The Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline was predictably stupid and will do little to protect the environment other than by slightly increasing world oil prices. Opponents made it clear that they didn’t care about the negligible environmental impacts of the pipeline; they just wanted to “keep the tar sands in the soil.”
The existence of tar sands refutes the frequent assertion that oil is going to become fantastically expensive in the near future. The Alberta tar sands are estimated to be the second-largest petroleum deposit in the world, but are ignored by those who want “peak oil,” who focus only on the liquid oil that has historically been our main source of petroleum. Extracting liquid oil costs less than extracting tar-sands oil, but since extraction costs form only a fraction of the cost of gasoline, access to tar-sands oil is going to keep gasoline affordable for a long time.
But be aware not to take more than one drug should be consumed within a day by a person. it is highly recommended that such a medicine that can be nicely and safely used in place of generic levitra. The one and only drug bearing the certified clinical approval to deal with premature ejaculation is levitra vs cialis Dapoxetine. The problem of male impotency divests makes & makes the deficient for attaining tadalafil from canada proper erection of their penile region. When the second in vitro fertilization attempt was done on Rhodiola Rosea, which displayed that 26 out of 35 males given 150mg to 200mg of the herb for three buy cialis pharmacy months, experienced sufficient enhancement of sexual system. The absurd idea is that not building the pipeline would result in the oil remaining in the soil. In fact, it just means it will go somewhere else. Since transportation costs to that somewhere else will be higher than piping it to the U.S., this inefficiency will push world oil prices slightly higher.
Michael Levi, an energy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, claims to refute “five myths about the Keystone pipeline,” but only four of them are myths. Two refuted environmental myths were that the pipeline would have caused catastrophic climate change and that it would “set back the green economy” (after Solandra it isn’t clear that there is a green economy, unless by “green” they mean government subsidies). Two refuted myths from pipeline supporters were that the pipeline would reduce U.S. dependence on Mideast oil and that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs (turns out the numbers were in job-years).
The myth that was not a myth was that, without the pipeline, Canada would sell the oil to China, to which the writer answers “so what?” In other words, this “myth” is true. The so-what is that, as a result, world energy costs will be higher. That’s not a tragedy, but it is stupidity.
After Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, Vesta wind recently laying off over 2,000 people. It’s clear that their really isn’t much of a green economy. I’ve seen examples of Europe’s energy policy. I’m surprised they’re not in revolt. nvironmental protection is a luxury good especially in Europe. When per-capita income reaches some threshold, the citizens tire of opaque air and sleazy waters, various agencies and permanent bureaucracies sprout, and, as long as times are good, regulation is good. Spain, which suffered the malady of economic miasma brought on by environmental populism sought to buy support with outrageous subsidies, in the form of power purchases, to anyone who put a solar panel on his roof in sunny Seville. The government spent much more than it took in, sold bonds it couldn't back. Electricity prices have gone through the roof. The average U.K. household bill is a tad under $200 per month, and so the thermostat goes down. It’s pretty chilly there for much of the year, and a cold house has consequences. A study just came out today on the health costs of what they call "fuel poverty" and the studies show the chill from green taxes is now killing more Brits per year than car crashes. London has suddenly awoken to the costs of greenness and is proposing to reduce the solar subsidies now threatens the multibillion dollar subsidies for its massive wind power scheme. Spain announced a 40% reduction in its wind power subsidy. energy department is questioning the wisdom of its go-it-alone global warming policies, citing loss of economic competitiveness. The British government pulled the plug on its budget-bending carbon capture and storage facility. That’s where carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal is pulled out of the exhaust and sent back into the ocean floor. It sounds expensive and fanciful, and it is. The price of carbon credits (what you buy as a permit to “emit” has dropped off the table because the Greek and Italian (and soon Spanish and the rest of Europe) crises are crashing the European economy. No one needs to buy a permit to emit carbon dioxide when the factory is finally shut down. And so, as history teaches us, when times are