystone is that it would put a damper on his big donor Warren Buffet's train business.



wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 3, 2014 - 08:51pm PT
Yeah ,there is the real reason,RIGHT there.

Did you?

Nope,one of the 160 days a year I have not,why?

Backcountry skiing all weekend can wear you out.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
And how did you get to the back country skiing?

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:09pm PT
You have proven A lot TGT.

Why as a conservative, do you believe we need this pipeline?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:19pm PT
Why do you believe that government should by regulatory fiat interfere in the free market solely to benefit a giant corporation that just happens to contribute lavish sums to the party in power?

Isn't that Fascism?

You really don't think that the same oil is going to move on Warren Buffet's (or someone else) trains at far greater ecological risk?

philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:36pm PT
TeaGeeTea you stupid donkey it is the KOCH brothers who stand to reap and rape billions not Buffet. Jesus how do you remember how to breathe?

Any of you ever heard of ELECTRIC CARS?
This pipeline is an unnecessary boondoggle.
julton

climber
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:37pm PT
Isn't that Fascism?
No.

The pipeline is a symbolic issue. Preventing it won't stop the development of the tar sands. In fact the alternative delivery methods will result in additional carbon emissions. But it's symbolic so the environmental crowd wants to stop it. What they really want to stop is use of the tar sands but they can't. All they can muster is a pointless NIMBY defense.

What we really want is an alternative to the source of energy, not the means of delivery.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:48pm PT
Next time you are going climbing or skiing fill your car up at the



"Alternative"

station.

Let me know when that happens,

ok?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 3, 2014 - 09:51pm PT
Once again TGT proves that he knows something that the average blogger doesn't...woo hoo..
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:04pm PT
TGT probably hasn't been keeping up on the news... looking at all those pretty girl pictures he likes to link...

http://blueskybiofuels.com/buy-biodiesel/

you can buy alternatives and put them in your car...
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:10pm PT
Yah, the economy is going to run on used french fry oil.

If it's soybean oil based it sill needs more fossil fuel input than it replaces, just like corn ethanol.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:12pm PT
I worked as a engineering consultant investigating catastrophic failures (no injuries, fortunately) of refining equipment in the oil sands for several years.

Karen's figures are actually too kind - a gallon of oil sands produced gasoline produces 80% more emissions than one mined by standard means. This is possible because of the low price of natural gas - a plentiful and cheap primary fuel used in the extraction process. When you look at the BTUs extraction, its a loser. Dollar wise, however, its profitable.

There are 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in the oil sands provinces - an area roughly the size of New York State. This is comparable to all the rest of the world's proven oil reserves combined. Yes, Keystone is a big issue.

Oil Sands oil is extracted primarily using 2500 ton machines called reclaimers that can strip mine 25 square miles of taiga per year.. The bitumen laden sand is then loaded into 800 ton haulers for transport to some of the world's largest refineries, located nearby.

The US is becoming greener - domestically, but not really. Why not? Three reasons.

1 and 2) Oil sands extraction produces a powdery byproduct call petcoke. This is the dirtiest fuel on the planet - more carbon and particulate emissions per BTU than any other, and its half the price of coal - the next dirtiest fuel on the planet. The US is exporting huge quantities of both - you guessed it, primarily to China for its power plants. Those exports are increasing rapidly as China's demand grows.

3) Oil sand crude. Currently, the US does not export domestically refined oil or gasoline by law. Its an energy security thing. Not only will Keystone increase extra dirty gasoline consumption in the US - but there is a strong political movement afoot to strike the current export ban - and allow extra dirty oil sands fuels to be exported worldwide.

Here's a good article on this particular topic:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-u-s-exports-global-warming-20140203

This isn't a Right v Left issue - the biosphere doesn't give a sh#t about your politics. It doesn't care about Al Gore's McMansion or the Koch Brothers. It just does what it does in response to stimuli. Leaders in both parties are pushing for the exports I've outlined above.

There is no inevitability here - that's a common shout-down argument. If we stop Keystone - we stop the flow of the world's dirtiest oil, extracted from the planet's largest reserve, to our refineries.

That's 100% our choice.
julton

climber
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:24pm PT
If we stop Keystone - we stop the flow of the world's dirtiest oil, extracted from the planet's largest reserve, to our refineries.
But that doesn't stop the flow of the oil itself. So it's only a symbolic victory. And a victory that would come with the price of even higher total carbon emissions than if the pipeline were allowed.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:26pm PT
you can buy alternatives and put them in your car...


Wow, Bluesky Biofuels. I'll run right down and fill up.

Wait . . . I live in Colorado, so I'll have to drive to California first. Somehow that doesn't sound very efficient.


;>\
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:27pm PT
Actually, it does. The pipeline will relieve the primary bottleneck in the oil sands logistical chain - and production will increase accordingly.

If you make oil sands product cheaper to transport, you increase demand for it - and more of it will be extracted and burned. I don't think one needs to consult an econ textbook, here.

There is no symbolism here - this play is for real.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:30pm PT
Fortunately JGill you can stop in NV to refuel on that efficiency quest to bluesky.

http://www.bentlybiofuels.com/about/
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 10:40pm PT
Oil and gas prices certainly do come into play directly in the oil sands - the Syncrude refinery (largest in the oil sands) can afford to burn more BTUs in natural gas (its primary fuel) than is contained the crude it produces because of the relatively low price of natural gas (and plentiful local sources) as compared to oil. From a climate standpoint, this 'double dipping' equation is not beneficial.

Why do the oil sand refineries have to burn so much more fuel in refining than for standard oil extraction?

Because the raw material isn't oil - its not liquid. Its tar (bitumen) mixed with sand. That has to be melted (by steam injection, kinda like making a big ole dirty latte) and separated before anything resembling crude oil can be produced, and THAT requires an enormous amount of extra energy.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:11pm PT
Thanks Tvash.

TeaGeeTea if you would have been around during the development of the "horseless carriage" You would have made the same argument in favor of pony power. Likely you'd have been one of those conservative geniuses that were sure humans would suffocate if they travelled faster than 30 mph on a train.
bergbryce

Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:22pm PT
I worked in O&G for a bit and the simple truth is that if the market supports it, it will happen. If it doesn't, the plan gets shelved until the market will support it.
If this pipe doesn't get built, an alternative will come about to get that product to Asian markets. Trains, trucks, airplanes, you name it. Feasibility studies with alternatives A-ZZ already exist. It's now a matter of which one gets put into play and when and at what level.

I'd personally rather support a North American venture than anything Middle East. We aren't going to be running the world economy on unicorn farts any time soon, so lets stop BSing ourselves that we are even close.

TAPS (Trans-Alaskan) was designed in the mid 1970s and has an incredible track record. And did I mention it travels the entire distance of the state of Alaska North to South?? It's surpassed its designed lifespan with no end in sight as long as enough crude continues to flow through it. Making safe pipelines is old hat.

I understand the argument of increased CO2 levels needed to produce this oil. All of the low hanging fruit has been picked from the oil tree, and tar sands represents the rickety ladder being extended another couple rungs higher. Are we going past the warning sticker on the ladder? Who knows.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:29pm PT
Regarding biofuels - when produced by factory farming they are, indeed, bullshit from an environmental standpoint. They need not be produced this way, however. The holy grail is to produce cellulosic ethanol - from grasses, hemp, etc, which produces 85% less GHG emissions than gasoline via sustainable agriculture.

Don't forget that many diesel cars, regardless of how the fuel is produced, get great gas mileage - over 40 mpg for a late model Golf, for example.\

Regarding Keystone - the main objection isn't possibility of spills, it's carbon emissions because of the 'dirty' way the crude is refined. Canada may find another conduit to Asian markets - but that will be more expensive than Keystone, and that will make oil sands product less competitive, thus reducing demand.

All the same inevitability arguments were trotted out for our local coal train and transport terminal - another dirty fuel conduit to China. Public opposition has put that project in jeopardy - Goldman Sachs just sold the company, stating that "Earning a return on incremental investment in thermal coal mining and infrastructure capacity is becoming increasingly difficult.”

There is no inevitability here. This is a choice. Those who believe in being good stewards of this planet might consider saying a resounding no. We can choose a better future than the one short term asset strippers have planned for us.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 3, 2014 - 11:56pm PT
Yeah, none of that big sh#t matters. Too...well, big, ya know? Kinda like legalizing weed and ending the Drug War. TOO BIG TO SUCCEED!!!!

And we don't do anything for our communities. You're right.

You've really made a difference, here. You've really turned our lives around. I'm gonna scare up some "inner city kids" - on my bicycle, no less, and take em climbing right now, whether they want to or not.

I'm certainly not going to participate in waste of time forums like this like...you are right now.

Cheerist.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 4, 2014 - 12:00am PT
PotatoHead...I'm with you..I'm going to do a wheat -grass enema and wipe out all the bad ju ju...
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2014 - 12:12am PT
Tvash
That was incredibly informative!


The pipeline will relieve the primary bottleneck in the oil sands logistical chain - and production will increase accordingly.

If you make oil sands product cheaper to transport, you increase demand for it - and more of it will be extracted and burned. I don't think one needs to consult an econ textbook, here.

Why do the oil sand refineries have to burn so much more fuel in refining than for standard oil extraction?

Because the raw material isn't oil - its not liquid. Its tar (bitumen) mixed with sand. That has to be melted (by steam injection, kinda like making a big ole dirty latte) and separated before anything resembling crude oil can be produced, and THAT requires an enormous amount of extra energy.

There is no inevitability here. This is a choice. Those who believe in being good stewards of this planet might consider saying a resounding no. We can choose a better future than the one short term asset strippers have planned for us.


Maybe signing petitions and trying to inform ourselves and others is futile and stupid!

No need to get intimidated by the size of the task, it’s just a matter of taking small steps towards your bigger goal. Moving a mountain may sound impossible, but you don’t actually have to move one, it’s just a figure of speech. But there must be a mountain-sized task that you’re facing in your life that feels like you’ll never be able to do. But just imagine if you actually did do it. How would you feel? How would it change your life? It may sound impossible at first, but the more you think about it, the more you come up with ways that it can be done. Just start chipping away at it, and with enough time and patience you’ll see that it becomes manageable.
Dr Seuss
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 12:55am PT
I love this discussion. The person with the most knowledge on the subject, BASE104, posts once, and everyone ignores what he says and moves ahead with his or her preconceived notions of what to do. It makes the discussion on the climate change thread look downright rational by comparison. I guess you really are entitled to your own facts.

John
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:02am PT
Or as Turgenev put it:

"Most people can't understand how others can blow their noses differently than they do."
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:20am PT
Sure, if you give him what he wants, and you can have your stinking pipeline (that will get built at some time no matter what)

This is true and probably why the proponents of this pipeline won't allow the political extortion
described above and will therefore just wait until Obama leaves office
They won't really seriously push the completion of this project until he is gone .
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:25am PT
Petitions are not stupid and futile. Groups like the Sierra Club and 350.org, who have been actively opposing the pipeline - and preventing its approval for 6 years now, are not stupid - they've been very successful, so far. Joining forces with hundreds of thousands of other like minded citizens is how this stuff gets done.

Yes, there are a bunch of other things to do about our energy future - and none of them make this concrete, here-and-now issue any less important.

Stay focused. Cellulose fuels and the Oglalla aquifer are important, too - aaaand they're very different issues requiring different forms of activism. Don't let the 'knee jerkeros' sidetrack you. So far, you're winning this.

In any case, groups like 350.org - with over half a million members now, once organized, can turn their focus to other projects, whether or not the pipeline gets approved.

This kind of thing requires a long game.

People said all the same things about marijuana legalization - the first step in ending 42 years of a failed, expensive, and violent War on Drugs. A strategic, multi-year campaign finally won the day, and now the whole world is changing as a result.

Most people won't pony up and make it happen. Still more will criticize. That's fine. Critics are a dime a dozen. You can be one of the few that will.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:40am PT
What Tvash describes is, indeed the environmental game. There are judges, or in this case, Presidents, that will do the bidding of the Sierra Club, until economic preferences finally prevail, usually after years of appeals or, in this case, a change of administration to one that isn't purchased already by the let-them-eat-cakers, but the process adds years of delay, so the proponent really needs to want it.

This issue isn't environmental or economic now. It's religious, and establishment of religion violates the First Amendment.

John
okie

Trad climber
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:44am PT
The aquifer's gonna run dry before the fossil fuels do. I think this century is gonna have another dust bowl. The pipeline will someday be covered up by dunes of wind blown dead soils.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:50am PT
A strategic, multi-year campaign finally won the day, and now the whole world is changing as a result.

This is true. As I've noted elsewhere in this forum the activist Left in this country operates on the principle of incrementalism rather than open revolution---a strategy adhered to for many decades now --and they are good at it and don't give up easily. This is partly because it is driven by the aging baby boomer generation---a politically savvy radicalized generation, currently in senior positions in our government and other key institutions.

Eventually however, their long term prospects for winning this one is pretty dim. Mariquana or Gay Rights is a whole lot different as an issue or a crusade, as opposed to the enormous energy needs that will only get increasingly crucial with the passage of time. At the end of the day on social issues ,like Gay Marriage ,many Americans really don't give a rats ass---because it does not directly impact them---their jobs, their mobility, their pocketbooks, their economy.
The nation's energy needs do however---especially in the not too distant future.

This is a case in which the incrementalism dynamic is actually working against the activist Left. Time is on the side of the energy developers.
Better take the advice given by the poster above and go for the extortion angle, before it's too late.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 03:05am PT
Ward, that's a fantastically cynical and frankly sad view of Americans I don't subscribe to. Perhaps we live in different countries - your experience doesn't resemble mine at all. I've found working with the public that people do care deeply about fairness, justice, and the environment, not just their paycheck or what affects them, personally. People naturally seek connection and meaning in the broader sense.

Voters will rise to the occasion if you're straight with them and respect their intelligence. The popular wisdom is that voters are a stupid herd, so many campaigns, if not most, treat them that way. That's a mistake that's burned many a candidate and initiative.

And lets stop overusing the term 'religion' as an attempt to marginalize important issues and the passion behind them, shall we? That one's been worn thread bare by the climate denier crowd. At the very least come up with something original. There is nothing faith based about Keystone - the numbers are all there.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 4, 2014 - 03:30am PT
I've found working with the public that people do care deeply about fairness, justice, and the environment, not just their paycheck or what affects them, personally. People naturally seek connection and meaning in the broader sense.

The last person I knew that talked like that was a Millennial Occu-pooper trust fund baby.

Why don't you and your buddies just Occu-poop the pipeline?

Forget I asked that question...
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 4, 2014 - 07:54am PT
JE,I read BASE's opinion,while I agree with him,I do not agree with the sentiment,"We all continue to use far more fuel than we need, and people think that riding a bike to work will help."

To think this is very cynical and flat wrong.

Ed was right ,you folks should learn about Biodiesel.

Not to be confused with ethanol and it is available nationwide,[you might have to search your computer,but it is]
http://www.biodiesel.org/using-biodiesel/finding-biodiesel/retail-locations/re
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 4, 2014 - 08:08am PT
So many seem mindlessly locked into a failing paradigm.
They can not see past the internal-combustion engine.
Thus they aver that we must siphon off every drop of hydrocarbons -Drill baby drill- regardless of the cost to the planet -Spill baby spill.
Anyone who opposes developments like the Keystone pipeline projects should not go climbing unless they can ride a bike there. They simply can't imagine a future other than their past so they justify any Koch-eyed idea that promises to give them cheap gasoline for the gas guzzling SUVs. Damn the environment and full guzzle ahead.
Wake up it's the 21st century. You are not sitting at home waiting for the delivery of whale oil and bemoaning the fact that the wheel wright strike means your Conestoga wagon will stay up on blocks longer. Thank god our world hasn't relied on these anti-visionary, head in the tar sands Luddites for our progression forward. They would still be arguing that there are not enough caves to go around and sneering at the foolish lunacy of any new fangled notion like the brick.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2014 - 09:47am PT
What if we all signed the petitions and we all got 100 of our friends to sign the petitions and we stopped this thing for now.
Then in the meantime something like this gets started.


Also we could start a stop breeding campaign world wide. Every couple gets to have only one child each. We could cut the population of the world in half..................
Just dreaming
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 4, 2014 - 09:52am PT
also eat less meat...

Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 5, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
About 80 percent of the world’s farmland is used to support the meat and poultry industries, and much of that goes to growing animal feed. An efficient use of resources this is not. For example, a single pound of cooked beef, a family meal’s worth of hamburgers, requires 298 square feet of land, 27 pounds of feed, and 211 gallons of water.

Supplying meat not only devours resources but also creates waste. That same pound of hamburger requires more than 4,000 Btus of fossil-fuel energy to get to the dinner table; something has to power the tractors, feedlots, slaughterhouses, and trucks. That process, along with the methane the cows belch throughout their lives, contributes as much as 51 percent of all greenhouse gas produced in the world.
crazyfingers

climber
CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 10:51am PT
There isn't a single environmental issue that doesn't at its roots come from the problem of increasing human population. Arguing the details of pipelines, plastic grocery bags, fish populations, etc., etc. without seeking a solution with human population is the red herring of all red herrings.

The reason why this idea doesn't get more traction is because economies are based on growth, and squeezing more value out of a human is a lot tougher than just adding another, and another...

Food is a perfect example of how this works. Food producers have for decades been trying to outpace inflation by: adding costs to whole foods through processing, finding cheaper sources of raw materials via GMO, increasing portion sizes while increasing prices even more, the branding of Organic, and riding the wave of increasing population, among many others. Problem is, you can only get a human to eat so much food, and getting them to pay more is a tough business.

Expanding population is THE single easiest way for corporations to maintain profits, regardless of the business they're in, and is the driving force behind most if not all of the world's problems related to resources and how they are used.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 11:00am PT
That fly by night group the Sierra Club is actively opposing Keystone. I think all they do is useless petitions, though.

It's interesting to me that when someone sends around a petition, so many viewers instantly assume that's all that person is doing.

Then characterizes six years of winning - and running, as a loss.

Three common shout down tactics in one post.

The most successful way to win an issue campaign is to work with one or more powerful advocacy groups, like the Sierra Club, and follow their strategic plan and its tactics, which involved a variety of actions. It seems to me this is pretty much exactly what Karen is doing.

The ACLU, a very successful advocacy organization, uses petitions all the time as part of its campaigns. When combined with lobbying and a decent public information campaign they are, in fact, very effective.

crazyfingers

climber
CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 11:14am PT
Not all or nothing Dingus, but getting at the heart of the matter. There is little to no discussion about population control, despite it being such an important issue.
I support the open debate of environmental issues, but population should always be brought up in a constructive way and made central to the discussion.
Regardless if pipeline A gets built, or B instead, or a train car gets loaded up, or a tanker ship, there are needs for resources and there will always be people that put profit above all else.
And even if the energy dilemma is solved, there's an endless line of other problems stemming from population.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 11:19am PT
Actually, marijuana is now fully legal in two states, WA and CO, and will very likely be legal in AK and OR by this November via referendum. It is also now legal in a growing number of municipalities - Portland MN, Cleveland OH to name a couple. Half the states have some form of legalization or decriminalization now. That number has grown rapidly in recent years.

For the fed's part, the AG of the US issued two directives this year stating that the feds will not interfere with state level legalization.

On the international level, Uruguay just became the first country to legalize in Jan - thanks to WA. The drug policy director of the ACLU of WA met with Uruguay's president several times to walk him through the process beforehand. Along those lines, the ACLU of WA is currently in discussion with a number of other countries - Austria, Holland, Mexico, to name a few, who are seriously looking into just saying yes. There have not been any talks with Syria to date to my knowledge.

What sways voters is not the right to smoke out - its the civil rights issue of having the world's highest incarceration rate - a quarter of which is for marijuana. Add to that the statistically proven 3:1 discrimination against blacks across the entire criminal justice system - arrest rates, conviction rates, longer sentences - and voters quickly recognize that marijuana is one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time.

Hope this helps cut through the haze a bit.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 11:25am PT
Very interesting observation, Dr. F. I wonder if and how those landowners are organizing?

TOO BIG TO SUCCEED!!!

Or not.
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Mar 4, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
Which comes first?

1. Biological crisis that wipes out large % of human population. Think west nile, bird flu, etc.

2. Resource war that wipes out large % of human population.

3. Widespread famine from crop failure due to climate change that wipes out large % of human population.


Mother earth will solve the population growth problem one way or another. In the meantime, I don't want to live on a filthy planet with a personally reduced lifespan from sucking petrol and coal exhaust fumes, and leave future generations a bigger mess than they can ever correct. All because we're too f*#king selfish to forgo 3000sqft houses and SUVs, and are by god entitled to all the corn fed, antibiotic filled, lifelong confined to a feedlot livestock we can cram down our fat American gobs on its way to add to the lard on our fat American asses.

Stupid americans.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 12:45pm PT
Personally, I think depopulation may happen this century - but it will likely be more voluntary and gradual than catastrophic. Glass half full of Zoloft, perhaps - but that less titillating scenario seem more likely to me, even if this is the age of the disaster movie.

And we're not that stupid - we're figuring some things out.

Fully automated electric cars for one. That's not far in the future. Optimized use of zero emission personal vehicles without personal ownership - and optimized level loading of the grid. Plus - no more traffic jams or car insurance.

Green buildings - huge opportunity here.

More specifically - Passive solar water heating - huge opportunity here, too.

A rapidly changing American diet - yup, we're getting greener, even if Big Ag is still around.

My home town on Seattle is changing very fast - lots of shared rides (Car2Go, etc), increased urban density, lots of electrics/hybrids/subcompacts, lots of solar, a huge increase in the wind farms out east, plenty veggie gardens...

Maybe some of your folks don't see this shift - but its pretty obvious here. And if it can happen here...

One thing we're not figuring out is global warming. That will continue to f*#k us hard without saying I Love You. The latter part of this century is going to be a very tough time for everyone.
goatboy smellz

climber
लघिमा
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:11pm PT

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 01:11pm PT

The Sierra Club has yet to win ANY court case against ANY element of the KXL issue.

They don't need to win any court case. As long as the pipeline has a legal impediment to construction, no one can build it. As certain Bay Area activists (who, at their request, will remain anonymous) admitted to me and others, the entire strategy is to delay and force proponents of projects the particular "environmental" group dislikes to bear the cost of delay. This drives away all those except those for which the proponent is willing to bear the cost.

While I don't like the way that works, it's been a very effective strategy because, in effect, only those whose projects have a high expected value will persevere to completion. Maybe I shouldn't complain, since this, in a sort of crude way, has at least some element of economic rationality to it. I guess what I dislike is the bias against change inherent in current law, with its built-in obstructionism. Those who like things the way they are love it. Those who don't have to navigate expensive obstacles to change it.

John

Editorial addition: Excellent, Goatboy!
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 02:32pm PT
John, when you consider the economic rationality of resource extraction, do you economically account for the future loss of biodiversity, aesthetically pleasing landscape, chemical clean-ups and deconstruction/removal of the effects of the resource harvesting, stuff like that?

It's hard to put a price tag on it, but giving up and putting no price tag on it, not adequately valuing those intangible assets, leads to decisions that are not good for humanity and not good economic deals for the people on whose behalf the governments theoretically act, to permit different activities that lead to corporate gain without bearing the full costs.

This is the heart of the matter that leads to a concentration of wealth. The Ayn Rand view is that smart hard-working people who figure out how to make something useful from tar sands should reap the profits of that. It's not for the dumb monkey turning a wrench or doing some other manual labor job to reap the profits from it. On the other hand, this idea of "making something useful" completely ignores the cost of the damage incurred, and such an imbalanced initial set of inputs will lead to questionable philosophical conclusions.

The basic problem is redistributing assets and potential profits from the population on whose behalf the government is supposed to act, to private corporations where a small few individuals benefit. Here, I am using the words "asset" and "profit" in a very loose sense, to include whatever form of assets and profits are in alignment with the value system of different individuals (e.g. money, spiritual satisfaction of being in wild places, pharmaceutical or other discoveries related to flora, fauna, microbes, etc. that may one day become of measurable economic value if they are not strip-mined into extinction).


I want to face the reality that I consume a lot of fuel, but I want the equations that shape the world, in terms of energy production and the full costs thereof, to be as accurate as possible so we can make the trade-offs consistent with our value systems, using money as the currency of exchange.

Right now we have corporations trying to maximize profit, as is exactly their charter to do (not inherently evil, just pursuing the objective for which they were created), and the result is an attempt to avoid paying for the full long term costs of their value creation activities. It's too easy for a company to go out of existence when the wealth is extracted and a mountain of unaccounted cost remains behind. This notion of a company is useful, but there must be some better way to not let wealthy families use companies as a shell for wealth extraction with no subsequent accountability.

I would advocate stronger EIA (environmental impact analyses), with full future costs accounted as best as we can as some sort of net present value, and make sure that the money is bonded up front to cover that... some very deep/rich pockets that insure or underwrite the project and money is held in escrow in case the profits from the venture are not sufficient to cover all foreseen cleanup costs and other intangible costs that have been monetized as best as we can. If we had these mechanisms in place, I don't think we'd have such a big push to extract resources, and it would naturally drive down the consumption of everyone because we just plain can't afford it. Right now we have a collusion between businesses that want short-term profit and people that want short-term pleasure without considering what we or our children have to pay back for that.

Of course there are all sorts of opportunities for manipulation and politicizing of the process, but it would be a step in the right direction. It's a pragmatic improvement, but certainly won't be a panacea.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 02:44pm PT
As long as organizations like the Sierra Club do what they say they're going to do and use their donations efficiently to do it, its growth and success is a bad thing?

Sooooo...weaker is better?

Weird viewpoint.

Defeating Keystone greatly increases the likelihood that investors will shy away from alternative pipeline projects. "Look what happened last time" really works. Think the BC pipeline has a greater chance of succeeding if Keystone fails? Think again...like a potential investor.

It also gains the movement front page access to major media - ei, a more effective voice to more people. One that costs nothing.

Keystone has been a great lightning rod - tangible, near term, supported by actual data - around which support can rally. That builds up advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club - making them stronger and more able to continue to fight the issue - other pipelines, whatever, for the long term.

It's an excellent strategy. That's probably why its continues to be successful after six years.

Far from being a necessity - going to court is more often viewed as an expensive and risky last resort. This is common knowledge in the public advocacy world.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 4, 2014 - 05:26pm PT
Nice meme, Goatboy.

Unfortunately, he is right.

Despite the several alternative fuels out there, the only one which is in great abundance is natural gas. It is by far the cleanest fossil fuel. We are in a total glut right now, and drilling in the gas shales is at a minimum. The companies who had bet the farm on natural gas, like Chesapeake, are on life support while they try to switch to liquids (oil) production.

The pipeline is a joke. The section of the pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Gulf of Mexico is already finished and in use. I haven't heard of any problems with that stretch of pipeline.

Pipeline is the safest way to transport oil, and the most energy efficient way to move damn near anything.

Look. It is all dirty. It all comes out of your tailpipe. This is a silly argument until we seriously address a true alternate fuel. The closest that we can...realistically...switch to without changing our habits too much, is natural gas.

Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Methane is CH4..one carbon and 4 hydrogen atoms. Per BTU or Joule, it is much cleaner than oil if you consider carbon emissions.

