Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
You have proven A lot TGT.
Why as a conservative, do you believe we need this pipeline?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
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?
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Once again TGT proves that he knows something that the average blogger doesn't...woo hoo..
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
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?
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!