Oil Unions: Cut Keystone Pipeline

[J_Hay]

From what I've gleaned from all the propaganda surrounding the oil sands, what with the bigwigs trying to drown out the fact that they are pretty much raping the face of our country, and the fact that the "1-- Billion barrels of oil wont do jack in the long run because they'd simply run out...And the fact that that oil could sustain Canada on its own for a damn long time if we didn't export it to a country that if you step back and look, is essentially a grasping, resource eating, war-mongering mess (love you america, well... some of you) or even the fact that perhaps our debt could be managed with proper deals via the oil that would not need to be excavated so much due to not being shipped all over the place.
What I've learned is that this was supposed to boost the economy... who's? The work is temporary, with the pipeline, the only jobs would be american in the reprocessing plants, and that this is our oil and we're just shipping it away? try keeping it and lowering gas prices possibly. I'll think about this more and reply then. My apologies if this seems offensive, It's just my opinion so take it as such.

 

[petros]

It's more than just oil sands.

It's a HEAVY OIL PIPELINE which will pick up several grades of heavy and synthetic crude from several facilities and deep well sources along it's route all at the same time thanks to density.

This isn't your normal everyday pipeline.

It's a 21st century pipeline that is intensely monitored over it's entire length.

No duck ponds which are already poisoned by agricultural nitrates will be harmed any further by this line.

 

[J_Hay]

Sure but take these things into account:

A: That pipeline now makes a legitimate target for anti-US/Canada groups.
B: Natural disasters have a way of undermining any and all of our efforts. Example. Fukushima Reactors with triple protection .
C: We'd have a mile+ long gash across the face of our country.
D: Natural wildlife... they also have a habit of somehow throwing kinks into our machinery.
E: What happens when the oil runs out... and our country has been bled dry?

 

[petros]

A. Crackpots are evrerywhere.
B. Tornadoes and blizzards can't damage a subterranean pipeline
C. Land is immediately reclaimed after a length of pipe is layed
D. Gophers and ground squirells that can gnaw through 3/4 in of steel?
E. You'll be dead for 500 years by the time that happens.

 

[J_Hay]

I'm sorry to say, but you dont seem to be taking this very seriously.
Natural disasters are random and are not only "Blizzards and tornados," they can be earthquakes, flash floods and other such events.
An earthquake could destablize the entire pipeline, spilling hundreds of thousands of unprocessed poison onto fertile lands and water supplies.
As to your "Crackpot" comment I have little to say other then when you have a huge resource train..it makes for a sensible target, if only to ruin our natural supplies for the next century or so with how horrible our containment procedures are.
Land might be "reclaimed" but you cant really use it, mainly due to "periodic maintenence" they would just tear it up over and over.
Simply put, there are more than "Gophers and squirrels" in Northern Canada, that comment was rather unneccesary.

And finally to your comment about me being dead for 500 years before that happens.... what then? when the world is stripped and bare and our progeny have been stuck living on a dead planet? You want to leave the problems of the future sustainability of our only home up to them? try taking responsibility of the problems we've created now instead of putting them onto people who at this point cant possibly reverse the horrendous changes we've inflicted, I'm 22 and already I feel horrible for what we're doing to earth, mainly due to the fact that I would not want to raise a child in the current state this world is in.

Your comment seems to show a complete lack of interest in what the tar sands represent and what they have done and will do to the surface of Alberta, Canada and in the larger point of view, Earth.

Again, I dont mean to be offensive, I'm just stating my opinion. ^__^

 

[TenPenny]

Your comment seems to show a complete lack of interest in what the tar sands represent and what they have done and will do to the surface of Alberta, Canada and in the larger point of view, Earth.

I can tell you what the tar sands DOESN'T represent:

'nuff said.

 

[J_Hay]

I can tell you what the tar sands DOESN'T represent:

'nuff said.

XD True enough.

 

[Kakato]

I'm sorry to say, but you dont seem to be taking this very seriously.
Natural disasters are random and are not only "Blizzards and tornados," they can be earthquakes, flash floods and other such events.
An earthquake could destablize the entire pipeline, spilling hundreds of thousands of unprocessed poison onto fertile lands and water supplies.
As to your "Crackpot" comment I have little to say other then when you have a huge resource train..it makes for a sensible target, if only to ruin our natural supplies for the next century or so with how horrible our containment procedures are.
Land might be "reclaimed" but you cant really use it, mainly due to "periodic maintenence" they would just tear it up over and over.
Simply put, there are more than "Gophers and squirrels" in Northern Canada, that comment was rather unneccesary.