So. The next question is looming large out of the corners of our eyes. So what if the United States does make a concerted effort to minimize carbon emissions and the Chinese continue to build coal fired power plants every day?

Well, it is a good question. One that I have no answer to. I do know that our addiction to imported oil costs us far more than the pump price. Why do you think that we keep one or two Nimitz class aircraft carriers in the middle east?

If you visit the best energy fact website on the planet..the Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/ , you can find about any fact that you could imagine.

Methane is important for electrical generation by burning it as a fuel in a gas turbine or steam boiler. Compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide for each unit of heat released. At about 891 kJ/mol, methane's heat of combustion is lower than any other hydrocarbon but the ratio of the heat of combustion (891 kJ/mol) to the molecular mass (16.0 g/mol, of which 12.0 g/mol is carbon) shows that methane, being the simplest hydrocarbon, produces more heat per mass unit (55.7 kJ/g) than other complex hydrocarbons. In many cities, methane is piped into homes for domestic heating and cooking purposes. In this context it is usually known as natural gas, which is considered to have an energy content of 39 megajoules per cubic meter, or 1,000 BTU per standard cubic foot.

Methane in the form of compressed natural gas is used as a vehicle fuel and is claimed to be more environmentally friendly than other fossil fuels such as gasoline/petrol and diesel.[17] Research into adsorption methods of methane storage for use as an automotive fuel has been conducted.[18]

The problem with alternatives to gasoline, which is the main constituent of crude oil, there just isn't anything out there that is as energy dense and cheap. Every time that we find an alternative, it costs more than oil. Period.

People will not, on their own, spend significantly more on a cleaner fuel if oil is still a choice. Economically and physically, oil is an almost magically dense source of energy. You can't fly from New York to L.A. on electricity yet, and to make it cheaper than oil is just not in the cards for our near future.

I am not making a case for oil. I am just pointing out the fact that it is the best fuel out there. Nuclear is actually far more efficient by weight than oil, but there are currently no reactors on the open market small enough to run a car. Obviously you can generate carbon free energy from nuclear, and they come small enough to operate vehicles as small as submarines, but it just isn't economically viable compared to, say, coal.

So we need to find something almost as cheap as oil, and something that can easily be used today. The only fuel that fits that bill is natural gas.

I welcome Ed's scrutiny to make sure that my arguments are sound scientifically, but the basics are there.

Most people really do not understand the energy industry. When it comes to oil, I advise people to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Prize-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393971435&sr=8-1&keywords=the+prize

The Prize, by Daniel Yergin. That book will explain to you how oil has pretty much made the world go around for the past 100 years.

We are also running out of oil. That is a fact, and anyone who tells you that the Bakken Shale is somehow going to save us, they are full of sh#t. I already have every single well in the play downloaded into my system.

When gas prices cratered, the horizontal fracked shale plays turned towards those shales which could produce liquids. If you look at the play that I am super familiar with, the Woodford Shale in the Anadarko, Arkoma, and Ardmore Basins, you will see that companies are currently drilling only one well on each square mile drilling and spacing unit. It usually takes 8 horizontals to drain one square mile (or two square miles if they can drill 10,000 foot laterals). All along these plays, companies are drilling only one well in order to hold the leases by production. There are 7 increased density wells per section that can be drilled in the future. Many of the gas wells do not pay out right now, so no significant profit is made unless it is a VERY sweat spot.

I will post some maps showing how many horizontal wells there are in particular basins. Does anyone have a particular area that they are interested in? I have access to full well data for much of the U.S. and can create basic maps in a few minutes.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 4, 2014 - 05:32pm PT
Thanks for weighing in again, BASE104. Your facts are worth far more than the opinions of the rest of us put together.

John
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 05:37pm PT
Except they're off topic. But other than that - hard to argue against the statement that NG is better than oil and a lower population would mean less environmental impact. Neither boiler plate proscription has anything at all to do with the very real, imminent issue of approving Keystone or not, however.

Once more with feeling - the primary objection to Keystone isn't spills - that's a strawman - its the additional carbon emissions per gallon of final product inherent in the GHG intensive extraction process.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 4, 2014 - 05:42pm PT
If you only read this one sentence pilfered from wiki:

Compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide for each unit of heat released.

You may ask yourself why in hell are we still using coal to generate most of our electricity? The answer is that it is CHEAPER. Not much cheaper, but enough to have coal fueled power plants sitting on top of our largest natural gas fields.

That coal usually comes from Wyoming around here. The Wyoming coal is low in BTU per ton, but it is almost sulfur free. Many of you are too young to remember the acid rain problem caused by burning high sulfur Appalachian coal, but EPA regs forced the use of scrubbers on plants burning high BTU, but unfortunately high sulfur, coal. Many of the new power plants are built to use the much cleaner Wyoming coal.

It all comes down to dollars and cents. The energy industry is just like the fast food industry. Keep your costs low and maximize your income.

The other thing about natural gas is that the price is highly volatile. Since drilling has slowed, prices are finally coming back up (helped by these late winter cold snaps). Without a good market for the gas, though, it will be a boom and bust cycle as those 7 increased density wells slowly get drilled over time.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 05:52pm PT
Some corrections to the above:

less than a 3rd of US electricity, not most, is produced by burning coal - and that continues to plummet - over a 20% drop in less than 20 years. The EPAs new CSAP regulations, as well as state level regulations, have prevented the commissioning of new plants and accelerated the decommissioning of old ones.

It's more about environmental regulation, not fuel cost, these days.

Go figure. They told us that stuff wouldn't work.

The problem remains - we continue to export coal to China, so it's still getting burned.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 4, 2014 - 05:59pm PT
Once more with feeling - the primary objection to Keystone isn't spills - that's a strawman - its the additional GHG emissions per gallon of final product inherent in the extraction process.

I agree that the argument over spills is indeed a strawman. However it is a strawman being used by the environmental groups.

If we were THAT worried about carbon emissions, we would shut down every coal mining operation in the country and switch to methane.

The environmental groups can be just as loose with the facts as the industry groups.

This causes me to pull my hair out. The truth is usually pretty simple. It is rarely expressed.

Remember. The environmental cost is not in the strip mines or pipeline leaks. It is what is coming out of every tailpipe you see drive past. People don't get it. That is why I wish there were a way to make our tailpipe emissions purple. Can you imagine what it would look like if the sky were purple? This whole CO2 problem would be plain for all to see.

As to off topic regarding the pipeline, well, all of the arguments against the pipeline are these off topic larger points, such as pointing out how CO2 intense the refining of the bitumen in the sands really is.

But if your focus is indeed on CO2, any coal mine is far worse than the tar sands.

My only idea is to switch to natural gas as a bridge fuel. Iran is already doing this. They sit on some of the largest natural gas fields in the world, with no market. Since oil is their only source of income, they are converting their domestic fuel to natural gas. They can use less oil and therefore make more money.

Iran now has the highest number of natural gas fueled vehicles in the world.

There is a CNG filling station near the Whole Foods in northern OKC. It is always less than 2 bucks per gallon equivalent (to gasoline).
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:14pm PT
That's all good. What I don't get is why you are for approving Keystone - or at least, you're for not opposing it. Same result - so same thing, really.

This is a specific policy decisions solely in the hands of the government; a poster child project for effective environmental activism. And that activism has been successful. What's the problem here, exactly?

If you're implying that activists (the Sierra Club, for example) should be working on limiting coal production and exports rather than Keystone - its not a zero sum game. The SC is working on both issues. It is better able to address the coal export issue because of its increased membership and donations gained through the high profile Keystone issue. So that's the way that works. Very strategic on their part.

Furthermore, since the CO2 emissions of oil sands oil versus oil produced by conventional means IS the primary objection to Keystone - how is that off topic, exactly? Seems like that IS the issue.

Looking at it another way, the more local oil we have flowing into the US, the less incentive we'll have to switch to something cleaner.

If oil sand oil was destined to replace coal, I might agree with you - but that's not the case. The vast majority of that oil will be refined into gasoline. Oil sands gasoline, when the entire production life cycle GHG emissions are considered, will put 80% more GHGs into the atmosphere per gallon burned than gasoline from conventionally extracted oil sources.

Population, coal, and alternative fuels are important topics, too. They're just not this topic, and government is much more limited in its ability to address them than with Keystone.

Since the government need do nothing to not approve Keystone - what would be wrong with, um, continuing to not approve Keystone (which will not happen without continued public pressure) - while working on the other issues you've mentioned?

That's the part I just don't get.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:29pm PT
The argument for or against Keystone is a massive distraction from the real problem. I see the real problem as 2 fold:

1) Our CO2 emissions is by far the biggest problem.

2) The oil that we import from unstable parts of the world has totally messed up our relationship and influence on other parts of the world. If we were energy self sufficient, we would be less likely to get into wars or other problems in corrupt third world nations.

The U.S. is 5% of the world population and we use almost 20% of the world's energy. Every one of us is a poster child for comfortable self deception. We, as Americans, could get by with less than half of our energy needs simply by a change of habits.

Jimmy Carter achieved a 25% drop in our oil consumption in about 2 years. Are you old enough to remember the hated 55 mph speed limit?

The way I see it, screaming and crying over that pipeline is a distraction from the real problem. You will see the real problem if you (or I) look in the mirror.

We waste so much energy that it is almost a flaunt.

The Keystone pipeline is a joke. It is nothing. In one morning I have listed several things that we can easily do to reduce both our carbon emissions and our addiction to imported oil.

It will only get worse. Getting all jacked up over a f*#king pipeline is pathetic. We ignore the root cause of many of our problems as a country and as a species.

I get a lot of flack from people in the oil business when I speak my mind. Well, I'm not a drone raised on Rush Limbaugh and Fox news.

edit: I guess that the reason that I approve of the pipeline is because it lessens, a little but significant amount, of our import problem.

Do you want me to make a post about where we get our oil imports? Oddly, we don't get much oil from the Middle East. So why are we there? Because

1) World price is set there

2) Oil = power

If you take the time to read The Prize, then you will understand the unfortunate position that we are in now and in the future. The U.S. is fantastically rich in oil. We have already used most of it, though. WW2 was won over oil, and if you read The Prize, you will get it. Those oil reserves in the middle east still have a life in them, and the balance of power will shift further and further in that direction.

Why else do we keep those Nimitz Class aircraft carriers patrolling the shores of the desert?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:32pm PT
"distraction" implies a zero sum situation.

See above. That's not the way organized public advocacy works.

An example from my own advocacy work: Edward Snowden creates outrage > lots of new ACLU members and donations > we step up our advocacy work on surveillance...and drone regulation, and drug policy reform, and a whole bunch of other issues. You never know what will create the fervor and bring in the donations.

Second principle at work: A victory on Keystone = greater credibility for donors = more money = more work on coal exports. It also means you opponents fear your organization more - so you don't have to sue them (expensive and risky) as much to get them to do what you want. Politicans listen to you (or fear you) more. Finally, it means your org now has access to the front page of the NYTs - which means more exposure, more members, more donations. You get the idea. Leverage.

Speaking of donors - here's an example of how winning a milestone can launch you into the next zone:

I502 (pot legalization initiative). The ACLU seed funded the effort with $100K. We needed a million to get the signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. We went to rich donors who cared about the issue. The first gave us 150K, and agreed to match the next 150K. Off to the races. We got agreements from wealthy donors to pledge a lot more if we got on the ballot. We did - then we did the same leveraging strategy to eventually get a total of about 8 million for the actual initiative campaign. From 100K to 8 million in just over a year. I don't know how the Sierra Club operates, but I wouldn't be surprised if they use a similar strategy - with continued denial of the Keystone permits as trigger points for ever greater donation levels.

I received a Presidential Pardon from Jimmy Carter. True statement, although it might not be what you may think.

So yes, I was there.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
It totally kills me how embedded some peoples thoughts are in this realm.

No real alternatives,really?

Deaths,injuries and surface spills are a strawman argument,please.

The FF industry has a pretty bad record with pipelines.





I digress,A friend just bought the electric BMW,and he hooked it up to a dedicated solar panel/inverter.

Expensive .Yes.


What the hell is not,when it comes to transportation?

He has said that he is done buying transportation for the rest of his life.

He is 65.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:44pm PT
The argument for or against Keystone is a massive distraction from the real problem. I see the real problem as 2 fold:

1) Our CO2 emissions is by far the biggest problem.


Volunteerism does not work and the politicians are too scared to jack up the carbon tax, so while you may be right, it is not a viable route to fight Co2 emissions. That leaves fighting the big projects that have the potential to bring us over the 2c mark.

2) The oil that we import from unstable parts of the world has totally messed up our relationship and influence on other parts of the world. If we were energy self sufficient, we would be less likely to get into wars or other problems in corrupt third world nations.

The whole reason behind the pipeline is to get it off North America, its just not worth enough here. Canada is already the number one supplier of oil to the USA.

The U.S. is 5% of the world population and we use almost 20% of the world's energy. Every one of us is a poster child for comfortable self deception. We, as Americans, could get by with less than half of our energy needs simply by a change of habits.

Wont happen unless we charge them a tax for it, are you willing to pay more for your energy, a price that reflects the true cost of energy exploitation? I am.


T
he Keystone pipeline is a joke. It is nothing. In one morning I have listed several things that we can easily do to reduce both our carbon emissions and our addiction to imported oil.

It will only get worse. Getting all jacked up over a f*#king pipeline is pathetic. We ignore the root cause of many of our problems as a country and as a species.

I get a lot of flack from people in the oil business when I speak my mind. Well, I'm not a drone raised on Rush Limbaugh and Fox news.



This will only change when it costs people money, so ultimately the best route is to tell politicians we want to pay more for energy. Since that doesnt seem to work, the next best thing is to stop these projects from moving forward, from continuing to provide cheap energy and removing clean energy from the pool.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:51pm PT
Tvash,

Wilbeer is a good example of the typical American:

A carp with a hook in its mouth. The U.S. has a great record regarding pipeline spills. You ought to check out the rest of the world.

There aren't many people who really understand energy.

You are correct regarding a zero sum situation. The only thing it will do is provide us with 5% of our oil needs from a friendly country.

If you read the environmental outfit's reasons for opposing the pipeline, they just don't make much sense. Unless we, as a group, can agree that using oil is actually a BAD thing, then all we are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I never see this frank of an opinion expressed, but as far as I can tell, it is the truth.

The only reason that I support it is because the real environmental impacts will be zero, and it will give us 750 mbo/day of oil that we won't need to import from various dictators.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
I guess my 80% greater GHG emissions per gallon of oil sands oil versus conventionally produced oil point didn't land on target. Since that's my whole argument - and the primary argument against Keystone, I reckon I don't have a whole lot more to say on the topic.

I'm a mechanical engineer. I know pipelines are more reliable than rail, ships, or trucks. Perhaps spills are an easier threat to understand for many people than my aforementioned emissions equation.

Regarding dictators - in the end, the biosphere doesn't give a rip one way or the other.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 4, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
I just do not see deaths ,spills etc. as a strawman argument .

I totally agree with Tvash on why the pipeline should be stopped.

Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 4, 2014 - 07:03pm PT
because climate change and emissions is not something most people can grasp, its far away, its not a problem now...so spills, death and destruction are the next best arguments.

Imagine trying to get them to fight for higher gas prices...unlikely
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 4, 2014 - 07:34pm PT
To clarify - I meant that spills is a strawman from the standpoint that proponents of the pipeline have claimed that is the primary environmental argument against building it, when, in fact, the primary environmental concern is the greater GHG emissions per unit of oil sand oil.

That's probably even less clear than my stupid equation.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 4, 2014 - 07:49pm PT
Look ,All I meant, it was ALL part of the argument against the pipeline.

I totally agree about the amount of carbon non neutrality of piping that crap.


edit;Man ,I have been called a lot of things here on ST,but Carp....
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 4, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/03/04/if-all-you-see-1058/
Ottawa Doug

Social climber
Ottawa, Canada
Mar 4, 2014 - 09:58pm PT
I rode my bike to work today a minus 2 F, but when I get on the plane to go the valley this fall my actions will eff up the environment.

Cheers,
Doug
SteveW

Trad climber
The state of confusion
Mar 4, 2014 - 11:51pm PT

The Denver Post, liberal bastion they are, endorsed building
it today. . .
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:36am PT
There's BASE104, and in response, there's "Let them eat cake." I say that because only BASE104 seems to understand that each option we have available costs something. Without an analysis of relative cost, we have no rational basis for saying that stopping the pipeline is smart or dumb. For that reason, I strongly disagree with the assertion that his facts are OT. They're some of the few facts that actually matter in determining proper policy.

Of course, the need for counting cost seems to be lost on the pipeline's opponents because, I think, they don't perceive the associated cost will alter their lifestyles in materially harmful ways.

As someone who lived through the Carter administration as an adult, not only was the nefarious "double nickel" part of reducing energy consumption (that was actually a Nixon-era measure, along with year-round Daylight Savings Time), but the price of petroleum products doubled in constant dollars, and there was still a need for rationing on top of that.

I wish some of the geniuses who gave us the policies of the Carter Administration and the 95th and 96th Congress bore the real costs of their road-to-hell-paving policies. Sad to say, it was the most vulnerable -- those who lost jobs during the stagflation those policies produces -- that paid most dearly. I've lived through the sorts of policies I'm reading against the pipeline on this thread before, and I'm here to tell you the peasants have no bread.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 5, 2014 - 03:24am PT
less than a 3rd of US electricity, not most, is produced by burning coal - and that continues to plummet - over a 20% drop in less than 20 years. The EPAs new CSAP regulations, as well as state level regulations, have prevented the commissioning of new plants and accelerated the decommissioning of old ones.


While that seems likely to me, The Energy Information Administration data showed that as of 2011 we produce 42% of our electricity from coal. Other sources suggests we produce about 30% from coal and 30% from natural gas at the moment. I do note, however, that coal plants have traditionally provided base electrical production, rather than peaking production, suggesting that the coal plants still have a marginal cost advantage.

John
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 10:14am PT
Yeah, nobody cares about how you "survived" the Carter years. I "lived through it as an adult", too. It wasn't exactly the Great Depression.

Money isn't everything, but let's look at the world as if it was. What's the cost of a destroying the climate we evolved in? The cost of a mass extinction (we're already in one!) Ocean acidification and biological collapse? Losing the last remaining topsoil from the great plains around the world? Sea level rise?

By ignoring the emissions issue - and this pipeline would be a poster child for exactly that behavior - we're simply externalizing those costs, and maximizing them, for our progeny.

But f*#k our progeny, really. I don't have any - so let's party! We're not being good stewards of this incredibly rare paradise we're lucky enough to find ourselves clinging to.

So, economically, your argument is that of a short term asset stripper - a thief in good suit. "Sorry about the mess - gotta go!" It's the very same argument used by the land denuding tobacco farmers who founded this country, as well as today's coal strip miners and pet coke peddlers that still run it. "But stuff will cost (a little) more!" Every industry that seeks short term gain at the expense of the land and those who will come after crows that line so it can go about its dirty business.

But money really isn't everything. When viewed from the standpoint of being a good steward - leaving the place as good or better than you found it (my Eagle Scout is rearing its head) - saying no to Keystone is a no brainer.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 10:26am PT
Some great points were made here especially by Tvash and BASE104
Thank you for educating me on a lot of things I didn't know.

Still what are we left with? What can we do about our carbon producing country and world?

Try to spread awareness about conservation.
Try to stop the worst things like the pipeline.
Don't eat meat or eat less meat

Supplying meat not only devours resources but also creates waste. That same pound of hamburger requires more than 4,000 Btus of fossil-fuel energy to get to the dinner table; something has to power the tractors, feedlots, slaughterhouses, and trucks. That process, along with the methane the cows belch throughout their lives, contributes as much as 51 percent of all greenhouse gas produced in the world.

51 PERCENT!!!



Oh Yeah, and stop breeding!
No couple should have more than one child unless they want to adopt one who is already here!



The Keystone XL pipeline would have transported toxic tar sands from under Canada’s Boreal forest 2,000 miles to the Gulf of Mexico to be refined and exported. Approving the pipeline would bring increased production of one of the dirtiest, most polluting forms of oil over the coming decades.

Tar sands oil is not only difficult, costly and energy-intensive to produce but also dirtier and more corrosive than conventional oil. Leaks and spills threaten rivers, aquifers and communities all along the route.




http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/?gclid=CKaS79HW-7wCFTFk7Aodz3EAXQ
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 10:40am PT
Just to clear some things up:

Oil sand, a mixture of bitumen (tar) and dirt (mostly sand), is refined into crude oil at refineries in the oil sands province. It is not transported anywhere.

It's that crude oil that would flow through the Keystone pipeline to refineries near the Gulf, where it would be further refined into usable products - primarily gasoline.

To my knowledge, finished products (gasoline, etc) are no different than those refined from other oil sources. They are not more corrosive, whatever.

The major environment concern with oil sands petroleum products versus petroleum products from oil that is pumped from the ground by conventional means is the energy intensive process required to turn tar sand into crude oil. That extra refining step means that, from in-the-ground to in-your-car, a gallon of oil sands produced gasoline will put 80% more GHG into the air than gasoline refined from conventional sources.

We're talking about total GHG emissions over the entire life cycle of that gallon of gas, from when it was still tar in the ground to burning it in your engine. There is no chemical difference between a gallon of gasoline produced from tar sands oil and one produced from any other source.

To have the most impact on stopping Keystone, I'd join the Sierra Club, follow their recommendations and participate in their actions (legislative action network, etc), volunteer for time for this campaign, and give them money. I'm not familiar with 350.org - check it out and perhaps do the same. It doesn't have the longevity or track record of the Sierra Club, however.

Individual action and lifestyle is great in general - but it won't stop Keystone specifically.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 10:46am PT
love this

Money isn't everything, but let's look at the world as if it was. What's the cost of a destroying the climate we evolved in? The cost of a mass extinction (we're already in one!) Ocean acidification and biological collapse? Losing the last remaining topsoil from the great plains around the world? Sea level rise?

By ignoring the emissions issue - and this pipeline would be a poster child for exactly that behavior - we're simply externalizing those costs, and maximizing them, for our progeny.

But f*#k our progeny, really. I don't have any - so let's party! We're not being good stewards of this incredibly rare paradise we're lucky enough to find ourselves clinging to.


Methane Hydrates carpet the worlds oceans.
Methane hydrates are hair -trigger sensitive to changes to temperature: one extra degree is enough to melt them.
When they release they burp vast clouds of methane into the atmosphere- a green house gas ten times more potent than carbon dioxide.
The Us Geological Survey conservatively estimates that these methane ice balls contain twice the carbon found in all known fossil fuels on earth!

It may already be to late for us but don't you want to try to stop it....

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 10:58am PT
Actually, she's spot on there.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 5, 2014 - 10:59am PT
Careful,you may be called a carp ,tvash.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 5, 2014 - 11:00am PT
Oil sand, a mixture of bitumen (tar) and dirt (mostly sand), is refined into crude oil at refineries in the oil sands province. It is not transported anywhere.

My impression is that a very small portion is refined into crude here, the rest is diluted enough to flow in pipes elsewhere and then refined into synthetic crude.

Its one of the reasons the pipe spills are so much worse than conventional crude.

At least thats how I understand it
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 11:01am PT
I prefer to think of myself as a barracuda.

Although some observers might go with pufferfish.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 5, 2014 - 11:10am PT
Yeah ,I do not think of myself,but I am building a HFH house in 10f temps this week.(a Jimmy Carter program)
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 11:14am PT
I stand corrected - Keystone will carry crude oil, but also dilbit (diluted bitumen). Dilbit is basically tar diluted with naphtha. I don't know the % of each. Perhaps someone could dig that up. GET IT?

Dilbit, indeed, far more difficult to clean up in the event of a spill. Unlike crude oil, its sinks. You can do the math when something like that finds its way into an aquifer.

So yeah, a large spill in the wrong place could prove to be a huge environmental disaster.

Thanks for the heads up.

Regarding methane hydrates - it's like sea level rise - it depends on your time horizon. Go forward a century or more and it becomes an enormous, planet changing threat.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
Jared Diamond to distance one's self from docudrama?

Really?

Don't get me wrong, reading Diamond is good, clean fun and all, but...

If your'e already aware of methane hydrates and all the rest, you hardly need to read Jared's doomsday stories.

Stay focused. Stop Keystone. The destruction of the planet is happening incrementally.

Keystone is one of the increments.

Then leverage that victory to stop the next Bad Idea.

That's how it works.

Base, by his own posts, is for the pipeline because he'd rather we buy oil from Canada than Venezuela. That's a perfectly legitimate argument - just not an environmental one. Geopolitics comes and goes. Short term stuff.

The climate is for keeps.



BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 5, 2014 - 01:39pm PT
In fact, methane outgassing from fracking are a greater source of methane, and threat to the atmosphere as fracking operations ramp up around the world, for what that's worth.

This is not true. Absolutely physically untrue.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 5, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
^^

It is a pretty hot topic, especially since they are trying to attach a tax to it, for now its a free for all regarding this.


Japan is already extracting gas from their methane hydrate reserves.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 5, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
Base, its good you are pulling your own hair out in combating the misinformation presented on this thread, much preferable to being scalped by the herd. please keep up the flow of realism.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 01:56pm PT
This is a pretty good 2 pager (although necessarily tedious, given the topic) on methane produced by natural gas mining:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/methane-burned-vs-methane-leaked-frackings-impact-on-climate-change/

Some basic conclusions:

womb to tomb - natural gas is more environmentally friendly fuel that coal. That probably isn't news to anyone.

Our data for how much natural gas is leaked is spotty and could be more accurate

We can do better about preventing natural gas leaks, and there are proposed regulations and technologies to make that happen.

The statement comparing fracking leaks to the potential release of the ocean's methane hydrates is, as one would expect, several orders of magnitude out of whack.

By the way, misinformation is deliberate by definition. I've seen some stuff posted that wasn't correct - from everyone, including myself and base, but I haven't seen a deliberate attempt to misinform, here. Nor have a seen any herds scalping or being scalped or whatever, however compelling a visual that may conjure.

karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
Methane Hydrates carpet the worlds oceans.
No one knows what will happen for sure but the ocean is heating up!



"Regarding methane hydrates - it's like sea level rise - it depends on your time horizon. Go forward a century or more and it becomes an enormous, planet changing threat."


Geologically speaking one hundred years is nothing.



Yes, I brought it up because it is scary, that is the point!

Thanks for the book suggestions Coz. I have already read them.

People want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend global warming is not a runaway train,
We all want to go about our lives and not think about this stuff but it is happening.

"Stay focused. Stop Keystone. The destruction of the planet is happening incrementally. "

Actually the planet will not be destroyed but our species will.

Later, time to go climbing
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
Of course, one can be part of the solution AND work to stop Keystone at the same time. The fact that you burn gas in your car does not erode legitimacy for this kind of activism, even if the opposition tries to tell you that it does.

Stay focused. The opposition inevitably trots out words like 'hysteria' (nutjob!) and fear (coward!) in its attempt to marginalize. They are being abusive, plain and simple.

They will also attempt to play on your guilt because you don't live in a mud hut. Then they'll try to distract you with nukes, asteroids, pandemics - BIGGER THREATS - to try to trivialize your current campaign. Sound familiar?

