Keystone XL’s Collapse Leaves Canada’s Oil Heartland Seeking Payback

While true - it is not so much that Biden is Dumb - Biden is just doing what they tell him to do - have you ever known or lived with someone in the early stages of Dementia ? - just whisper something in his ear and he is doing.

The problem is those doing the whispering.

 

Well, I understand we are sending illegals to the north border with Canada in encampments with the gates open complete with teeshirts: "Let us in, eh?"

 

Is reducing CO2 and saving the Ocean (reducing Ocean Pollution) - and the planet in general - not a good excuse ?

And any way you slice it or dice it .. Canadian Crude is Cheaper .. "WCS" Western Canadian Select is the benchmark price for oil sands crude .. would you care to quote me where it currently sits .. vs WTI - West Texas Intermediate - and vs the Brent Price .

 

Let's remember that the "fix" to cause oil to flow south instead of north in the US was made in order to RAISE the price of oil in the midwest. It was made to cause oil companies to make more money from US consumers as well as from foreign sales.

The fact that the oil was somewhat "trapped" in the northern interior meant that oil there couldn't be sold for world market prices. By making a more efficient transportation pathway to the sea through Cushing, oil companies could start charging prices closer to world market prices. Oil in the midwest became more expensive.

Pipelines do NOT necessarily cause oil to be cheaper to America. They are built by private corporations in order to maximize profit. And, they absolutely do NOT care who buys the oil. Oil pumped here has NO citizenship. China can buy US and Canadian oil regardless of where it hits the oceans. The Panama Canal has been expanded to allow Suezmax tankers carrying a million bbl oil cargo for that purpose.

The entire reason for this new pipline is to maximize profit for oil companies.

There are other issues as well. Who is using this new low grade oil and why? Why should the USA condemn land owned by citizens in order for oil companies to make more profit? Why should the US promote the use of low grade oil that causes significantly more environmental damage AND causes far more significant atmospheric pollution that increases planet warming? Why is Canada not increasing it's OWN pipeline from their interior to their coast - they have their reasons?

 

LOL!!

The electric car model is that pretty much nobody ever goes to a "gas station" again.

Cars will get charged in their garages, carports and work places.

Nobody likes going to a gas station. Now, you don't have to.

 

There isn't any excuse for tar sands oil in the first place.

Let's remember that it is hugely polluting due to processeing required for it to just be able to go through pipes.

Let's remember that this is ALL about oil company profit. This and other US pipelines don't change the world price of oil. And, oil companies do not care who they sell to.

Again, let's remember that the last pipeline improvement in the US caused north central oil to become significantly MORE expensive to US refineries in the region.

 

We had this conversation - and you did not fair well.

20 million barrels a day - is what we consume - 45% imported - from 70 different nations

A) If we don't get it from "Canada" which is both Tar Sands and conventional - by Pipeline - Where will we get this product.

Answer to A) "Nigeria"

B) Your claim that Oil Sand product is "Hugely Polluting" is false on two fronts.

1) There is no Ocean Pollution to the OIl Sands - of any significance - To begin with
2) What ever number one comes up with -- what doesn't get filtered out .. makes its way eventually to the Ocean .. is Orders of Magnitude less than A) "Nigeria"

3) the pollution to land ? the "Not in my Back Yard" - is what you are left with - and that is a joke of an argument.. a joke of a position ..that you should be able to refute in a moment .. but .. should you need assistance .. feel free to ask.

 

Let's remember that nearly 70% of oil use in the USA is for transportation. The direction in transportation is toward electricity, not oil. That is a move AWAY from oil. And, clean energy technology as caught up to the point where cleanly generated electricity is cheaper and where even individual homes can create electricity cost effectively.

EVERY car manufacturer today is looking to an electric future.

We are NOT having a hard time getting oil today. In fact, the price of oil has been LOW, not high. Suggesting there is a crisis that justifies sacrifice for oil company profices is just plain unsupportable.

