Two things about the pipeline. First, can anyone guarantee that Canadian oil, destine for a gulf port, will have much effect on the world market when the oil will in all probability be sent abroad. Secondly, if memory serves me correct this is the same area that had a massive oil spill with long term affects.
What does a pipeline have to do with an offshore platform disaster?
And why are we so interested in dictating Canadian economic development?
Plenty of coal mines in our own back yard, don’t hear people complaining about them…
Texases…I guess you don’t feel that proximity contributes to the environmental effects of oil spills. It’s an area tat over many years has had it’s share of oil spills…from platforms, shipping etc. You should know better then anyone else.The platform disaster was just one, the largest, of many problems in our quest for oil that has compromised this area.
Canada has the greatest natural resource…fresh water. So, we pipe their crude and use up our water supply for processing and endanger our ground water during transport ? The pipeline needs more time to consider.
“This is the first time in a LONG time the oil companies did not get something they dearly wanted.”
President Obama postponed the decision until after the presidential election. He did not say that he would veto it if it ever comes to his desk again. IMO, that is a signal that if re-elected, he is likely to pass it. He just doesn’t want to lose votes at this time.
Another alternative might be to run the pipeline to SE South Dakota and the load barges for shipment south. I understand that river commerce made it to at least Omaha; maybe Sioux City is possible.
Don’t think coal; think natural gas. Coal is dirty, and we can export it and its problems to Asia and Europe.
“jt” natural gas which I really support too, is not without it’s problems.
http://environment.about.com/od/naturalgas/Environmental_Issues_Natural_Gas.htm
Also, burning coal anywhere on our small planet becomes everyone’s problem over time.
The shiny happy talk that non-mid east oil=lower prices here instant jobs is an old fallacy. Our self-suffocating reliance on oil only benefits those who control the spout. It doesn’t matter how many sources of crude oil is found, it’s about selling the refined end result… and they are not building more refineries.
With the canadian sands in general, everyone claps at finally finding a way to exploit our lovely neighbors to the north (who otherwise we care nothing for and routinely kick around for our amusement) citing the geographical advantage of oil coming from such a safe, close source, yet never discuss the horrifying damage it’s doing to the Canadian landscape. NO ONE wants to talk about it, and like the press/media on Jodie Foster’s sexuality, it’s practically an open secret you are not not to discuss it. Topic banned. Period.
Do a Google image search now under the words Canadian Oil Sands. Do it, now.
((sigh))
I dabble in stock trading (to understand ‘the enemy’) and have for nearly 8 years now- so it’s handy for me to keep CNBC on in the background to keep up with financial news. Over the years they’ve done in depth stories about the birth this oil sands industry, once in awhile flying a reporter into the remote areas no one goes. Places polar bears outnumber people places… stunning, gorgeous, pristine.
They described the oil sands extraction process, showed the massive earth movers- the largest on earth, went in depth how the process works. My first reaction was, 1) dear god they’re going to rip up Canada now? No they won’t allow it, they have too much good sense. And 2) It’s too impractical, clumsy, and complicated to be feasible, from the point of view of a profit- making business venture.
They thought to try this process decades back but didn’t have the technology to find away to separate the heavy crude from the sandy topsoil. The cost far outweighed the benefit and geographic challenges were too great, so the plans were always “pipe dreams”. Imagine what circumstance have propelled them to finally take on this endeavor despite all the reasons not to do it… Man’s stupidity knows no bounds, apparently.
A few brave documentarians have flown to the remote areas no one ever sees, and much to the horror of the oil companies filmed the birth of this oil sands industry, showing the massive scale this is on and utter destruction it’s doing to the raw, unseen beauty we cannot even imagine. The water is polluted, the wildlife living in a toxic environment, just a complete disaster. There are no plans to undo the damage, they must press on, not look back, focus on profits… keep scraping the topsoil, have it processed, squeeze the oil from it, export, rinse repeat.