It's standard Shout Down 101. An attempt to get you to do nothing - so the pipeline can be built. These are old tricks. Don't fall for them.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:24pm PT
Oh Gawwwdd....

Please do not mistake Rick's comments as any sort of ringing endorsement on my part. We squabble over on the Climate Change thread.

I accept most of the climate science, not a popular place to be when you are in the oil business.

Perhaps you should ask me about ANWR some day. I've spent three summers alone in that place. It is like heaven.

Now that Napoleon is here, this thread will not be pleasant. Back to work, but I assure you that I am not blinded by the fossil fuel industry nor the Sierra Club.

Seriously, when the Chief shows up, threads go downhill quickly. He doesn't know a bull plug from a polished rod, but he will cut and paste from various blogs until the sun goes down, and long after.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
Sorry, Tvash, to imply that the cost of environmental degradation (including climate change) is irrelevant. It is not. Neither is the human cost of mitigation of environmental degardation. My problem with the arguments presented in opposition to the pipeline at least two facets:

1. The arguments assume the pipeline is bad without sufficient analysis. Specifically, the arguments completely ignore the human cost of mitigation;

2. The arguments are intended to combat the extraction techniques in Canada, but they attack the optimal method of petroleum transport instead. The extracted hydrocarbons have a sufficient value that they are extracted and transported already, but by suboptimal means. Tvash correctly states the strategy: make the expected value of building future pipelines greater because of the noise opponents make. Pipelines remain the optimal mode of transport. If the petroleum is being extracted, refined and shipped anyway, why add to the cost and environmental degradation by forcing suboptimal transport methods?

I am amused by Tvash's comments about the economic impact of Carter year policies. The old joke is that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. I kept my job during the Carter years, but the stagflation, and, more importantly, decline in American optimism, and the general malaise was rather awful. It was no surprise to any but the left that Reagan stomped Carter in 1980.

Besides, I remember the cars produced under the Carter Administration as some of the worst ever. The one-size-fits-all energy-saving prescriptions were arrogant and absurd, but those in Washington, not having the same values, didn't care. I don't care to see any more of a repeat performance than what we've already experienced. Meanwhile, the peasants still want their bread.

John
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
While its fashionable to blame a president for everything - including the quality of Detroit's cars, there were, perhaps, other factors that drove the country into stagflation. The Vietnam War and Oil Cartel come to mind...

But back to the Loud Pipelines Kill Puppies thread

When analyzing a menu of strategic options, activists must weigh desired outcome, means available, risk, and cost. Stopping oil sands production entirely may be the best outcome - but the means available are scant and the risk of failure high.

So stopping the production of oil at the mine is infeasible.

Keystone is quite the opposite. The means are there and the risk of failure low enough (obviously, given 6 years of success so far). It doesn't stop oil sands production, but it is a harm reduction strategy - it bottlnecks to the logistical chain and therefore limits production that way.

Your assumption is that production will remain the same regardless of the efficiency and cost of the logistical chain.

It won't, of course. What will happen if Kestone goes through is that all the current transport methods will continue to be used, and Keystone will simply add less expensive capacity to that logistical chain. Oil sands production will increase accordingly. Anything beyond what is required for North American consumption will be exported.

It also alerts and educates the public to the larger issue of oil sands production and dependence on oil in general.

When viewed in this way, it was an excellent choice for a campaign that has been very successful so far.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:47pm PT
While its fashionable to blame a president for everything - including the quality of Detroit's cars, there were, perhaps, other factors that drove the country into stagflation. The Vietnam War and Oil Cartel comes to mind...

I'd be curious to know your reasoning for how either of the sources you cite led to stagflation, rather than the fiscal, monetary, regulatory and energy policies of the Carter Administration and the 95th and 96th Congress, but I have paying economic work to do for the rest of the day, so I'm signing off.

I do appreciate and understand your analysis of options available to activists, and it encourages me to read an analysis seeking an optimal, rather than an ideal, strategy for those with your viewpoint.

Carry on.

John

Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
What will happen is that all the current transport methods will continue to be used, and Keystone will simply add less expensive capacity.

Exactly, this argument that rail will cease is just not true.

They are trying to use a similar argument for LNG, if we export LNG we can remove coal from Chinas fuel source... It got so bad that our premier thinks we should get carbon credits for this while doubling our emissions here at home in order to produce the stuff...

The reality is that China will take our LNG, and their coal and just double down.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 02:59pm PT
China will also take our petcoke - a cheaper and dirtier power plant fuel than coal, and an otherwise useless byproduct of oil sands extraction.

And guess who is the chief petcoke peddler?

Koch Carbon.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 03:15pm PT
FWIW, and that isn't much, I've read Collapse and GG&Steel. Sorry, not familiar with Black Fish, other than last nights cooking disaster, perhaps.

That oil is the low hanging fruit of energy is a statement of the obvious. Economically, we'll continue to burn it until it runs out, then we'll burn every other dirty fuel available.

That's where public policy comes in. Humans are like bacteria - we'll eat everything around and sh#t in own beds doing it until the party's over. That's self interest, and that's an evolutionary trait. Ask any Mayan.

When long term survival is threatened, public policy needs to step in to counteract the self destruction that will occur naturally due to self interest. That's why we stockpile huge amounts of weapons - for that nuclear rainy day, so to speak. (that one may backfire, of course). And that's why we're now regulating coal fired power plants so heavily - even though it costs more to do so.

So, too, with climate. There is still huge denial going on (also an evolutionary trait, and perfectly natural), and the wealth concentrators continue to do their hording thing while externalizing the enormous environmental costs - natural behavior as well. Even when the damage isn't externalized, people still eat, drink, and smoke themselves to death. Hard to get your mitts around the long term, but that doesn't mean the damage isn't happening. If we could eat, drink, and smoke and have someone else take the health hit - well, you get the idea.

I think you'll find few here who would agree with you about my reading comprehension, but if such comments stroke an emotional need, by all means, stroke away. I'm all for increasing human happiness whenever possible.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 5, 2014 - 05:30pm PT
Tvash, that is a nice post. It should be obvious to those who follow these things that we, as a species, just aren't capable of looking very far into the future.

We have all sorts of problems. The solutions cost money, so we sweep these problems under the rug or turn them into strawmen on AM talk radio. It really is that simple.

You have to be very careful about what you search for on the internet, because somewhere, someone has articulated a position that you already agree with, even if it is false. There is a massive cottage industry of pundits out there who don't know their heads from their asses.

It is better to remain emotionally detached and work on problems rather than bitching back and forth.

So it is about focus, and our lack of it.

edit: You will never understand the geopolitical significance of oil until you read The Prize. I live and breathe the energy business every single day, and that book is a triumph. It isn't partisan. It is mainly historical. However by reminding us of history, we can see ourselves making the same mistakes over and over again.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 5, 2014 - 05:37pm PT
I've heard of the book. I'll check it out on your recommendation.

I definitely agree about the emotional detachment part, although I'm guilty as hell of being a bastid of an Irishman.

I don't think Keystone is anything more than an incremental milestone. It's not a solution - more a preventative measure. The solutions lie in efficiency and sustainable energy sources.

Short term

Modernizing the grid - from what I've read, $80B increases transmission efficiency by 20% - huge.

Building codes and tax breaks for low carbon or zero net carbon buildings and homes - huge opportunity.

Incentives to produce robot vehicles near term. The benefits of the widespread use of fully automated electric vehicles shared (Car2Go style) would be enormous - level loading of the grid, focus on more efficient power generation rather than trying make millions of vehicles more efficient, optimized use of roads, elimination of traffic jams and accidents.

Continue switching from coal to NG power generation.

Continued investment in wind and solar.

Long term -

Deep geothermal?
Fusion?



Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 5, 2014 - 05:48pm PT
I just dont understand why that (spills,destruction) is a bad idea for an argument. There are papers upon papers that discuss why climate change is not a viable argument for most folks to pay the true price of energy extraction.

They need an immediate consequence, one that affects them or their family in the not so distant future.

Thats why that excellent commercial was put out

[Click to View YouTube Video]
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 06:10pm PT
Tvash,

"Humans are like bacteria - we'll eat everything around and sh#t in own beds doing it until the party's over. That's self interest, and that's an evolutionary trait."


" There is still huge denial going on (also an evolutionary trait, and perfectly natural), and the wealth concentrators continue to do their hording thing while externalizing the enormous environmental costs - natural behavior as well. Even when the damage isn't externalized, people still eat, drink, and smoke themselves to death. Hard to get your mitts around the long term, but that doesn't mean the damage isn't happening. If we could eat, drink, and smoke and have someone else take the health hit - well, you get the idea.

I think you'll find few here who would agree with you about my reading comprehension, but if such comments stroke an emotional need, by all means, stroke away. I'm all for increasing human happiness whenever possible."


I agree with this too Tvash,

"I don't think Keystone is anything more than an incremental milestone. It's not a solution - more a preventative measure. The solutions lie in efficiency and sustainable energy sources. "


The longer it gets delayed from being built, the more time it gives to come up with something else.

I will read The Prize too.
Thanks!







http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/no_keystone_xl/index.html

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/

http://act.350.org/sign/kxl/


wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 5, 2014 - 07:02pm PT













"Continue switching from coal to NG power generation.

Continued investment in wind and solar.

Long term -

Deep geothermal?
Fusion? "

Could not agree with you more,Tvash.

I have been accepted at Cornell's school of Environmental Engineering.

Having a 33 year old Geology degree,I am going to concentrate on Geothermal.

How I am going to pay for it is another hurdle.

The point being ,Alternatives are the way out of this.



Yes,Fort,we live in interesting times.

Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 5, 2014 - 07:33pm PT
You COULD read "The Prize".

Or, you could watch the lecture that David Yergin gave that I attended last year:

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/10/12/well-find-some-new-way-to-power-our-hot-dog-toasters/events/the-takeaway/
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2014 - 07:41pm PT
This is part of a review of Collapse.
The book was very interesting. The movie was frightening.

One of the points that shines clearly from the pages of Diamond's book is that the more fragile the ecosystem in which a society is established, the more dependent it is on appropriate decision-making. Diamond recognizes that there are four basic areas in which decision-making fails:

* The failure to anticipate a problem before it arrives.
* The failure to perceive a problem when it has arrived.
* That having become aware of the problem, the failure to try and solve it.
* That they might set out to solve the problem -- but because of inadequate information, wrong approaches, etc., they fail.



In the category of failure to perceive a problem when it has arrived, Diamond comes up with two concepts that are particularly helpful. One is what he describes as "creeping normalcy" and the other is "landscape amnesia." The first is slow trends that get missed because they are concealed within noisy fluctuations so that year-to-year change is so gradual that we miss what actually is going on.


n the category of failure to perceive a problem when it has arrived, Diamond comes up with two concepts that are particularly helpful. One is what he describes as "creeping normalcy" and the other is "landscape amnesia." The first is slow trends that get missed because they are concealed within noisy fluctuations so that year-to-year change is so gradual that we miss what actually is going on.


Yet even if a society or culture has "anticipated, perceived, or tried to solve a problem, it may still fail for obvious possible reasons: the problem may be beyond our present capacity to solve, a solution may exist but be prohibitatively expensive, or our efforts may be too little and too late"


http://richardkew.blogspot.com/2005/06/review-of-jared-diamonds-book-collapse.html


If you do try you might fail. If you don't try you will fail!
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Mar 5, 2014 - 11:00pm PT
The petroleum coke waste from refining tar sands oil is very bad news. This toxic particulate has been blowing around Chicago and Detroit, from piles destined to be shipped to China and India.

http://rt.com/usa/koch-tar-waste-piles-chicago-285/

The substance made headlines earlier this year when a pet-coke pile that was three stories high and one block long created an ominous black cloud that floated over Detroit, Michigan. Citizens in nearby Windsor complained that they experienced respiratory problems and other ailments when the pet-coke infiltrated their water supply and floated through open windows....

...Each barrel of oil shipped from Canada produces between 60 and 130 lbs of pet-coke. That is then sent overseas and incinerated in electricity generators because the Environmental Protection Agency has stopped issuing permits for the burning of pet-coke inside the US.

The tar sands is currently producing 1.8 million barrels of oil/day, which works out to between 20 - 42 million tons of pet-coke per year.

Tar sands production is expected to reach 5.2 million barrels per day by 2030, mostly going to China.
tooth

Trad climber
B.C.
Mar 5, 2014 - 11:32pm PT
I'm making a lot of my income off the future pipeline going to the coast through BC from the tarsands.

Right now about half of the new patients who come to my office each month are guys who work up north in oil/gas and keep their families down south. 3 weeks on, 1 off to spend with family. They walk in and put 25K on their CC for veneers, or just get everything for their families.

And they haven't even built the line yet. These guys are just doing the preliminary work for it - kinda nice having so much work that pays well for everyone.



But I really don't like the fact that we use oil and that it pollutes so much.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 6, 2014 - 09:56am PT
Ken M,
Thanks for that.

Yergin concluded that he doesn’t share the “doom and gloom” view of other energy experts. “I see a history of adaptation and innovation,” when it comes to energy, he said. And while the U.S. is still at the forefront of research and creativity, the globalization of innovation is expanding the possibilities for countries like China and India to develop new technologies of their own."

The quest for “the security [and] availability of energy for a prosperous world” is a quest that “is as much about human spirit as it is about technology,” said Yergin. “It is a quest that will never end and it is a quest that should never end.”
” While the world is not going to run out of oil, Yergin expressed concern about above-ground political and economic risks. What’s certain, though, is that oil companies are continuing to explore alternative sources of energy and the price of solar power is coming down–and the face of energy in 2030 will look very different from today."



Even more reason to try and delay all the nasty stuff from being built!


kunlun_shan,

"The petroleum coke waste from refining tar sands oil is very bad news"

No sh#t, I had no idea...

The substance made headlines earlier this year when a pet-coke pile that was three stories high and one block long created an ominous black cloud that floated over Detroit, Michigan. Citizens in nearby Windsor complained that they experienced respiratory problems and other ailments when the pet-coke infiltrated their water supply and floated through open windows.... "

Read the article, very scary!


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 6, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
Problem solved!

Just build your own fusion reactor.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-diy-engineer-who-built-a-nuclear-reactor-in-his-basement
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 6, 2014 - 03:57pm PT
TGT,

Sounds a little sketchy, but brilliant.

I like this post of yours too, about the carbon eating fishes


http://phys.org/news/2014-02-fish-biomass-ocean-ten-higher.html#inlRlv
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 6, 2014 - 04:19pm PT
BTW,

Your drinking water is filtered thru processed coke. (activated carbon) although it's usually derived from bituminous coal, primarily from China or anthracite from those evil underground mines in Virginia.

Petroleum derived carbon is too valuable for metallurgical processing and electrode carbon. The particle shape makes it better for those uses than producing carbon for water purification and odor control, but chemically it's the same thing, Carbon.

Right now there's a world wide shortage of filtration carbon. The two largest suppliers of it have already sold out their production capacity for the entire year and are not taking new orders.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 6, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
Interesting info on filtration carbon, TGT. About 40 years ago, I was working as an analyst in the corporate planning department of a manufacturer of filtration equipment, and we were evaluating the possible acquisition of a major producer of activated charcoal. We concluded the ROI was inferior to other options. It looks like we may have been myopic . . . (perhaps tying into Tvash's comments, above).

John
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 6, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
I've switched to a carbon free diet to reduce emissions.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 6, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
I've switched to a carbon free diet to reduce emissions.

Good one, Tvash! Now everyone in my office is trying to figure out what has me chortling when I'm otherwise supposed to be putting out a rush project.


I suppose if all humanity followed that diet, we could also solve our overpopulation problems, too.

John
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 6, 2014 - 05:33pm PT
The Canadians just approved the line 9 reversal, allowing the pipeline to ship synthetic crude to the east coast. This will encourage more growth of the oil sands, will be interesting to see what the folks in the east have to say
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 6, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
All the carbon my body needs is contained in my cold, black cinder of a heart.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 6, 2014 - 06:05pm PT
How do you get the carbon?

What's coke?

You coke coal, wood chips or coconut hulls, but the ends result is almost pure carbon. Then it goes thru the activation process.

For not using anthracite, MWD sure buys a lot of it. So does any one with a GE mixed bed filter.

http://www.gewater.com/handbook/ext_treatment/ch_6_filteration.jsp

Has to meet NSF 61 though

http://www.throop.com/filter-media-anthracite-coal.php

http://www.anthracitefilter.com/water_filtration_products.htm

As for Activated carbon its used both in the PAC process, (Powder activated carbon) and GAC filter vessels. (Granulated activated carbon)

Your icemaker filter or Britta filter is also just an activated carbon filter. The good ones use coconut hull derived carbon.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 6, 2014 - 06:30pm PT
It's also used extensively for drinking water filtration. That's the bulk of the filtration market.

All the MWD plants use anthracite filters.

https://vendors.planetbids.com/NETConnect/ebidresults.cfm?BidNo=300&Name=Filtration+Coal+and+Sand

Last bid result 670 tons @ $388 per ton

2 Coal, Anthracite, Uniformity Coefficient Not More Than 1.40, 1.00 To 1.10 Millimeter Effective Size in accordance to MWD Specification EF-SPEC/11 Weymouth Unit attached. Ton 670 $388.62 $260,375.40
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2014 - 04:12pm PT




karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 9, 2014 - 11:02pm PT
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/NAT_KXL_Petition.htm?gclid=CNW-n-H8hr0CFRQV7AodcCoAsA


The fight to stop Keystone XL is in its final stretch. Sign this petition to help us fight the devastation of our wild places and make sure this pipeline is stopped for good.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 9, 2014 - 11:52pm PT
Keep up the good fight Karen. I support your efforts here.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 9, 2014 - 11:57pm PT
Likewise.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 9, 2014 - 11:59pm PT
Hey, Karen, F*#k off!!!!

Focus on the marine mammals. Would you rather buy Saudi oil or Canadian oil?

Pick one. Stop making stupid statements that aren't based in facts. Saudi Arabia, or Canada?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 10:55am PT
Keystone supporters often frame the argument this way - Saudi or Canada? In other words, Terrorists or Our Friendly Next Door Neighbors?

The reality is that the US imports petroleum products from over 50 countries. The share of those imports from Canada and OPEC (11 states - not all of them Middle Eastern) is about equal at just under a third each. Saudi Arabia itself supplies only about 12% of our petroleum products imports.

The Keystone opposition has decided that preventing climate disaster trumps whatever geopolitical concerns, real or imagined, are involved with oil importation. That strikes me as a reasonable set of priorities - favoring the health of the entire biosphere over...what, exactly? Last time I checked Saudi Arabia, despite its regressive domestic policies, has been a stable country that has been friendly to the US for many decades.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:05am PT
There are 2.6 MILLION miles of oil and gas pipelines in the USA

Keystone adds 862.
MH2

climber
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:09am PT
Then not building it shouldn't be a big deal.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:22am PT
You guys are all being suckered by one billionare donor that wants to maintain his railroad's monopoly on moving Canadian crude.




The crude won't stop shipping. It will just go on his trains.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Another strawman propaganda item designed to 'guilt trip' opponents of climate destroying oil sands production. Keystone will add capacity - oil and dilbit will ship by both the existing means (trains owned by Evil Robber Barons That Are Far, Far Worse Than the Kochs Will Ever Be), AND the new pipeline. It's not either/or. Strip mining in the oil sands will increase accordingly.

The length of Keystone is also meaningless by itself. What Keystone does is to connect the Oil Sands province with refineries in the Gulf, Chicago, and Midwest - increasing access to refining capacity for both crude and finished petroleum products from the oil sands province.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:44am PT
It will increase refinery production..? Then the refinerys will mysteriously shut down for maintenance creating a shortage of gasoline and spike in gasoline prices..The consumers are fiddles being played by big oil..Sounds as though there is no benefit to America in allowing the pipeline to be built other than shallow promises..?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:48am PT
Increase access to refineries for oil sands crude and dilbit.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 12:12pm PT
Well, that added loads to the discussion, as name calling frequently does. When one can't frame an argument, make it personal.

It seems a few of the proponents of Keystone here, though not all, also deny the fact of anthropogenic warming. I suppose what I don't get is - why trot out a bunch of nit arguments like Canadian Railroad Robber Barons and such when one believes that we can put as much carbon into the atmosphere as we like without any negative consequences to the biosphere? Why not just stick with that?

Why not Just state that "we can burn an unlimited amount of fossil fuels without any impact on the climate so building Keystone simply doesn't matter" and be done with it?




Binks

climber
Uranus
Mar 10, 2014 - 12:24pm PT
KXL biggest boondoggle

Tar Sands release as much CO2 as all the cars on Canadian roads on a daily basis.

We need to switch to solar and other alternatives now, and we already have the ability to do so.

F*#k the Koch brothers and TransCanada. Keep this crap out of the USA and stop polluting the world by scraping off the Boreal forest for short term gain for the few.

Watch "Chasing Ice"
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 12:46pm PT
It's name calling, its a personal attack, it's bullsh#t, and you very well know it. The fact is you know nothing about the OPs lifestyle, efforts to conserve, and carbon footprint relative to the rest of our population. Regardless of that lifestyle - opposition to something harmful to the biosphere - Keystone, in this case, remains a net good thing, regardless of who is doing the opposing. Wealthy donors with relatively opulent lifestyles give plenty of money to environmental stewardship. When one steps beyond the inevitable cries of 'hypocrisy!', this still produces a better outcome for the environment.

And imported products can and often do have a smaller carbon footprint than domestic ones. As they say in the real world - it depends.

Ships are the lowest carbon footprint way to move appreciable amounts of cargo long distances. Trucking something over the Rockies is easily worse than shipping it all the way from China in terms of emissions. In many cases, buying Chinese products made on China's East Coast from America's West Coast produces less emissions than buying East of the Mississippi, although that same equation doesn't apply to a New Yorker or Floridian.

As a rule of thumb, trucks emit 100x the emissions of ships by unit weight of cargo, and trains 10x.

Do the math.

On must look at the whole manufacturing and logistical chain, of course, but the equation above dispels a lot of misconceptions about the carbon footprint of international trade. It's not all bad.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 10, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
The warmists still don't get it.

The Canadian tar sands crude WILL be refined and burned Keystone or not.

This is a repeat of the Rockefeller Pennsylvania railroad show down of the 1870's. Just this time the owner of the railroad has the Prez in his pocket.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
You can shift your name calling sights to me, or anyone else who identifies your shout down tactics, but that still doesn't give you an intelligent, productive contribution as to whether our society should build Keystone or not.

The 'inevitability' argument is a repeat - we've already addressed it. It's false, of course. Keystone is a public policy decision, a human call, one that has been a 'no' for 6 years running. Continuing the say 'no' is obviously a viable and reasonably likely choice at this point.

All the same arguments, most notably the 'invevitability' argument, were trotted out when CFC bans were being discussed. It'll never happen, too costly, blah, blah

Well, we banned CFCs, and we can prevent Keystone and similar projects from being built, too.

If pipeline supporters wish to come up with something other than

a) personally attacking the OP and those who agree with her campaign - you're abusive, plain and simple
b) deny that warming is happening - not exactly a credibility booster
c) throw up your hands and cry inevitability - nonsensical when discussing a public policy decision that has blocked the project for 6 years already

I'd love to see it. So far, the only cogent argument for Keystone I've seen is the geopolitical one - buying oil from Canada is better than the alternatives in terms of what our dollars support,
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 10, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
The point some here are missing is that we don't have to perpetuate the addiction to fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine to move our vehicles. We don't need to burn coal or split the atom to boil water just to make electricity. Just because that's how Granddad did it doesn't mean that's how we have to do it. We do not have to remain slaves to a failed paradigm.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 10, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
I suppose arguing about arguments beats arguing about names, but the most relevant facts concerning whether Keystone should be build came from BASE104, and were labeled "irrelevant." In fact, BASE104's facts and argument demonstrates why developing those tar sands is profitable, and why there is a demand for the product, irrespective of whether KXL gets built. In that circumstance, how does failing to build the pipeline constitute good public policy? The only answer I hear, viz. that it will hinder the tar sand development, simply ignores the facts and argument given to us by the one person on this forum whose knowledge of hydrocarbon extraction exceeds that of all the rest of us put together.

We also hear about how population is the big issue, meanwhile everyone ignores what I perceive to be the main point of BASE104's argument, namely that if we want to solve the problem, we need to develop an economically viable energy source other than hydrocarbons. All of our other arguments simply divert attention from the guilt all of us bear because we all use hydrocarbon-derived energy, and currently have no way of changing that fact without intolerable economic disruption.

I would, however, like to address one other argument. Resource use does not usually continue until the resource runs dry. Rather, it continues until the cost of using the resource exceeds the benefit of doing so. As fossil fuels become more scarce, alternatives become a better deal. The idea that the government must subsidize commercial alternative fuel ventures (rather than basic research) has no economic validity. Those who want the government to subsidize their commercial ventures are really just stealing the taxpayers' money.

There! That ought to stoke the fires (from burning coal, no doubt)for a while.

John
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 10, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
TGT nails it.

The oil will get extracted. The door's wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not.

And the oil's going to move via either train or pipeline.

Which method of transporting the oil do you suppose emits more carbon pollution? Train or pipeline?

If you answered "train", then go to the head of the class.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 03:07pm PT
The argument that oil sands extraction rates are independent of the logistical chain's capacity to bring it to market are, of course, ridiculous on their face.

The effect of Keystone will be to relieve a current bottleneck in the oil sands logistical chain - on that currently limits production capacity (hint: they can't just 'store it' up there, not much of it, anyway). Extraction will increase in the oil sands accordingly. Those dirty trains will still be carrying just as much dirty oil and dilbit - and the new pipeline will transport more on top of that. That's the whole point of the pipeline - to enable companies to expand oil sands mining.

I will also note that most adult Americans drive. Calling one a hypocrite for owning a car is an attempt disqualify virtually all opposition to Keystone - a typical shout down tactic, of course.

The first think that hits you when you visit Ft. McMurray (the largest town in the oil sands) is the smell of oil - its thick and pervasive. Here's some a comparison of what the tiaga in the oil sands looks undisturbed and after being strip mined:





JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 10, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
Tvash, your argument assumes that non-pipeline surface transportation capacity is fixed, which it is not. I agree that lack of a pipeline increases the marginal cost of oil transport, but it also increases the marginal cost of pollution from truck and rail oil transport. How do we know which marginal cost is greater?

As for the comparison of pristine and mined areas, I find that an invalid comparison because it pretends that the pristine view is costless. First, since the extraction is already taking place because it is profitable, there is an opportunity cost required to prevent further extraction. As the Coase Theorem demonstrates, that cost exists for society regardless of whether the landowner must pay society for the right to mine, or society must pay the owner to prevent the mining.

There's also an additional societal cost in increasing the marginal cost of petroleum. Merely showing the two pictures fails to account for either cost.

In a way, it resembles someone showing me a picture of Yosemite Valley without people, and one with the current crowds, and asking me which of situation represented by the two pictures do I prefer. How can I answer until I know the cost of that second picture? If the cost of a Valley without people excludes me and the people with whom I wish to share the Valley, that's a cost higher than I am willing to pay.

