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

Let's remember that 68% of our oil consumption is in transportation!

As our transportation industry moves toward electricity, oil has a significantly DECREASING market.


That is not just true in the US. Other countries are moving transportation toward electric power, too.

China is well ahead of the USA in electric car production. Have you seen pictures of their cities? They HAVE TO get OFF of oil for transportation. Their lungs and their LIVES depend on it.

Europe is ahead of us in moving to electric transportation, including being ahead of us in selling electric vehicles.

In the USA, states are placing time limits on sales of gas cars. And, auto manufacturers are putting limits on when they will make gas cars.



We need to get OFF of oil.

And, it even turns out to be COST EFFECTIVE to do that.

We'll still use oil. But, our need for oil is not going to last at current levels.

So I just do not see ANYTHING valid in your call for increasing our oil production capacity.

 

Pay Back for

​

Thanks but, no thank you


British Columbia refuses to channel that earth rape traversing B.C.
and Alberta rebuses to allow British Columbia wines.
I vote for the wine!


Moi
Liberate Provinces
Become Royal Colony. autonomous, federate as they choose
Labrador, Nova Scotia, etc. have fishery rights

Beyond Quebec & Ontario influences
what is even bit surreal about
and their quiet, nothing too overt, Evidence!




Good Luck!



It's animated!

Watch & Learn

 

The idea that the XL will cause overall use of oil is not ludicrous. Just because you have no clue what you are talking about . is no reason to project this your lack of understanding onto others.

Industrialization of non industrialized nation is the main reason that CO2 and Ocean Pollution continues to increase. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news .. but that is the Science.. and it is not something that is debated in serious circles ..

This has nothing to do with any idea I have put forward .. I am just telling you the facts .. you can not handle the Truth - and so you twirl around in a circle foaming at the mouth .. name calling and repeating "Ludicrous Ludicrous" over and over till the bad thoughts go away.

 

Yikes

What's going on in that jpg?

Do you have a link for that?

 

Study up y'self @WillReadmore
Dialog when ready

 

Sorry. If you aren't interested, then neither am I.

 

The solution to oil based contamination of our planet is to reduce the use of oil.

As I've pointed out, that's what is being worked on today.

If you aren't on board with that, I'm disappointed - but not by much, lol!

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicat...Oil Consumption data is,Barrel/Day th in 1965.

 

Extraction is only part of the process. We don't necessarily need more extraction, but we do need more refineries.

That being said, if you're against oil, are you in favor of nuclear power? It's the only viable alternative currently.

 

I have heard you talk sense in the past - The above is not an example. We all realize that if we didn't use oil - we would not have the problems related to oil - and we all realize that we are working on reducing the use of oil.

The problem is that was pointed out to you is that we are still using 20 million barrels a day - and this is increasing until 2030.

The solution to the problem of pollution from this oil - is not "Don't use the Oil" - because we know we will be using the oil .

Why are you projecting your sentiments onto me .. and giggling like a gaggle of schoolgirls ?

It is you who wants to increase industrialization - which will increase oil consumption - and Ocean Pollution.

You are dazed and confused - in some kind of conflicted contradictory hypocrisy - sent into denial upon realization that Blue is now "Anti Environment" - Anti Science, with policy driven by the political bandwagon rather than the science and basic logic.

 

Gosh. Two things. First, several manufacturers are moving towards EVs. But, they are also likely always will produce some sort of hybrid. Why? Range. EVs suffer from the there and back syndrome, and frankly they are pretty inconvenient especially when their batter life doesn't meet a customers needs, hence all of the dead teslas here and there on interstates that simply ran out. For the folks who actually enjoy traveling and not just commuting or shopping locally, the market will always need something else. It's ridiculously superficial to suggest that a couple hundred miles of range will satisfy a great many people in this or other nations.

Second, I doubt anyone actually wants to heat using heating oil. The problem those folks face are what are the alternatives? New HVAC systems for their homes cost quite a lot. Think about all of the additional cost for having to reconstruct a home to use some alternative forced air whether that's NG or Electric. Retrofitting a home to accommodate that isn't trivial. One, who pays for that, especially if it's a government mandate, and two, for those homes that aren't structurally capable of adopting forced air, then what? Will government require the owners to tear it down and start over? Again, who pays for that?

I would point out that in a state like WA, large swaths of the state would be underivable anymore, as recharging to sufficiently travel the necessary distances from small towns outside of Seattle would essentially then be cut off. WA as a state don't seem to be very forward looking, and in fact, look to be trying to depopulate their vast state to concentrate their population to within the charge of an EV. That seems a tad draconian, doesn't it.

I'll suggest this. You seem to entertain this pejorative ness when it comes to your world view. How, for example are the rest of the developing world supposed to travel in nations that at this point can barely keep the lights on? Do you condemn those folks not fortunate enough to be born in those places a permanent underclass life because of where they were born? Do those folks not enjoy the same right to happiness you seem to reserve for yourself? That seems pretty selfish. No?