good, green is great, and when economies crash, green cracks up. truth is Germany is already nearing completion of 13 Gigawatts of fossil fuel plants, mainly coal-fired, and is planning to build an additional 10 Gigawatts of fossil fuel plants to make up for the lost nuclear energy. So the renewable energy is basically just window dressing and good PR to cover the fact that Germany is planning to replace much cleaner nuclear energy with polluting, intensive carbon emitting coal plants. Why is Greenpeace helping Germany with the deception that Germany will “shift away from coal fueled power plants†and claiming that this will help Germany to achieve a 40% reduction in “carbon pollution†by 2020 when it is obvious that there will be a large increase in carbon emissions as a result of the closing of nuclear plants and the opening of an equivalent number of coal and gas plants? Could it be because Germany is Greenpeace’s biggest source of funding and that Greenpeace wishes the public to think this is a great victory for the environmental movement. For decades the taxpayer has funded unnecessary programs. As far back as the 1970’s with the Carter administration’s SynthFuel program at a cost to taxpayers in the sum of 19 billion dollars (60+ billion in today’s money) which was later shut down after delivering nothing. A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges. In China, coal is expected to generate more than 60 percent of the country’s electricity for the foreseeable future and will include nearly 1,000 gigawatts of coal fired power over the next 20 years. wind and solar, have low capacity factors compared to fossil, nuclear and hydroelectric technologies. That means that wind and solar generation levels from the same amount of capacity as fossil and nuclear technologies will be much lower in comparison. So, while China currently has more wind generating capacity than any other country in the world and is expected to add over 100 gigawatts more by 2035, wind power’s share of generation will only meet 5 percent of the country’s total generation and solar generation will not even attain a one percent share. How are we even supposed to enforce Kyoto like regulations when China and India are allowed exemption from the treaty. Canada of all people has backed out, Japan ironically will follow soon. Third World countries manage to generate a lot of garbage, smoke, and trash. The Third World is heavily deforesting at the moment with they’re greatest carbon sinks. The happier Third World economies today are what ours were sixty years ago. Over 60 percent of the emissions are coming out of the Third World and are expected to increase over the next 50 years and those countries have shown they’re not the least bit interested in adapting or spending money on a low carbon diet.
The Antiplanner wrote:
The existence of tar sands refutes the frequent assertion that oil is going to become fantastically expensive in the near future. The Alberta tar sands are estimated to be the second-largest petroleum deposit in the world, but are ignored by those who want “peak oil,†who focus only on the liquid oil that has historically been our main source of petroleum. Extracting liquid oil costs less than extracting tar-sands oil, but since extraction costs form only a fraction of the cost of gasoline, access to tar-sands oil is going to keep gasoline affordable for a long time.
Well-stated.
If the tar sands oil from Alberta doesn’t get purchased by the United States, then the Red Chinese will happily buy all of it and ship it to Asia. This is bad for two big reasons:
(1) The environmental costs of shipping the Canadian oil across the Pacific are much higher than shipping it from Alberta to the U.S. via Keystone XL.
(2) It makes for a closer relationship between the Red Chinese government and the Canadians, something that’s not in the strategic interest of the United States.
LazyReader wrote:
How are we even supposed to enforce Kyoto like regulations when China and India are allowed exemption from the treaty.
Because many of these “serious concerns” about carbon emissions and other pollutants come from persons and groups that are much more concerned about the lifestyle enjoyed by far too many middle-class U.S. residents.
The oil in the tar sands is going to get extracted and used, regardless of opposition from the Sierra Club and NRDC and their allies and friends.
Washington Post editorial:
Obama’s Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept
Reason’s Out of Control:
Keystone Pipeline Likely to be Rejected
And Joel Kotkin at NewGeorgraphy.com:
In Keystone XL Rejection, We See Two Americas At War With Each Other
Who would have thought that 2012 US global warming policy would end up being about a North American pipeline? Politics sure takes odd turns. I can see why environmental groups would oppose almost any pipeline, but this hardly seems to worth the immense political capital the enviros must have spent to get the President to deny the project. Maybe it was the most that enviros could get right now.