John
Chewybacca

Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
Mar 10, 2014 - 03:55pm PT
Are people suggesting that building the pipeline will stop rail transportation of oil? I don't believe that will happen. They will simply increase production and ship oil by both rail and pipeline.

There is money in them thar tarsands and the powers that be will get that money as fast as they possibly can.

Simply put, the keystone pipeline will not stop rail shipments of oil.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
Heady stuff - I just wanted people to see what they were opposing or supporting is all.

Regarding rail emissions - a quick back of the envelope calculation is all that's needed.

Trains, on average, emit .022 metric tonnes of CO2 per cargo tonne per 1000 km. Let's generously say that each tonne of oil sands crude travels 5000 km by rail as opposed to pipeline. That's .022 x 5 = .11 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of crude transported over 5000 km

OK, now lets look at oil sands oil emissions.

For non oil sands oil, CO2 emissions = 3 x the weight of crude oil - ie, a tonne of crude will emit 3 tonnes of CO2.

If we are extremely conservative and say that crude coming from the oil sands emits 20% more CO2 than oil simply pumped from the ground due to extra refining required (it's much higher than that in reality). Therefore, each tonne of oil sands crude emits 20% x 3 tonnes = .60 tonnes more CO2 than conventional crude.

Now lets be generous and say GHG emissions from pipeline transport are zero (they're not).

So, an tonne of oil sands oil emits .60 tonnes more CO2 than conventional oil by the time its finally burned. In contrast, transporting that tonne of oil over 5000 km via rail rather than an idealized 'emissions free' pipeline emits only an extra .11 tonnes of C02.

I'd say it's better for the biosphere that we not increase oil sands production, regardless of how the oil is transported.



Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 10, 2014 - 04:32pm PT
The Canadian tar sands crude WILL be refined and burned Keystone or not.

ONLY if they are profitable, the entire reason the oil sands came online is because of the peak oil mentality and the subsequent cost of the barrel.

As other forms of energy come online, and the raising of carbon taxes, and so on, there is a distinct possibility that it just won't be profitable.

The more we can charge them the more profitable things like CSS become, which is a good thing. These pipelines are not a done deal in any sense.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
What's the value of sustainability?

Zero when starting out - infinity when you're running out.

Any human process that is not sustainable is, by definition, exploitative.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 06:30pm PT
"Why not Just state that "we can burn an unlimited amount of fossil fuels without any impact on the climate so building Keystone simply doesn't matter" and be done with it? "

Why the supporters of the pipeline cannot say this is truly amazing.

That is a very good point.

"If pipeline supporters wish to come up with something other than

a) personally attacking the OP and those who agree with her campaign - you're abusive, plain and simple
b) deny that warming is happening - not exactly a credibility booster
c) throw up your hands and cry inevitability - nonsensical when discussing a public policy decision that has blocked the project for 6 years already "

I'd love to see it. So far, the only cogent argument for Keystone I've seen is the geopolitical one - buying oil from Canada is better than the alternatives in terms of what our dollars support,


Another great point,but good luck with that,now that you have met the Supertopo's right .

Go ahead call me names.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 06:50pm PT
I am certain he is all twisted up about that.


Sustainability,a bad concept around here,aye?


It does bother me that some of you have kids,and could care less of the planets future.

I am glad ,I am the last of my surname .
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 06:56pm PT
There are a handful of righty and lefty trolls on every site. A bot could identify them immediately by doing a simple word count by poster for 'meds', 'hypocrite', and 'racist', and 'circle jerk'.

They come in halves - each Hatfield needing his McCoy, with everybody apparently needing their meds.

'Mindful' or 'self awareness' don't exactly come to mind, here. There's no 'Quiet in Church' with these innernut gladiators, who even tried to sh#t all over the stoner thread (really?) - but the good vibes washed away those puke stains right quick.

Leave no stoner thread unturned, I reckon.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 07:03pm PT
It is 2014.

Hating on a stoner is so 1965.

Some just cannot let their hair blow back.




Ah ,the name calling,right here on the internet.


Chewybacca

Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
Mar 10, 2014 - 07:07pm PT
Cosgrove, are you the pot or the kettle?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 07:09pm PT
Every once in a while I have to step over some dogshit while walking in my hood - but its still a nice hood. As for self identifying verbal abusers - every site has a couple chained to a tire somewhere. They're part of the shrubbery.

They'll dog me for a short while, then quietly f*#k off to dog someone else. It's a predictable dynamic.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 10, 2014 - 07:34pm PT
The Alberta Oil sands are kind of unique. They can be exploited economically. Because of that, they WILL be exploited. Canada has a very well developed mineral and hydrocarbon exploration history.

Most minerals in Canada are "Crown Lands," with the royalties going to the government. Similar to the Prudhoe Bay field, which is on state of Alaska owned land.

The Alaskan Pipeline has a capacity of 2.2 million bbls/day, but it produced at full capacity for only a couple of years. I believe that it is moving about 1.1 million bbls/day right now.

The Keystone pipeline has a capacity of 750,000 bbls/day or so. Since we use 19 million per day in the U.S. it will be a small but still significant part of our liquids needs.

I think that it will probably be approved eventually. The direct environmental impacts are not that great. The anti side is not doing themselves any favors by exaggerating the problems. A pipeline over land is not a candidate for huge spills. Onshore spills are easy to detect and usually happen on older lines. This line is big, and they will be able to pig it regularly.

I am ambivalent. Yes, it is more supply from friendly neighbors, but it doesn't do anything but kick the climate change can down the road.

Until we address our insanely high per capita oil consumption, by far the most lavish in the world, arguing about a pipeline is way off topic.

Creating hysteria about risk to the aquifer doesn't do the enviro side any good. They need to approach this truthfully.

I dunno if you guys know this, but the southern third of the pipeline is already built and in use. I haven't heard of any problems. Have any of you?

The big problem is that the U.S. domestic production capacity peaked back in the seventies, and the world production capacity is very close, or even past, its peak production capacity.

So we are running out of domestic oil. We have a buttload of natural gas.

I crack up when I see people throw out the term "big oil." Until you really understand oil markets, you will never realize that market demand, the flip side of the equation, is huge. We pollute the skies and what are people worried about? 3 dollar gas. That is just pathetic.

We need a total paradigm shift. Until that happens it is business as usual.

Warren Buffet has little impact on oil markets. He owns a (singular) railroad company. Rail is the most efficient way to move goods, energy wise. So what is wrong with that? Pipelines are more efficient and cheaper than rail transport of oil. I have a hard time getting my head around how a pipeline is BAD.

You can also post aerial photos of the tar sands operations. So what? Do you have any idea where your copper comes from? A lot comes from Chile. All mines can be described thus: A hole in the ground with a pile of rocks next to it. Our lifestyles consume vast amounts of natural resources.

I will say this: We won't change our habits regarding oil consumption until other sources are cheaper. When you get down to it and look without colored glasses, few people are altruists, and most scream bloody murder when gas prices go up. These same people create this "big oil" bogeyman out of thin air. The big oil companies are mainly downstream..refining and marketing. I work in the upstream part of the industry, and am out on a drilling rig right now.

When I drive into town, I see people driving alone in big SUV's and pickup trucks. Nobody is driving Honda Civics. Back in the seventies, during the big price shock, people dumped their land sharks for Honda's in only a couple of years.

Our big cars are more efficient than in the past (CAFE standards are a GREAT idea), but they are still wasteful compared to high mileage autos driven by a single person.

We have had a consistent oil policy since Reagan: Cheap oil at any cost. A lot of our foreign policy and relationships have to do with the big exporting nations, any one of which makes Exxon look like a mosquito. That is where the muscle is. Saudi Arabia being the largest exporter by far.

I can go on about how the Saudi's flooded the market and drove prices down during the eighties to regain market share. They can produce a barrel of oil for only a few bucks. It costs us 30 times as much, at least.

Oil is 100 bucks per barrel. I didn't know if I would see prices this high in my lifetime, but they appear hear to stay. The Saudis have already said that if a technology appears that is cheaper than oil, they will flood the market to drive prices down and force that technology out of the market.

As much as I hate the Koch Brothers, they are a fly on the ass of Saudi Arabia. Hell, we get very little of our imports from the Middle East. We are there because they are going to be the last ones standing when other areas are in deep decline, production-wise.

I don't see where the pipeline has any real significance here. It is an arrangement between us and Canada. It is cheaper for them to sell it to us, but even if we don't buy it, they will try to export it to Japan and China, who need it. The logistical problem is crossing the mountains to the B.C. Coast. If those mountains weren't there, Canada would already have a big export terminal there.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 07:46pm PT
"but it doesn't do anything but kick the climate change can down the road."


Hence the rub.

With the pipeline,or any FF development.

When are WE going to seriously take steps to stop,or deaccelerate our addiction to FF's?

And do not call me names.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 07:50pm PT
I agree that we need a paradigm shift to conservation and alternative fuels. Wind power here is on the high end of normal pricing per kW - and its getting more competitive.

I don't agree that if it can be exploited, it will be. In a regulatory vacuum, yes, that may be true. We're moving away from coal, despite its being the cheapest way to generate power, precisely for the same reasons we should continue to deny the Keystone permit - its too environmentally damaging. The incentives to fully exploit the oil sands are huge - but there is no inevitability in human affairs. It's all a choice.

Regarding a new pipeline across BC - if Keystone is killed, that makes a BC pipeline much more susceptible to being killed by public pressure, not less. Killing Keystone would provide a 'how to' for opponents.

Yup, any strip mine is ugly - copper, coal, but we're talking about oil sands here. I think I'm the only person here that's actually worked in those refineries up there and seen the place first hand - just providing some visuals for folks who haven't seen that part of the world so its not so abstract.

Our world out here in Seattle is very different than the one you've observed, base. There has been a huge shift towards fuel efficient vehicles and car shares, increased urban density (very key to conservation), public transport, and green buildings. The wind farms have expanded enormously in the past decade. My peeps don't complain about gas prices, either - I think that's more of a conservative hotpoint, actually.

As for supply and demand, I think most people recognize how that works. Wish they'd think about that with regards to this stupid Drug War more, though.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:01pm PT
Hey, tell me who "Big Oil" is.

And tell me who killed an alternative that was price competitive.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:08pm PT
You must know,why don't you tell us?

And why is it price competitive?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:11pm PT
I also can't find any post of substance that Cosgrove posted.

Natural Gas prices are in the toilet. It almost buried Chesapeake, the 2nd largest natural gas producer in the U.S.

If only there were some ways to artificially raise natural gas prices. No way. The producers almost went belly up.

You must know,why don't you tell us?

Well, the only one with that kind of muscle is the Saudi's. They carefully adjust their production to keep oil prices where they like it.

No company, or group of companies, has even close to that much production capacity. You have to understand that only the Saudi's and the other big exporting nations actually can control price. Geez. They set production quotas. If they produced flat out, oil prices would collapse.

It isn't that hard to grasp.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
All the more reason to wean off of the stuff.

That is not hard to grasp,in it's own right.

Chesapeake is all over the Marcellus,I know it cost a lot for those ops.

Why are they not making money?

NG has had nothing but steady increases in cost over here,and they must have made a killing this year.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
Thanks for the update. Regarding the BC pipeline, I was just speaking in general terms - ie, out my ass, thinking the project hadn't yet been approved.
yosemite 5.9

climber
santa cruz
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:37pm PT
Big News! A pipeline already runs from Alberta to Houston. The last phase would only shorten the distance of an existing line.

Here's a map!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

The Ogallala Aquifer is indeed large and important. But oil floats, so even if there is a spill, I doubt that the aquifer would be imperiled. At least the spill would be contained on land where it can be cleaned up, not drifting around the Gulf of Mexico.

Besides, it also costs money to ship oil by rail or by the ocean. The pipeline would reduce the use of these energy intensive shipping methods.



skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:47pm PT
The most balanced, and from my perspective truthfull, posts here are by BASE104. No doubt the oil companies (you, BASE104 are a part of BIG OIL) are protecting what they percieve as their interests future and current. But, the demand drives the equasion. And the demand is HUGE. Even though some of you no doubt are very careful about your energy use, most Americans still drive many miles each day. And oil is used for many many other things than making gasoline and diesel. You could drive electric. But the batteries are NOT their yet. Basically I estimate they are a net pollution contributor.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
Base, here is a few elaborations and corrections to aid you. TAPS is down to 540,00 bbl a day and Alyeska anticipates substantial problems at flows below 400,000. Aramco's production capabilities and condition of its oil fields are closely guarded secrets-some say they are already in decline and additional pumping capacity estimates are unrealistic. Russia is a close second in exports and according to some sources may surpass the Saudi's in recoverable reserves and production. Buffett is expanding positions in other railways and producers of railway equipment such as tanker cars. If these guys whining about KXL and big oil were sensible they would redirect their anger towards their representatives to force redirection of funds from subsidies and doomsday studies to viable technologies such as expanded NG use, new generation nuclear, and the storage problems rendering wind and solar as ineffective in comparison to hydrocarbons.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:56pm PT
...thinking the project hadn't yet been approved.

Tvash, the Northern Gateway pipeline has certainly not yet been approved, and no one knows if it will be or not. There is considerable First Nations opposition to the pipeline across northern B.C. The only native groups who have cozied up to Enbridge are those whose land the pipeline won't be going through. Enbridge offered them money for PR, and to make it look like someone was supporting their venture. I bet if the Feds approve and try to push the pipeline through, they'll need to bring in the military for a real war in the woods. The Oka Crisis will look like a Christmas party in comparison :-)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbridge-taps-jim-prentice-to-rescue-northern-gateway-first-nations-talks-1.2560859
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 10, 2014 - 08:56pm PT
The date of this thread just went 30 years backwards.[not you Kunlun]

By the way,hope you got some good skiing in ,kunlun.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
Oh, so I guessed right about the BC pipeline.

INNERNUT WIN!!!!!!

Canukistanis versus first nations?

For once, just once, we wouldn't be the bad guys.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Mar 10, 2014 - 09:17pm PT
Prepare for scenes likely a lot worse than this.


Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 09:27pm PT
Yeah, at Wounded Knee those photo ops included lots of 50 cal rounds.

Get subjugation right, Northern Brothers! Get it right!
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 10, 2014 - 09:39pm PT
Where was Canada's Andrew Jackson when you needed him!
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Mar 10, 2014 - 10:01pm PT
Jim, I don't think there'll be enough cops in Canada for the level of opposition. Will need the military I think. Northern BC is pretty united on this one.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:52pm PT
Look. I work for smallish independent companies. The closest I ever got to this imaginary "big oil" was a year consulting in New Ventures at Chesapeake. It was a great place to work, but I was working a mid-continent play.

I heard that they had to sell their Marcellus holdings. When natural gas prices collapsed, they had trouble servicing their large debt. The CEO was punted, they installed a new BOD, and they have been selling assets to reduce their debt while also trying to increase their liquids exposure.

I've been doing this for a long time. None of these historical events is much of a secret. If any of you followed oil and gas prices and activity, you would understand what drives markets.

It directly affects me, so I have to follow prices, plays, etc.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:26am PT
Base,I would not diss any mans living,I had not known of Chesapeakes demise.

I do not follow prices,plays etc. myself.

Tvash was right,places like Seattle,Lib cities out east here,they want to not care about oil,they will change things themselves.

I am in a Biodiesel club,do you have any of those over there?

Just saying ,I do not want to claim any high ground,just want to let you know.

I install Solar,on homes,part of my carpentry business.

If that can work in Western New York,It can work throughout the U.S.A.

Yet it is talked about here as if it were destructive.

Peace.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:58am PT
It is precisely THIS kind of thinking (opportunity cost of raping and pillaging) that's sending humanity down the shihtter. [

It's precisely that type of thinking that led to the excesses of the French Revolution. An apocryphal story says that Louis XVI was shown a potato plant as a possible way to keep the peasants from starving, but Marie Antoinette forbade the harvesting of potatoes because doing so destroyed their flowers. One person's rape is another person's necessity. We're merely dealing with differing preferences.

Any human process that is not sustainable is, by definition, exploitative.

By whose definition? I can think of any variety of human processes that will not last forever, but are perfectly logical because human society and technology changes over time. If I were to follow your logic, we need to get rid of about 90% of humanity so the remaining ten percent can be sustained by the primitive, sustainable, non-"exploitive" human processes available to us.

The arguments presented on this thread by KXL critics strike me as particularly hypocritical coming from climbers that use steel, aluminum, and nylon. When I see the KXL critics climbing with their manila ropes protected solely by stones and wood used as chocks I might listen. Otherwise, the high moral dudgeon doesn't belong in this discussion.

John
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 11, 2014 - 10:46am PT
Compared to the American Revolution, which happened right around the same time, France did ramp up the level of violence way beyond what was necessary.

The whole thing could have been accomplished without beheading anybody.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:27am PT
2 houses on my street installed PV this year.

I look up the block and see a prius, diesel golf, leaf, iQ, Smartcar, and a mini.

All but 4 houses have street trees, now. Nearly every house has a garden.

The destined-for-collapse elevated freeway through downtown is coming down, and a new walkable waterfront is going in.

My peeps here want and embrace change. We don't want to continue relying on oil, so we act to mitigate its effects.

I like living in a place that looks forward and puts its money where its mouth is to actively take on the problems that we face.

As a climber in a glaciated range, I see climate change happening every time I go out. The Honeycomb Glacier is 3 miles shorter than it was when it was surveyed in 1962. I went through the area in 2004 and an entire 1/2 mile diameter glacial lobe I'd camped in the middle of a decade before was bare rock. All of our 300+ glaciers are in rapid retreat. Go a little further east and 30% of the trees are dying from a pine beetle infestation that was almost non-existent prior to 2000.

The propensity for humans to deny what they don't like is an evolved trait, but its awfully hard to maintain that fantasy around here.


Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:39am PT
Ah, Vive la French Revolution! and what a venerable, well worn meme it is.

The French Revolution's violence was often cited to denigrate Thomas Paine's Freethinker (secularist) writings.

That same meme, 2 centuries later, thrives on the innernut. It goes something like this:

Librulism + Populism - God = Guillotine! (or Stalin - preferred by today's Innernut Gladiator).

If I had a franc for every time some Defender of Freedom Fries trotted out Trotsky when discussing KommieKare, I could buy Versailles instead of just mowing its lawn.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:55am PT
I'm referring to anthropogenic climate change, and you know it, Ron.

No one's denied that? You just did.

Keep it real.

I suspect at some level you don't believe your denial any more than we do. Solidarity with your peeps is fine, but when you take it too far, you're really not doing your peeps any favors.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:19pm PT
Yes, the 'hypocrites need not apply' argument - just as powerful the millionth time!

It goes like this: If you are a modern human and use fossil fuel generated power, you are not qualified to try to reduce that fossil fuel use.

Again, this is a bullshit shout down argument that attempts the drag down those who actually are working to change things to the level of those deniers who remain solidly on their asses.

As with all 'do nothing' arguments: Ignore.

Next, please....

Change is incremental. If you buy a car that gets 10 more mpg - or plant a tree, work from home a day a week, turn your thermostat down 1 degree, or make any incremental change in the right direction at all - you're solidly part of the solution. That is precisely how long term change happens.

The revolution is seldom televised.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:25pm PT
If that's the relationship you want to have with your home world, then have it.

And we'll do things our way.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
Hey Tvash,

I like that elevated highway running up the Seattle Waterfront.

That's one of the top-ten prettiest drives on the entire West Coast. ( At least going north it is, because you're on the top deck with the bitchen view going north. Headed south, not so much. )

Starting at the West Seattle Bridge, and going north, you've got a hell of a view of the Puget Sound, the Waterfront, the docks, ferry terminals, big-ass ferris wheel, cruise ships to the left. The ballparks, Downtown, Pikes Market on the right. The Space Needle right in your windshield.

On that one section of highway, you get the best views of all that classic Seattle sh#t, then you hit the tunnel, and it's done. Wow, what a drive.

Seattle's a damn scenic city, too. Right up there with San Francisco for #1 on the West Coast.



Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
It's actually working out quite well so far.

Per capita CO2 emission in the United States have dropped 14% since their peak of 20 tonnes per year in 2000. CO2 is still building up (the US emits a quarter of the world's contribution of it), and we continue to export dirty fuels to China - so the net effect isn't a reduction, but our country is one place where substantial change is happening and the data shows that.

Seattle has a carbon neutral goal for 2050, and while that sounds far away - the city is tracking to achieve that, primarily though increased urban density, green buildings, subsidies for green home improvement, and improvements in our transportation systems.

Doing nothing is easier - I will grant you that.

Some of use prefer to help out, however.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:43pm PT
I like the view from the Viaduct, too - but it's gonna collapse when the big one hits. Ask anyone from Oakland. Ain't no gettin' around that.

Seattle's downtown waterfront sucks shweaty ballz, and the Viaduct is part of that. I just spent the weekend in the Van - which has a wonderful, walkable waterfront. I lived in Portland - same. What a different that makes!
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
The Viaduct looks like it's about ready to collapse on its own right now, Tvash. Big One or no Big One.

I'll drive over it, but I'll never park under it.

Whatever happened to that tunnel-machine? Last I heard, it's become a big blue butt plug, stuck under Downtown.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:53pm PT
I'm impressed at how they've kept the traffic flowing through the clusterfk.

Our transportation secretary rocks.

Last I checked Bertha's still updating her FB page from the comfort of her burrow. Two issues - she hit a hidden pipe, but the main issue is probably more of a design flaw - all 7 of the outer seals that protect her main bearing are damaged. That's unusual. It'll take a few months to fix. The main bearing's OK, though - its inner seals remain intact.

This is what happens when you do new stuff that's hard. Nobody remembers that 10 guys were killed when their scaffold collapsed during construction of the Golden Gate Bridge. Nobody will remember this, either.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 11, 2014 - 01:56pm PT
While I applaud the attitude of at least some people in Seattle, The Chief's constant false dichotomy rings a little bit true. I can promise you that per capita oil use in Seattle is quite a bit higher than per capita use in Bangledesh.

He is wrong that not doing everything is hypocritical, though. We have to start somewhere, and the first steps to get us off of oil are important. I've posted the numbers before, but the U.S. uses more oil per capita than any nation on Earth. A lot of it is simply wasted due to bad habits. It is still too cheap. When it gets expensive enough, then you will see a surge to alternatives such as natural gas.

The first step should be a switch to natural gas. We are swimming in it.

It also makes sense from a national security perspective. We import over half of our oil consumption despite being one of the top producers in the world.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:19pm PT
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my rhetoric created a storm of indignation. My bad.

I'm not criticizing the idea that we need to take first steps, such as conversion to natural gas, nor am I criticizing the need to develop a long-term, sustainable human process.

Rather, I'm criticizing rhetoric that used "rape and pillage" and "exploitive" in unhelpful and, in my opinion, inaccurate ways. The metal products we use in climbing come from that "raping and pillaging," and the petroleum we use comes from an "exploitive" process.

I would say, in contrast, that an unsustainable human process is, by definition, not in long-term equilibrium. "Exploitive" is too loaded to make for a calm discussion seeking mutual solutions. Similarly, "rape and pillage" strikes me as an inappropriate reference to environmental change that, in the long term, may not be nearly as bad as mining opponents make it out to be.

Unfortunately, I lapsed into the same sort of inflammatory language myself.

Mea cupla.

John
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:21pm PT
Keystone will be the safest pipeline in the entire continent because it will be new and built to high standards. The US and Canada are crisscrossed with thousands of 50-60 year old pipelines that have a 50 year design life. These are the dangerous ones.
If Keystone does not get built do you think the tar sands won't be developed? Get yours heads out of your asses folks.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
It is still too cheap. When it gets expensive enough, then you will see a surge to alternatives such as natural gas.

The first step should be a switch to natural gas. We are swimming in it.

That happens by not approving pipelines that transport cheap oil. Currently there is so much oil in North America that the price per barrel is almost too low to make a profit, hence the offshore needs.

Why do you think approving KXL is going to increase this supply at a further loss in price? Isnt the whole idea to get it to port to ship it out as synthetic crude instead of dilbit?

If Keystone does not get built do you think the tar sands won't be developed? Get yours heads out of your asses folks.

Well they are landlocked you know...with no way out that doesnt require a national or presidential approval....
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:00pm PT
Any time you cross a provincial border requires a national approval hence the NEB has to write the report. As a province we cannot say NO but we can place imposing conditions to try and stop it, such as the 5 that christy laid out.

I think the law is extremely vague into what constitutes a fair consultation and accommodation of first nations. This is one of the 5 conditions, even though it had to happen anyways.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
Somebody referenced the 1872 Mining Law... so I am going to jump in...

The last company I worked for was working on the alternate pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver. One way or another, the oil from Alberta will get to market. Now it is on rail cars, which is expensive, much more prone to leaks and accidents than pipelines, and releases additional carbon. Fighting pipelines when oil is moved by rail currently is counter to the environmentalists' "goals" of reducing carbon and increasing safety - it shows they are just anti-development.

As long as there is demand (i.e. lots of people and a price higher than the cost to get it out of the ground and ship it), oilsands oil will find a market.

Just like metals... We have some of the best environmental practices in the world. Would you rather mine the minerals that go into your cell phone here and create the jobs and taxes here, and do it as cleanly as possible, or pollute the hell out of, say, the Congo where there are no rules? Because again - there is demand for the product and someone somewhere is going to fill it.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:38pm PT


Mar 11, 2014 - 11:42am PT

That happens by not approving pipelines that transport cheap oil. Currently there is so much oil in North America that the price per barrel is almost too low to make a profit, hence the offshore needs.

I really hate to be an ass, but that is a silly statement.

Oil prices are set on the world market. When oil prices go up on the NYMEX, they go up in Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, everywhere. The Keystone pipeline is such a small bleep on total world production that it won't budge price. It is just a slight change on how much oil we get from Canada vs. how much we get from Nigeria or other exporting nations, most of whom don't like us.

The Saudi's are the only ones with enough excess production capacity to move price. Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Statoil, all of the corporations are a fly on the ass of Saudi Arabia.

I keep urging you people to read The Prize. You will understand oil far better if you take the time to read that book.

One of the biggest problems is this "us and them" attitudes. There is no us vs. them. It is a closed loop, similar to cocaine production vs. cocaine use.

Or corn. Or copper. Or any other commodity. Oil markets are like any other commodity with one exception. It is the only commodity that we need just like air.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:50pm PT
"You must never have heard of "smart" development."

Which still uses oil and metals. Thanks for playing.

You are REALLY saying you prefer destroying some third world villagers' homes.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 11, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
This whole hypocrite name calling was started by that guy, The Chief. He is a constant flamer and I urge you to ignore him and his insults.

This is a WE problem. The entire planet.

Right now my computer power is coming from the generation plant on a land drilling rig. That motor runs off of diesel. I don't use much power, but enough to plant me firmly into the "Hydrocarbon Man" group, which includes nearly the entire planet.

This is a big problem, and I don't think it will be solved in my lifetime. Bringing it to attention is important groundwork, though. Just don't go patting yourself on the back because you drive a hybrid yet.

Changing our energy consumption will be a huge problem, very expensive, and I don't think it will happen until oil becomes too expensive as it starts running out, which should begin in the next 20 years.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
Holy Christ, somebody actually answered a reasonable question?