And finally to your comment about me being dead for 500 years before that happens.... what then? when the world is stripped and bare and our progeny have been stuck living on a dead planet? You want to leave the problems of the future sustainability of our only home up to them? try taking responsibility of the problems we've created now instead of putting them onto people who at this point cant possibly reverse the horrendous changes we've inflicted, I'm 22 and already I feel horrible for what we're doing to earth, mainly due to the fact that I would not want to raise a child in the current state this world is in.

Your comment seems to show a complete lack of interest in what the tar sands represent and what they have done and will do to the surface of Alberta, Canada and in the larger point of view, Earth.

Again, I dont mean to be offensive, I'm just stating my opinion. ^__^

Everyone's entitled to their opinion but there is a lot of ignorance about the oil sands and pipelines in general within the public.They dont bother Animals,they adapt very well to crossings and in reclaimed mine site flourish as well as mines because of the no shooting zone.
Canada oil and gas supply as well as coal wont run out for your lifetime or your great grandkids.
We are a resource rich country and have some of the best and brightest in the world when it comes to the energy sector and the environment.
You have no idea how the oilsands are the economic engine running Canada right now,The jobs created and money sent back East are a good thing and if you've never been to fort mac then you have no idea what a boom town is like,it's pretty crazy.

If you shut down the oilsands right not the unemployment rate in Newfoundland would jump to about 60%.

 

[J_Hay]

Agreed, I guess I am taking too much of an eco-friendly stance.

Thanks for the update, I'll take a closer look at the topic ^__^

 

[JLM]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion but there is a lot of ignorance about the oil sands and pipelines in general within the public.They dont bother Animals,they adapt very well to crossings and in reclaimed mine site flourish as well as mines because of the no shooting zone.
Canada oil and gas supply as well as coal wont run out for your lifetime or your great grandkids.
We are a resource rich country and have some of the best and brightest in the world when it comes to the energy sector and the environment.
You have no idea how the oilsands are the economic engine running Canada right now,The jobs created and money sent back East are a good thing and if you've never been to fort mac then you have no idea what a boom town is like,it's pretty crazy.

If you shut down the oilsands right not the unemployment rate in Newfoundland would jump to about 60%.

The main problem is that anything that is even remotely involved with the environment, stirs up emotions and people who operate on emotions are generally not rational thinking people and they definitely accept only the facts that suit them. One of my pet peeves is these posters on vehicles that say "baby on board"...............I think so what, I have a 10 year old grand daughter on board............is her safety not equally important?

 

[mentalfloss]

I can tell you what the tar sands DOESN'T represent:

'nuff said.

 

[J_Hay]

The main problem is that anything that is even remotely involved with the environment, stirs up emotions and people who operate on emotions are generally not rational thinking people and they definitely accept only the facts that suit them. One of my pet peeves is these posters on vehicles that say "baby on board"...............I think so what, I have a 10 year old grand daughter on board............is her safety not equally important?

Valid point, thanks for bringing that up.

 

[mentalfloss]

The “ethical oil” argument is bogus

At least three times during question period yesterday I heard Conservative ministers or parliamentary secretaries refer to oil sands as “ethical oil”, the implication being that it is preferable to buy oil from the oil sands because Canada is the land of the good guys and places like Nigeria or Saudi Arabia are not, or that increasing production of Canadian oil will displace “bad oil”.

But this is a bogus argument. The market for oil is global. If you buy oil, you drive up the global price of oil, you increase the profits of everybody who sells oil, from my friends in Alberta, to the Saddam Husseins and Colonel Ghaddafis of the world.

Some markets are not global. If you buy gravel, you will push up only the local price of gravel because it is so expensive to transport gravel long distances. The oil market is global. Supertankers ply the oceans with their cargoes of oil searching for the most lucrative place to transport their oil, able to change their destination in mid-voyage in response to price fluctuations.

Producing more oil sands oil will not displace oil produced in places like Saudi Arabia. The cost of production is much higher for the oil sands.

To a good approximation, all the oil that is produced goes into a global pool. You can’t pick out the “ethical” parts.

