Export thread
Canada to Texas oil pipeline protest
#1
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15618697
So people are protesting at the White House against the pipeline. It would be interesting to see what other protest these people also do.
Do they protest the Middle East Wars?
Do they drive cars?
Do they use any petroleum products? (which is a LOT heck the balloon they are using is from oil)
Do they protest for the sake of protesting?
Yes. I am aware that sand oil is "dirty oil" but it does ween us from Middle East oil and bring it back home. I think it is the lesser of two evil.
the pipeline will also create jobs along the route (someone gotta build it) I remember someone saying that shale oil (did I spell that right?) is also very expensive to process, but with gas prices not going below $3, it is feasible now.
I know that we will not be free from oil anytime soon because it is use in a lot of things that some people don't even know. Gasoline and Diesel are just the most visible one.
So people are protesting at the White House against the pipeline. It would be interesting to see what other protest these people also do.
Do they protest the Middle East Wars?
Do they drive cars?
Do they use any petroleum products? (which is a LOT heck the balloon they are using is from oil)
Do they protest for the sake of protesting?
Yes. I am aware that sand oil is "dirty oil" but it does ween us from Middle East oil and bring it back home. I think it is the lesser of two evil.
the pipeline will also create jobs along the route (someone gotta build it) I remember someone saying that shale oil (did I spell that right?) is also very expensive to process, but with gas prices not going below $3, it is feasible now.
I know that we will not be free from oil anytime soon because it is use in a lot of things that some people don't even know. Gasoline and Diesel are just the most visible one.
#2
GasBandit
GasBandit
Protesters continue to be douchebags, film at 11.
#3
strawman
strawman
Their only concerns are 1) the extraction operation requires a lot of energy, and thus results in a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and 2) If the pipe breaks the environment loses.
Meh. I can't get riled up about those issues. We have tremendously long pipelines that cross earthquake faults and they are reasonably safe. Any oil extraction is going to result in greenhouse gas emissions - not the least of which include the gasses released when the oil is used or transformed. As the price of oil goes up, we're going to see more of this over time.
Meh. I can't get riled up about those issues. We have tremendously long pipelines that cross earthquake faults and they are reasonably safe. Any oil extraction is going to result in greenhouse gas emissions - not the least of which include the gasses released when the oil is used or transformed. As the price of oil goes up, we're going to see more of this over time.
#4
Adammon
Adammon
The best part of the pipeline project is that it replaces a much longer pipe. The extraction is still going to take place regardless. I don't know, after that, what they could possibly protest except for "BIG OILZZZZ!!!"
#5
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
The tarsands tailing ponds are an ecological nightmare. Hundreds of thousands of people are effected by it, but they're mostly native populations so who gives a shit right?
#6
GasBandit
GasBandit
For many, that's all the "reason" they need. Imbeciles.The best part of the pipeline project is that it replaces a much longer pipe. The extraction is still going to take place regardless. I don't know, after that, what they could possibly protest except for "BIG OILZZZZ!!!"
#7
strawman
wowch.
strawman
https://www.google.com/search?q=tarsands+tailing+pondsThe tarsands tailing ponds are an ecological nightmare. Hundreds of thousands of people are effected by it, but they're mostly native populations so who gives a shit right?
wowch.
#8
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Yeah, just saying it's more than just greenhouse gas emissions.
#9
Adammon
Adammon
It's already happening, the Keystone project is not going to impact those in any way.The tarsands tailing ponds are an ecological nightmare. Hundreds of thousands of people are effected by it, but they're mostly native populations so who gives a shit right?
#10
Azurephoenix
I also wanted to add that not all "oilsands" production methods are the same. Giant open pit operations with large tailing ponds do have significant environmental impacts. In situ SAGD technology produces good amounts of oil with a much MUCH smaller environmental footprint.
Azurephoenix
You think oilsands production is bad? Wait until parts of the world (including the USA which has large reserves) start processing oil shale.The tailing ponds are a national shame for Canada.
I also wanted to add that not all "oilsands" production methods are the same. Giant open pit operations with large tailing ponds do have significant environmental impacts. In situ SAGD technology produces good amounts of oil with a much MUCH smaller environmental footprint.