One more response, then I'll go. Who's it gonna be?
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Mar 11, 2014 - 04:24pm PT
1. I work at one of the largest underground mines in the world. One of many emission and energy projects I have championed included driving and implementing a change to B50 biodiesel fuel. This reduced our fossil diesel consumption by 50% (2.0 million gallons since the switch), and reduced our mine emissions by 40%.

That pretty much knocks anything I have or could do at home out of the park by numerous orders of magnitude...



BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 11, 2014 - 04:25pm PT
Why do you bother, Chief??

You know, you don't believe in global warming, so why the need to keep your mileage down?

My commute is fifteen feet.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 11, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
Oil prices are set on the world market. When oil prices go up on the NYMEX, they go up in Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, everywhere.

But they arent getting world market prices are they, why? Alberta is claiming lost revenue in the billions due to this price difference.

Dave, its been shown over and over that oil on rail cars will not be reduced with a pipeline, it is going to stay the same regardless.

British Columbia: 93% all energy is clean, was supposed to be 98% until the current government took office
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 11, 2014 - 04:41pm PT
Great Idea


List the top 5 to 10 things you've done to reduce your energy usage in the past decade. This can include switching to a higher mpg car, insulating, energy star appliances, adding solar, a change in driving/flying habits - go nuts!

#1 I became a vegetarian. I truly believe eating less meat or no meat can make a huge difference.

About 80 percent of the world’s farmland is used to support the meat and poultry industries, and much of that goes to growing animal feed. An efficient use of resources this is not. For example, a single pound of cooked beef, a family meal’s worth of hamburgers, requires 298 square feet of land, 27 pounds of feed, and 211 gallons of water.

Supplying meat not only devours resources but also creates waste. That same pound of hamburger requires more than 4,000 Btus of fossil-fuel energy to get to the dinner table; something has to power the tractors, feedlots, slaughterhouses, and trucks. That process, along with the methane the cows belch throughout their lives, contributes as much as 51 percent of all greenhouse gas produced in the world.

# 2 I did not have kids. If you must have one okay, but then if you want another, adopt one.
Too many people on this planet is the number one problem.

I know the economy is based on growth but we need to change! We are destroying the world with our Multitudes squeezing out all other species. The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.

#3 I drive a car that gets 50 mpg. I try to carpool and combine trips.
#4 keep my thermostat low. Put on a sweater.
#5 recycle
#5 buy used items clothes, furniture, etc...
#6 ride my bike when possible
#7 use a swamp cooler
#8 turn off lights that are not in use
#9 try to buy local to use less things that are shipped here
10 keep tires inflated thanks Obama




Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 05:11pm PT
Nice, everybody! Ghandi/Christ Child approves!

We've established that

The Chief lives somewhere on the Martian Equator and
FortMental is poor as dirt

My list:

1) I live in a city. Optimized power, sewer, garbage, recycling, home delivery. My neighborhood has everything - I walk for what I need. The furthest store I go regularly 2 mi away. Urban density is the number one way to reduce per capita carbon footprint. The most fuel efficient Americans? Manhattan apartment dwellers. The least? Rural dwellers. 50x difference in per capita energy use between the two.

2) I live in a climate that does not require air conditioning. We all know that's eats the largest share of home power beyond water heating. Nuff said. The majority of power in my area is generated emission free.

3) I switched from a 22 mpg Subaru to a 36 mpg Scion iQ.

4) I installed my own high efficiency gas furnace (free from a local house slated for demo!) and my own on demand gas water heater.

5) Thermostat is set at 62 when home, 58 when not. The utilities report than I'm in the lowest 20% regarding power, gas, and water use.

6) I put in 200 sf of raised beds and planted 28 trees on my city lot. It's maxed. The tree provide natural air conditioning - huge difference.

7) I drive 6000 mi a year, not 12K to 15K (average American)

8) I insulated and weather stripped my house.

9) All my appliances are energy star rated, save the gas range.

10) I cancelled the clean green pickup. I compost all clippings, leaves and veggie food waste.

11) I don't fly much

12) I hang out with dirty, rotten conservatives on the innernutz.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 05:13pm PT
Are you an indian Chief, Chief of d Po-lice, or Sky Chief, Chief? Sounds like the middle one if your making dirty, rotten, Prius drivin kids clean up dey butts.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 11, 2014 - 06:30pm PT
1.Have bought less than a years worth of Gasoline in the last 14 years.
Part of a Biodiesel club that brews its own from waste veg oil.
Still waiting for my tdi motor to be rebuilt[more like pay for it all]to drop in my 87 vanagon.When on the road ,I know where to purchase b-85 and b-100 diesel.
2.Was off the grid completely until this past year,when I hooked to the grid,to sell back unused solar.Still have the batteries[which are highly recyclable]and the inverter.
3. Heat with wood in a catalytic reburning woodstove.Wood from my property,near carbon neutral.
4.Added a small Geo Thermal system with a solar powered heat exchanger/pump.
Just one zone,radiant, that has worked like a charm.1400 SQ. FT. home is near a micro house ,I built it ,it is super insulated and easy to heat.The system has cut my wood burning in half.
5.Use well water.
6.Have a raised bed septic system.
7.Landfill free,compost ,recycle completely.
8.Switched to buying USA MADE years ago.Almost everything,Ibex clothing,Omega Pacific climbing gear,even bicycles. Diligent at buying local.Food,sundries even BEER.
9.Ride bicycles a lot,commute 160 times a year,to either my carpentry jobs or to the bike shop where I work PT 6 months a year.
10.Do not cut my lawn,no snow blower,just one chain saw.
11.Part of a consortium of carpenter /builders that use a common shop space.Locally.


I have said it before,it is a bit of work,so it will not be very popular.

But,it is not living in a cave.All of my posts here have been solar powered.


Yep,I am a ecofreak,socialist,warmist,nazi,liberal,greeneck.

And after a hard day today ,I am going to chillax in a wood fired hot tub.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 11, 2014 - 08:04pm PT
Philo,he is kidding.


Or at least I hope....ha.
Thanks DMT,but it is really not about me.


Cricket?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 11, 2014 - 08:44pm PT
Just wait ,they are going to have plenty more names for you.

I think you know who they are ,......already.

Do you ever get to Vashon Island much?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 11, 2014 - 08:59pm PT
I do about once a year. I gave a talk on Vashon for MLK Day on race and voting this year. That may become a regular event for me. You're on Vashon?

My favorite insult from ST so far has been pedophiliac nazi. The rest are standard fare available anywhere, but that one was pure poetry.

Yeah, there's a type that immediately self identifies. They try to parasitize any fresh meat that shows up, but when ignored they f*#k off soon enough and continue their search for a new host.

i've had one ST assualt threat already, too. Not a regular poster. He's on the watch for me in the Valley, apparently. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I'm 900 miles away. Now he has a purpose. Why spoil it?

Ivan and I got death threats from a Blackwater spec ops guy on another site - we just kept on having a laugh at his expense. It's really hard to threaten a wall climber with death and expect they're going to notice.

In the end I make some friends and no enemies - that mindset is a waste of energy.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 11, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
Favorite,Carp,right on this thread.....lol.

Yeah,have a good friend at the end of a road on the west side of Vashon,spent a week there a few years back.

You have an incredible area up there,meaning Seattle in general,But that island is damn nice.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 12, 2014 - 02:26pm PT
I have done all I can to insure that petroleum moves in the most energy-efficient and safest manner possible.

;>)

John
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 13, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
List the top 5 to 10 things you've done to reduce your energy usage in the past decade. This can include switching to a higher mpg car, insulating, energy star appliances, adding solar, a change in driving/flying habits - go nuts!


Let's hear some more!
This is the way to make changes!

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 13, 2014 - 10:48pm PT
Let's hear some more!
This is the way to make changes!

Quit climbing!

No more carbon spewing road trips!

No more evil petroleum dependent cordage, shoes and clothing!

Sit in your solar powered ultra efficient domicile.

Assume vegetative status until it produces the ultimate in carbon production reduction,

your early demise.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 13, 2014 - 10:48pm PT
Man, the insults just rub me the wrong way. I have a wicked sense of humor and can rip my friends to shreds, but it is all in fun. People say things on the internet that would result in a physical pounding in person. I don't know why people act that way. You don't see it face to face.

Back to Hydrocarbon Man....

Right now our entire economy, aa well as the economies of the rest of the developed world, are still built around fossil fuels. No matter how much people crow about their low FF use, it is still a joke. Everything around you has been touched by FF's.

In my mind, the only thing that can be done is population control, which is not very likely to happen anytime soon, other than the Chinese.

"Ideocracy" is a hilarious movie. I was turned onto it by the evolution professor at OU, who is my next door neighbor. The premise is that smart people have fewer children than stupid people. I don't know how true that is, but Mormons sure have more kids than your typical white collar family with a working mom and dad.

Population addresses it directly.

The world's oil production is peaking, meaning that production capacity is peaking or has already peaked. That production rate still exceeds the consumption rate by an unknown amount. The Saudi's supposedly have excess production capacity, but at these prices, which are historically high, it seems like they would be going flat out.

Mother nature made only so much oil. We have produced most of it, and when it begins to get scarce, prices will finally skyrocket. When this happens, the window will finally open for many alternatives to be economically competitive. Oil markets do not respect borders, so the entire planet will have to deal with sky high prices.

Cheap oil is the only real reason that alternatives haven't been as successful as we would like.

Running out of oil is something that we aren't prepared for as a planet, but people will pay nigh anything for that last barrel of oil.

To sum up, we might see this in 20 or 30 years. We are already feeling it, but it won't hit home for good until then.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 13, 2014 - 10:53pm PT
Good to hear ,Base.

There is and will be a way forward.
julton

climber
Mar 13, 2014 - 10:58pm PT
BASE, you frame the issue very clearly. But what do you see as a path? Or are you a pessimist?
julton

climber
Mar 14, 2014 - 12:06am PT
the externalities

What does that mean? Carbon taxes?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 14, 2014 - 11:51am PT
The insults come from people who are abusive. Some claim they are abusive only on the innernutz - a forum they believe is somehow OK for that. Joking between buddies! - only it's not. Rest assured, many of these folks are abusive to the people in their lives as well. I've noticed that some of these folks target women in particular. They're nearly always men. Telling.

You either go there or you don't.

And there's no excuse for going there.

Abusive behavior is, more often than not, coupled with ignorance. Those who know anything about a topic tend to stick with discussing that topic - because they can.

Ignorant, opinionated, and abusive is a combination that has become, unfortunately, popularized and encouraged in some circles. The people who engage in it - no mystery to anyone here - immediately self identify whenever a new poster - myself, for example, shows up.

The behavior isn't terribly different than your average barfly. Same aggressive demand for attention that quickly turns abusive when the newcomer opts for higher quality company.

julton

climber
Mar 14, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
A 500 page "primer"?

I understand that we don't pay all costs up front. And of course people change habits in response to a change in cost. What I was trying to ask you was how you'd include those omitted costs. If not by taxation then what method?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 14, 2014 - 01:44pm PT
Prohibition (simply not doing it) is a viable way to prevent paying particularly high costs - or costs which may wind up being catastrophic. Smoking provides a personal example - smoking causes many fatal diseases - simply not smoking removes a primary cause of those diseases.

I would say the pipeline qualifies for such a preventative remedy.

Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 14, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
Base, I think some of your arguments may be outdated? Peak oil is no longer a worry, there is more than enough oil to ruin this planet. Furthermore, you just cannot say with any certainty that now for sure we have found it all...just 5 years ago we thought we had no LNG, now there is too much.

Once the barrel is high enough then more costly ways of extraction will become profitable.

Additionally I think the tragedy of the commons argument you use for not worrying about KXL because it only contributes a little bit to climate change is also weak. There are now many many little projects around puking and spilling just a little bit of co2 and oil...it all adds up...

What I was trying to ask you was how you'd include those omitted costs. If not by taxation then what method?

There is no other method, we need to charge a price to emit carbon, that is the best way to curb how much co2 we emit. Then carbon capture projects will become profitable and so will clean energy.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 14, 2014 - 08:14pm PT
http://www.ithacabiodiesel.org
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Mar 14, 2014 - 11:37pm PT
"If the price of a barrel of oil is the same for every country around the world, why then does a gallon of gas cost us $3.30 and cost the average European almost $10? Because many externalities are deliberately hidden from the average American. Don't kid yourself, however, you DO pay those costs.....just not at the pump."

Wow. Really? Now for the rest of the story...

1) WTI v. Brent price spread is (or was .. I don't follow it that close) $20 per barrel so Europe pays 20% more for the oil up front over the US..

2) Taxes. Europe likes 'em and has a lot of 'em so between the tanker, the refinery, and the gas pump - Europe taxes the crap out of themselves. Been to California lately? (Oh, wait...) Why is your gas 25-30% more than mine in Denver? Mostly taxes... and your dumbass different blends from the rest of us.

3) Shipping costs. My gas is refined in Wyoming mostly. Shipping cost is next-to-nothing to Denver.
Edit - its also probably produced in Colorado and Wyoming...

Edit#2:

"Don't you think your habits might change if gas at the pump were priced at it's true cost of more than $10 a gallon, even if your taxes were lower? "

Please add up the components in your "true cost" to come up with $10. In the US, the wholesale price of gas is about $2.40 a gallon. This is made up of the oil cost, refining margin, oil company profit, and some adders. Add shipping, taxes (fed, state, and local), and local distributor profit to get the retail price. The formula is similar in Europe to get to the $8-10/gal. price there. I'd love to see your math.

And Europe's habits are different - different car designs, etc. Their geography, city planning, and culture are also much different from us. And a typical Euro country is nothing like the American West. They are also dependent on the North Sea, Middle East, and Russia for their oil and gas...
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 14, 2014 - 11:56pm PT
Oil is off-loaded in Long Beach ( California )

It's refined in San Pedro.

But a fifteen minute drive from the refinery the gas came from, gas is going for about the highest price you'll find anywhere in the U.S.

Taxes and regulations make up most of the difference.

What are we getting in return for paying for those extra added taxes and regulations that the residents of neighboring states aren't?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 15, 2014 - 01:29am PT
Just pointing out there are other forces at work here besides the law of supply and demand.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 15, 2014 - 09:36am PT
http://www.solarcity.com

Find it hard to believe ,someone from another country will get the ball rolling?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 15, 2014 - 11:22am PT
"What are we getting in return for paying for those extra added taxes and regulations that the residents of neighboring states aren't?"

The answer to that is simple - you get to live in CA rather than somewhere else. Heavily populated states with lots of infrastructure tend to have higher taxes. They also tend to have more, higher paying jobs.

Whether that's a good or bad thing is solely up to you.

Citing Europe's high taxes makes little sense unless one also cites what Europe gets for those taxes, which varies by country. Common differences between 'them' and 'us' include universal (and less expensive) health care, continuing education, and infrastructure maintenance - three areas the US falls woefully short in by any objective measure. Now you may argue whether or not those things are worth it, but you can't honestly imply that Europe pays higher taxes and gets nothing in return for it.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Mar 15, 2014 - 02:29pm PT
^^^

Funny - that's why I left California...

Also funny - I find that the infrastructure in Colorado is just fine, and I pay half the tax rate. And the schools are better. And the general cost of living is lower. And the air is cleaner. And the people are less douchy (except for Boulder). And there are plenty of high paying jobs (especially in my industry, which Cali does everything they can to chase out of the state...)

I see a trend.


Have you been to Europe lately? I have - I would not cite continuing maintenance as a positive in Europe relative to the US. Aside from the toll highways, their infrastructure is as bad as ours in the places I have been a (which is generally off the beaten path).

Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 15, 2014 - 03:29pm PT
^^^

Yes I have been to Europe lately, 5 weeks vacation, free daycare till age 6, amazing public transit, medical, list goes on an on
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Mar 15, 2014 - 03:50pm PT
You mean you don't have 5 weeks of vacation? I thought Canada was all sunshine and bunny rabbits. Well, bunny rabbits anyway. :)
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 16, 2014 - 10:06am PT
Nice one Tvash

"Prohibition (simply not doing it) is a viable way to prevent paying particularly high costs - or costs which may wind up being catastrophic. Smoking provides a personal example - smoking causes many fatal diseases - simply not smoking removes a primary cause of those diseases.

I would say the pipeline qualifies for such a preventative remedy. "



cuvvy

Sport climber
arkansas
Mar 16, 2014 - 10:28pm PT
I've come to understand that the sands people don't all agree that the pipeline is good for business. The oil would be locked into prices paid in the Midwest where as if the oil continues to ship by train it can be sold in the east where it fetches more money.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 16, 2014 - 10:54pm PT
Oil is an instrument of diplomacy.

A bloodless weapon.

http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2014/03/sanctions-on-russia-just-hit-em-where.html
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 17, 2014 - 01:42pm PT
haha, not interested in bragging, (not that I could anyways) or trying to compete with someone with decades of experience, but offering up some fresh perspectives is always a good thing for a debate about policy.

Msc in atmospheric science. My current work is in wind energy. My work helps traders integrate wind energy into the grid for use or for sale. I have some experience in Canadian sustainable energy policy an governance.

apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
Not good enough, Hoser. You need to have climbed 5.14 bitd in the Valley or JT in order for your opinion to matter around here.

However, if your ballcupping technique is especially good, there are certainly plenty of greybeard usetabes here that will get your back.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
'thought'

'your'

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 17, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
"I did go to collage however,"

I'm only human. I simply could not resist.

There's a palpable sycophantism in this discussion with regards to Base - not that he has anything to do with it. I would be cool if some of these same sycophants took notice of Base's civility, and not just his experience.

One needn't work in an industry to lend a valuable insight on a particular topic, however. Conversely, working in an industry does not make one's opinion on a any particular topic necessarily more or less valid.

Keystone and the oil sands in general is an issue for us all. Keystone, at this point, is a matter of public policy - so all voters would do well to log an opinion on it.
julton

climber
Mar 17, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
I would say the pipeline qualifies for such a preventative remedy.

You haven't demonstrated that prohibiting the pipeline would result in a remedy.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 17, 2014 - 02:28pm PT
I have to my satisfaction. In the interests of not repeating myself, I invite you to re-read past posts, or not, as you wish.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 02:35pm PT
"I did go to collage however, studied writing..."

Heh. Heh.


"My opinions are all backed up I assure you, and not pure speculation. When people like Base talk I tend to listen and learn."

Coz, the only source you consider valid is another greybeard usetabe climber that you respected bitd. Or someone like Ron who cups your balls juuuussstt right.

That said, we can agree that Base is a wonderful source of knowledge here at ST, and his opinion has particularly great weight. Yours...notsomuch.
julton

climber
Mar 17, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
"I have to my satisfaction. In the interests of not repeating myself, I invite you to re-read past posts, or not, as you wish."

I read your posts the first time please do not repeat them. All you did was state your view as fact and include the occasional reference to legalization of marijuana as analogy.
pc

climber
Mar 17, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
I don't post much anymore but I can only conclude two things from this discussion.

Pipeline = bad
Coz = knob

Disclaimer: I once led a 5.10 and I can climb 5.7 off the couch. And I studied collage once. But I can reed pretty darn well, especially when there's a saxophone involved.



Hoser

climber
vancouver
Mar 17, 2014 - 06:55pm PT
So like the OP, you have no fing clue what ur talking about...

Pretty sure my career experience is just fine for debating energy policy and oil pipelines. Debating it with a 9/11 conspiracy nut job...unlikely a reasonable way to spend my time.

Carry on
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
You obviously need to go to collage, Hoser.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 17, 2014 - 07:13pm PT
I agree Hoser.

I have differed with Base a few times on hydrofracking and Fossil Fuels.

I have never called him names ,nor would I.

Not knowing FF production,markets or where to find it,does not disqualify one from discussion.

He has said no one here knows energy.

Pretty broad strokes I would say.What type of energy?

Renewables ,hydro,geo-thermal,solar,wind generated and bio sourced are Energy.

I first installed solar panels during Jimmy Carters tenure,and find it hard to believe it has not caught on.

And I will never tell anyone to go kill themselves to reduce their impact.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 17, 2014 - 07:37pm PT
I was talking to Hoser.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 07:46pm PT
'Wait for it'

Try collage next time, Einstein.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 17, 2014 - 07:56pm PT
" i was talking to hoser "...I thought coz was a hoser...? hee , hee...
cuvvy

Sport climber
arkansas
Mar 17, 2014 - 08:19pm PT
Crazy talk on this thread.
Stalkers and leg humping and cuppers of testicles? Sounds like big oil all right
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 08:28pm PT
"...appreciate my politeness..."

Robust laughter abounds!
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 08:41pm PT
Everybody knows who you are, Coz. You've made that painfully clear for many years.

I am nobody...you don't know me, we don't have many mutual friends, I didn't climb .14d bitd, I wasn't a Valley rat....I'm nobody, and you don't give a sh#t.

Let's keep it that way!
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 08:44pm PT
Nah, I'm happy this way. Keeps the stalkers at bay.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 17, 2014 - 08:51pm PT
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2355853/KXL-pipeline

Cozgrove

Gym climber
Calabashole

Mar 17, 2014 - 05:48pm PT
Ummm I'd watch ur back...



There we go....saved for posterity!
dirtbag

climber
Mar 17, 2014 - 09:17pm PT
Looks like someone is on the fast track for a re-ban.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 18, 2014 - 12:48am PT
" If i need a cancer diagnosis". As nonsensical of a statement as the point you are trying to make, Fort.
Spider Savage

Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
Mar 18, 2014 - 02:07am PT
Too lazy to read the whole thread, did anyone answer the question of why not just build a refinery in Alberta? Wouldn't it be less work and provide more jobs? I don't get why crude has to be refined in Louisiana?

I used to live 2 blocks from the oil pipeline that runs from Bakersfield to Long Beach. Runs through a nicer neighborhood in Burbank. No spills that I know of.

Base 104, Can you anwer the refinery question? Much respect for Petro Engineers, smart career choice.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Mar 18, 2014 - 02:30am PT
"If i need a cancer diagnosis".

http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/uci-led-study-documents-heavy-air-pollution-in-canadian-area-with-cancer-spikes/

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-alberta-air-20131026,0,954054.story

Carcinogens emitted from Canada's main fossil fuel hub, study says
U.S. researchers say they found a high incidence of blood cancers among men in Alberta's 'Industrial Heartland.

By Neela Banerjee
October 25, 2013, 4:58 p.m.

An aerial view of Canada's Suncor oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta. Air samples taken in the region detected pollutants, including carcinogens, researchers say. (Mark Ralston / AFP/Getty Images / October 23, 2009)

By Neela Banerjee

October 25, 2013, 4:58 p.m.

WASHINGTON — A new study has detected air pollutants, including carcinogens, in areas downwind of Canada's main fossil fuel hub in Alberta at levels rivaling those of major metropolises such as Beijing and Mexico City.

The study by researchers from UC Irvine and the University of Michigan also found a high incidence of blood cancers such as leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men in the area, compared with the rest of Alberta and Canada.

"When you get cancers that can be caused by the carcinogens we are seeing, that is reason for concern," said Isobel J. Simpson, a lead author of the study and a researcher at UC Irvine's chemistry department.

The Alberta government said the study provides an inaccurate picture of pollution in the so-called Industrial Heartland, a three-county area where oil, chemicals and oil sands crude are processed.

"Based on the results of our monitoring, we see no evidence to suggest that people in the Industrial Heartland region are exposed to levels of the chemicals indicated in the paper," said Nikki Booth, spokeswoman for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, the provincial regulator.

The issue has drawn attention because most of the oil produced in Canada is shipped to the United States.

Three previous studies since 2009 have detected carcinogens in Alberta's rivers and lakes, near where oil sands are mined. The latest study focuses on a site where oil sands are processed, along with other fossil fuels.

The Industrial Heartland, northeast of the provincial capital, Edmonton, is surrounded largely by farmland. The Shell Scotford complex includes a refinery and a facility that processes 225,000 barrels a day of bitumen, a tarry substance that is extracted from northeastern Alberta's oil sands, diluted with chemicals and piped to the United States.

The study released this week is based on air samples taken over two days in 2010 around 10 facilities. Researchers measured volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, organic chemical mixtures created by certain industrial processes and consumption of fossil fuels, among other things.

VOCs contribute to climate change and formation of smog. They also contain cancer-causing substances such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene.

Tests showed that airborne concentrations of 1,3-butadiene were 322 times greater downwind of the industrial area than upwind. Similarly, downwind concentrations of benzene were 51 times greater.

The researchers said the compounds were consistent with emissions from the nearby facilities.

Simpson said funding allowed for only two days of sampling and the population that showed higher cancer rates was small. The researchers recommended better monitoring of air pollution and health, and suggested that facilities reduce emissions of known carcinogens.

"We don't want this to be study after study after study with no action," Simpson said. "There's enough here to recommend reducing carcinogens in this area."

neela.banerjee@latimes.com
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 18, 2014 - 10:36am PT
Hey. I don't have the answers. The only thing that I have is a good understanding of how intertwined modern human civilization is with oil. It is almost like air. If everyone in the pool is drowning, everyone will spend their last million dollars or their last dime for the last breath of air. Oil is kind of like that. It is present in every aspect of our civilization, and the demand forces us to do things to each other that we wouldn't otherwise do. Some really bad things, like kill people. No other resource has quite that much muscle.

Too bad that it has its down side, but it does.

Somebody talked about oil as a weapon. That was spot on. Just look around you and try to find something that wasn't touched by oil in some way. The mere idea of a small disruption in oil supplies sends prices high. A hurricane in the gulf, for example. That impacts everything you consume. The idea that Russia would cut off Germany or other European countries' natural gas or oil supply, it is a really terrifying possibility.

Even if you walk everywhere, fossil fuels shipped your clothes and shoes.

If you watch oil markets and their behavior, you will find that it isn't some bogeyman "Big Oil" that is running things. It is the appetite for these fuels that is the real driver. The demand is the crazy dog team dragging the insane development.

As for new discoveries, I doubt if many of you are familiar with the production decline curves of the shale gas and oil wells. They are extremely hyperbolic, and if oil prices slid to 75 bucks most of them wouldn't even pay out. That is what I do all day. I map accumulations, figure out reserve numbers, run it through economic analysis software, and advise where to make acquisitions. All kinds of producing properties. Bakken Shale, Eagleford Shale, Woodford Shale, you name it. You would be surprised at how many of the shale play wells don't cover their drilling and producing costs.

Imagine walking your dog. Then imagine a really amped up sled dog team dragging you around, up and down, round and round, wherever it wants to go, and that is where the real "Big Oil" lies. It is the demand. That is one thing that I want to convey.

The carbon tax idea is decades old. Now tell me. Who should be taxed? The oil producer or the oil consumer?



climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 18, 2014 - 11:21am PT
It's a shame folks sling so much crap on this board.

As for me I really appreciate folks Like Base and Ed who have taken time to share their expertise here. Thanks.. I mean it.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 18, 2014 - 11:41am PT
If Base's conscious was really bothering him he would look only for NG, but the country is awash in it and the money is behind finding crude. Take a look at the comparative release's of co2 from various fuels Derek.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

Don't you "want" to go out and get yourself a cancer diagnosis or something Fort?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 18, 2014 - 11:56am PT
There should be a progressive tax on children, except for lunch.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 18, 2014 - 12:33pm PT
My conscience is a little conflicted, Rick. I look for properties that make money. Right now, very little horizontal shale gas drilling is going on. Those wells can cost 8 million dollars or more, and recover only 3 BCF, after figuring out royalties, state gross production taxes, production expenses and the cost of money over time, very little shale gas is paying out at current gas prices. The drilling is mainly to hold leases.

