Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!