NIMBY isn't the issue, though there are very real issues with routes chosen. The issue is whether we need to increase oil company profits by condemning land owned by Americans. The issue is whether there is ANY justification for helping oil companies increase profits by polluting our air with tar sands sludge.

Discussing this oil issue as if it is all about the next 10 years just isn't honest. We don't face any problem with oil in that period of time. And, the longer outlook points to increasing oil prices due to world wide increases in use/population/industrialization and increasing scarcity. So, as for marshalling our US natural resources, we shouldn't be striving hard to sell our natural resources on the cheap today.

You REALLY must have forgotten our last conversation!!

 

Oceans absorb about 30% of the CO2 emitted into our atmosphere.

Ocean acidification is a serious issue.

Tar sands oil operations and the use of the product is an especially heavy emitter of CO2 per unit energy.

 

First where are you talking about?

Apartments mostly do not have garages. And you can't rush out of the apartment to hook up the needed apparatus to charge electric cars. They use unique plugs. You go fishing. Where do you charge that battery? Do you plug in at the church?

 

Every bit of the above is political chatter and not factual.

 

Classic Democrat party authoritarian chit chat.^^^^^^^^

 

No unfortunately - I did not forget the last conversation - and just like back then - none of what you have said above has any relevance.

Sure we are moving towards electric .. but that does not change the fact that we are using 20 million bpd - "Right Now"

You want to pretend that this is not reality - and that we are in some fairy tale land where we wont be using this product . but that is not reality.

If we don't get it from Canada /Domestic via pipeline - that means we have to get it from somewhere else.

What part of this simple reality - is having so much trouble sinking in ?

 

The above is inane gibberish .. most activities using fossil fuels .. and "breathing" for that matter .. emits CO2 - and Ocean Acidification is definitely one issue.

What part of "Not building Pipelines means more CO2" did you not understand the 5th time ? and way more Ocean Pollution .. for the 10th time.

You can't be this .... This has to be intentional. Am I speaking in Punjabi ? - or some language you are not familiar with ?

 

Most apartments have off street parking. All that is needed is a power outlet. It's faster if it's 220. For homeowners, it's no more than installing electric service for a clothes dryer. For an apartment, the owner may want to put in a meter and an ID system for charging. That and charging at businesses, work places, etc., is an increasingly in demand feature for obviuos reasons. One can see rows of parking with charging available in the Bay Area malls, and that's showing up here in Seattl, too. This is at its infancy. Judging today as the final product would be ridiculous.

Electric cars are increasing mileage to over 300 miles/charge. I doubt going to church is some sort of killer trip. And, if you want to fish more than 100 miles from home, you might be into having dinner somewhere that has a charge station.

Ford says they will start selling an all-electric f-150 in mid 2022.

 

You have it backwards.

Using emminient domain to take land from citizens in order to benefit some corporation is authoritarian. In fact, it is worse than that. It's anti-capitalist. It's the government twisting our economy.

Choosing to NOT do that can NOT be accused of being authoritarian.

 

I said NOTHING about not using what we are using. We are using the amount you state. I have NEVER disputed that.

If you are going to respond, please respond to what I say. Ok?

 

As I clearly stated, tar sands oil is an especially significant source of CO2 emissions per unit energy.

Using our government to help oil companies make more profit from that source is not justified.

 

There is nothing to respond to w/r to what you said - as none of it relates the use of the amount of oil - that you agree we will use.

So given the reality that we will consume 20 million barrels a day - the question is how to source this produce in the most environmentally friendly way possible.

You want to source from "Nigeria" - and shop this product over the Ocean in a Tanker - rather than Pipeline from Canada . .. and No .. there are no other alternatives - in fact - we are getting some of this oil by rail - which is less enviro friendly than pipeline - but still way more enviro friendly than "Nigeria" - Where you want to incentivize and finance industrialization .. the #1 root cause - BY FAR- of both CO2 and Ocean Pollution.

"Lets just transport our pollution problems over to Africa - that the ticket - out of sight - our of mind"

This is the only legitimate solution you have come up with thus far.