They have started to recover, but there are so many undrilled locations that a new round of drilling will result in a new glut. There is just more gas than the market needs.

I have posted that a switch to natural gas as a transportation fuel is a great idea. It is cheaper than gasoline, it is cleaner than gasoline, but you have to stop and fill up twice as often. That last problem is why most nat gas vehicles are fleet vehicles such as busses, UPS trucks, and other forms of transportation that don't stray too far from home.

We already have the technology to install NG "filling stations in a box" anywhere on a gas pipeline. I even know people who drive NG vehicles. They love it. They just can't take them on road trips outside of the area.

That is a change that we could easily make. Iran has already been switching to NG for years. Iran has some of the largest gas fields in the world, and their production has peaked. Since their only income is from oil sales, they are cutting their domestic oil consumption so that they can keep their export volumes up.

As for the refining questions, that is not my area of expertise. My work is mainly upstream, but I keep an eye on oil and gas price swings.

Another simple thing: oil and natural gas trap in almost identical ways. Sometimes you don't know if you are going to hit oil or gas when drilling a well. Geologically, the traps are pretty much the same, with a couple of differences which will go over everyone's head.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 18, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
"Hey, it's YOU people driving demand! We're just trying to keep up."

That is a good line. Right now oil is bringing 100 bucks per barrel. If oil prices dropped to 75, and I have been through numerous supply/demand price shocks in my life, a lot of drilling would stop.

We have already found all of the easy oil. Now we are scraping the basins clean.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 18, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
Urban density is key. Shorter travel distances = short haul, lower emission vehicles.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 18, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
Base, how big is Vaca Muerta? Of course, it will be years before any of that
will hit the market.
cuvvy

Sport climber
arkansas
Mar 18, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
Im jumping in my car and Im going bouldering.Im picking up two friends.
I will not accelerate excessively. I maintain my vehicle to maximize engine performance.I am a slave at present to fossil fuels, but there are things i can do to decrease net effects. Life goes on.
You guys should do the same
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 18, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
Bruce you are a low grade moron, with not even the attention span of a gnat. I've been proposing a solution to the imaginary CAGW problem ( increased use of NG to supplant coal generated electricand replacement for gasoline as well as getting over paranoia of nuclear) for as long as I've been on this forum, independent of Base. Pay attention or shut your moronic mouth.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 18, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
I drive a Scion iQ.

The only way that car would accelerate excessively is if a semi decided to wear it as a grill ornament.

Its one of the few cars that performs better when parked than when in motion.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 18, 2014 - 03:39pm PT
Just from a basic combustion point of view and a little knowledge of the needs for high temperature combustion points for efficiency in reciprocating engines..

I really doubt that Natural gas produces less C02 per unit of energy sent to the drive wheels of a vehicle.

I would almost be willing to bet natural gas is less CO2 efficient for transportation.

Just like ethanol is counterproductiove regarding total CO2 Emmisions for basically the same reasons.

I'll look into it more tonight and see if I can find some real info and not just natural gas propaganda (which I found a bunch of in like 30 seconds on google).
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 19, 2014 - 12:30pm PT
Come on, man,

Spend thirty seconds googling and you will find that natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel in emissions per joule of energy.

This was from wiki, but I've also read about it on the eia.gov website, which is an incredible source of energy information:

Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel. It produces about 29% and 44% less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than oil and coal respectively,[37] and potentially fewer pollutants than other hydrocarbon fuels.[66]
skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
Mar 19, 2014 - 06:08pm PT
Tvash said
Urban density is key. Shorter travel distances = short haul, lower emission vehicles.

Yup. Tash, ever read "A Pattern Language"? Its a dry but good one. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction is a 1977 book on architecture, urban design, and community livability. Electric cars may be more functional in a such an environment. We have a Leaf and let me say it's a pretty good vehicle.....EXCEPT for the battery. I'm epredicting a 4 year life span for the battery. Then apparently it is just junk. Bummer for us. But we bought the thing.......


If we stopped all use of things that involved Oil to make tomorrow, You all would sh!t your pants. Or maybe not....this is all old news anyway. Anything plastic, roadbase, wax, ect., and god forbid...surfboards. But making up more than half the use are the largest 2 ;gasoline and heating/diesel oil.

I still think base is pretty even handed in his assesments, not that I agree with everything. I don't think he has an axe to grind here.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 19, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
I thought "progressives" were all about democracy?

Howza bout a little democracy?

http://weaselzippers.us/179958-pew-poll-americans-want-keystone-pipeline-approved-by-more-than-two-to-one-margin-61-27/
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 19, 2014 - 11:02pm PT
I was wrong..But close.. LNG is not at all a solution to the CO2 issue regarding usage in vehicles. It is significantly superior to coal however for elecrical generation.

The reaction for gasoline and LNG is Very similar and produces near identical co2/KG output.
Btu/KG of LNG is slightly higher than gasoline. 55MJ/KG vs 47MJ/KG about 15% BETTER


Thermal efficiency of LNG internal combustion motors and gasoline motors tops about near identically (I was surprised) at about 45% (although I am still suspicious of the median which I could not find info on)

Thus LNG can be a slightly better CO2 polluter than gasoline. It is not a huge difference however .. say max aprox 15% Not enough to "save the world" in anycase.

LNG IS much better regarding particulates and sulpher or nitrogen compounds.

I am not taking into account the carbon footprint of refining, packaging or transporting either fuel.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 20, 2014 - 12:38am PT
Just from a basic combustion point of view and a little knowledge of the needs for high temperature combustion points for efficiency in reciprocating engines..

I really doubt that Natural gas produces less C02 per unit of energy sent to the drive wheels of a vehicle.

I would almost be willing to bet natural gas is less CO2 efficient for transportation.

Just like ethanol is counterproductiove regarding total CO2 Emmisions for basically the same reasons.

I'll look into it more tonight and see if I can find some real info and not just natural gas propaganda (which I found a bunch of in like 30 seconds on google).


So are we assuming CO2 is a pollutant, and therefore, bad? We expel CO2. And plant life thrives on it.

They whole point of natural gas is IT NOT BURNING ALL THE OTHER POLLUTANTS that coal and gasoline do. CO2 is not the problem in this energy equation. It's the other by-products of the combustion process.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 20, 2014 - 12:41am PT
We disagree blue. Like anything it's about balance. CO2 is good and it is bad.. depending on the amounts and situation.

CO2 is the biggest long term threat to human life other than what it is directly derived from.. population growth.

It is unfortunate that you quoted my post from a couple days ago. I was wrong there.. learned a bit more about LNG (methane basically). It is a little better than gasoline regarding CO2 polution. And much better regarding other polutants.

Just remember for every smoggy day you SEE. There is at least 100 times more CO2 pollution you can't see.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 20, 2014 - 12:56am PT
Just remember for every smoggy day you SEE. There is at least 100 times more CO2 pollution you can't see.


I guess we will have to disagree.

CO2, or carbon and oxygen, are the basis of all terrestrial life! We are carbon-based life on Earth. The whole Global Warming thing is a farce. A scam!

The key question in this KXL debate is, "Would you rather buy Saudi oil, or give them the finger for good and produce our own energy here, with Canada?".

That is the essence of the debate to me. F*#k the CO2 crap, go talk to China, Mexico, and India about 'pollutants' and 'smog'.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:49am PT
CO2, or carbon and oxygen, are the basis of all terrestrial life! We are carbon-based life on Earth. The whole Global Warming thing is a farce. A scam!

I will admit that is an attractive thought at first glance. Yet it does not bear up to much scrutiny.

It's akin to saying water is basic to life thus more water is always ok. However in reality a flood is terribly damaging.

-----


All of this aside I support the KXL pipeline. No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater when trying to address problems..Especially if your proposal is just throwing the baby out and the bathwater remains.

In this case the baby is the the people who live lives and need jobs ie the economy. The bathwater is the co2 polution. I don't see that stopping the pipeline will do much for pollution. The pollution from this source is just a tiny drop compared to what is out there.. and stopping the pipeline won't stop the production.

I'm for Nuclear I think it's the only energy source currently available capable of replacing hydrocarbons for civilizations energy needs. CO2 producing methods must be replaced.. and pretending to ourselves that solar or wind can do the whole job (with current or soon to be realized tech) or that efficiency will outstrip growth in demand is foolishness.

We will need every bit of economic power we can get to solve our problems. I'm not for crippling the engine needed to solve the CO2 issue.
julton

climber
Mar 20, 2014 - 02:29pm PT
Thus LNG can be a slightly better CO2 polluter than gasoline. It is not a huge difference however .. say max aprox 15% Not enough to "save the world" in anycase.

It's closer to 30% (you forgot to count carbons). It would have been trivial to just look the numbers up.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
The numbers regarding use in comparably efficient intenal cumbustion engines do not seem readily available. I spent over an hour looking for just some very basic info. Trying to compare apples to apples. I would be glad for any references you have found.

Anycase I clearly said I was wrong about some stuff I had posted previously. I am genuinely interested in learning more onn this.

Sadly 15% or 30% I still suggest that NG is not a viable long term solution to CO2 pollution issues.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
It's a near term solution that reduces harm.

Harm reduction - it's not your Daddy's zero tolerance.
julton

climber
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:28pm PT
climbski, google carbon dioxide per unit of fuel. It's basic chemisty unless for some reason you think an engine using methane will be a lot less efficient. To be rigorous you'd have to look at the whole supply chain and life cycle. It's not a long term solution. I think the word people use is bridge although a bridge to what exactly isn't clear.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:50pm PT
TGT,

This whole thread is about dictating what people must do, rather than considering individual preferences. The references to population density, and the contempt to which Americans' preferences for less dense housing was held above, show ample evidence of that.

While I happen to find the scientific and statistical literature on the effects of anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gasses overwhelming, that literature cannot answer "what should we do?" without taking peoples' preferences into account. That's the last thing a true believer in the evils of our current lifestyles wants to do.

John
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
Here we go....

This thread has officially attracted the ideological flies whose science is dictated to them by right wing spin think tanks.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 20, 2014 - 04:01pm PT
" and pretending to ourselves that solar or wind can do the whole job (with current or soon to be realized tech)"


Solar and Wind are the future,and they both make more jobs than ANY fossil fuel extraction or distribution.


Japan is switching to renewables right now and it will not be long and China will be ahead of us in both industries.

Edit:Base ,Gee you think?

[Click to View YouTube Video]
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 20, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
I don't think that China will do anything that is not economically competitive with fossil fuels.

It really does come down to money in the end. It is a shame that there are few altruists when you get down to the nitty gritty.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 20, 2014 - 05:27pm PT
although a bridge to what exactly isn't clear

Yeah, I dunno either, but I truly wish that there was something.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 20, 2014 - 07:25pm PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-04/china-doubles-pace-of-adding-renwables-amid-pollution-cut.html
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 20, 2014 - 11:32pm PT
Ha HA! You dinosaur. You think this 1823? Take your gun and your mail-order bride and light out for the frontier?

Of course you do....because that's what The New Republic, American Spectator, and the WSJ tell the walnut-sized brain in your as s. There 350 MILLION Americans today! In case you hadn't noticed. This so-called freedom to choose to live in your bacterial suburb has been brought to you by the cancerous ideology of the quaterly profit statement....where we can't imagine a world in which our economy doesn't depend on the growth of idiotic consumption of resources.


You speak like a 'progressive'. I have no idea if you are or not.

Listen to yourself though. You are implying the principles of the Constitution are irrelevant. I have no free-will to use fossil-fuels? The gov't will mandate what I should use and which energy I should use, despite the fact that I choose the one that has proven to be abundant and cleaner than before? I should change because you wanna be 'green'?

Ask yourself a simple question, "what was the original charter of the Dept. of Energy?". Has it achieved it's goals, or lead us away from them?

I can help you out if you can't answer that....
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 20, 2014 - 11:44pm PT
If it isn't obvious enough... most Americans would prefer to cram fast food into their diabetic faces and drive an SUV to their own mailbox. We SHOULD breed that moronic mentality out of our society, as well as the idea that it is somehow ethical to profit from or exploit such behavior

Well, here is an idiotic example of conflating 2 issues to suit a silly conclusion;

Americans are stupid and fat, and therefore drive "SUV's" because they don't care as much about the environment as much as such sensitive, and wise, people as yourselves.

This is the epitome of progressive arrogance. YOU know what's best (like Obama), and the stupid average American (middle class) needs YOU to tell them what to drive and what light-bulb to use.

And yeah, we SHOULD breed these idiots out of of society, right? These stupid Truck-driving right-wingers like me, right?

Let's just hope that people who disagree with us just die, right? Nice!

Thanks for illustrating what I've been dying for a stupid progressive to say out loud.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 21, 2014 - 12:18am PT
That'd be pretty sweet (so to to speak), Jimmy! Can they be frosted CO2 flakes?

EDIT: Jimmy, you know I dig some Canadians, mostly people like you and their armed forces (Ghost is cool too), but what gets my goad is when people sh#t-talk the US.

I saw this in light of the recent missing plane. Who is the most capable force to solve this?

I'll digress...

In light of recent Crimea events, and the lack of foresight on our US gov't, wouldn't it make total f*#king sense to finally approve this pipeline?

It is not only a handshake between Canada and the US, it is a fuxking partnership!!! An energy alliance. Why would you (or Obama, et al...) disapprove of this?

There is no logical reason. And THAT raises suspicions in my book.

Canada, US, and Mexico could utterly destroy energy markets to our advantage. Ask yourself why we haven't played such a logical move.

I have hope, but I worry about our "leadership".
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2014 - 10:42am PT
cuvvy

Sport climber
arkansas
Mar 21, 2014 - 10:48am PT
People with money in the family and not much need to work, seem to be the ones who always bring up these issues. Lower and middle class folks can make money on projects like this. Because you silver spooners were fortunate enough to not have to deal with money issues shouldn't negate others' possibilities to actually better themselves.
Projects like these change lives for the better for a lot of people.
Not everyone went to prep schools and had major decision trauma over which summer camps to go to.


JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 21, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
Cuvvy,

Cut that out! Such opinions prove too unsettling to the let-them-eat-cake leftists generally, and to the KXL Pipeline opponents in particular. They become apoplectic that we have the temerity to suggest that the ideological/religious opponents of the Pipeline have no monopoly on values or, worse, on intelligence.

You should have read the grief I took for pointing out that climbers who use implements fashioned from mined metals and extracted hydrocarbons are hypocritical when we call the miners and extractors rapists and pillagers.

Save yourself the abuse. But welcome aboard.

John
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 21, 2014 - 02:52pm PT
Jobs are important, but some industries do too much long term damage for those jobs to be worth it. Fully exploiting the tar sands may provide jobs today - but at the expense of jobs in the future as an altered climate erodes humankind's ability to flourish on a planet harsher than the one we evolved on.

The destruction of the climate we evolved in due to carbon emissions is incremental. Nearly every human is a participant. Oil sands development, with Keystone acting as an enabler to that, is one of those increments. Since it is a matter of public policy at this point, it's an increment we can choose to allow or not.

If we do allow it, we've taken the next step. Oil sands-level climate destruction becomes the norm - then we'll take it to a level beyond that.

It's like becoming a drunk. It happens incrementally. "I'll never drink in the morning." "I'll never drink at work." "I'll never..."

At some point you have to stop upping the ante. Keystone is one such decision point. It will greatly affect what happens afterwards with regards to climate destruction - one way or the other.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 21, 2014 - 03:02pm PT
"People with money in the family and not much need to work, seem to be the ones who always bring up these issues."


Yet another generalization that is utterly incorrect, imminently provable as wrong, divisive, and overly simplistic.

Was that your point? If so, victory!

Chewybacca

Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
Mar 21, 2014 - 03:17pm PT
"Green energies" provide jobs. They also create a lot less pollution.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 21, 2014 - 04:08pm PT
The oft employed 'trust funder' smear-the-opposition attempt doesn't inform this debate much. The millions who oppose Keystone can't all be trustifarians, and second - having a trust fund does not preclude one from advocating for long term environmental stewardship.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2014 - 05:53pm PT
Tvash you say it so well


"Jobs are important, but some industries do too much long term damage for those jobs to be worth it. Fully exploiting the tar sands may provide jobs today - but at the expense of jobs in the future as an altered climate erodes humankind's ability to flourish on a planet harsher than the one we evolved on."
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Mar 21, 2014 - 06:38pm PT
Isn't the mining of tar sands the equivalent of strip mining? What do the native canadians think about tar sands mining? I hear it is an ecological disaster zone. That's why we shouldn't enable it any further IMO.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 21, 2014 - 06:42pm PT
The primary methods of oil sands extraction are through strip mining. Like mountain top removal, it completely destroys the biosphere there.
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Mar 21, 2014 - 06:54pm PT
Putting lead in paint and gasoline also provided jobs.

So did making asbtesos laden brake pads and insulation.

Should we bring those back? Because you know FREEDUMB! CONSTITUTION!!

Average 'Murcan (kinda like Bluering, except he's a below avg american):
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 21, 2014 - 08:15pm PT
Putting lead in paint and gasoline also provided jobs.

So did making asbtesos laden brake pads and insulation.

Should we bring those back? Because you know FREEDUMB! CONSTITUTION!!

Average 'Murcan (kinda like Bluering, except he's a below avg american):

Look, Johnson, "green energy" does not work yet. ANd you know it! How many green companies that soaked tax-dollars have failed now? Awesome!

The fact is that we need oil and natural gas to sustain our current economy AND our current lifestyles. Demonizing fossil-fuels is just f*#king stupid. We have cleaned our act up quite a bit and cleaned up the use of such energy.

It's not ideal, but it's the best thing going right now. To invest in the future of an energy alternative we NEED fossil fuels.

It's that simple.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 21, 2014 - 08:30pm PT



"If that's the relationship you want to have with your home world, then have it.

And we'll do things our way."

It is that simple.



julton

climber
Mar 21, 2014 - 08:51pm PT
Keystone is one such decision point. It will greatly affect what happens afterwards

Symbolic rather than substantive. A line in the tar sands.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 21, 2014 - 08:55pm PT
The XXL Pipeline. How does this damage this US?

Can someone answer that?

Don't we only benefit from this? Jobs, Canadian oil - what's wrong with that?

This has almost nothing to do with tar-sands in the US and fracking.

EDIT: Karen, what if I told you that Warren Buffet benefits from sending oil to CHina on his rail-lines? Yet you only hold the Koch Bros in contempt?

got bias?
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Mar 21, 2014 - 09:10pm PT
That oil is coming out. Pipelines are way better than trucks and trains. There are like 2 million miles of pipeline in the U.S. already, much of which carry refined gasoline- which is way more of an environmental risk than crude.

Tie approval to some alternative energy subsides and every one wins.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 21, 2014 - 09:26pm PT
That oil is coming out. Pipelines are way better than trucks and trains. There are like 2 million miles of pipeline in the U.S. already, much of which carry refined gasoline- which is way more of an environmental risk than crude.

Tie approval to some alternative energy subsides and every one wins.

That's what I'm saying, man. This XXL is a "no-brainer". Everbody wins except the Chners, Saudis, and Russkies.
cuvvy

Sport climber
arkansas
Mar 21, 2014 - 11:12pm PT
Point being that oil hasnt just helped enrich the coffers of the big oil companies. It has allowed thousands to provide for their familes, educate their children, and secure their retiement. People who have been blessed with financial security might more easily look at such subjects as solid job opportunities with less interest. Not specifically saying anyone, just figure someone on this forum is crying to change the world and they are of the never really needed to work and have a lot of idle time to do something constructive not saying anything is wrong with that......But there are a lot of jobs tied to oil in the states, quite a bit in this part of the country. Oil does work at the moment and it would be good to have less reliance on outside sources. Certainly not opposed to alternative fuels. Make it happen all you smart super topo change the world types and i will do what I can to support you! But all least stop your bashing of posters. This is what debate is all about discussion, opinions, and thoughts.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 22, 2014 - 08:47am PT

Arguments ,not bashing.

Tell me how this will not lead to expansion.
Spider Savage

Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
Mar 22, 2014 - 12:49pm PT
Thanks to Base 104 for some insite from the inside on this thread. I really enjoy your contributions.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 23, 2014 - 08:27am PT
Meanwhile in Washington

[Click to View YouTube Video]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 23, 2014 - 11:38am PT
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/scientists-sound-alarm-on-climate.html?smid=fb-share

Pretty scary!
We need to make some changes
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 23, 2014 - 12:37pm PT
Karen, follow the money. http://www.btionline.org/index.html

Funded by the World Bank?

I can prove to you that these do-gooders are full of crap. They just want to shake-down wealthy economies for money, making them feel guilty.

Ever hear of this dude named Jesse Jackson? Same racket.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 23, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
I can prove to you that these do-gooders are full of crap. They just want to shake-down wealthy economies for money, making them feel guilty.

You can? That is amazing. Why don't you publish and submit it?

For starters, please post the science.

I keep yacking that people should pay attention to the last really big climate event that is known to have been caused, at least in part, by CO2 levels: the Cretaceous Climate Maximum.

If we start bumping into 1000ppm CO2 concentrations, we will be playing with fire. During that period there are some pretty cool fossil distributions. Dinosaurs and temperate plants well north of the arctic circles for example. Sea level was much higher, and what is now the U.S., the east and west were separated by an ocean, the Cretaceous Interior Seaway. I can show you where to go look at the Cretaceous fossils if you happen to be driving across I-70.

That is what I am looking at. A past event, known to be caused by CO2 levels associated with the break up of Pangea, warmed the planet by about 6 degrees C. Give or take. It was enough to totally change the landscape of the planet.

Why is the truth so utterly molested in this argument? Why is opinion so skewed by political ideology? I mean, the planet doesn't care who you vote for.

When the whole global warming thing started, it is well known that some right wing groups and fossil fuel companies started sprinkling many millions of dollars with the agenda of spreading doubt. The rest of the world didn't have this false doubt propaganda, and some European countries are making big changes regarding their fossil fuel use.

Being an "oil man," I must say that some of this garbage really offends me. These are my peers in many cases, but they are the business guys, not the geoscientists.

I know how to find oil. I don't feel too bad about this profession as long as I keep my ears open and carefully evaluate the science. That means not reading sh#t from blogs or ideological or politically based baloney that is out there for anyone to find.

In the circle of the carbon cycle, I feel that I am pretty equal to a person working at a gas station or a consumer who uses oil. The one biggy that everyone is ignoring is the basic strategic and economic problems that we are facing as we face the world oil production capacity peaking. We are running out of oil, and our country is in a very dangerous position based on our consumption habits alone...never mind climate change. We need to switch our fuel choices soon, because we are looking at very high oil prices in the future. That doesn't even include our addiction forcing us to buy oil from some of the nastiest nations on the planet.

We won't go anywhere until we raise attention among your average voting person. This is an uphill battle because the propaganda ideocrats have been poisoning the well since day 1.

Having a long career in the energy business has made me very aware of oil price fluctuations and their cause. I make a lot of my money from small royalty interests in oil and gas wells that I have found throughout my career. Since it is part of my income, and oil price directly affects the economics of exploration prospects, I've just paid a lot more attention to planet wide production and consumption patterns for the last 28 years.

I try to be as honest as I can about this.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 23, 2014 - 01:16pm PT
You can? That is amazing. Why don't you publish and submit it?

If all these do-gooders really gave a crap about people, why did we ban DDT?

Why are there people living in poverty in Africa, starving?

Why do we do nothing about people chopping off limbs of others just because they subscribe to another religion?

Why do we say nothing about 'finning' sharks so some as#@&%e can have a bowl of soup?

There are many more worthy, and easily identifiable problems to solve that don't require a gov't-funded scientist.

What exactly is your solution to the 'energy crisis' anyway, BASE? Your immediate solution. What should we do? And give me something that is reasonable and not pie-in-the-sky bullshit that can not happen anytime soon.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 23, 2014 - 04:39pm PT
First, begin switching to natural gas as a transportation fuel. We are swimming in a glut of low priced natural gas.

It has been used as a preferred fleet vehicle fuel for decades. Reason? It is cheaper than gasoline. The only problem is that you go half as far on a tank, hence its use as a fleet vehicle fuel. UPS and busses don't stray too far from the filling station.

GE now has these NG filling stations in a "box." Just put them in place and you are set to go. We need some type of critical mass where the infrastructure is put in place. Congress has done a crappy job of managing energy production, so laws probably won't work well. Look at corn ethanol. No way would it be price competitive without the subsidy. It is a huge rip off beloved by red state farmers. I have a problem with the social addiction of most farmers.

That would go a long way towards easing up on our imports.

I am a bit of a pessimist on other fuels. If it isn't price competitive, it just won't work. Natural gas is an easy one. Iran has been switching to NG for many years.

The Koch brothers are not well liked in the oil business. They got caught ripping off the Osage Nation years ago. They were probably ripping off everybody (they were a big crude oil purchaser).

That didn't go down well with oil producers.

The other thing is just habits. Carpool, light rail if the population density is sufficient, etc. During the really massive oil price shock of the late seventies, Jimmy Carter managed to cut our consumption by 25% in only a couple of years. I assume that many here are too young to remember wearing a sweater in the winter, fuel efficient vehicles, and such.

Other than the 55 mph speed limit, most of it was strictly voluntary. For some reason, even with oil at 100 bucks per barrel, I still see tons of people driving Suburbans and full sized pickups around with only one person in them.

Oil is obviously still too cheap. When the price squirts up another 2 bucks per gallon, we will see changes.

You didn't disprove global warming, by the way. You side stepped that one.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 24, 2014 - 08:31pm PT
You didn't disprove global warming, by the way. You side stepped that one.

I thought it has dis-proven itself. It's not "warming". And my point was that all the do-gooders who claim to be saving the planet are just soaking the system for their own interests.

Wouldn't all this money be better spent in other ways that I described? That actually help people who have immediate needs? In other words, you could have direct impacts on the quality of life of people, instead of having gov't fund the likes of Solyndra.

If green energy is so awesome and ready-for-primetime, why do they need so much gov't subsidy?

I agree about NG and LNG though. I just don't like gov't mandates. I still like my V8 offroad truck. I'll go LNG when it becomes more convenient, and the engines have similar torque. (I think they may be getting good at the horsepower/torgue thing though).

I guess my overall point is that we are already making great strides in reducing oil-related pollution and efficiency. Can we go back to incandescent bulbs though? I really f*#king hate the light the CFL bulbs produce.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 24, 2014 - 09:59pm PT
NG as a near term harm reduction strategy makes sense. Half the US lives in cities where the reduced range of an NG vehicle isn't such an insurmountable limitation.

NG's cheaper by $.10 a mile or so but NG cars and home refilling stations are prohibitively expensive - you're way better off buying a hybrid these days.

If NG vehicle and home refueling station sticker prices come down, and gasoline goes way up, NG could give gasoline hybrid's a run for their money. I don't see much momentum in that direction around these parts, though. Mostly, people are moving to hybrids, electrics, and share cars.