#11
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
When I heard of the pipeline down here my thought is... We are already facing pressure from the Government to refine less oil in the Houston area... Why not let the Mid West refine some more of its oil?
Allow another refinery or two to open up and share some of the cap and trade penalties.
Allow another refinery or two to open up and share some of the cap and trade penalties.
#12
Eriol
Eriol
Tailing ponds suck. They exist for all TYPES of mining operations, and are hardly unique. They should still be addressed, but hardly worse than any others around.
As mentioned above, the open pit stuff is only a part of what's occurring.
I still think the idea of representing the amount of blood per barrel of oil coming from conflict nations is a great idea. For Sudan, it's about a teaspoon of blood per barrel, if you take the number of people dying there per year, and the number of barrels of oil exported. You can google the numbers for this type of thing really easily.
Overall, it's "ooooo, Oil bad!" No it's not. And quite frankly, oilsands oil is not that much "dirtier" than most other kinds. Quantitatively more? Probably. But THAT significantly, considering it's from a safe, secure nation, that likes trading with you? Hell no. If you're the USA, there isn't a more secure country to get oil from than Canada.
As mentioned above, the open pit stuff is only a part of what's occurring.
I still think the idea of representing the amount of blood per barrel of oil coming from conflict nations is a great idea. For Sudan, it's about a teaspoon of blood per barrel, if you take the number of people dying there per year, and the number of barrels of oil exported. You can google the numbers for this type of thing really easily.
Overall, it's "ooooo, Oil bad!" No it's not. And quite frankly, oilsands oil is not that much "dirtier" than most other kinds. Quantitatively more? Probably. But THAT significantly, considering it's from a safe, secure nation, that likes trading with you? Hell no. If you're the USA, there isn't a more secure country to get oil from than Canada.
#13
Chibibar
Chibibar
Well Canada did get those Stealth snowmobilesTailing ponds suck. They exist for all TYPES of mining operations, and are hardly unique. They should still be addressed, but hardly worse than any others around.
As mentioned above, the open pit stuff is only a part of what's occurring.
I still think the idea of representing the amount of blood per barrel of oil coming from conflict nations is a great idea. For Sudan, it's about a teaspoon of blood per barrel, if you take the number of people dying there per year, and the number of barrels of oil exported. You can google the numbers for this type of thing really easily.
Overall, it's "ooooo, Oil bad!" No it's not. And quite frankly, oilsands oil is not that much "dirtier" than most other kinds. Quantitatively more? Probably. But THAT significantly, considering it's from a safe, secure nation, that likes trading with you? Hell no. If you're the USA, there isn't a more secure country to get oil from than Canada.
#14
makare
makare
I don't like the pipeline at all and I think the reason for that should be pretty obvious.
#15
Necronic
Necronic
I just wish that there were more people who had realistic views of things.
One the one hand you have the environmental extremists who think that energy grows on trees and we can replace the entire grid with emmisionless green energy in a couple years if we just tried.
On the other hand you have the drill baby drill camp who fail to recognize that companies will do the bare minimum required by environmental regulations (and often do far less), and think that regulations simply get in the way of good business, or that free markets solve environmental problems.
There seem to be very few in the middle advocating exploration and exploitation of energy resources with a strong regulatory backbone to limit environmental damage. Or at least you don't hear as much from them.
One the one hand you have the environmental extremists who think that energy grows on trees and we can replace the entire grid with emmisionless green energy in a couple years if we just tried.
On the other hand you have the drill baby drill camp who fail to recognize that companies will do the bare minimum required by environmental regulations (and often do far less), and think that regulations simply get in the way of good business, or that free markets solve environmental problems.
There seem to be very few in the middle advocating exploration and exploitation of energy resources with a strong regulatory backbone to limit environmental damage. Or at least you don't hear as much from them.
#16
Adammon
Adammon
The vast majority of people are in the middle ground, we just hear more from the nutbars on either side because those that are passionate about issues will only listen to the extremes, and not the moderate positions. And in the end, that's what sells newspapers, TV ads and talk radio.I just wish that there were more people who had realistic views of things.