Oil sands. What a glorious industry.
Good thing there’s a few more truck drivers who have earth scraping and hauling jobs. Society might collapse without them and the awesome job they’re doing. And that money the oil sands executives are spreading around, well life would be different without that effect, for sure. God bless them and their vision. We couldn’t possibly figure out any other way to power our machines, businesses and homes without it. Good thing we listened to these folks and granted them exploration monopoly rights instead of the wackjobs crazy talk about and endless, reliable, extremely cheap, non-fussy, non-polluting harmless source of fuel coming from vegetable and hemp oil.
Imagine if liberals grew a pair and created the foundation for a real and lasting paradigm shift. By being brave, taking chances, putting their money where their mouths are, looking up at what could be not the safety net under their butts.
As a Texan, I want to see the fake cowboys like George HW Bush, useless W, the Hunt brothers, and all those old nasty oil barrons go broke. I want to celebrate the end of crude reliance whether foreign or domestic, I want to see the all-powerful oil industry behemoths slayed, want their disastrous strangle hold on American politics and global influence to finally end. I want America (and Canada) to prove to the world they can play fair, adapt, be inventive, be nimble, have forethought, respect the earth as much as they do human jobs, have a clue about the bigger picture and for once and for all take the damn blinders off, to do what’s sensible and stop living in fear of change.
That’s just about covers it. I don’t post a lot on message boards, but once in awhile you just gotta get it off your chest.
“…natural gas which I really support too, is not without it’s problems.”
IMO, environmental problems from coal: water pollution air pollution, and altering the landscape are more severe than from natural gas. There are risks and prices for every source of energy. We need to decide which cost we are willing to bear. Certainly energy conservation is worth pursuing, as we do at home, but it isn’t nearly enough.
I have neighbor, a widower, who walks the talk, as JTsanders suggests. He has a 2004 Ford Focus which had had just 4 oil changes; he hardly ever drives it. He walks to the supermarket down the road, and only uses the car if it’s too far to walk. He has an orchard and grows most of his own vegetables.
He does not take overseas vacations which generate a lot of CO2, and takes the train wherever he can.
His hobby is woodworking; he has a craft shop in his basement. His other hobby is helping others by contributing to a local website that locates items people are willing to give away to needy folks.
His house has upgraded insulation and an efficient furnace.
From the previous post by Coogan I have to conclude that he has a wood furnace in his house (well insulated), rides a bike or walks, does not travel unecessarily, grows his own food without chemical fertilizers, and wears natural fibres, organically grown. If he does not do all these things HE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, not the US and Canadian governments!!!
Most of us have seen the movie “Mary Poppins”. In London prior to the introduction of natural gas, most homes were heated by coal, and the resultant smog in 1950 killed 1500 citizens. Chimney sweeping was a necessary and respected profession. I was in London before the fuel changeover and all the buildings were black. They are now sandblasted and look great. In cities like Glasgow there are stiil many black buildings, especially the Glasgow cathedral.
Coogan…
I believe is just giving us the other side of the coin. We do not live in a society that is as free of choice as we make it out to be. There is but one choice to power our cars; petro.products. No choice there. I disagree with those who say the free market can’t work. I have to disagree with those who say the market is free and we have to jump On the choices generated by energy companies who pad their stock on the backs of polution causing options.
If a whole scale option is natural gas, we had better proceed carefully or we’ll be importing fresh water from Canada and not just oil.
And no, I don’t believe that anyone who believes as Coogan does and is not a complete environmentalist in practice is part of the problem. Like I said, , ours is not a free market and living without petro products is not a viable option.
Now, natural gas is a viable option. But letting energy companies extract it based upon profit without strict regulation is a good way depending upon others and not being independent. Ground water is too precious to let profiteers mess with.