New wind generation capacity is now cheaper per MWh than new coal or NG generation capacity in many areas, both here in the US an abroad. The efficiency, longevity, and maintenance requirements of wind turbines continues to improve rapidly.

The idea that wind power needs to be subsidized is - like most partisan talking points with an agenda - very dated.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 24, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
You can power a electric car off of a normal house roof sized solar panel, and have enough power left to power your home.
Everyone could step off the grid for good, that's why these guys invent the hysteria to confuse and divert.

Some of us chose not to use electric cars. It's a 'choice'. I prefer high-powered V8 vehicles, with 4WD. It's a lifestyle choice.

Is that still okay?

I can see the beauty of solar-power for the home though. Makes sense.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 24, 2014 - 11:32pm PT
PV for the home is not cost effective unless the site has no grid to draw from. Centralized power generation makes much more sense in areas with any population density.

Home passive solar water heating (and passive space heating) does make sense, however.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 25, 2014 - 12:18am PT
That's very nice, Fort.

You and your eco-nazi brethren are what's wrong with the green movement. Keep it up!

This will back-fire on the movement.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 25, 2014 - 12:21am PT
The movement continues at pace, backfires and all - more and more people are doing the right thing, doing what they can to help, even if you're not.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 25, 2014 - 12:37am PT
The movement continues at pace, backfires and all - more and more people are doing the right thing, doing what they can to help, even if you're not.


I know, just don't tell me what to do. I'm just sayin' that the people who want to FORCE this stuff on people are using a failing strategy.

It dissuades, not convinces, or persuades.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 25, 2014 - 12:42am PT
Blurring, you crack me the fuk up. You're ok with lifestyle choices just so long as they gybe with your redneck, conservative agenda. I hope your kid's teacher is a heavily pierced Mexican gay Nazi.


Wow, now that's caring. Thanks!

I'm just into personal liberty and independence. You know, just like gays and women's rights to 'choose'.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 25, 2014 - 01:11am PT
NG will not be a "home" filling station. There will be regular filling stations with the equipment to quickly fill your tank with LNG. There is one a block away from an office I used to work at.

Also, at today's prices, the savings are far more than 10% of equivalent gasoline.

It will be a huge cut in carbon emissions. We have covered this, and NG is the most carbon efficient of the FF's.

Beyond that, I dunno. We will have to face the music fairly soon even if GW really is a hoax. We are running out of the stuff.

Hubbert's Peak is an interesting book.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2014 - 10:24am PT
"The movement continues at pace, backfires and all - more and more people are doing the right thing, doing what they can to help, even if you're not."

Love this Tvash
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 25, 2014 - 10:32am PT
Base, don't you think new generation nuclear is the logical replacement as well as NG?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 25, 2014 - 11:25am PT
I like nuclear. There is a lot of baloney in some enviro groups, just like the conservative drones. For instance there is a crew putting in a new oil pipeline near where I am currently working. This whole region is covered by the Ogallala Aquifer, but nobody is complaining. I can drive forty miles in any direction and see the regular center pivot irrigation. Why isn't somebody screaming about THIS pipeline?

Spin is just the bait on the hook. I find it astonishing that in this age, people on both sides of the debate lie and exaggerate....and are believed. Are people really that stupid? Apparently so.

France is a good example of an oil importing country that is concerned about their energy security. They are heavy on nuclear. it is a blatant fact that we snuggle up to some unsavory characters due to our reliance on imported oil. We would be safer as a country if our energy policy recognized this. Instead we take the easiest energy policy: cheap oil at any cost.

We need to start looking at all forms of energy, because the kids will see declining world oil production in their lifetimes. This will be a huge problem in 50 more years.

What would happen if the Arab nations cut off their exports to us?

That problem is simple math. "Drill Baby Drill" is not a long term solution.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 25, 2014 - 11:48am PT
I agree Base. Long term solution no, but near term solution yes. That is, while we divert some of the hundreds of billions thrown down the ratholes of endless studies having little application to reality and subsidies of alternatives that are currently non-economic into R&D and deployment of viable nearly on the shelf replacement technologies. The problem is all sensibilities are thrown out the window as competing ideologies, bordering on religions, are engaged in combat for the perceived spoils. Where are the rational adults in this day and age?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 25, 2014 - 11:51am PT

Bluering: "I'm just into personal liberty and independence. You know, just like gays and women's rights to 'choose'."

Just curious - do you support equal marriage for all and a woman's right to plan her family, or not, as she see's fit?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 25, 2014 - 07:23pm PT
Just curious - do you support equal marriage for all and a woman's right to plan her family, or not, as she see's fit?


No, not all equal marriage for all, but think it should not be a Federal or State issue. Gov't should be out of marriage. Keep it at religious marriage or civil unions, both treated equally.

The women's right thing I am fine with.

Fort Mental is excluding some facts from the guy who got shot and killed.

EDIT: Oh, and I support new nuke technologies to replace other types (coal) of electrical energy production.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
Since the Keystone thing has lulled a bit:

BLU: "No, not all equal marriage for all, but think it should not be a Federal or State issue. Gov't should be out of marriage. Keep it at religious marriage or civil unions, both treated equally."

I'm having some difficulty resolving the 'equality' concept here.

Marriage is a state and federal issue - it's a contract with tax, guardianship, property, and immigration considerations (to name just a few).

Washington state has one size fits all marriage - if you meet the age/consent requirement, you get a license and submit a marriage document. The thousand or so marriage rights are granted to that couple. Done.

The state doesn't care either way about the religious component. If you want to add that, that's all you.

Is a system like Washington's the kind you support?



karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2014 - 11:02pm PT
There are so many interesting points here.
Here a little fuel for the fire

http://www.takepart.com/lastcall




bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 27, 2014 - 08:11pm PT
I'm having some difficulty resolving the 'equality' concept here.

Marriage is a state and federal issue - it's a contract with tax, guardianship, property, and immigration considerations (to name just a few).

Washington state has one size fits all marriage - if you meet the age/consent requirement, you get a license and submit a marriage document. The thousand or so marriage rights are granted to that couple. Done.

The state doesn't care either way about the religious component. If you want to add that, that's all you.

Is a system like Washington's the kind you support?


No I do not support that personally. And if I had my way, it would be as I said, equal treatment of civil-unions and religious matrimony, or marriage.

Liberals always try to dilute things, or push things their way, by changing the definition of words, or mis-using them. The ACA is a good example of this. They rebrand things because that's the only way they know they'll 'sell'.

I'd also support getting marriage and civil unions away from the hands of the IRS and most others.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 27, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
Damn that 14th Amendment. First the blacks, then the women, now this.

I still can't tease any logic out of your justification of Jim Crow for gays with regards to marriage, what you mean by 'dilution' - other than another word for 'inferior' ('bigotry' where I'm from - we prefer cutting to the chase), or why two essentially identical laws would make any sense whatsoever for anyone, but it looks like things are going in favor of equality so I reckon I really don't have to bother.

The courts have ruled that the whole 'marriage under threat from d gays' idea is complete bullshit - quite the opposite - they've ruled that preventing gays from marrying goes against the state's interest to ensure that children are raised within the secure, stable environment that marriage can provide.

In other words, marriage bans actually threaten marriage.

No sh#t, Sherlock.

Doh!

Sanskara

climber
Mar 27, 2014 - 08:42pm PT
Hahahhahahahhahhahhahhahhahhah I can't stop.....
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 27, 2014 - 09:28pm PT
Tvash, you're using the typical, 'you're a racist', meme. It's predictable.

Most people want marriage and civil unions separated by definition, but granting equal rights to both. And it almost is hypocritical to my previous replay, unless you dig into the history of marriage and the meaning it has to Western culture, and even more so to Eastern cultures.

Is it any wonder that most AMericans want marriage defined as being between a man and woman. Civil unions are granted to those whose choose to not use the Church. It is sacred to the Church.

The 'equal protection' arguement is bullshit because gays and others are still granted the same 'equality' by the Fed and the States with civil unions.

Can we be honest that this is an intentional slam on the Christian Church, as usual. To force abortion, contraceptives, gays, et al. onto people who don't want it.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 28, 2014 - 12:07am PT
Go to your church and leave the rest of us and our laws out of it.

1st Amendment.

I'm against bigotry. The Christians are it's number one practitioners in America. They seek to impose that on everyone. It's the Borg with a crucifix.

F*#k that. No cults and the human misery, ignorance, and discrimination that they cause, thanks.

When Christians start acting Christ-like and keep their cult out of public policy, I'll be fine with them.

Live and let live.



bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 28, 2014 - 12:31am PT
Go to your church and leave the rest of us and our laws out of it.

1st Amendment.

Coundn't agree more!

I'm against bigotry. The Christians are it's number one practitioners in America. They seek to impose that on everyone. It's the Borg with a crucifix.

F*#k that. No cults and the human misery, ignorance, and discrimination that they cause, thanks.

I wonder if you would say that about Muslims? Do you know how many provisions we have in place to 'accommodate' their religious beliefs? Do you know how far we have bent over for THAT religion?

When Christians start acting Christ-like and keep their cult out of public policy, I'll be fine with them.

Live and let live.


That's usually how Christians roll. It becomes a problem when the Federal gov't start telling Christians how they are to act, and how they have to practice their healthcare.

Wouldn't you call that contrary to the 1st Amendment?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 31, 2014 - 10:40am PT
Disturbing revelations about Canada's Harper government and its tactics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/opinion/is-canada-tarring-itself.html?hpw&rref=opinion
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Mar 31, 2014 - 11:05am PT
^^ Thanks, Tvash! Good summary of Canada under the Harper regime - Canada, the environmental pariah!

Harper is a (not so undercover) Christian, who thinks God is watching over his rule.

Btw, every Canadian I know calls it the tar sands.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 31, 2014 - 11:14am PT
I'm against bigotry. The Christians are it's number one practitioners in America. They seek to impose that on everyone. It's the Borg with a crucifix.

I wonder if you would say that about Muslims? Do you know how many provisions we have in place to 'accommodate' their religious beliefs? Do you know how far we have bent over for THAT religion?

It becomes a problem when the Federal gov't start telling Christians how they are to act, and how they have to practice their healthcare.

Wouldn't you call that contrary to the 1st Amendment?

I oppose bigotry wrapped in any cloak, religious or otherwise. Muslims in America are not actively advocating in any measurable way for repressive laws based on cult doctrine. Christians are. That, and reread the 1st sentence: "In America". We don't have many Muslims in America, and I'm not nearly as familiar with that religion as practiced here as I am with Christianity - of which I am very familiar, having been raised one, etc.

The seconds sentence is pure Newspeak. Christianity seeks to prevent 6% or so of the American population from marrying the person they love. There is zero imposition when a gay couple in Seattle gets married to a Baptist Church in Mobile. Zero. And there is no law, existing or proposed, that forces any church to marry anyone with its walls. That is a strawman.

But hospitals and businesses aren't churches. They serve the general public, and, in the case of hospitals, are very often the only entity in a region that provides critical services. They are therefore appropriately subject to a variety of laws - including anti-discrimination laws. Just as Denny's must serve African Americans, so must Hobby Lobby sell model trains to gay people and hospitals provide all the services required by the ACA. That is the promise of the 14th Amendment. To enable religions to cherry pick the laws they want to adhere to would be a gross violation of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause, given that all such businesses maintain numerous relationships (grants, taxes, regulations, contracts) with the Federal Government.

I should also mention the gross injustice of religious tax exemption here. Why should a Catholic hospital chain use the huge financial advantage of religious tax exemption to gobble up disadvantaged private hospitals - then add insult to injury buy cutting the vital family planning services that private hospital once provided the community?


Hey religions: If the primary purpose of your organization is worship - hands off. Do what you like.

If, however, the primary purpose is commercial profit or providing services to the community - hospitals, etc - sticking a cross on the side of the building should not enable you to discriminate and cherry pick the laws you like while ignoring those you don't. Guess what - you get to act just like your non-religious competitors. Anything else constitutes the State favoring religiously owned businesses, and that's classic Establishment of Religion - and not what this secular democracy is about.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 31, 2014 - 11:48am PT
It's a sidebar - with apologies.

I'm just rather, um, passionate with regards to beating back centuries of bigotry cloaked in religion in this country.

We can treat each other better than that. We've put up with religious bigotry for too long - that once sacred cow is now being seen for what it has been all along, and the picture is not pretty.

If you advocate having the State prohibit a couple you'll never meet 3000 miles away from marrying each other, you're not exactly practicing 'live and let live' - at all.

That, in fact, is exactly what bigotry does - it inflicts human misery on others - it is a tangible, physical manifestation of hatred, but it always has an excuse - the most well-worn of which "God Told Us To".

Carry a cross wrapped in a flag as one might - injustice is injustice.

karen roseme

Mountain climber
san diego
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2014 - 09:59am PT
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/no_keystone_xl/index.html

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/NAT_KXL_Petition.htm?gclid=CIyNwYTFpr4CFWVp7Aod3xEA2Q

http://www.change.org/petitions/urge-the-senate-to-stop-the-risky-keystone-xl-pipeline

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/

http://act.350.org/sign/tar-sands/

http://pol.moveon.org/pac/keystoneno/letter.html?id=-1145215-PEBLz7x&from_version=shadowbox2

sign them if you care
sandstone conglomerate

climber
sharon conglomerate central
May 12, 2014 - 12:20pm PT
ah, imminent domain. put there to show you that you truly don't own the land, even if you have the title in your hand. Talk about a loop hole.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 15, 2014 - 08:48pm PT
Spider Savage

Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
May 15, 2014 - 08:58pm PT
Sweet oil spill in Glendale today.

Few people know about the crude oil pipeline running from Bakersfield to Long Beach. It runs right through the nicer middle class neighborhoods in Burbank.

Fortunately the "malfunction" was in an industrial area in Glendale and not some canyon out there where it would have run for hours before being discovered.

Pretty big mess. Sprayed crude all over the outside of this strip joint. Lotta joke potential there.




I still don't get why they don't just refine it at the edge of the oil field.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 15, 2014 - 09:04pm PT
where it would have run for hours before being discovered.

Al those pipelines are monitored 24/7 by SCADA systems.

The pressure drop and shut down would have occurred in milliseconds.

The volume of the spill was determined by the volume and grade (elevation differences) of the pipe.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 15, 2014 - 09:12pm PT
Tvash,

I'm against bigotry. The Christians are it's number one practitioners in America. They seek to impose that on everyone. It's the Borg with a crucifix.

Well, that's an easy statement to make, "I'm against bigotry". Feel good about yourself now after insinuating that all Christians are bigots? Do you know that Christians are the #1 bigots in the country? How?


I oppose bigotry wrapped in any cloak, religious or otherwise. Muslims in America are not actively advocating in any measurable way for repressive laws based on cult doctrine. Christians are. That, and reread the 1st sentence: "In America". We don't have many Muslims in America, and I'm not nearly as familiar with that religion as practiced here as I am with Christianity - of which I am very familiar, having been raised one, etc.

So you're saying that American Christians are more bigoted than Muslims? Did you know that Muslims actually kill Christians and homos just based on their proclivities on a far wider scale? Even in the US and Canada! They're called 'honor-killings'.

The seconds sentence is pure Newspeak. Christianity seeks to prevent 6% or so of the American population from marrying the person they love. There is zero imposition when a gay couple in Seattle gets married to a Baptist Church in Mobile. Zero. And there is no law, existing or proposed, that forces any church to marry anyone with its walls. That is a strawman.

Kinda true. Are you familiar with Federalism? That is, the right of a State to modify it's constitution if it doesn't violate Federal law? I think you are calling the majority of Californians bigots as well.


But hospitals and businesses aren't churches. They serve the general public, and, in the case of hospitals, are very often the only entity in a region that provides critical services. They are therefore appropriately subject to a variety of laws - including anti-discrimination laws. Just as Denny's must serve African Americans, so must Hobby Lobby sell model trains to gay people and hospitals provide all the services required by the ACA. That is the promise of the 14th Amendment. To enable religions to cherry pick the laws they want to adhere to would be a gross violation of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause, given that all such businesses maintain numerous relationships (grants, taxes, regulations, contracts) with the Federal Government.

Why are so many others granted exemptions to the ACA as well? And I think a private business does have the right to refuse business on religious grounds. Muslim cabbies in New York? Amish? Just not those stupid bigoted Christions?
okie

Trad climber
May 15, 2014 - 09:13pm PT
The Koch Bros stole oil from the Osage Indians in Oklahoma. They are thieves. Most of us would be in prison if we stole but on a macro scale it's forgivable in this country by the powers that be. Obama has actually prosecuted less white collar crime than dubya did.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 15, 2014 - 09:27pm PT
Yeah, let's make sure Warren's trains keep moving.


WASHINGTON — More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents last year than was spilled in the nearly four decades since the federal government began collecting data on such spills, an analysis of the data shows.

Including major derailments in Alabama and North Dakota, more than 1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled from rail cars in 2013, according to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

By comparison, from 1975 to 2012, U.S. railroads spilled a combined 800,000 gallons of crude oil. The spike underscores new concerns about the safety of such shipments as rail has become the preferred mode for oil producers amid a North American energy boom.

The federal data does not include incidents in Canada where oil spilled from trains. Canadian authorities estimate that more than 1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, on July 6, when a runaway train derailed and exploded, killing 47 people. The cargo originated in North Dakota.

Nearly 750,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from a train on Nov. 8 near Aliceville, Ala. The train also originated in North Dakota and caught fire after it derailed in a swampy area. No one was injured or killed.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration doesn’t yet have spill data from a Dec. 30 derailment near Casselton, N.D. But the National Transportation Safety Board, which is the lead investigator in that incident, estimates that more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled there. Though no one was injured or killed, the intense fire forced most of Casselton’s 2,400 residents to evacuate in subzero temperatures

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/20/215143/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in.html#storylink=cpy
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 15, 2014 - 11:27pm PT
The Koch Bros stole oil from the Osage Indians in Oklahoma. They are thieves. Most of us would be in prison if we stole but on a macro scale it's forgivable in this country by the powers that be. Obama has actually prosecuted less white collar crime than dubya did.


Do you have anything to say about Clinton/Gore selling off the Strategic Naval Oil Reserves at Elk Hills? It was a "no-bid" deal to Occidental, Gore's former buddies.

Conflict of interest much?

And I'm sure the Osage Indians were duly compensated for the oil. Stealing?
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
May 16, 2014 - 02:05am PT
oxi out bid like 20 companies, including Chevron et al. What no bid contract? TGT is right about the trains, pipelines are much safer. That said, chemicals WAY more hazardous than crude are moved around by train every day.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
May 16, 2014 - 07:57pm PT
ontheedge, you're correct that Oxi was the high bidder, but to replace the oil would have cost double. It was a sweet deal for Oxi, bad deal for gov't and taxpayers.
“The government had already decided to sell out, regardless of what they thought they could get . . . because it was a political decision,” said Jerome Hinkle, a senior planner in the Department of Energy’s Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. That office, known as NPOSR, was the DOE office in charge of Elk Hills; it continues to manage other properties originally set up to ensure naval fuel supplies. “Given the narrow conditions of the way the auction was conducted, yes, Oxy paid a fair price,” Hinkle said of the deal. “But given its replacement value and what the government could have gotten [the public didn’t necessarily get a good deal].”

from here; http://www.publicintegrity.org/2000/10/27/3260/did-taxpayers-lose-deal-oil-field

Gore's a hypocrite.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
May 16, 2014 - 08:41pm PT
Look up Tea Pot Dome if you want to see a scandal (1920s). The government is now divesting that field as well cause it's not economic for the gov to operate it. I only ever heard about any of this on npr the other day.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
May 16, 2014 - 09:05pm PT
Al those pipelines are monitored 24/7 by SCADA systems.

The pressure drop and shut down would have occurred in milliseconds.

Really? I hope you don't believe in the tooth fairy too.

Theoretically, that IS what SHOULD happen, but Enbridge has proven they are incompetent, can repeatedly screw up completely, and then lie about it afterwards. This is the company that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline to send tar sands oil across B.C. destined for China.

Am pasting below details from the NTSB investigation of the Kalamazoo pipeline rupture in 2010, whereby "a 30 inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B) owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated ruptured and spilled crude oil into an ecologically sensitive area near the Kalamazoo River in Marshall, Mich., for 17 hours until a local utility worker discovered the oil and contacted Enbridge to report the rupture."

The control center was in Edmonton, Alberta, btw., thousands of miles from the spill.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120710.html

NTSB Press Release

National Transportation Safety Board
Office of Public Affairs
Pipeline Rupture and Oil Spill Accident Caused by Organizational Failures and Weak Regulations
July 10, 2012

WASHINGTON - Pervasive organizational failures by a pipeline operator along with weak federal regulations led to a pipeline rupture and subsequent oil spill in 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board said today.

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m., a 30 inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B) owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated ruptured and spilled crude oil into an ecologically sensitive area near the Kalamazoo River in Marshall, Mich., for 17 hours until a local utility worker discovered the oil and contacted Enbridge to report the rupture.

The NTSB found that the material failure of the pipeline was the result of multiple small corrosion-fatigue cracks that over time grew in size and linked together, creating a gaping breach in the pipe measuring over 80 inches long.

"This investigation identified a complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge. Their employees performed like Keystone Kops and failed to recognize their pipeline had ruptured and continued to pump crude into the environment," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "Despite multiple alarms and a loss of pressure in the pipeline, for more than 17 hours and through three shifts they failed to follow their own shutdown procedures."

Clean up costs are estimated by Enbridge and the EPA at $800 million and counting, making the Marshall rupture the single most expensive on-shore spill in US history.

Over 840,000 gallons of crude oil - enough to fill 120 tanker trucks - spilled into hundreds of acres of Michigan wetlands, fouling a creek and a river. A Michigan Department of Community Health study concluded that over 300 individuals suffered adverse health effects related to benzene exposure, a toxic component of crude oil.

Line 6B had been scheduled for a routine shutdown at the time of the rupture to accommodate changing delivery schedules. Following the shutdown, operators in the Enbridge control room in Edmonton, Alberta, received multiple alarms indicating a problem with low pressure in the pipeline, which were dismissed as being caused by factors other than a rupture. "Inadequate training of control center personnel" was cited as contributing to the accident.

The investigation found that Enbridge failed to accurately assess the structural integrity of the pipeline, including correctly analyzing cracks that required repair. The NTSB characterized Enbridge's control room operations, leak detection, and environmental response as deficient, and described the event as an "organizational accident."

Following the first alarm, Enbridge controllers restarted Line 6B twice, pumping an additional 683,000 gallons of crude oil, or 81 percent of the total amount spilled, through the ruptured pipeline. The NTSB determined that if Enbridge's own procedures had been followed during the initial phases of the accident, the magnitude of the spill would have been significantly reduced. Further, the NTSB attributed systemic flaws in operational decision-making to a "culture of deviance," which concluded that personnel had a developed an operating culture in which not adhering to approved procedures and protocols was normalized.

The NTSB also cited the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's weak regulations regarding pipeline assessment and repair criteria as well as a cursory review of Enbridge's oil spill response plan as contributing to the magnitude of the accident.

The investigation revealed that the cracks in Line 6B that ultimately ruptured were detected by Enbridge in 2005 but were not repaired. A further examination of records revealed that Enbridge's crack assessment process was inadequate, increasing the risk of a rupture.

"This accident is a wake-up call to the industry, the regulator, and the public. Enbridge knew for years that this section of the pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn't act on that information," said Chairman Hersman. "Likewise, for the regulator to delegate too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house. Regulators need regulations and practices with teeth, and the resources to enable them to take corrective action before a spill. Not just after."

As a result of the investigation, the NTSB reiterated one recommendation to PHMSA and issued 17 new safety recommendations to the Department of the Transportation, PHMSA, Enbridge Incorporated, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Emergency Number Association.

A synopsis of the NTSB report, including the probable cause, findings, and a complete list of the safety recommendations, is available at http://go.usa.gov/wsO. The full report will be available on the website in several weeks.

NTSB Media Contact:
Office of Public Affairs
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594
(202) 314-6100
Peter Knudson
peter.knudson@ntsb.gov

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/probe-of-enbridge-spill-uncovers-concerns/article4198178/

A U.S. probe into the rupture of an Enbridge Inc. pipeline uncovered concerns about rapid staff turnover and lack of experience among the company’s Edmonton control-room staff.......
couchmaster

climber
Oct 8, 2014 - 12:37pm PT
Good news bad news post.

First news) the Keystone pipeline will most likely not be built now.

Second bit of news) Canada has figured out how to route it to their own east coast, ensuring that they can sell it directly to Europe at a higher price.

Third point: To the detriment of the US, Canada keeps more money in their pocket.
"With the U.S. virtually its only buyer, the captive Canadians are subject to price discounts of as much as $43 a barrel that cost Canada $20 billion a year."


"Keystone Be Darned: Canada Finds a Surprise Pipeline Route


So you're the Canadian oil industry and you do what you think is a great thing by developing a mother lode of heavy crude beneath the forests and muskeg of northern Alberta. The plan is to send it clear to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast via a pipeline called Keystone XL. Just a few years back, America desperately wanted that oil.

Then one day the politics get sticky. In Nebraska, farmers don't want the pipeline running through their fields or over their water source. U.S. environmentalists invoke global warming in protesting the project. President Barack Obama keeps siding with them, delaying and delaying approval. From the Canadian perspective, Keystone has become a tractor mired in an interminably muddy field.


In this period of national gloom comes an idea -- a crazy-sounding notion, or maybe, actually, an epiphany. How about an all-Canadian route to liberate that oil sands crude from Alberta's isolation and America's fickleness? Canada's own environmental and aboriginal politics are holding up a shorter and cheaper pipeline to the Pacific that would supply a shipping portal to oil-thirsty Asia.

Instead, go east, all the way to the Atlantic.


Thus was born Energy East, an improbable pipeline that its backers say has a high probability of being built. It will cost C$12 billion ($10.7 billion) and could be up and running by 2018. Its 4,600-kilometer (2,858-mile) path, taking advantage of a vast length of existing and underused natural gas pipeline, would wend through six provinces and four time zones. It would be Keystone on steroids, more than twice as long and carrying a third more crude.
Supertanker Access

Its end point, a refinery in the blue-collar city of Saint John, New Brunswick, operated by a reclusive Canadian billionaire family, would give Canada's oil-sands crude supertanker access to the same Louisiana and Texas refineries Keystone was meant to supply.



As well, Vladimir Putin's provocations in Ukraine are spurring interest in that oil from Europe and, strange as it seems, Saint John provides among the fastest shipping times to India of any oil port in North America. Indian companies, having already sampled this crude, are interested in more. That means oil-sands production for the first time would trade in more than dribs and drabs on the international markets. With the U.S. virtually its only buyer, the captive Canadians are subject to price discounts of as much as $43 a barrel that cost Canada $20 billion a year.

And if you're a fed-up Canadian, like Prime Minister Stephen Harper, there's a bonus: Obama can't do a single thing about it.
Done Deal

"The best way to get Keystone XL built is to make it irrelevant," said Frank McKenna, who served three terms as premier of New Brunswick and was ambassador to the U.S. before becoming a banker.