One the one hand you have the environmental extremists who think that energy grows on trees and we can replace the entire grid with emmisionless green energy in a couple years if we just tried.
On the other hand you have the drill baby drill camp who fail to recognize that companies will do the bare minimum required by environmental regulations (and often do far less), and think that regulations simply get in the way of good business, or that free markets solve environmental problems.
There seem to be very few in the middle advocating exploration and exploitation of energy resources with a strong regulatory backbone to limit environmental damage. Or at least you don't hear as much from them.
#17
strawman
strawman
It's so much harder to tap than a maple tree?I don't like the pipeline at all and I think the reason for that should be pretty obvious.
#18
Krisken
Krisken
Well, there's that, and there is the us vs. them problem. People are so wrapped up in their party lines that anty deviation from the message gets demonized and ends up political suicide.The vast majority of people are in the middle ground, we just hear more from the nutbars on either side because those that are passionate about issues will only listen to the extremes, and not the moderate positions. And in the end, that's what sells newspapers, TV ads and talk radio.
#19
Chibibar
Yea. Green energy is nice to think about, but the economic requirement much less social changes are so extreme that it is not cost effective.
I mean look at cars. There is no way to avoid NOT having a car (especially in Texas where our rail system is not that great) so if we all go electric cars, who is going to pay for all those charging stations? where are the electricity coming from? nuclear? (don't they protest that too?) coal? oil? good ol fashion wood burning? (j/k) dam? (only feasible in some areas) wind energy? (not even cost effective across the country) solar? (we all know how that turn out)
That is just electric cars requirement. I hate to see/calculate how much electricity we would need in order to run the SAME amount of cars if everyone were to go green car say by next year.
Chibibar
China doesn't have much regulation and see how they are doing in factories and such (not much safety and some places down right dangerous) and that is an example of "less environmental" regulation. Now of course they are trying because of the global outcry but it is really expensive to be environmentally safe and still make a profit.I just wish that there were more people who had realistic views of things.
One the one hand you have the environmental extremists who think that energy grows on trees and we can replace the entire grid with emmisionless green energy in a couple years if we just tried.
On the other hand you have the drill baby drill camp who fail to recognize that companies will do the bare minimum required by environmental regulations (and often do far less), and think that regulations simply get in the way of good business, or that free markets solve environmental problems.
There seem to be very few in the middle advocating exploration and exploitation of energy resources with a strong regulatory backbone to limit environmental damage. Or at least you don't hear as much from them.
Yea. Green energy is nice to think about, but the economic requirement much less social changes are so extreme that it is not cost effective.
I mean look at cars. There is no way to avoid NOT having a car (especially in Texas where our rail system is not that great) so if we all go electric cars, who is going to pay for all those charging stations? where are the electricity coming from? nuclear? (don't they protest that too?) coal? oil? good ol fashion wood burning? (j/k) dam? (only feasible in some areas) wind energy? (not even cost effective across the country) solar? (we all know how that turn out)
That is just electric cars requirement. I hate to see/calculate how much electricity we would need in order to run the SAME amount of cars if everyone were to go green car say by next year.
#20
Necronic
Necronic
Also, where are all the rare earth minerals coming from that are used in the batteries or solar cells? What are we doing with the industrial waste from the manufacturing of these items (which in some cases is pretty bad)?
yada yada.
yada yada.
#21
Chibibar
Chibibar
I agree there are lots of technology that can make things better but it all boils down to cost and the bottom line.There are quite a few technologies available that would allow the tailing ponds to be cleaned, there are even methods that don't require tailing ponds at all but they increase the prices to unmanageable levels. (according to my uncles, one was a pioneer in the oil sands removal process who ended up working in Saudi Arabias oil sector and the other was one of the most sought after mining engineers in Canada) Unless everyone was forced to use them nobody will. Quite frankly one of Canada's biggest resources is our clean water, I would prefer if we did something productive with it.
Saying that we are cleaner than china isn't an accomplishment.
Personally I would love to see a greater use of nuclear.