 

Why?

Refinery corporations already ship oil here to refine and then ship the product back overseas.

 

Electric vehicle range is increasing rather rapidly. It's already above 300 miles.

The point in THIS discussion isn't that there won't be any more gas cars.

The point IS that 68% of the use of oil is for transportation, and that use is schedled to decrease significantly.

Moving a house from oil central heat to NG central heat costs about $7,000 for a brand new furnace (though you COULD retrofit the burner like my house has) and the cost of an external NG tank if you live in a location where there is no piped NG available. The price came from a home I know about in the Boston area, where the existing furnace died this January.

I strongly doubt there are any significant number of homes that heat with oil but don't have forced air heating. We're talking about the US use of oil here. So, if you want to propose some use, it needs to be significant.

Yes, WA is relatively large - not Alaska or Texas or California large, but it's footprint would cover a good number of eastern states. And, I think that proves my point. If it works here to have the transportation market make a significant move away from oil, then it surely would for the large sections of America that are far more densely populated.

There will always be a need for oil based vehicles, I'm sure.

But, that 68% is going to drop significantly.

As for other countries, you are just plain being ridiculous. The XL pipeline isn't being proposed as a way of saving the poor in destitute nations. Has it not yet dawned on you that natural sources of power have the distinct advantage that they can be built once and then used without paying and paying and paying for oil? Has it not dawned on you that many of those countries have large cities with significant pollution problems BECAUSE they use oil for transportation?

Besides, when did YOU ever want to trade off OUR environment in order to benefit poor people in some other nation? I think you got THIS one wrong simply because that kind of concern isn't in your nature - even for people who are poor and live in America!

 

That nasty Canadian sludge was reaching Port Aurthur Tx. long before the XL was built. It's a myth that Canada needs it, and the contested part of it is the part that cuts across an aquifer and is entirely unnecessary, as it only shaves a few mile off the entire trip. Pipelines do not 'create hundreds of thousands of jobs'; they are quick to build and with today's construction equipment and materials you're looking at maybe 3,000 very temporary jobs at best. Given oil companies' track records in maintaining pipelines in my home state, only an idiot would believe anything they say regarding lines, as they routinely abandon them or don't bother keeping them from springing leaks on a regular basis the second the prices drop.

The PEanut gallery can find maps of the U.S. and Canada's pipeline grids and see for themselves what a bad joke it is to claim Canadian oil can't go anywhere without the XL.

 

Wow. I have said nothing about "wants to increase industrialization".

My point has been that we can find better sources of energy than oil.

And, by better I mean both in terms of being more environmentaly sound AND being more cost effective.

Let's remember that the primary use of oil is transportation (68%) and the cost of electric energy for a car is cheaper than the cost of gas. Not only that, but electric cars save in cost of maintenance.

 

Yes, there is a HUGE opportunity in meeting the electricity needs in other countries.

Of course, that has NOTHING to do with oil, but it is an interesting point nevertheless.

I think what's being missed is the huge opportunity that clean energy represents. It's one of the foremost economic sectors going forward.

China has recognized that and has become he world leaders in clean energy technology in terms of number of patents, technology, exports and installations both domestically and abroad.

That is one of the serious "ins" that China has with emerging nations today, making this a geopolitical issue as well as being an economic issue.

We're allowing China to build relationships all over the globe based in no insignificant part on energy policy.

Why?

 

The electric car that needs to be recharged with electricity that is made vie coal

 

1) You wailed and cried NO NO NO .. when I told you that industrialization is the main cause of CO2 and Ocean Pollution - a simple truth that is well established scientific Fact.

"That's not the American Way" , you cried - when I informed you that bringing someone from the 3rd world to the first world increases their consumption and subsequent biproducts by 36 X

2) The fact of the matter is that we do not currently have "better sources of Energy" - we are working on it - but not there yet - so this is completely irrelevant fantasizing about oil that we are not using .. instead of selecting the appropriate solution to the massive amount of Crude that we are using.

A problem you continue to run from

Earlier you tried to deny that industrialization was a problem - now you are in the "grudging acceptance phase" .. which is progress.

Now you understand why the Keystone is by far the most environmentally friendly option .. both from Ocean Pollution but also a CO2 perspective.

The last thing we want to do is incentivize industrialization of places like Nigeria - by not building the Keystone - we do just that .. while having no beneficial effects in relation to getting to green - a pointless exercise in political games - at the expense of the environment.

and that was the Straw that broke this camel's back .. not that I was not already getting fed up .. but that was the last straw. .. Blue now the Anti- Environment Party .. along with Anti ACLU - and now bigtime Neocon's ..

What's not to dislike ?

In the meantime

 

Electriciy generation from coal reached its peak in 2005 at 2B kwh. Today, it is half that and shrinking.

It's decrease is pretty much matched by the increase in natural gas production of electricity.

