Oil sands crude not as ‘dirty’ as many think, journal Nature says, urging Keystone ok


Goober
Free Thinker
#1
Oil sands crude not as

Journal urges Keystone XL approval
The scientific journal Nature is urging President Barack Obama to “face down critics” and approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, though it does cite pollution issues in Canada.

In an editorial on energy security and the climate debate this week, Nature said the president should issue powerful rules governing power plants and warn the coal industry to “clean up or fade away.”

Where TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL is concerned, approval would “bolster his credibility” in the industry among the nation’s conservatives.

Keystone XL, which would move more than 800,000 barrels a day of bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, is a flashpoint for environmentalists.

“The administration should face down critics of the project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve it,” the journal urged.

“As Nature has suggested before … the pipeline is not going to determine whether the Canadian tar sands are developed or not,” it added.

“Only a broader - and much more important - shift in energy policy will do that. Nor is oil produced from the Canadian tar sands as dirty from a climate perspective as many believe (some of the oil produced in California, without attention from environmentalists, is worse). Tar-sands development raises serious air- and water-quality issues in Canada, but these problems are well outside Obama’s jurisdiction.”

The administration initially rejected the project, forcing TransCanada to reroute the planned pipeline around an environmentally sensitive region in Nebraska.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+4
#2  Top Rated Post
I'd still rather see NG built instead. XL still makes us dependent on a fickle US market while NG gives us easy access to the world without US interference.

Or , since construction is my main interest in this build both lines.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I'd still rather see NG built instead. XL still makes us dependent on a fickle US market while NG gives us easy access to the world without US interference.

Ditto.
 
petros
#4
It's not for the US market.
 
Highball
+1
#5
If enough money is offered quietly many "Expert" witnesses have been know to "rethink" their position. Big oil money commands serious consideration of ones position. Right now the big oil guys are offering "big money" to any who they think may side with them "on the record."
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#6
Huh.

That's interesting. As much as I disagree, an approval from Nature is very compelling.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Huh.

That's interesting. As much as I disagree, an approval from Nature is very compelling.

You have read why they recommend it.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

You have read why they recommend it.

A little too tipsy to get into it right now, but I'll check it out later.

What's the gist?
 
bill barilko
#9
The fix is In!
 
petros
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Huh.

That's interesting. As much as I disagree, an approval from Nature is very compelling.

They know rail doesn't need approval and they are already shipping oil from AB/SK to TX, NY NJ and to BC by rail and if no pipes it ALL goes by rail?

What is rail's track record for crashes?

Oil trains would have to be quite lengthy to move 800,000bbl per day let alone the eventual 6,000,000 bbl a day of full capacity. That's a lot of fuel needed to haul all that oil. The potash and grain trains are aleady 2km long. Oil trains would have to be longer to meet capacity.

But you don't have to worry about trains that crash too much because the pipe is going in no matter what and oil will still go by rail to get get to the pipes.



120 cars full of Canadin oil rolling by Lake Champlain...

Pretty huh?



Oil from the Bakken ready to roll to Cushing.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilkoView Post

The fix is In!

What.. from Nature?

No, they're a pretty well respected scientific outlet.

It's not like we're getting FUD from the Fraser Institute here.
--

Anyway, the editorial appears to claim that building the pipeline would reduce the dependency on coal powered powerplants. We still don't know if that would change anything.

I'm not sure if it is an opinion piece or if there is any research behind it though. Can't seem to find the source article on nature.com -- guess we'll just have to wait for the mag release.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 1st, 2013 at 08:09 AM..
 
Tonington
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I'm not sure if it is an opinion piece or if there is any research behind it though. Can't seem to find the source article on nature.com -- guess we'll just have to wait for the mag release.


It's an editorial.
Change for good : Nature News & Comment
 
petros
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It's an editorial.
Change for good : Nature News & Comment

Well written by someone who has a good grasp of the big picture.
 
Tonington
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Well written by someone who has a good grasp of the big picture.

It is, though the article is sure to cause lots of howling.
 
petros
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It is, though the article is sure to cause lots of howling.

Obama is in with the NG crowd. NG is the future of heating and electricity with coal and heating oil phased out. GE has been heavily invested in by US Govt for NG turbine electricity.

The competing Republican oilmen were put on the back burners. Politics has it's priorities and obligations to those it favours. The Blue States are the States with the gas and the ones burning heating oil.

Getting the clean green NG to market is his goal and he needs the oil opposition appearance to pave the way for the sh*tloads of NG plants, pipelines and compressor stations that have to go in.

GE is in the rail business and makes good money with oil by rail. Wink wink.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It's an editorial.

Change for good : Nature News & Comment

Thanks.

What's your opinion on this Tonn?
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

They know rail doesn't need approval and they are already shipping oil from AB/SK to TX, NY NJ and to BC by rail and if no pipes it ALL goes by rail?

