Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
"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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
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.
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!