The “ethical oil” argument is bogus

 

[petros]

You might be interested in knowing that on the XL line Trans Canada is taking steps above and beyond any pipeline ever layed before. Pipe below any rivers, creeks, streams or ponds will be at a depth of 20ft or more below the bed. Risk of quakes or flooding is non-existant along the line as well. Nature won't be an issue.

The Keystone line on the other hand has it's faults due to being a former natural gas line over 40 years old. It will see it's capacity and pressure reduced once XL comes on-line.

The “ethical oil” argument is bogus

The “ethical oil” argument is bogus

it sure is bogus. They really should term it as a "responsible energy source". What irks my gherkin is not one word about the deep well heavy crude this line will also transport that is indeed a source of environmentally responsible oil.

 

[mentalfloss]

it sure is bogus. They really should term it as a "responsible energy source". What irks my gherkin is not one word about the deep well heavy crude this line will also transport that is indeed a source of environmentally responsible oil.

Bitumen is so damn thick that it won't move through a pipeline without being diluted with light oil. Much of this condensate comes either from the U.S. or the Middle East. EnCana has even imported conflict oil from Pakistan to dilute its bitumen. But condensate is in such short supply on the continent that most future supplies will come from the Middle East.

The Tyee – Five Falsehoods About 'Ethical Oil'

 

[petros]

Bitumen is so damn thick that it won't move through a pipeline without being diluted with light oil. Much of this condensate comes either from the U.S. or the Middle East. EnCana has even imported conflict oil from Pakistan to dilute its bitumen. But condensate is in such short supply on the continent that most future supplies will come from the Middle East.

The Tyee – Five Falsehoods About 'Ethical Oil'

It's a "HEAVY OIL" line and not just bitumen. That is a major falicy in what the protestors are thumping. The bitumen will use napthane as a solvent which is produced here in AB and SK as a by-product of conventional heavy oil production and upgrading. Only 5% of SK oil has been explored and tapped. Our reserves blow AB out of the water.

You might find these interesting and very informative. http://www.er.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/ad...ocuments&MediaID=19481&Filename=Heavy+Oil.wmv

http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/l/cnvntnlhvylrsrcs2001/TRhvylWSCB5-eng.pdf

 

[mentalfloss]

It's a "HEAVY OIL" line and not just bitumen. That is a major falicy in what the protestors are thumping. The bitumen will use napthane as a solvent which is produced here in AB and SK as a by-product of conventional heavy oil production and upgrading. Only 5% of SK oil has been explored and tapped. Our reserves blow AB out of the water.

I'm sorry, but your hypothetical is hardly a smoking gun. We will continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia (which is currently 55% of all of our oil imports) in order to help with transporting bitumen.

This will drive the price of oil up, allowing despotic regimes to profit even further as a result of the project.

This is even more persuasive an argument against the ethical oil campaign than the environmental slant.

 

[petros]

I'm sorry, but your hypothetical is hardly a smoking gun. We will continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia (which is currently 55% of all of our oil imports) in order to help with transporting bitumen.

This will drive the price of oil up, allowing despotic regimes to profit even further as a result of the project.

This is even more pervasive an argument against the ethical oil campaign than the environmental slant.

Yeah sweet crude imports aren't going to end. The whole purpose of the XL line is to send what would be empty tankers back across the Atlantic to the EU filled with diesel and jet fuel made from CONVENTIONAL (from wells) HEAVY OIL and bitumen and then to Mid East to pick up more sweet. Gasoline will be minimal from these conventional and oil sands sources.

The econauts aren't giving you a truthful picture of reality.

 

[J_Hay]

Question about the emissions.

Wasn't Canada trying to follow the Kyoto Protocol?
How would the increasing emissions affect that?

 

[petros]

Question about the emissions.

Wasn't Canada trying to follow the Kyoto Protocol?
How would the increasing emissions affect that?

That is where pollution permit swapping comes into play. Sask will easily offset any emission with the worlds first carbon capture and sequestering initiative on the planet. We already recycle enough to cover every household in the province and the latest projects will take a massive slice out of the oil industry emissions. Things are happening in SK and AB contrary to econaut beliefs.

Our in house econaut lives in the dirtiest province in Canada but is quick to chastise AB and SK. What's up with that?