 

No it isn't .. relative conventional.. and I have done this math for you previously. The incremental extra energy - was studied by Obama - desperately trying to claim what you just did . but they could not - and Obama had to change his argument .. turns our there is little significant difference in the energy of extraction. Oil sands being slightly more.

but if you are then shipping this by tanker - you loose that difference - but this was nothing to begin with .. as industrialization of "Nigeria" will create millions of times more CO2 pollution than the incremental difference you are referring to.

So this argument was - and is - "Crucified"

 

TFB! They figured the fix was in and if so much construction was on the ground no one would dare stop the project. Well, they gambled, they lost. Buck up, and start looking for another job.

 

Nice message to investment Capital - TCP invested billions of dollars up front - on the basis that we are not some third world puppet regime with no integrity - so this was not viewed as a "Gamble" at the time.

but - as you rightly point out - it turned out that the US is a akin to a third world puppet dictatorship - and so the calculated risk did not pan out.

"Too bad - So Sad" for the US next time investment capital is looking for a home - one thing Capital hates more than anything is "Uncertainty" and Risk .. so they do everything to mitigate that risk - like not dealing with third world puppet regimes with no integrity.

 

I think what you are claiming is that if we don't have the government make tar sands oil profitable, then it won't be mined. That's not a great argument in favor of mining tar sands oil.

And, you're trying to sell me that tar sands oil is the most environmentally friendly source of oil. I don't see evidence of that.

Our oceans are having problems not because of crappy oil ships, but because of warming waters and the increasing disolved CO2 in our oceans, which is coming from fossil fuels. I agree we should have stronger safety regulations related to ocean cargo ships, but that's not the real issue here.

If we want to save our oceans (or whatever) we should be:
- encouraging the advent of clean energy, which is already cost competitive.
- ending subsidies for oil and internalizing (or at least recognizing) more of the costs of oil operations.
- improving our electric grid. This can be a big win for home consumers as home solar is already cost effective. With improvements to our electric grid homes, apartment buildings, businesses, etc. can have an opportunity to reduce the cost of their electricity. One result of this is that electric transportation will become even MORE cheaper than gas that it already is. With tansportation being more than 2/3 of our use of oil, this can be a win against your "Nigeria problem" - while pumping tar sands carbon into our atmosphere is a PROBLEM, not a solution.

The fact that we need more energy as we grow does NOT necessarily mean we need more fossil fuel as we grow.

In fact in the generation of electricity, fossil fuel is only holding its own (with natural gas displacing the continuing significant reduction in coal). The yearly increase in electricity consumption is being supplied by clean energy today - not by increases in fossil fuel generation plants.

The single largest fuel source used for electricity generation in Iowa is wind. That is a result of capitalism.

The solution to your "Nigeria problem" is to provide cost effecive alternatives to burning oil.

 

Analyses have included assumptions such as "tar sands will be mined regardless" - an assumption that is not shared by government agencies that studied this problem for Obama..

You are assuming that tar sands oil will cause Nigeria to have a harder time selling its oil. I don't see a reason to accept that assumption. Tar sands oil volume just isn't enough to support your contention. Put another way, tar sands oil is not going to change the world price of oil by any detectable amount.

Slowing the industrialization of other countries can not be an objective. We HELP other nations. We contribute to the development of other nations. What we CAN do is to provide clean energy solutions for their development.

That's what China does, by the way.

 

Not what I was claiming at all. The claim is that not building Pipelines harms the environment via increase to CO2 and increase to Ocean Pollution. How did you get so lost ?

Another false misrepresentation of my position. I said that Canadian Crude by Pipeline (which includes oil sand) is far more enviro friendly than getting it from Nigeria

1) never said otherwise
2) Saying .. "lets not use oil" is not a solution to the problem - for the 10th time .. as it does not even address the question - you are in serious denial of reality ..

The Nation uses 20 million barrels per day - you claiming "lets not do anything about the pollution created - because maybe we will wake up and not use that oil" is not a solution to the problem. You will wake up the next morning .. and will have done nothing about the problem.

You are intentionally avoiding reality - and this is not a solution to much.