#22
Necronic
Necronic
I also would like to see more nuclear. You can start doing more stuff with the light water reactors or whatever it is that don't do double duty generating weaponizable by-products and it becomes a lot safer/cleaner.
Not that the radiation matters though, because we'll all be eating bannanas when Kremlin Joe lets loose with the nukes and turns us all into monkeys.
Not that the radiation matters though, because we'll all be eating bannanas when Kremlin Joe lets loose with the nukes and turns us all into monkeys.
#23
Adammon
Adammon
And just another reason I don't like Obama.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68089.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68089.html
Good thing he doesn't have to make a decision until after the election now...The State Department on Thursday announced that it’s punting a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline until at least the first quarter of 2013 — pushing off a no-win decision for President Barack Obama until well after the 2012 election.
#24
Tress
Tress
Wow, that's completely unheard of. I mean, a politician delaying a no-win decision until after an election? Only Obama would do something so heinous.
#25
Adammon
Adammon
Hope and Change baby, hope and change.Wow, that's completely unheard of. I mean, a politician delaying a no-win decision until after an election? Only Obama would do something so heinous.
#26
Chibibar
Chibibar
I have a hard time believing Obama was the first to do this.Wow, that's completely unheard of. I mean, a politician delaying a no-win decision until after an election? Only Obama would do something so heinous.
#27
Tress
Tress
I was being sarcastic.I have a hard time believing Obama was the first to do this.
#29
Adammon
Adammon
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/U-S-environmentalists-vow-capress-2345219347.html?x=0
U.S. environmentalists vow to continue fight against Keystone XL pipeline
U.S. environmentalists vow to continue fight against Keystone XL pipeline
It has, and never will be, about pollution. It's about control.American environmentalists admit TransCanada made a major concession by rerouting its proposed Keystone XL pipeline, but insist they'll keep trying to prevent the controversial oilsands project from ever being built.
"We're very glad the Sand Hills are safe; now we just have the atmosphere of the entire planet to worry about," said Bill McKibben, a leading U.S. climate change specialist and one of the masterminds behind the environmental movement's opposition to Keystone.
#30
Eriol
Eriol
It's about "oh we don't care that we're getting our energy from offshore since then we can claim it's 'not us' polluting." Despite all the other problems with that.
Secondary objective of them: make conventional energy sources so expensive that renewables start looking appealing. Except that still hasn't worked. How many "gasoline replacements" were supposed to be economical at $80 a barrel in the 90s? how about over $100? Like all of them. We've seen it (and higher) for prolonged periods and they still suck because of rare rare earth minerals (not a duplication error in that sentence either), and lots of other good reasons.
Secondary objective of them: make conventional energy sources so expensive that renewables start looking appealing. Except that still hasn't worked. How many "gasoline replacements" were supposed to be economical at $80 a barrel in the 90s? how about over $100? Like all of them. We've seen it (and higher) for prolonged periods and they still suck because of rare rare earth minerals (not a duplication error in that sentence either), and lots of other good reasons.
#31
Chibibar
Chibibar
Yea. We can't be hypocritical when it comes to energy usage. We are one of the higher use of energy in the world (China is right behind us but they have over a billion people while we are at what? 300 million?)It's about "oh we don't care that we're getting our energy from offshore since then we can claim it's 'not us' polluting." Despite all the other problems with that.
Secondary objective of them: make conventional energy sources so expensive that renewables start looking appealing. Except that still hasn't worked. How many "gasoline replacements" were supposed to be economical at $80 a barrel in the 90s? how about over $100? Like all of them. We've seen it (and higher) for prolonged periods and they still suck because of rare rare earth minerals (not a duplication error in that sentence either), and lots of other good reasons.
#32
strawman
strawman
Hey, they're accomplishing one thing. By preserving our reserves and forcing us to buy higher elsewhere, the rest of teh world's resources will be used up more quickly, and we'll still have leftovers.
So, you know, there's that.
Earth First!
(We'll strip-mine the other planets later)
So, you know, there's that.
Earth First!
