Who can justify the Keystone decision?

[knothead]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Most of those links are dead. I find it interesting that you would point to an advocacy site that uses the perjorative term "tar sands" to describe the oilsands.

Here is a link to an advocacy group whose agenda I do not always agree with, but they have proven to be credible, even if one does not agree with thier agenda. In other words, if they bring something up, one at least has to listen.

Your original post suggested an area the size of Florida is at risk to have the boreal forest eliminated. That just is not the case, as the fast majority of the oilsands are in situ, and there has been only some attempt at extracting it.

The oilsands bring ecological challenges, there is no question about that. But it does little good to fear monger and disseminage inaccurate information.

Much better to take accurate information, and utilize it. It gives much more credibility with the decsion makers in the end.

Individual oilsands projects do not operate in isolation. Every new project that is approved adds to the cumulative environmental impacts associated with development in the Fort McMurray region. (source Pembina Institute)

For an actual map of the mineable, verus total including in situ area, go here; it becomes clear your statement of the mineable area being the size of Florida is incorrect.

Being concerned about the impact of the oilsands extraction is a valid issue. Discussing it without factual, or questionable data is not.

Every link in my post still works for me. Perhaps you have some sort of internet filter that is preventing you from seeing things that you don't like.

Here is the text that I got the Florida thing from. Follow the link in the quote from your last post to find the site. It's from the International Boreal Conservation Campaign.


"Tar sands extraction and refinement is the
most polluting and carbon intensive oil process on earth,
draining wetlands, diverting rivers and stripping all trees and
vegetation from the forest.2 An area the size of Florida is
planned for tar sands expansion.3"

[Brent Swain]

These jobs are short term only, but the liabilities are very long term. Enbridge has a record of losing 1,000 barrels a year from their pipelines , don't expect Trans Canada's record to be any better.
How do you get spilled oil out of an aquifer?

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by jackdale

When you were in school did you have the other kids do your homework for you?



Of course we know the Republicans are acting in the national interest.



Oil & Gas | OpenSecrets

Both the Democrats and Repugnant party received huge donations from the oil industry. They prefer to have both indebted to their interests.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

I think you are missing the point that Big Oil does not look at the energy budget of any country - rather they look at the entire world as a system. I checked some numbers from Statistics Canada for 2009. The units below are millions of terajoules since the table I looked at compared all forms of energy so they use joules rather than barrels, kWhs or whatever.

Crude production - 5.447
Exports - 3.165
Net (CP-Ex) - 2.282
Imports - 1.827
Domestic use (Net + imports) - 4.418

By my figures we export 58% of production and import 41% of need but these are happening thousands of miles apart. Certainly we could meet all of our need and perhaps we should, but it is cheaper to supply Quebec and most of Atlantic Canada with oil from offshore via supertanker than from the West via pipeline since supertanker transport is cheaper than pipeline. What really is odd is that a lot of the oil from offshore Newfoundland goes to other countries than to refineries in Eastern Canada.

Had a eureka moment while typing that solves both the Keystone problem and water shortage problem. I thought I should post it here before contacting Mr. Harper...

Stick with me here -- we build a canal (we could call it the Keystone Canal) from Alberta to the Gulf that is big enough for supertankers. It gets the oil and freshwater south and would allow all those Canadian boats with Edmonton as their hailing port to get home.

Why export anything until our own needs are supplied? Where's the logic?
A canal would cost far more than the oil is worth.

[killarney_sailor]

There was a smiley atfter the canal suggestion.

The logic is that it is cheaper to do it the way it is now done and the oil companies are not looking at it from a national perspective, rather from an international one. By the same logic, why does the United States export almost as much oil as Canada does, only to import basically the same amount from Canada. To supply refineries in Quebec and Atlantic Canada we would need to build a pipeline from Sarnia to at least Saint John. Also, I have no idea how close to capacity the pipeline is from Alberta to Sarnia.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

I am fascinated by the specific use of language and what it signifies.

Kind of like "carbon emissions."

[danjarch]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

There was a smiley atfter the canal suggestion.

The logic is that it is cheaper to do it the way it is now done and the oil companies are not looking at it from a national perspective, rather from an international one. By the same logic, why does the United States export almost as much oil as Canada does, only to import basically the same amount from Canada. To supply refineries in Quebec and Atlantic Canada we would need to build a pipeline from Sarnia to at least Saint John. Also, I have no idea how close to capacity the pipeline is from Alberta to Sarnia.

I tried to find it but couldn't. I had read a good article about it a few weeks ago. There's an existing pipeline running east but that one is only capable of moving 9000 barrels a day, and would have to be extensively rebuilt so as to reverse the flow.

There is another pipeline that runs west but it's part of a deal with the US and has to carry X amount of oil from Oregon. Of course there is no need to get federal approval to build a pipeline from the current end point in Oklahoma to the Texas coast. And you don't need federal approval to build a new pipeline from Oklahoma to Nebraska.

But if you don't get approval to cross the border your left with a very expensive over built pipeline that carries less then half of what it could. Of course, with all the new discoveries in the Dakotas, they might have enough reason to build the pipeline irregardless.

Something will happen. Of that you can be sure. Either the Canadians will build something east or west. Or they will build a smaller pipeline from Oklahoma to the coast. But they won't keep selling their crude at below market rates forever.

[kd3pc]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

These jobs are short term only, but the liabilities are very long term. Enbridge has a record of losing 1,000 barrels a year from their pipelines , don't expect Trans Canada's record to be any better.
How do you get spilled oil out of an aquifer?

it is like peanut butter....HOW is it going to get IN to the aquifer.

1,000 barrels a year? Although I like that number, it is way too low to be real, so I have been told on this forum... It would be a world record to only lose that much, from ANY pipeline...You may want to look at the other side's numbers, they are in the 10's of thousands of barrels, some higher, per year.

[PBzeer]

Interestingly, even water has a hard time entering the aquaifer, as much of it is covered by nearly impenetrable caliche (hardpan).

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Interestingly, even water has a hard time entering the aquaifer, as much of it is covered by nearly impenetrable caliche (hardpan).

Water has 800 times the surface tension of oil. That is why it blows the heads off injectors.