Today, the yearly increase in electricity consumption is matched by the growth in clean energy. That leaves the total contribution of fossil fuel electricity as not growing.

Think Iowa. The largest single fuel source for electricity in that state is WIND.

And, that happened by free market capitalism.

 

That is NOT what I said. I'd like you to stick to what I say rather than make crap up and claim I said it. OK, Bud?

And, the issue here is oil, not industrialization. Your argument is totally off topic at best. In fact it is an argument FOR other energy sources as they are cleaner.

I'm saying that building more pipeline is an investment in a more significantly oil based future. Yet we are growing toward a LESS oil based future.

?? No, I did not.

YOU are suggesting that we slow industrialization in other countries. And, that is NOT something America is going to do. America does not have an objective of keeping other nations down. Slowing industrialization is NOT an American objective.

However, we CAN help countries such as Nigeria move toward clean energy.

China is taking that direction. They are helping nations move to clean energy. They are turning a profit in that. AND, it is a geopolitical advantage for them in that they are creating relationships with other nations through their energy cooperation.

I just dont see ANYTHING in these arguments you make. At the very best, they are short term. But, they deny the future that is arriving. I don't see any reason to sacrifice ANYTHING in order to build more pipeline - no land confiscation, no dangers to signifiant water sources, no crap quality oil that is of low value and high emissions, no enforced desecration of First People lands, etc.

We should be moving away from oil, and the first oil we should move away from is quite well known.

 

You did rail against my stating the facts w/r to industrialization .. and you continue to support industrialization in this post - doubling down on your "America does not thwart industrialization" dance that you deny at the beginning of this post ?

Now - in wild desperation - you are claiming "There is nothing we can do about industrialization" - a claim that is completely false ..

But even if we accept your claim as true - then there is nothing we can do to stop the earth from being destroyed due to industrialization - so what is the point of moving to clean energy or doing anything different.

You are not getting the picture - not realizing the implications of your own words .. what part of "We can not industrialize the none industrialized world without destroying the planet" using todays technology .. we can point them towards the future we are working towards - and help them to industrialize once have the technology/ability

but for now - what you are suggesting is that we help them industrialize now by stimulating and investing in the Petro Economies .. pro-actively encouraging industrialization via a Petro economy .. which is the dirtiest thing you can do - while we are waiting for Green..

It is 100% - "Not in my back Yard" .... "Let Nigeria deal with our pollution problems " - and this makes no sense .. Even if your false argument were correct.

 

We routinely run our refineries at full capacity. If we had more refineries, we could become more energy independent.

But again, what are your thoughts on nuclear power?

 

One reason vapid bourgeois Feel Good fantasies like electric cars for the wealthy to get photo ops in aren't going to do anything about reducing global warming is both India and Red China will keep building coal fired power pants and the use of coal is still generating around 40% of global energy use, same it as it was 20 years ago, which works out to vast net increase, not decrease.

https://www.reuters.com/article/chi...d-power-under-development-study-idUKL4N2E20HS

Beijing has vowed to replace coal with cleaner energy forms, but new coal project approvals have accelerated this year, according to the study by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

“While much of the world is moving away from coal, China continues to make it a central part of its energy mix,” said Christine Shearer, coal programme director at GEM.

The study said China has already proposed another 40.8 GW of new coal-fired power plants this year after Beijing eased restrictions on new plants.

It now has 97.8 GW of coal-fired power under construction, and another 151.8 GW at the planning stage. Plants accounting for some 17 GW were allowed to start construction this year, more than the total amount approved during the previous two years.

Most 'environmental activists' are clueless if they think Biden and the Democrats are actually on their side; all they're interested in is extorting countries and soliciting bribes.

 

https://news.trust.org/item/20190731133649-zkxm6/

India expects coal-fired power capacity to grow 22% in 3 years


By Sudarshan Varadhan

NEW DELHI, July 31 (Reuters) - India's coal-fired power generation capacity is expected to rise by 22.4% in three years, the federal power ministry's chief engineer said on Wednesday, potentially neutralising its efforts to cut emissions by boosting adoption of renewable energy.

India, the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, saw its annual coal demand rise 9.1% to nearly 1 billion tonnes in the year ended March 2019. Coal demand from utilities accounted for over three-quarters of total consumption.

"Capacity by 2022 is likely to be 238 gigawatts (GW) in terms of coal-based generation," Ghanshyam Prasad, chief engineer at India's ministry of power said at the India Coal Conference on Wednesday.

The International Energy Agency expects India to become the second largest coal consumer behind China early next decade.

 

Of course oil can be transported other ways. However the other ways create emissions and are far far less efficient. You are arguing against something that nobody says.

 

As I have pointed out already, he is not talking about other methods of transportation as there is already a pipeline. Canadian oil can and does reach Port Aurthur Tx. by the keystone pipeline, and feasibly other pipelines considering the keystone gets hubbed into the Cushing Ok. terminal and is blended with other grades of crude by that time.