In Texas there have been tens of thousands of wells ‘fracced’, and, thanks in part to several agencies worth of regulations, there has been NO groundwater contamination. Any statement that regulations aren’t being used is simply wrong. The Barnett shale has been developed underneathe several million people in Dallas, Fort Worth, and other communities. Certainly there’s been inconvenience, noise, etc. But the claim that the US fresh water resources are at risk is nonsense, pure and simple.
And by ‘profiteers’, do you mean every successful business in the US? Without that dreaded ‘profit’, companies go bankrupt. Just ask Kodak
If the GOP white house hopefuls got a call from Barack Obama notifying them that he had the cure for cancer and the answer to world peace and invited them to the oval office for the announcement they would draw straws to see which one murdered him and which one burned the cure and secret to peace. The Republicans don’t want this country to enjoy anything unless they get all the credit.
In Texas there have been tens of thousands of wells ‘fracced’, and, thanks in part to several agencies worth of regulations, there has been NO groundwater contamination.
But it has happened in PA and WY So far it’s limited…But it should be watched for further contamination.
As a resident of Texas, I would be concerned that more than half the water in some areas are used to process oil and gas. We aren’t talking about polution from extraction, we are talking about using the water to both extract and process energy. Texas is not rich with water to a point they can afford to sacrifice this water indefinitely…lneither is any other state.
http://www.americanindependent.com/194495/in-the-texas-panhandle-one-county-finds-more-than-half-its-water-use-goes-to-oil-and-gas
If excessive use of water to produce energy is the issue, then we all must agree to ban ethanol from corn immediately, right?
texases — "In Texas there have been tens of thousands of wells 'fracced', and, thanks in part to several agencies worth of regulations, there has been NO groundwater contamination. ... But the claim that the US fresh water resources are at risk is nonsense, pure and simple."The folks in this article would disagree with you. The Fracturing of Pennsylvania, NY Times Magazine, 11/17/2011
"It's hard to get a man to believe X when his living comes from believing in Y." - Charlie Munger, as told to the blog "Mungerisms".
Texases…you get absolutely no argument from me on ethanol.
Fresh water is a huge issue. Not as long as you or I can turn the spigot and see clean water appear. But wait till it becomes rationed for private use while industries continue to use it unabated. That will fry your buns then and mabe our tunes will collectively change.
I need it explained to me why other alcohol based fuels are not in the mix. Burning methanol for example with reduction in economy is a worthwhile trade off for two dollars a gallon. The diesel was “invented” to run on organic fuels. IMHO, we are short changed in fuel options by a govt. that is fearful of corps. who are equally fearful of free market competition.
Few have ever heard the expression “Too poor to paint and too proud to white-wash” but for someone like myself, who grew up in the south it was apparent some years ago regarding this area and is analogous to the U.S. today.Those antebellum mansions that once displayed the wealth of the owners but now are nothing but rotted timber and chimneys are like this country’s infrastructure that crumbles. How many bridges will crumble and how many school roofs will fall in while the politicians tell us they can’t afford the repairs but cut taxes and spend $trillion fighting a war for oil.
dag - methanol is even tougher on fuel systems than ethanol, major revisions to materials would be required.
Me, I’d like to see some way to use natural gas. Current NG prices are low because there’s lots of it being produced. And modifying IC engines is proven, as are the emissions reductions.
Texases…perhaps, but from what I have read only marginally so and well within the boundaries of flex fuel ready cars.
It is cheaper and lends itself to be just another fuel option that can compete with petro products. That is my major point. It has production, safety and polution advantages over gasoline…and did I mention it can be produced domestically from coal. Oil companies don’t want the competition. It’s not far fetched to ask for cars that any combination of alcohol based fuels along with gasoline nat. gas, propane and soon diesel can power.
Texases…perhaps, but from what I have read only marginally so and well within the boundaries of flex fuel ready cars.
I think cars that run in NG pollute a LOT less then cars that run on gas. The big problem is performance and mpg. Drastic reduction in both.