(We'll strip-mine the other planets later)
#33
GasBandit
GasBandit
Another instance of us screwing ourselves with a spiked dildo over environmentalism. Not one politician DIDN'T get up on a stage and talk about how buying oil from our enemies weakened us... but when our closest neighbor and ally wants to make it easier to sell us cheap oil, we let EcoGuerillas foul up the works so the oil ends up getting sold to China, so nobody gets what they want, LEAST of all the environmentalists (because the mess gets made regardless).
#34
Krisken
Krisken
Oh please. Every president since Nixon has said we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
#35
GasBandit
GasBandit
Yes. Every politician always say that - and they said it vociferously in the last few elections as well, particularly in regards to middle eastern oil. But the point was, when it comes to actually doing something about it - even something as simple, straightforward and self-financing as a pipe to Canada, it gets jammed by watermelons.Oh please. Every president since Nixon has said we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
#36
Tress
Tress
Anybody catch the Colbert Show interview with the head of the environmental group opposing this? His main logic was that the pipeline doesn't create jobs because the jobs aren't permanent (as if any construction jobs are), and that somehow if he stops the US from building this pipe it will somehow lead to Canada not drilling that area for oil at all. Ever.
#37
Chibibar
It seems that the U.S. (or environmentalist) are trying to have their cake (clean environment in the U.S. but don't care about middle east) and eat it too (oil)
Chibibar
while part of it is true (once the job is finish) there are maintenance crew for the pipe line and people actually working at the refinery converting all this oil. So there are jobs out there.Anybody catch the Colbert Show interview with the head of the environmental group opposing this? His main logic was that the pipeline doesn't create jobs because the jobs aren't permanent (as if any construction jobs are), and that somehow if he stops the US from building this pipe it will somehow lead to Canada not drilling that area for oil at all. Ever.
It seems that the U.S. (or environmentalist) are trying to have their cake (clean environment in the U.S. but don't care about middle east) and eat it too (oil)
#38
Tress
Tress
I can better explain my problem with his jobs argument. Let's say there are no jobs right now. From here, we have two options:
1) I suggest a construction project that will keep people employed for 1-2 years. After that, there will be no jobs again.
2) I just block all projects and there are no jobs, temporary or otherwise.
Which of those two options gets people working? Besides, construction work can lead to other projects. And all of this is discounting the maintenance jobs that Chibi mentioned.
1) I suggest a construction project that will keep people employed for 1-2 years. After that, there will be no jobs again.
2) I just block all projects and there are no jobs, temporary or otherwise.
Which of those two options gets people working? Besides, construction work can lead to other projects. And all of this is discounting the maintenance jobs that Chibi mentioned.
#39
Chibibar
Chibibar
Personally at this point, I rather have temp job for 1-2 years than no jobs at all.I can better explain my problem with his jobs argument. Let's say there are no jobs right now. From here, we have two options:
1) I suggest a construction project that will keep people employed for 1-2 years. After that, there will be no jobs again.
2) I just block all projects and there are no jobs, temporary or otherwise.
Which of those two options gets people working? Besides, construction work can lead to other projects. And all of this is discounting the maintenance jobs that Chibi mentioned.
#40
Tress
Tress
Exactly. And the most annoying part about the guy's argument is that he didn't even flesh it out, he just claimed that because the jobs are not completely permanent they should not be counted as jobs at all.Personally at this point, I rather have temp job for 1-2 years than no jobs at all.
#41
Chibibar
Chibibar
Yea. Tell that to the construction workers who are looking for jobs. Even temp job will relieve the government unemployment line for at least a year or two. Granted this project won't cover the 10% unemployment but at least it will be a multi-state project since it will come from Canada all the way down to Texas. That is at least something.Exactly. And the most annoying part about the guy's argument is that he didn't even flesh it out, he just claimed that because the jobs are not completely permanent they should not be counted as jobs at all.
#42
Adammon
Adammon
Most construction jobs are temp jobs because inevitably construction completes. Unless it's the Big Dig.
#43
Eriol
Eriol
That's pretty much what I was going to say. Construction (or renovation, etc) is by definition always a temporary job, but the idea is that it's a series of such, rather than just one that goes forever.Most construction jobs are temp jobs because inevitably construction completes. Unless it's the Big Dig.