Please. You are pretzeling yourself covering for the Koch-backed Solyndra gibberish and Keystone projects. You should be whining to the GOP who set the 60-day deadline to try and make political hay. At least you aren’t pretending to argue for domestic energy security.
DS
This project has been around for much longer then 60 days.
Build it.
RE: Higher oil prices/peak oil.
Gas prices today in real terms are the same as 1980, about $1.25 when adjusted for inflation. It’s 32 years closer to “peak oil” yet gas costs the same. Hmm…
Gas is actually cheaper today when compared to the 1950s. Then, gas was about 25 cents a gallon, paid for with a silver quarter. Today, the value of silver in that quarter is $5.52, making gas about $2.00 a gallon cheaper now.
If we were even on the cusp of peak oil, real prices would reflect it. That they don’t is telling.
If you are not running out of oil because technology and market forces keep developing more oil from the ground, then you have to use political forces to block pipelines and force a shortage of oil.
Most oil field development leaves more than half the oil in the ground. So as technology advances, there is a lot of oil left even in places like Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska and Pennsylvania that may be developed some day.
If we were even on the cusp of peak oil, real prices would reflect it
Only if signals were clear for all agents to calculate Pareto optima. Alternatively, you might want to notify all the energy forecasting agencies, energy companies**, militaries, and analysts of your discovery. They keep saying we’re at or very near peak, and briefing policymakers and their staff.
DS
**http://www.businessinsider.com/jeremy-gilbert-peak-oil-2011-5
We may be at or near peak oil, if we are looking at know Oil reserves, but that seems to keep changing.
The airline industry depends on affordable oil, and with expensive oil, air travel is only for the rich. Yet Airbus made a hefty investment in the A380, designed to transport 525 people. These huge airplanes use literally tons of fuel, which must remain relatively inexpensive for the next several decades in order to fill the seats with working class passengers who fly coach and can’t afford a first-class ticket.
Do you think the people at Airbus are idiots, are ignorant of “peak oil”, or are just ignoring “the truth” about the impending End of Oil? Or do you think it’s more likely they know there is plenty of oil now and for the next couple of decades and made business decisions based on that?
Which makes more sense? Which corresponds to the fact that for decades oil prices have been relatively stable?
I have a big problem with “the Chinese will buy it” argument. The problem is that they won’t. Pipelines rely mostly on gravity and pressure to deliver product. Running a pipeline over or through the rockies, while technologically possible, is a non-starter from a cost effectiveness point of view. So, no, there will be no Tar sands delivery to China.
However, if the pipeline is not built, there will be a dead weight economic loss both to the USA and Canada because tar sands production will be curtailed and it will adversely affect refinery employment on the Gulf Coast.
There is also a national security argument. Oil refining is not just about gasoline. Petroleum distillates, plastic, et al, other than gasoline are what keep our economy humming. Even if everyone rode electric trains and electric cars, it would not end our need for oil, sorry. We still need oil for all the other distillates other than gasoline. So the question is who would you prefer we get it from? Our stable friendly neighbor to the North. The corrupt regime of Hugo Chavez(currently, the plurality of refined product on the Gulf Coast originates in Venezuela)? Our terrorist funding Saudi Arabian ally? Where?
According to a website with a bias:
“The raw material for most plastic bags made in the US is actually natural gas. Less than 3% of all oil ends up being converted into plastic – ALL plastic – from car bumpers, to computer parts, to bags and packaging. The VAST majority of oil is refined into fuel.”
Didn’t go too deep into the fact checking, but it seems plausible.
So we could make plastic here with natural gas and the oil produced here.
@13: airlines are likely going toward biofuels. For a while, anyway, until people need the land for food. And the reason for the new Boeing planes is their added efficiencies, on top of the new engines being very efficient.
@14: Harper is seriously talking about a terminus being at Kitimat for Alberta tarsands shipment to Asia. And again, more than 1/3 of the oil is already contracted to go offshore, without one inch of the pipe being laid.
DS
Here’s an non-sourced line from Wiki: “Petroleum is also the raw material for many chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics; the 16% not used for energy production is converted into these other materials”.
Here’s a sourced line: “In the United States in 2007 about 70% of petroleum was used for transportation (e.g. petrol, diesel, jet fuel), 24% by industry (e.g. production of plastics), 5% for residential and commercial uses, and 2% for electricity production.”
Bioplastics are also on the horizon.
So oil is mostly about transportation, but not all. That might be changing.
It’s Airbus, not Boeing, but you’re right about it using alternative fuels. The Airbus does not seem to much more fuel efficient, although it is more efficient per passenger than Boeing’s 747.
Two points:
“By 2025…a quarter of jet fuel [for the Airbus] could be some form of alternative fuel.”
That’s pretty weak. It’s going to take nearly 15 years to replace 25% of jet fuel with “some sort of alternative fuel”; love that wording, “some sort”. So this means that they’re still betting on cheap fuel for the next couple of decades.
“But Remy said GTL was the first step to developing BTL (biomass-to-liquid) fuel, which can use anything from wood chips to crops.
He wants to avoid competing with food crops, and said the research emphasis was on growing biomass where food crops are not grown, such as arid regions.
Eventually, algae could be one source.”
Very speculative at this point. Certainly for most of their operational life, these aircraft will be using mostly petroleum. Airbus is betting in cheap oil for the next couple of decades.
And why not? We invaded another country and toppled its leader to gain access to 350 billion barrels.
Well, that’s enough spamming the board for one day. Back to shoveling some more global warming. While the rest of the globe is warming, the PNW is cooling and has been for a century.
The reason for the new Boeing planes is their efficiency gains. So their fleet can use less fuel. A buddy of mine is a process engineer for them and spent much time in Italy at their plant getting it up and running.
Nevertheless, the first Keystone pipeline is leaky. The second one was oversold by the industry as to job creation and pricing effects (oversell…hm…sorta like light rail arguments we hear here…where’s the outrage…), and the stated purpose was for export despite early cheerleading for energy security (which is largely silent now).
And I suspect much SuperPAC text in the next few months will be that Obummer is a job-destroyer and energy-haydur and job killin notRomney and environmentalist-lovin jobkilla. Then he’ll approve it after the election and that will be that.
DS
You can take it a step further. In 1937 the average cost of a gallon of gas was 10 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that is 5.47 dollars in 2011 dollars. We’re paying actually less for oil and gas today than we were decades ago. Gas is 3.29 where I’m at now. Peak oilers don’t understand the nature of supply and demand. Right now the Saudi’s can suck the stuff out of the ground for less than 5 dollars a barrel (42 gallons). They can do it because the major oil producing states don’t have much in the way of environmental regulations. Russia wastefully spills more oil every few months than the entire BP accident. They also tend to be Third World countries so they have labor costs that tend to be lower. Even in more developed nations labor costs are low cause oil extraction tends to be a largely automated process (even before computers oil was heavily pumped using Pumpjacks or as rural folks called them, Grasshoppers).
Somebody mentioned the “strategic interests of the United States” in their comment. This commenter obviously has never read Chomsky. Dontja know, that’s racism?
.
Back to shoveling some more global warming
Chuckle.
the PNW is cooling and has been for a century
Riiiiiiiight. chuckle
DS
Warren Buffet is smart enough to pay less taxes than his secretary, and smart enough to invest in railroads that make lots of money carrying coal.
From 1941-2000, both Seattle and Portland were .6 degree cooler than from 1881 to 1940. In fact, Seattle was on balance cooler during the 20th century. In the last 10 years, Seattle has dropped .54 degrees. (Rainier has dropped 1.74 abd Crater Lake has dropped over 2.) Run this trend analysis for the mean temp, 2000-2010, period=annual, and you’ll see widespread and significant cooling in the Pacific Northwest. It’s really hard to argue against this data.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm
The ratio of gasoline to other distillates is usually around 40 percent on an annualized basis. There is no meaningful substitute or combination of substitutes or alternatives which can make up for the sheer volume of oil required to produce the sixty percent of distillates other than gasoline. No amount of hemp or switchgrass or biomass is around to make up that volume. I am sorry but those distillates are necessary for every industrial and agricultural process which keeps us fed and the economy running.
I have to admit I’m a novice when it comes to understanding the process of how oil is extracted and then becomes gas, but is building a transnational super long pipeline really more feasible than distributing refining capability in the north?
It seems to me that the oil has a long journey south just so the gas can be put on trucks and sent up north. Smarter people than me are working on this project, but intuitively it doesn’t make much sense to me.
The problem with environmentalism is that the people doing it are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
If people were serious about protecting the environment, they would start by a) not throwing away 2/3 of the energy generated in power stations and b) replace diesel buses with cleaner diesel-electric and trolleybus models.
Windmills, solar panels, high speed rail – these are just surface gloss, and expensive gloss at that.
That sort of puts oil sands into context.
@13 and 16…
The problem isn’t getting planes of of fuel. For all the flying globally, aviation consumes less than 4% of the worlds fuel. The solution is to get everything else that can run on other sources of fuel off of fossil fuel, starting with home heating oil. It’s amazing to me people are still burning oil to heat a home to the tune of 3.5 billion gallons a year.
If people were serious about global warming, then they wouldn’t spend their Nobel Prize money to buy huge houses and SUVs, they wouldn’t fly tens of thousands of activists to global resort locations for UN global warming conferences, and they wouldn’t support high speed rail which expends huge amounts of public money for something that doesn’t even meet their own “vital” efficiency goals.
Re : heating oil. Absolutely agree. If there is one effective use of tax dollars and force, it is to ban heating oil and subsidize natural gas upgrades for the poor. One of my neighbors burns oil and it literally has made me sick. With all off the natural gas in this country, there is no good reason to burn oil.
@25: you’ll want to contact NOAA and Hadley and let them know the maps generated from their data don’t agree with you.
@28: I agree and also remember fossil fuel isn’t priced correctly, as there are large externalities from its burning. Also solar will be grid-parity by ~2020.
DS
Jardinero1 wrote:
I have a big problem with “the Chinese will buy it†argument. The problem is that they won’t.
I’ve read elsewhere that the Chinese are very interested in the Alberta tar sands.
Pipelines rely mostly on gravity and pressure to deliver product. Running a pipeline over or through the rockies, while technologically possible, is a non-starter from a cost effectiveness point of view. So, no, there will be no Tar sands delivery to China.
I cannot speak to the cost-effectiveness of a pipeline from Alberta to a port in British Columbia.
However, I suspect you are familiar with another controversial pipeline project that the U.S. environmental industry was very much opposed to – that would be the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) built in the 1970’s, which runs from the North Slope of Alaska to Valdez, which means it must cross the Continental Divide (and I concede the elevation of the Divide is much lower in Alaska than it is in the Canadian Rockies).
I cannot speak to the cost-effectiveness of a pipeline from Alberta to a port in British Columbia.
Enbridge can, and they want it, and its a big story in Canada right now. Natives and First Nations know what’s coming.
DS
It seems to me that the Canadian tar oil is going to be developed one way or another. Maybe it is exported through British Columbia, maybe it displaces imports to Eastern Canada, or perhaps it is just developed a little slower.
I can see why US enviros would oppose the pipeline as a matter of principle, but is there any reasonable scenario that the Canadian tar oil would stay in the ground for the 100 years that would be required make any difference at all in global warming models? Even Canada defends its national interest and economy at some point.
Ok, I used an unreliable source for my first claim. I retract it. But my second claim is true and absolutely verifiable by anyone who follows the steps I listed above. In short: During the last decade, the Pacific Northwest has cooled. Here’s another claim to add on: The cooling is of such a magnitude that it negates any previous warming. That’s unsupported, but whatever. Those are some big blue dots.
And finally, Earth will self-regulate: How mysterious molecules may help cool Earth
No peak oil. No catastrophic global warming. They’re pixie dust. They’re the illusions of the apocalyptics. Those who hate humans so much they buy the worst case scenario.
Sandy Teal posted:
It seems to me that the Canadian tar oil is going to be developed one way or another. Maybe it is exported through British Columbia, maybe it displaces imports to Eastern Canada, or perhaps it is just developed a little slower.
That’s how I see it.
I can see why US enviros would oppose the pipeline as a matter of principle, but is there any reasonable scenario that the Canadian tar oil would stay in the ground for the 100 years that would be required make any difference at all in global warming models? Even Canada defends its national interest and economy at some point.
Is it principle or just reflex? As in opposition to anything that delivers crude oil to anyone? As in opposition to any oil extraction projects off of the U.S. Atlantic or Pacific coasts?
Not that consumers of petroleum products have much say about it, but given a choice, I would much rather purchase gasoline and Diesel fuel refined from crude extracted from oilfields in the U.S. or Canada (be it Alberta’s tar sands or elsewhere) rather than purchase it from Venezuela or Iran or Russia (though it seems that the Russians may have huge and untapped oil reserves under Siberia).
Dan posted:
Enbridge can, and they want it, and its a big story in Canada right now. Natives and First Nations know what’s coming.
Do you imply that if Keystone XL gets built then there will be no pipeline from Alberta to the Canadian Pacific coast?
Frank wrote:
No peak oil. No catastrophic global warming. They’re pixie dust. They’re the illusions of the apocalyptics. Those who hate humans so much they buy the worst case scenario.
I am not convinced either way of the above.
The loudest sounders of these alarms are the very same people and groups that want to use the power of government (at all levels) to force middle-class people to live in high-density urban housing, take mass transit and not own a private motor vehicle – and were doing so long before “peak oil” and “global warming” became entries in the popular vocabulary
Seems to me that the easiest way to significantly reduce carbon use would be to replace coal-fired electric generating stations with generators powered by zero-emission nuclear reactors. But here again, it seems that the same groups that are opposed to new oil pipelines, new electric transmission lines, new highways, and anything else (except for light rail lines, high-speed rail lines and bike paths) – are also against new nuclear-powered electric generating stations.
Do you imply that if Keystone XL gets built then there will be no pipeline from Alberta to the Canadian Pacific coast?
CPZ: no, these are two separate projects. The export contracts for the US terminus AIUI are somewhat different than the Enbridge pipeline.
BTW, for a good primer on these bituminous Canadian sands and the other Arctic energy developments, including good history on the Soviet/Russian fossil development history, Laurence C. Smith’s The World in 2050: Four forces shaping civilization’s northern future is a good read; he’s a geographer with extensive study and time in the Arctic.
DS
C.P.Zilliacus wrote:
“The loudest sounders of these alarms are the very same people and groups that want to use the power of government (at all levels) to force middle-class people to live in high-density urban housing, take mass transit and not own a private motor vehicle – and were doing so long before “peak oil†and “global warming†became entries in the popular vocabulary.”
In the UK, at least, they are separate groups. The global-warming alarmists aren’t sufficiently well informed to create intelligent arguments around the controversy of sprawl-versus-densification. The answers to this question are very complex and controversial. The alarmists are more interested in hugging a tree, or hugging a windmill.
Cars have real problems, in terms of destroying the social threads running through communities, in taking money out of the economy on a catastrophic sale, in polluting the neighbourhoods (although diesel buses are worse), and no street-scape has been prettified by having assorted second-hand metal boxes cluttering the kerb edge.
I don’t have a problem with nuclear energy, although it has to be admitted (Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima) that all too often nuclear plants are designed, built and operated by the famous engineering company, Messrs Bodgit and Leggit.
people and groups that want to use the power of government (at all levels) to force middle-class people to live in high-density urban housing, take mass transit and not own a private motor vehicle
This is, of course, a false premise and baseless fear (not that there aren’t demagogues out there stirring up fears and trying to get people to believe this).
There may be ten people on the planet who are trying to do this, maybe two with power. No one with influence or brains thinks they can steal your car and force you into transit in low-density Murrica.
DS
“people and groups that want to use the power of government (at all levels) to force middle-class people to live in high-density urban housing, take mass transit and not own a private motor vehicle”
I’ve encountered many people who want to use government to force people to use mass transit and prevent people from owning cars. I used to hang out with these people in PDX who put DRIVING stickers under the “stop” on stop signs. After that experimentation, I abandoned the extremism, but still saw it everywhere.
Two environmental educators I supervised were not only environmental extremists in their views, they were also hypocrites. One actually said that she believed people should be forced into transit and that people should NOT be able to “drive their own private cars all over the place”. No kidding. Guess that’s the kind of mentality Whitman College churns out; too bad they don’t do any real environmental education; both these employees knew next to nothing about natural history. Anyway, the best part is that they drove to work everyday instead of taking the bus (they were always late so I guess that’s why). AND, wait for it…they actually believed that using the A/C uses more gas, so they drove everywhere sweltering in summer heat.
This is the future of environmentalism in our country. It’s predicated on ignorance and the urge to use government force to end behaviors they feel are evil.
Environmental science/studies programs at US colleges are a blend of the natural sciences and the social sciences.
Some colleges draw more from the social sciences, where faculties feel they should impart a “mission” on their students rather than objectivity. Some colleges draw more from the natural sciences, where faculties feel they should impart scientific objectivity on their students.
It is a huge rift in US faculties, though it does not get much publicity because both types of colleges hide the problem because they draw lots of money for both types of research. But the students turn out very differently.
C. P. Zilliacus said:
Again, it seems that the same groups that are opposed to new oil pipelines, new electric transmission lines, new highways, and anything else (except for light rail lines, high-speed rail lines and bike paths) – are also against new nuclear-powered electric generating stations.
THWM: Where the hell have you been? NIMBYs are hostile to rail lines & bike paths too!
What a tempest in a teapot, festooned with all the appropriate ribbons of misrepresentation.
The entire Keystone XL system (510,000 barrels per day rated capacity) is equivalent to oil delivery by 6 unit freight trains of 135 cars each. US and Canadian railroads are already running unit oil trains out of the Bakken to terminals all across the US without having to spend $7 billion or endure a political firestorm. I can’t imagine there is not capacity to add 6 trains each way between Alberta and various US refineries or export terminals, maybe in something like a 3-2-1 split between the Gulf, Midwest, and Northeast refineries. No permits required, and could be in operation as soon as 10,000 new tank cars could be produced – probably about 3 months.
The real reason for the Keystone project is not to supply US needs, which are obviously in permanent decline given the ongoing decisions by domestic oil companies to permanently shutter multiple refineries and turn others to the (re)export market, but to export oil sands product abroad via US terminals and raise the price of West Texas Intermediate crude to world price levels by ending the CONUS+Canada supply glut at Cushing, OK. In other words, the oil is not intended for us, but the higher prices are.
The Alberta Oil Sands are not a solution to peak oil, because peak oil is mainly an extraction and logisitics problem as well as a limit case of exponential growth. It doesn’t matter that oil is cheaper in real terms than it was 60 years ago, what oil is not doing is growing in abundance, or growing in abundance at market at a price the US economy wants to pay, especially relative to what other economies like China want to pay. Also, as older fields inevitably decline and output stagnates in major overseas suppliers, enough new supply is not being brought to market to provide continued 2% annual growth in supplies of crude oil (increased supplies of natural gas liquids like ethane from the Marcellus Shale are hardly helpful for transportation fuels problems). This is why worldwide supply of crude oil has been stagnant post 2004 in the face of ever highe prices. The Alberta Oil Sands are limited in production by the availability of natural gas and water and other resources to perform the extraction process, as well as by the price the market is willing to pay for this oil. To scale up oil sands production by an order of magnitude to 10 million barrels per day (so as to replace all other sources of US oil imports) would require supplying 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The US and Canada produce 27.5 trillion cubic feet per year, so this would imply using over 13% of combined national production of natural gas to extract oil from the tar sands. Current plans are a production level of only 5 million barrels per day (compare to worldwide production of 75 million barrels oil per day).
Growth in total US refined oil supplied to market (domestic + imports + biofuels + refinery gain) essentially peaked in 1978, right around when Jimmy Carter gave his infamous malaise speech, at 19 million barrels per day. It then tanked through the early 1980’s due to forced efficienies in use by economic conditions, which permitted a renewed growth in consumption at a slower pace up to 2006 to 21 million barrels. Since 2006, we’ve fallen back to 19 million barrels per day in the face of tripled prices, and show no signs of resumed exponential growth in supply or consumption. As I mentioned above, a number of US and Canadian oil refineries with a combined capacity of over 1 million barrels are in the process of being permanetly closed. In addition, remaining US oil refineries are exporting a large amount of product being supplied because there is no domestic market for it. This implies a future even larger eventual loss in refining capacity and required crude oil inputs at such time as the receiving countries of these exports eventually get their act together on their own refineries, or start receiving refined product from places like Saudi Arabia that have net production over consumption and are building oil refineries to deliver higher value refined products instead of crude oil.
Per capita figures for supply are even worse. You can stick your head in the sand all you want denying the reality of the situation, but, well, there it is. No net growth in supply anywhere on the horizon, prices going higher going forward, refineries shutting down forever, available import sources continuing to decline as producers use more oil domestically. That is peak oil. You can deny it all you want, but the reality is right in front of you if you really care to look at it.
2% annual growth in world crude oil supplies to 2050 to keep up another 35-40 years of business as usual would imply a 50% total increase in supply. Anyone who believes that is really going to happen is invited to explain where 38 million barrels per day of new capacity is going to come from over and above existing (declining) capacity. As an aside, 38 million barrels is the annual production of All Persian Gulf Countries + Russia + US = 14 billion barrels per year.
I won’t hold my breath while the crickets chirp around here.
Sorry Andrew. Since there is lots of money to be made in supplying oil, I can sleep comfortably knowing that the free market system will supply it. Just like I don’t worry about peak pencils, peak rubber, peak gold, peak foie gras, or any of the other things I may or may not need.
If people were really worried about peak oil, then they wouldn’t be using politics to shut down investment in pipelines. Actions always speak louder than words, and that is why I don’t think President Obama would delay the pipeline and hurt the US if he believed in peak oil.
If you believe in peak oil, then you have lots of opportunities to make a fortune by smart investing and redesigning your life for it. Have fun with that. Most leading environmentalist don’t live like that, but that is just actions and not their words.
knowing that the free market system will supply it.
Welcome to our planet, friend! We call this place “Earth”. You must be thirsty after your long voyage! Try some of our government-supplied water!
If people were really worried about peak oil, then they wouldn’t be using politics to shut down investment in pipelines
False premises, they keep ’em a-comin’!!
DS
On April 20th, 2010, Dan said:
That’s funny, when I saw Buffett in a long interview on Charlie Rose just after the purchase, he talked about how many miles on a gallon being the main reason for the purchase. He thinks he sees coming price increases and wants to capture efficiencies.
DS
Obama Supporter Buffett to Profit from Rejection of Keystone XL Pipeline
by Publius From Bloomberg Government:
Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,†Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.â€
The GOP gave a short, arbitrary deadline to play politics. Looks like the gullibles have predictably fallen for it, and the shills are using it to accuse the Kenyan food stamp president Obummer of “rejecting the pipeline”, rather than the GOP making it impossible for him to accept it.
BHO merely played by the GOP rules. But that’s how politics goes. Surely such low-quality talking points won’t be used in a debate by Romney, as he isn’t stupid and knows it will be slapped down as easily as a fruit fly.
Likely Keystone app. will be fast-tracked after the election after the dreadlock vote is secured, if the Nebraskans can be overrun and bought off. Far too much money to be made by rich white men to let it go, even if little of the oil and few benefits will accrue to US coffers (NAFTA).
DS