What is rail's track record for crashes?

Oil trains would have to be quite lengthy to move 800,000bbl per day let alone the eventual 6,000,000 bbl a day of full capacity. That's a lot of fuel needed to haul all that oil. The potash and grain trains are aleady 2km long. Oil trains would have to be longer to meet capacity.

But you don't have to worry about trains that crash too much because the pipe is going in no matter what and oil will still go by rail to get get to the pipes.



120 cars full of Canadin oil rolling by Lake Champlain...

Pretty huh?



Oil from the Bakken ready to roll to Cushing.


I was think'n of these guys (bit more local):

 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Environmentalists don't care whether the oil is cleaner than stated the message
is already out there and they will just keep driving the message home until the
rest of the people don't care either. I on the other hand don't want Asians getting
our oil and I don't want it going South either. Send it east/west and keep the bulk
of it for Canadians. We owe the world nothing and crude is going to be one of
three commodities Oil Water and Food and we have enough for us and if the rest
want it the conditions and money for it should go way up
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Environmentalists don't care whether the oil is cleaner than stated the message
is already out there and they will just keep driving the message home until the
rest of the people don't care either. I on the other hand don't want Asians getting
our oil and I don't want it going South either. Send it east/west and keep the bulk
of it for Canadians. We owe the world nothing and crude is going to be one of
three commodities Oil Water and Food and we have enough for us and if the rest
want it the conditions and money for it should go way up

Except that it would only take a couple of wells to supply the domestic market. What do the rest of the workforce do? Same with all our resources. A couple of mills in the interior could supply the entire domestic lumber market in less than 3 months production.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Except that it would only take a couple of wells to supply the domestic market. What do the rest of the workforce do? Same with all our resources. A couple of mills in the interior could supply the entire domestic lumber market in less than 3 months production.

Ecotards can't see that far into the future
 
petros
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Environmentalists don't care whether the oil is cleaner than stated the message
is already out there and they will just keep driving the message home until the
rest of the people don't care either. I on the other hand don't want Asians getting
our oil and I don't want it going South either. Send it east/west and keep the bulk
of it for Canadians. We owe the world nothing and crude is going to be one of
three commodities Oil Water and Food and we have enough for us and if the rest
want it the conditions and money for it should go way up

What is worth more? Oil for fuel or oil for petro-chemicals?

In the upgrading process all the water soluble goodies are stripped from our heavy oil and other "fractional" products that are released from heating during upgrading.

The "synthetic" product sent down the pipe only has value as fuel and very little value for petro-chems.

That is were the "value added" benefits that you keep wanting are, sitting In what we already took from the oil.

There is no money in gasoline and diesel as a finished product.

You are already getting what you wanted from "value added".

BTW, what do you have against Japan, Korea, Thailand, India, Europe and Oz that you don't want them to have our "fuel" grade oil or the country we bought called China?
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+2
#22
First of all my complaint is not so much with the trade issue as it is with shipping raw
material. Process everything before we ship it to anyone. Secondly I don't agree with
supplying Asian countries with energy or raw materials. We need to redevelop our
industrial base and use the products we have to create jobs for Canadians and Americans
for that matter.
What do I have against Asians countries? Nothing really I am ticked with the sell out
businesses that shipped the jobs over there, but we can always use legislation to get
the message out we have had enough. Can't be done? Governments especially America
has been very successful with embargo's when they tell business they can't go there it
has teeth.
We should not be in the business of supplying cheap energy to anyone but ourselves.
Domestic energy prices should not be that much below value but at a lower cost just the
same. I am also against free trade deals they drive down our standard of living over all.

One other comment is the oils sands is not the worst thing that can happen and there are
new technologies coming on stream constantly. They should employ the most environmentally
friends process and use it as a standard method of operations. That is unless there is
a circumstance that requires an alternative and that should be regulated
 
petros
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

First of all my complaint is not so much with the trade issue as it is with shipping raw
material. Process everything before we ship it to anyone. Secondly I don't agree with
supplying Asian countries with energy or raw materials. We need to redevelop our
industrial base and use the products we have to create jobs for Canadians and Americans
for that matter.

They aren't getting "raw" material. I just explained that.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

One other comment is the oils sands is not the worst thing that can happen and there are
new technologies coming on stream constantly. They should employ the most environmentally
friends process and use it as a standard method of operations. That is unless there is
a circumstance that requires an alternative and that should be regulated

Being "green" makes them more money. Having minerals blow away in the wind costs money. Those minerals are the true "value added" dollars.

As for the down wind issues there aren't any. Nature already took care of contaminating the soils.

Google polymetallic black shales which are going to be extracted too.
 
tay
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Oil sands crude not as

Journal urges Keystone XL approval
The scientific journal Nature is urging President Barack Obama to “face down critics” and approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, though it does cite pollution issues in Canada.

In an editorial on energy security and the climate debate this week, Nature said the president should issue powerful rules governing power plants and warn the coal industry to “clean up or fade away.”

Where TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL is concerned, approval would “bolster his credibility” in the industry among the nation’s conservatives.

“The administration should face down critics of the project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve it,” the journal urged.

.


That link you have provided only goes to an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail which provides no link for authentication to the 'Nature' commentary he is claiming they have made.

Do you have that link for us?




MAYFLOWER, Ark., June 5/13 — On warm spring evenings, North Starlite Drive buzzed with children. They cycled around the cul-de-sac at the end of the wide, block-long road, shot baskets in driveways and inevitably wound up on the swing set and trampoline behind the Bartletts' large brick house.

These days, there are no children. Yellow police tape stretches across the turns from the main road onto the street. All 22 families who lived there are gone.

About 2:45 p.m. on March 29, an underground ExxonMobil oil pipeline ruptured in the woods behind the cul-de-sac. An estimated 5,000 barrels — or 210,000 gallons — of oil splashed down North Starlite into a drainage ditch, snaking into a cove off Lake Conway.

The families on the street evacuated immediately. Overwhelmed by the oil's burning-tire smell, other subdivision residents left too.

People came back for an hour here and there to collect their belongings. "For Sale" signs popped up on lawns like a strange bloom.

The ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline split open just as the Obama administration entered the final phases of review for the far bigger, controversial Keystone XL pipeline, handing ammunition to opponents who say that Keystone's path through major rivers like the Platte and the Missouri and over the Ogallala aquifer, the main freshwater source of the Great Plains, could lead to a catastrophe.

The Pegasus pipeline carried about 95,000 barrels a day, but Keystone XL would carry more than 800,000, making the consequences of a spill potentially far greater.


more


Arkansas pipeline spill casts shadow over Keystone XL - latimes.com
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#25
This was in the body of the main link. I should have added that.
Change for good : Nature News & Comment
Site Link
Journal home : Nature
 
Cobalt_Kid
#26
Quote:

Tar-sands development raises serious air- and water-quality issues in Canada, but these problems are well outside Obama’s jurisdiction.

We're going to be left with most of ecological and social damage from continued oil sands development while most of the benefits go elsewhere.

Maybe if the royalties were more or we were allowed to refine a greater proportion of the WCS then I think it would be smart to support Keystone and the oil sands development. But as it stands now it's just going to mean a huge cleanup bill for Canadians in the future...if the country is still around with all the projected impacts coming.

We have options and we need to seriously think about a sustainable future for Canada, it's insane to support an energy policy that will quite possibly lead to ecological collapse in the coming years.
 
Highball
#27
I'll bet the endorsement came on the heels of a huge "Donation!" Not surprising either. Everyone has a price.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

We're going to be left with most of ecological and social damage from continued oil sands development while most of the benefits go elsewhere.

You're shipping the majority of the 'waste' elsewhere Einstein.

The only social damage is less money in the coffers to cover the welfare entitlement crowd that seem to have insatiable appetites for freebies

Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

Maybe if the royalties were more

Buy some oilsands land and develop it. That is your easiest way to 'get more'

Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

or we were allowed to refine a greater proportion of the WCS then I think it would be smart to support Keystone and the oil sands development.

Build a refinery at Kitimat.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

But as it stands now it's just going to mean a huge cleanup bill for Canadians in the future...if the country is still around with all the projected impacts coming.

Maybe you should look at the oilsands in AB and Sask as the biggest environmental disaster caused by ole Mother Gaia

Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

We have options and we need to seriously think about a sustainable future for Canada, it's insane to support an energy policy that will quite possibly lead to ecological collapse in the coming years.

What a maroon... You've been drinking far too much of the kool-aid
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

We're going to be left with most of ecological and social damage from continued oil sands development while most of the benefits go elsewhere.

Maybe if the royalties were more or we were allowed to refine a greater proportion of the WCS then I think it would be smart to support Keystone and the oil sands development. But as it stands now it's just going to mean a huge cleanup bill for Canadians in the future...if the country is still around with all the projected impacts coming.

We have options and we need to seriously think about a sustainable future for Canada, it's insane to support an energy policy that will quite possibly lead to ecological collapse in the coming years.

SO go build a refinery somewhere in BC. Call us in 10 years and let us know how you are making out with the permit applications process.
 
Durry
#30
CBC's Rex Murphy says it like it is at a function in Calgary!!

I don't think he would be allowed to say these things if he was on a CBC program!!

You Go Rex !!


Rex Murphy

Same vid

http://zoomcom.vo.llnwd.net/o9/first...fvw6xsamp4.mp4
 

Similar Threads

3
427
Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"
by dumpthemonarchy | Oct 7th, 2010
3
Edm Journal covers the third way, almost.
by cyberclark | Mar 10th, 2006
no new posts