So confident is TransCanada Corp., the chief backer of both Keystone and Energy East, of success that Alex Pourbaix, the executive in charge, spoke of the cross-Canada line as virtually a done deal.

"With one project," Energy East will give Alberta's oil sands not only an outlet to "eastern Canadian markets but to global markets," said Pourbaix. "And we've done so at scale, with a 1.1 million barrel per day pipeline, which will go a long way to removing the specter of those big differentials for many years to come."

The project still faces political hurdles. U.S. and international greens who hate Keystone may not like this any better. In Quebec, where most new construction will occur, a homegrown environmental movement is already asking tough questions.
Special Relationship

Still, if this end run around the Keystone holdup comes to fruition, it would give a lift to Canadian oil and government interests who feel they're being played by Obama as he sweeps aside a long understood "special relationship" between the world's two biggest trading partners to score political points with environmental supporters at home.

It will also prove a blow to the environmentalists who have made central to the anti-Keystone arguments the concept that if Keystone can be stopped, most of that polluting heavy crude will stay in the ground. "It's always been clear that denying it or slowing Keystone wasn't going to stop the flow of Canadian oil," said Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Keystone Delays

This Canada-only idea surfaced in the days after Obama's surprise Nov. 10, 2011, phone call informing Prime Minister Harper that Keystone was on hold. Harper, who had vowed to turn his nation into an energy superpower, responded with a two-track strategy: Get in Obama's face on Keystone and identify other ways out for Canada's land-locked oil sands, which, at 168 billion proven barrels, contain the third-largest reserves in the world.

Keystone remains bogged down, awaiting the outcome of litigation in Nebraska. Last year, Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University and said he wouldn't approve Keystone if it would significantly exacerbate carbon dioxide emissions.

The pipeline to the Pacific, known as Northern Gateway, looks increasingly iffy due to opposition from aboriginal groups.

TransCanada is thus expected to file an application to build Energy East with Canada's National Energy Board in the coming days, according to people familiar with the plan. Approval may come in early 2016. "This is almost certainly the most important project TransCanada has right now in our portfolio," said Pourbaix.


While Republicans continue to make Keystone approval an issue of the mid-term congressional elections, its fate has become less fraught for Canadians. Make no mistake –- they still want it approved under the theory that oil sands reserves are so vast that it will require multiple large pipelines to develop them properly. In the interim, they have already begun to deploy alternatives to get Alberta oil to market, moving 160,000 barrels a day to the U.S. by rail.

Canada needs another oil export pipeline by 2018 or output may be squeezed, Martin King, a commodity analyst at FirstEnergy Capital Corp. in Calgary, said today in a presentation.

"That's crunch time," King said. "Supply growth in the oil sands is certain to 2020."
‘Real Shift'

Reflecting this new post-Keystone mood, Harper told a British business audience in September that the U.S. "is unlikely to be a fast-growing economy for many years to come" and after a hundred years of trying to maximize exports south, it's time for "a real shift in the mindset of Canadian business culture."

Which is what Energy East represents. Yet before it emerged as a standard bearer of this shift, it had to survive a rough gestation. Harper himself was slow to warm to it. Others declared it "stranger than science fiction."

And then there were the mutual suspicions of the oil producers of the west and the refiners of the east to overcome. The inside story of how this developed into an unusually broad political consensus was put together after interviews with more than 50 industry and government executives who have been in and around the often tense negotiations.


One initial difficulty: The Calgary-based oil patch and New Brunswick's Irving Oil Ltd., operators of Canada's largest refinery and 900 service stations in eastern Canada and New England, had virtually no history with each other. Alberta oil had never flowed farther than Montreal. They were petroleum potentates operating in separate spheres who might as well have been in separate countries.

The Calgary crowd had a lot to learn about the Irvings. Besides extensive Canadian holdings ranging from timber to tissues and shipbuilding to radio stations, this clan of aw-shucks billionaires from the poorest region of the country supplies 60 percent of the gasoline in the greater Boston area. They are the fifth-largest private landholder in the U.S., with tracts sufficient to cover four-fifths of Delaware. Their fortune has been calculated by Bloomberg News at more than $10 billion.
Falling Out

For Arthur Irving, who gained control of the family oil assets after a falling out among his brothers a few years earlier, word that an eastward pipeline was afoot was a godsend. It held out the promise of a career-capping crowning achievement, not to mention long-term profits -– if only the oil executives from the west saw it his way.

They didn't. Arthur Irving and his company had quickly sown discord in Calgary with their steadfast resistance to commit to take a set number of barrels from Energy East, according to people with knowledge of the controversy. As far as the oil producers could discern, Arthur wanted the option to take crude at will, as he had done for years in picking the most favorable sources of foreign oil at a given moment. Before they would entertain a decades-long arrangement, the producers insisted Irving would have to put skin in the game.

Even more critical was the terminal, from where much of the pipeline capacity would be exported. The Irvings dominated traffic in and out of the port of Saint John. The Calgary producers bristled that Irving was demanding too much money for putting their crude "the last mile" through his sprawling facility.


The oil drillers also worried that Irving Oil, situated alone at the end of the line, would hold too much sway over them. They wanted more than a single outlet. Many preferred stopping the line in Quebec and exporting on smaller ships from there, cutting Irving Oil out altogether, or at least reducing its leverage.

According to people close to the talks who aren't authorized to speak, Arthur Irving, in turn, was livid that TransCanada, in a bid to pacify the producers, was weighing an export terminal of its own -- right on his home turf. The Irvings depended on the port like no other, loading and unloading about 400 ships a year. Arthur couldn't stomach the idea of outsiders operating there.

It was in that frame of mind that on June 18, 2013, the then-82-year-old was in Toronto on business with Paul Browning, the new Irving Oil chief executive officer. His frustration burbling away, Irving decided he needed the assistance of one person.


When they called that morning, Frank McKenna was at his desk at the Toronto-Dominion Bank headquarters. Irving and Browning hurried over. Irving had come to the right man. McKenna had staked first claim as the project's philosophical father. On Nov. 28, 18 days after Obama's call to Harper, McKenna -- stunned like many Canadians at the Keystone delay -- floated the notion of going east in an op-ed in the National Post newspaper. He liked the "nation building" politics of linking Alberta's prosperity to Atlantic Canada's potential. "The Keystone XL delay has shocked us," he wrote. "Hopefully, it has also energized us."

McKenna, vice chairman of TD, began working the phones. With six years under his belt at Canada's largest bank and a board seat on one of Calgary's most successful energy companies, he knew the inner workings of Alberta's oil patch almost as well as his native New Brunswick. By evening, with advice gleaned from McKenna, Browning boarded a flight to Calgary on a mission to put things back on track.


Just as Obama's delays on Keystone was worrisome for the Canadians, so was America's shale boom. Irving Oil's CEO at the time of Energy East's conception, Mike Ashar, and TransCanada's Pourbaix could foresee the disruption pounding their businesses and had even discussed the concept of shipping oil east.

Pourbaix had come to appreciate that shale gas, by depressing prices, was discouraging new gas investment in Alberta while the Marcellus and Utica formations in Pennsylvania could compete to supply the lucrative Ontario market. Together, these developments would curtail usage of the company's historic gas mainline from Alberta to Montreal -- an ambitious and controversial nation-building exercise of its own in the late 1950s.


Energy East offered potential salvation by converting that gas line -- which would comprise two-thirds of the route -- to take advantage of "the incredible growth projections" for the oil sands, said Pourbaix. "Even with Keystone, even with Gateway, it was becoming quite clear that producers probably needed another way to get their oil to market."

On the other end of the country, Irving Oil fretted that its refinery was starting to be elbowed out by U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast competitors. Long accustomed to picking and choosing among imported crudes, it now watched as rivals profited from access to cheaper shale and oil sands production from the interior of the continent.

"We went from being an advantaged refiner from a crude supply point of view to being disadvantaged," Browning, who succeeded Ashar, said in an interview in August. (Two weeks after that interview, he would, without explanation, depart the company after only 16 months on the job.)

The Irvings had a lot on the line. Their empire dated to 1924, when K.C. Irving began building out from the foundation of his father's general store in Bouctouche, New Brunswick. Soon, he operated filling stations and car dealerships and snapped up timber lands and shipbuilding yards.


In 1960, he opened a refinery on the Saint John waterfront in a partnership with Standard Oil Co. of California, a predecessor of Chevron Corp. (CVX) The Irvings took full ownership of the facility in 1988, investing heavily over the years in expanded capacity and state-of-the-art technology.

In 2000, Arthur handed the controls to his son Kenneth, a 17-year veteran of Irving Oil. Kenneth, now 53, built a liquefied natural gas import terminal on the Saint John waterfront with Repsol SA (REP) and announced plans in 2006 for a second refinery, with BP Plc coming aboard as a partner in the C$8 billion project.

After the recession hit in 2008, the Irving world changed radically. The brothers fell out and divvied up the family assets, the refinery expansion was shelved and, in 2010, Kenneth took stress leave and checked into a Boston hospital, people close to the family said.


In short order, he was banished from Irving Oil and deprived of contact with the father he worshipped, ending up, according to documents on file in the Supreme Court of Bermuda, on the losing end of a Shakespearean court fight in which he sought a greater share of the Irving trust. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley described it as a battle between "a strong patriarch and an equally strong-willed son...infused with deep-seated emotions of an intensity rarely seen outside of familial relationships."

Kenneth Irving didn't comment for this story and Arthur Irving declined an in-person request for an interview and didn't respond to follow-UNp calls and an e-mail.

Negotiations with Arthur Irving were bound to be interesting. He was a man known for his idiosyncrasies. Finding something inappropriate about FM radios, he agitated to have them removed from company vehicles, said a person familiar with the company. He constantly griped about a convenience-store chain operating out of Irving service stations because he believed the chain didn't clean bathrooms to Irving standards.


With his son in exile, Arthur promoted Ashar, previously recruited by Kenneth from industry stalwart Suncor Energy Inc. (SU), as CEO. Ashar's bona fides in Calgary made him the perfect guy to advocate for an eastern pipeline.

It's almost 5,000 highway kilometers from the eastern edge of Alberta to the western edge of New Brunswick and as far as many Albertans were concerned, it might as well be the distance to the moon, so little was their knowledge. Ashar set about educating them.

He promoted Saint John's deep-water, ice-free port, Irving Oil's long experience in handling huge volumes of crude coming into the country and the fact any energy project in Saint John could make use of environmental permits left over from the scrubbed refinery.


And there was yet something else, once again counter-intuitive. Saint John was closer in shipping days than Vancouver to India's refinery row, where incipient interest was being expressed about Alberta's oil. When challenged at one meeting in Calgary, New Brunswick Energy Minister Craig Leonard pulled out a map to prove the point. Harper's own Natural Resources Minister at the time, Joe Oliver, was still dubious and ordered his officials to check for themselves before he would believe it.

The Indians turned out to be better informed than the Albertans. When various Canadian cabinet ministers visited Indian oil companies such as Reliance Industries Inc. (RIL) and Indian Oil Corp. (IOCL) they were astounded by the depth of knowledge about Energy East, including its shipping advantages, according to those who were there.

At one such meeting, a Reliance executive assured the Canadians his refinery could handle Alberta's tarry bitumen. How could he be so sure? The company had already procured a tanker of the stuff from a terminal in Burnaby, British Columbia, and ran it through the facility. Both Ashar and Browning have visited the Indian refiners and Indian Oil has since signed a letter of intent with an Alberta supplier, assuming Energy East will be built.


The politics were also lining up. Energy East would become the only major pipeline proposal to win the support of all of Canada's major political parties.

The province of New Brunswick, though home to an anti-fracking movement, found economic reasons to back the project. Its unemployment rate, at almost 9 percent, runs chronically higher than most of the rest of Canada. Many breadwinners regularly commute across the country to work in the oil sands.

Former New Brunswick Premier David Alward -- voted out in elections last month in part because of his pro-fracking stance -- joined as an early and strong force in favor of Energy East and, with the help of McKenna, brought along his Liberal Party opponents. He understood firsthand the frustrations of those flying in and flying out of Alberta. His 24-year-old son, Ben, spends two of every three weeks working as a pipe fitter around the oil-sands hub of Fort McMurray.

Alward, during an interview, spoke as a father when he said that while a job in the oil sands afforded his son an "incredible opportunity... we've got a little farm at home and his passion is here, it's not in Alberta." About 20,000 New Brunswick workers are in the same situation, he said. Once, on the way home from an Alberta trip promoting Energy East, Alward found himself getting high-fived in the aisle of the plane by a group of these itinerant workers excited the project could create jobs and allow them to go to work in the morning and home to their families at night.

Harper himself was initially non-committal on Energy East, eager for an alternative around Obama's Keystone foot-dragging but uncertain that the project was technically and economically feasible. He didn't want to put his prestige on the line if the oil patch and Irving couldn't make it work.


With eight of New Brunswick's 10 seats in the House of Commons, Conservative Party members of parliament pushed him to get out front. Noel Kinsella, the speaker of the Senate and a Saint John native, hosted a meeting around the dining room table of his Ottawa chambers. The province's Conservative Party contingent drafted a private March 22 letter to Harper urging "a proactive approach" that would "build a consensus with the governments in the six provinces the pipeline will span."

Though not a man prone to cross-province consensus-building, Harper liked this turn of events. Before assuming office, he had critiqued what he labeled "a culture of defeat" in New Brunswick and Canada's Atlantic region as a whole. Provinces there, he thought, were far too dependent on government programs. Suddenly, here was a market-based plan to generate economic activity that would benefit New Brunswick, where his father had grown up, as well as his own home province of Alberta, according to those who know his thinking.


As he moved toward supporting Energy East, Harper had his office arrange a secret meeting for April 11 with oil patch executives, Arthur Irving and others with an interest in Energy East. The stakes were high, he told the group. Keystone was faltering and the Northern Gateway would be a tough sell. Setting out what sounded like a challenge to get Energy East moving, he asked what can be done to get this oil to market, said Andrew Dawson, an Atlantic Canadian trade union official who attended the meeting.

Jason MacDonald, Harper's director of communications, said the government supports the "diversification of markets for our resources." Harper declined to comment for this story.

Others shared Harper's original reticence, notably Calgary's biggest energy producers for whom transporting Alberta oil cross-country to Saint John was testing imaginations. Many preferred terminating the line in Quebec, where they had long operated, and then assessing later if it made sense to proceed to the Atlantic coast.

This sentiment drove McKenna to distraction. As premier of New Brunswick from 1987 to 1997, he had watched neighboring Quebec's modus operandi up close. Once the pipeline paused there, he argued, the province would hold enough leverage to ensure it never went beyond. You couldn't cross a chasm in two bounds.


Executives of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNQ), the nation's largest heavy oil producer, were among those who wanted to go no further than Quebec City. Chairman Murray Edwards, who wields great influence among his oil patch peers, warned at one meeting that he'd be watching to make sure Irving Oil didn't get too greedy, according to a person in the room that day.

Edwards, in response to a Bloomberg News query, said he said no such thing. Rather, he argued that both Quebec and New Brunswick needed to realize tangible benefits from the line and that the best way to ensure shipments "will not be held hostage to the Irving refinery" was to make sure they had export options.

"From Day 1, I've always been of the view these issues had to be addressed -- benefits to the provinces the pipeline terminates in and that barrels are not held to ransom," he said.

McKenna just happened to sit on the board of Edwards's company. In the end, Canadian Natural agreed that it would commit equal amounts of Energy East oil to Quebec and Saint John.


The best argument in favor of going to Saint John turned out to be going to Saint John. The Irving facilities were spotless and nothing like the stereotypical 1950s-style belchers of noxious fumes. For Alison Redford, Alberta's premier at the time, the ah-ha moment came watching from a helicopter as a moored supertanker unloaded its shipment into a buoy connected to underwater pipes that carried the crude ashore. Irving Oil has capacity to store six million barrels and handle the world's biggest ultra-large crude carriers.

"To see that, I knew that was essentially the key to Alberta being able to unlock a competitive price for its oil," she said.


By the time Arthur Irving dropped in on McKenna in June, the Energy East game was into late innings –- and still in danger of falling apart. TransCanada had reached its official deadline the previous day on a so-called open season during which it sought long-term commitments from producers. Arthur Irving had removed one hurdle by consenting to take a minimum 50,000 barrels a day for his refinery (a figure Irving Oil would later increase.)

On June 19, Irving's Browning sat down with TransCanada's Pourbaix to work through the final sticking point -- the inordinate influence Irving could exercise through its control of the end of the line. Should anything go wrong at the terminal, the refinery would become the only conceivable buyer and could force distressed pricing on them.

TransCanada -- much to Arthur Irving's annoyance –- had worked around him by quietly winning the provincial government's assurance of land if it proved necessary to build its own terminal, according to people familiar with the plan. At that June 19 meeting, the company backed off, agreeing to form a 50-50 joint venture with Irving Oil, with Irving as the operating partner. In exchange, TransCanada won an assurance that the producers would not be held ransom.


Open season was closed. TransCanada had made it known that the pipeline needed 500,000 to 600,000 barrels a day to be viable. Commitments grew to 900,000 barrels, including oil that would exit the pipeline at Quebec.

As TransCanada readies to file its regulatory application, challenges still exist. Quebec, as a hydro-electric superpower, has developed a strong green mindset even as it stands to benefit most from Energy East's new construction, gain refinery jobs and turn inward shipments of imported oil from places like Algeria and Angola into exports up the St. Lawrence River. The oil sands at the other end of the line are alien to its political culture.

Quebec would get a small export terminal out of the deal. Environmentalists are warily eyeing TransCanada's proposed location as well as the need for the line to cross the St. Lawrence, a major source of drinking water, recreation and commerce. A Quebec judge temporarily shut down TransCanada's exploratory work on the terminal site until beluga whales clear the area in mid-October.


"It would be wrong to think this will be a slam dunk for TransCanada and that the Quebec government will just rubber stamp it," said Steven Guilbeault, senior director of the Montreal-based environmental group, Equiterre.

For its part, TransCanada, slow to respond to Nebraskan concerns that the route crossed a sensitive aquifer, is paying attention to such matters this time. When the northern New Brunswick city of Edmundston complained the proposed eastern line put its drinking water supplies at risk, TransCanada quickly moved the route by four kilometers.

Back in Saint John, Arthur Irving, now 84, stands on the threshold of the regulatory review for a project with political, economic and environmental hurdles to clear without the counsel of his son or Mike Ashar or now Paul Browning. Irving Oil is without a CEO.


Despite such personal and commercial complications, the Irvings, builders of businesses for nearly a century, could see their under-appreciated East Coast assets become Canada's chief outlet for its largest energy resource, reaping Irving Oil a stream of profits while providing substance to Stephen Harper's eight-year-old energy superpower promise.

"It's serendipitous," said McKenna, matching "eastern refiners with western producers and is a great nation-building exercise." If it also pokes a stick in the eyes of the Obama administration, so be it.

True to form, the Irvings aren't talking. In early June, the wives of K.C. Irving's two living and one deceased sons were honored for their works at a Rotary Club dinner at the Saint John Hilton.

As the event wrapped up, a reporter approached Arthur to ask if he would discuss Irving Oil's Energy East role. "Ah, we're just little guys up here," he said as he turned back to his table.
couchmaster

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 12:00pm PT

So congrats! The point is that you folks opposing this (both you and yours) will be able to pay higher prices for gas, thus helping you reduce your consumption.

Please remember with a happy thought and a smile each and every time you are filling up and handing over the $cratch.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Oct 15, 2014 - 12:11pm PT
Gasoline prices have plunged 23 cents per litre since the end of June as Brent crude, the international benchmark, has fallen nearly 20 per cent to US$85 per barrel from US$106.
The price of West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, has also been in sharp decline, with the November contract down a further $3.90 to US$81.84 a barrel on Tuesday.

We have sooo much oil, the last thing we need is a larger straw into the sands...


"I could see it (crude) going down another $6 a barrel for WTI and that would translate in to another three cents per litre (at the pumps) within the next 30 days," he said.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/supply-glut-plunging-gas-prices-near-two-year-low-in-canada-1.2053517#ixzz3GF5YbSfk[/quote]
Barbarian

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
I try to avoid these types of threads for obvious reasons, but I just couldn't resist. I just had to see for myself,

And sure enough...it only took to the 4th post for someone to insult the President. Typical reaction when challenged to research or understand the issues.

Carry on.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
Bishop
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 19, 2014 - 03:42pm PT
Yeah...it ain't over yet.

The new Congress will likely take this up, and Obama has several good reasons to either let it pass, or nuke it.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 19, 2014 - 03:54pm PT
True.This is what compromise looks like here,Sadly.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:00pm PT
So how is this pipeline worse than bringing it down by tanker? If a pipeline
leaks it is a whole lot easier to contain and clean up.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:22pm PT
Private property NIMBY-ism?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:23pm PT
Ever seen a solar panel LEAK?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:28pm PT
Ever seen a solar panel LEAK?

No, but I saw the Exxon Valdez leak. People committed suicide over that.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
I would agree Reilly.

Looking beyond extraction.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
That's fine, Will, but none of us will live to see that.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 19, 2014 - 04:35pm PT
Not really concerned about my lifetime ,really.
crankster

Trad climber
Nov 19, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
Stupid idea. Just paid $2.79/ gal gas.
julton

climber
Nov 19, 2014 - 05:13pm PT
Obama knows that keystone is just a symbolic issue for the environmental crowd, that it doesn't really matter as far as climate change is concerned. Does he want a phoney climate change legacy? Maybe, but I'll bet he's doing the political calculation to figure out what he can get from congress in exchange for his signature on keystone in 2015.
Fossil climber

Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
Nov 19, 2014 - 05:23pm PT
I am absolutely stunned to discover how many short-sighted people there are in the climbing community - people who seem to think that burning more oil is a good thing.

I'm grateful to have lived in a time and place where we haven't yet been seriously affected, but I grieve for my kids - and yours.

Keep watching the changes. Lots of you will live another twenty years. I hope you look back then and see just how right or wrong you were.

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 19, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
It's not short-sighted to pick the lesser of two evils. If a pipeline can
deliver 50 tanker loads per year then I say it is more environmentally
responsible to use the pipeline. The oil is gonna flow one way or another
for many more years and pipelines are immensely safer than tankers. Pick
yer poison but don't get all high and mighty about it.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 19, 2014 - 05:37pm PT
"I'll bet he's doing the political calculation to figure out what he can get from congress in exchange for his signature on keystone in 2015."


I'd take that bet, too. But I betcha the Repugs will figure out a way to back out of any 'deal' they might strike.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 19, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
Well, Ap, I hope he is too rather than wasting his little remaining political
capital on something that is going to happen anyway. I doubt the 'Repugs'
would back out of a deal, nobody likes to look stupid or a sore loser.
julton

climber
Nov 19, 2014 - 06:07pm PT
I am absolutely stunned to discover how many short-sighted people there are in the climbing community

Why would you expect people in the climbing community to be that much different than anyone else?

Keystone is just a tiny thing by itself but it's been made into a big deal. What we do about energy and climate change is a much harder problem which is not being addressed. It's easier to focus on a pipeline though.
tuolumne_tradster

Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
Nov 19, 2014 - 06:26pm PT
As much as I hate the Koch Bros, the Oil industry fat cats, the carbon footprint of mining the Athabasca tar sands, and unless you can convince Canada not to produce this oil, I have to agree with Reilly & others on this one and approve the KXL. You have to hold your nose & go with the lesser of several evils. Otherwise, you run the risk of achieving the opposite of your well intentioned objectives of protecting the environment. There are no easy decisions left RE energy resources.
crankster

Trad climber
Nov 20, 2014 - 03:44pm PT
tuolumne_tradster

Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
Nov 20, 2014 - 05:24pm PT
The incentive is profit, so as long as crude remains >$70/bbl the Canadian government and Oil Companies are going to find a way to sell that oil on the global market. How it gets there is a crucial part of the environmental impacts and carbon footprint.

Lorenzo

Trad climber
Oregon
Nov 20, 2014 - 06:34pm PT
Canada has moved on from the pipeline. They are moving their oil by rail and are going to pipe on their own territory.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062014-705687-ottawa-approves-enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-to-west-coast.htm
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Nov 20, 2014 - 06:38pm PT
"I am absolutely stunned to discover how many short-sighted people there are in the climbing community - people who seem to think that burning more oil is a good thing."


Say all you people who drive to crags and type on computers powered by energy delivered by coal and natural gas.

Hypocrites.

kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Nov 20, 2014 - 07:31pm PT
Canada......(is) going to pipe on their own territory.

Lorenzo, it sounds like you work for the Harper regime ;-)

Part of the reason Alberta and the feds in Canada want Keystone is, no one in B.C. wants a new pipeline going through their territory. The Northern Gateway pipeline will NEVER happen. That's why they are trying to pipe it all the way to Texas, rather than to a Canadian port on the west coast.

Do a search (Kinder Morgan Burnaby) and read about what's happening right now in response to the survey that Trans Mountain is doing, to twin their current pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby (Vancouver).

No one wants tar sands bitumen to go through B.C., other than a few Albertans and some transnational oil corporations.
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Oregon
Nov 24, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
W

Canada......(is) going to pipe on their own territory.

Lorenzo, it sounds like you work for the Harper regime ;-)

Part of the reason Alberta and the feds in Canada want Keystone is, no one in B.C. wants a new pipeline going through their territory. The Northern Gateway pipeline will NEVER happen. That's why they are trying to pipe it all the way to Texas, rather than to a Canadian port on the west coast.

Do a search (Kinder Morgan Burnaby) and read about what's happening right now in response to the survey that Trans Mountain is doing, to twin their current pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby (Vancouver).

No one wants tar sands bitumen to go through B.C., other than a few Albertans and some transnational oil corporations.

You mean it's not going to end at Canada Place in Vancouver?

So disappointed. The place used to be called coal harbour.
karen roseme

Mountain climber
Bishop
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 4, 2015 - 07:09am PT
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Feb 4, 2015 - 07:14am PT
At least we know why the dems oppose it now. I don't get the arguments against the KXL other than politics. I hate politics screwing over what is good for the people.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Feb 4, 2015 - 07:16am PT
Oh, and KXL by itself will also all but eradicate measles, rubella and autism without all those nasty vaccines which decimate our 'choice' with their big guberment mandates as well.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 4, 2015 - 07:17am PT
Oh, and KXL by itself will also all but eradicate measles, rubella and autism without all those nasty vaccines which decimate our 'choice' with their big guberment mandates as well.

Excellent point.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Feb 4, 2015 - 07:18am PT
It's really hard to convince a person who grew up in Alaska that a pipeline is a bad thing...

Jus sayin
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Feb 4, 2015 - 07:46am PT
It's just a fight between the Kochs and that billionaire hedge fund guy. In the real world 6-8 years to get a project like this approved is probably on the fast side.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Feb 4, 2015 - 08:13am PT
Koch bros bad!

KGB Good!

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/20201c36-f7db-11e3-baf5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3QnF37SCF
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 24, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
Obama vetoed the Keystone bill.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Feb 24, 2015 - 12:44pm PT
Yay! At least he got That one right
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Feb 24, 2015 - 01:04pm PT
That's fine with me if Obama wants to help drive oil prices back up.
The market applauded his move today, too.
Messages 1 - 399 of total 399 in this topic
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta