Bakken is light, sweet oil

Yep, I don't really watch rachel Maddow, but the bakkan and eagleford scales are contributing better quality, which means less energy to refine, oils. Those east coast refineries were not upgraded in terms of technology, so need higher quality oil to stay in business.

Since the oil is fairly captive from lack of pipelines, the oil must be trucked or sent on trains. This lack of pipeline means more accidents and more ghg getting the oil to refineries. I hate to tell you this but if your reason not to build pipelines is environmental, the news of these fires tells you exactly why we should build pipelines. Not only is moving the oil more costly in dollars on rail because of the diesel it burns but also because of the accidents, spills, and fires. All of these things have a higher environmental cost to go with the financial one.

So we are down to billionaire politics. One billionaire wants to block keystone, because hell pipelines are bad environmentally. Canada should use more diesel on tankers to get the oil to china, while the US has plenty of oil. That plenty of oil is a lie. It just will keep the US on more OPEC oil, and less canadian. The other billionairs want to export this great amount of oil, and change the law. This is a little more thorny to see the lie. The scale finds are short term. Exporting them is possible, but then we have a lot less oil 20 years from now. Billionaire politics is really nasty. The worst scenario for most of the american people is not building keystone, but exporting bakkan and eagleford oil (it would be worth more exported) and importing more Opec sour crude. Do keystone and more pipelines, including natural gas pipelines. Put on an oil tax and decrease payroll taxes. Kill oil subsidies. Keep the ban on exporting US oil. Subsidize long haul trucking running on lng. Keep the number of LNG export facilities low. Outlaw mountain top removal to mine coal. That spells a better energy policy, that is also better for the environment, but those in power rarely do policies that are likely to work.

 

I agree that the issues surrounding Keystone are political... That said, the real reason not to build Keystone is it admits a quasi endorsement of the tar sand oil project (which most rational folks would agree is an environmetal disaster on a number of fronts!) and allows tar sands oil to get market easier and cheaper, ergo making the entire project more viable (short term economically).

So backing up from the politics, it is at its core a environmetal issue, but a different one that the might argue to stop the pipe line.

Also, the track record regarding trains VS pipe lines for transporting volatile fluids long distances is murky at best. Yes train accidents happen, and can be devastating, (see also Lac Megantic etc) but so can pipeline accidents (See also Michigan etc). At worst, a train carries a limited amonty aof product on any given train, while a pipe line leak has virtually unlimited capacity to spill. Also, the energy required to move the product through the pipe line is not "free either". Per gallon mile, I don't know the stats, but my guess is a pipeline uses less enter net/net, but it doesn't use Zero.

Icarus

 

If the groups were arguing to stop the oil at the border, I would still disagree with it, but at least it would be a logical environmental argument. Arguing that we shouldn't build the pipeline, but ignoring all the trucks and trains, is my big problem with it. I mean at the rate we are adding trucks and trains we should be doing transporting keystone volumes of oil in less than a decade over the border.

I would much rather have us reduce water and air pollution by removing grandfathering from coal plants, and ending moutain top removal of coal. That would have an immediate enviromental impact. The majority of americans actually agree with both these issues, and building keystone. How about an oil tax and reduced payroll taxes. Libertarians and liberals both like these as do independance, unfoturnately both the democractic and republican parties seem dead set against. The problem for the environment is the amount of oil we burn, and it is going down, but not fast enough.

Here are some statistics for you. feel free to find some others on your own.
Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat - Forbes

We can't keep shipping more by rail without better rules for rail, and building a lot more infrastructure. Most rail paths require more trucking which is the worst method. Part of the bad impact of pipelines is bad regulation for pipelines, especially requiring maintenance on old pipelines. That should be easy to do as a condition of keystone. The worst pipeline spill year in terms of volume was in 1991, but Kalamazoo river was just in 2010. The worst Rail year was last year, and I expect as more and more travels by rail, without changing the regulations, more spills and fires will occur. As more rail accidents happen, it will be harder and harder for environmental groups to claim not building pipelines is good for the environment.

 

I can't disagree with much of anything you say.

I would only add, the pursuit of the ideal shouldn't get in the way of the pursuit of the possible. Yes reducing coal emissions is a good goal, but coal is already entrenched, while tar sands are just gaining a foothold. IMHO, anything that can be done to deligitimize the tar sands, even if it seems like false logic is a good thing.

Yea, I know people will jump all over me for this logic, but as in all things political, the art is in the possible, not the pursuit of perfection. If the argument that the tar sands is destructive on its face fall on deaf ears, then using (nearly) any means other is ok with me.

Icarus

 

IMHO just by more EOG and Rail stock!

 

A fair amount of oil moves on the MS system by barge.


Barges shine in summer of alternatives as oil producers grow antsy | Financial Post

Icarus

 

Oh the irony . . . . even as this geological "truth" is announced, the Energy Information Admin had THIS bit of new news:
EIA Cuts Monterey Shale Estimates on Extraction Challenges - Bloomberg

In short - the #1 shale oil reserve in the U.S. (what ... appx 64% of the estimated recoverable shale oil in the U.S.?) was downgraded some 96% or so. Weeee !!! That downgrade works out to a U.S. supply (based on our nation's current consumption) of about five weeks. Don't use it all in one place. Good thing we got all that sweet crude to offset this geological faux pas.

.

 

Take these reserve numbers with a grain of salt if the assumed recovery cost is not published. Even better would be knowing if the assumed recovery cost per barrel is based on current technology or some imagined future cost.

And don't even try to extrapolate reserves based on higher or lower recovery costs. That leads to horrific errors.

 

Oil by rail is huge. (Its one of the reasons i own Union Pacific stock). We have a small Conoco Philips refinery just down hwy 1 from us, and oil fields within 5 miles of us in Price Canyon, all near Pismo Beach, CA. (Pismo is an Indian word meaning Tar! ) The small refinery near us just takes crude oil, makes it thin enough to pump through the pipes, to the S.F. bay area refinery's, where it is made into gasoline, etc... Anyway, first the small refinery applied to the SLO County for an ability to increase barrel production, after that was approved, now they are asking to increase the rail spur so they can bring in MANY more rail cars, to supply that increased approved production . The county is kind of ticked off they did not make it all one process, not two, as it was obviously planned. Many around here are up in arms, as they KNOW the rail cars present a potential hazard. Yet,, we would not be getting the "sweet crude" but a west coast denser crude, less vol-ital, less hazardous. They have doubled the oil wells in the Price Canyon field, and it uses steam, not fracking. Same with the oil fields down by Santa Barbara, (doubled), huge increase in number. Yes, this is all part of the "Monterrey Shale area" .

Personally,, I am all for it! The beaches in the oil producing regions have floating blobs of tar washing up on them that has diminished in amount, since they are pumping it out for our use. This tar is terrible stuff! It gets on your feet, shoes, is bad for birds, and the environment, even though it is "totally natural". (No, it is NOT caused by drilling, but natural seepage). The Indians used it for their canoes back in their day, and it washes up all over from Pt. San Luis to Pt. Sal in our San Luis Bay, and from Santa Barbara south well past Oxnard, even into Malibu. Beaches down south, have PILES of tar from years past, due to all the seepage! If they were not pumping it out, I am sure it would go back to being way worse! Sometimes on our Pismo Beach, you see so many blobs of tar, you start thinking of collecting it, so as to sell it!

I just do not get it. Everything we use in life, was either grown, mined, or drilled- Period All of us, take and use natural resources. Yes, there will always be better ways in doing it, and we should always use them. But either it continues, or we can all go back to living in caves, with animal skins for clothes, rocks for beds and chairs and we would STILL be impacting the environment! Any volunteers?

 

What do you call sunlight and wind ?

What do you call conservation ?

What do you call efficiency ?

 

Sure. I can respect that.

Now we know the biggest money opponent Steyer, when he ran Farallon heavily invested in Kinder Morgan, that stands to make a great deal of money if Canada builds a pipeline to the Pacific to export the oil sands to China. With all the money he has made off of coal, there is reason to doubt that this billionaire really is in it just for the good of the environment. Now he could have actually changed like Pickens, but I find that doubtful.

Let's flip it on Mountaintop removal. Mountain top removal for coal is extremely unpopular even in the coal states, West Virginia and Kentucky the center of coal power in washington. Senator Bryd who probably is responsible for more coal polution than any other politician is dead. McConnel for the Rublicans and Manchin for the democrats. Now both these guys use Keystone as part of the excuse for why we can't trust the government on coal. I think now is the time to kill mountaintop removal. Even if you don't end gradfathering, the higher coal prices would help the old inefficient coal plants close faster. I would prefer a $50/ton tax on coal at the mines as part of a fund to clean up the coal pollution. We shouldn't forget that the last chemical spill was related to coal chemicals that leaked from poor industry practices and polluted drinking water and killed animals in the river.
Poll: Majority oppose controversial coal mining practice - CNN.com
Mountaintop-removal mining is unpopular even in coal country | Grist
If McConnell loses his election to Grimes, it will really be only democrats with power that are supporting mountaintop removal. If the party actually cares about the environment then it should put up legislation against it. Even if you are against keystone, I hope it is principled, and you are against mountaintop removal more. If Steyer actually cared about what he claims to care about that would be his focus.
Things to Keep in Mind With the Grimes-McConnell Senate Race
Funny thing about these politicians that are pro mountain-top removal, this process requires fewer miners, and is one of those economic forces that increases unemploytment in West Virginia and Kentucky. McConnel and Byrd took their jobs, and enriched the mining companies and hedge fund managers like Steyer, while hurting the health of the people in the states, polluting the water, etc.

You have to do what you have to do. I can't argue with the logic, because its an emotion, so go for it. Fight the good fight. At least we know your heart is in it.

 

Do you realize how much (terrible) mining is involved in getting the raw materials required to make solar Panels? Think of the raw Silicon, Aluminum, Copper, dug out of the ground, & massive energy for the factories and equipment to run. (From coal, Gas, or nuke possibly)... Same for the wind energy farms equipment, Huge amounts of raw materials, and energy, all to make more energy. It all came at a initial cost outlay, to the environment. Land was "ruined", to mine for those raw materials! All those "Eco friendly" sources of power would NOT exist, if we stopped mining for raw materials! Oh,, and they all take up Land, too! We have two HUGE solar farms being built in Eastern San Luis Obispo County. My friend is an electrician for one of two solar farms.
California Valley Solar Ranch
Neither farm was approved without a BIG fight by the Eco folks, (Sierra club, etc. etc.), screaming these farms would ruin the environment! It was Hilarius, Green,, fighting against Green energy! They worried of the kit fox, the kangaroo rats, and anything else they could think of to STOP them from building these big solar farms! (Both animals now love the shade created by the solar panels by the way, per my friend who works there). They have many buses, and near thousands of cars driving out to the solar farms every day to build them on Hwy 58. Another huge impact to the environment. The very power lines these farms are tapping into, would not exist if it were not for Diablo Canyon Nuclear plant, or, the now defunct Moro Bay power plant, having placed the massive power lines through that area, at great natural resource costs, a long time ago. Which today, probably could never be built, as it would be "too damaging to the environment and view-shed"!

The solar farms, IMHO are WAY better than the Nuke plant in "my backyard", (about 13 miles away as the crow fly's upwind!) I have solar panels on my roof, and now drive the venerable "Eco friendly" Prius. I think thats doing my part, using wisdom, trying to conserve, everyone should do it. But I also fully understand that those solar panels on my roof, and Prius, took a LOT of natural resources, that I am all for them to continue to mine and drill for oil to maintain and run them. (Or so that they can continue to build solar panels, and we can continue to drive our cars). I can not own solar, and drive a car, and live in a house, and be against drilling for oil, mining for raw materials, or cutting trees down to build. It would be totally hypocritical! If you think its wrong to mine, or drill, or cut trees, than stop using everything that comes from it!

Understanding that it takes energy, raw materials, mining, clear cutting trees, (and replanting them), farming, water, and a lot more for us to live. There will always be better efficient ways learned to do the above, and the U.S. A. are the leaders in many of those new ways. But when we get so "Eco Conscious --> crazy" that we make so many laws, that we send millions of jobs overseas, as they do not have those laws there, THAT is NOT Efficiency - its stupidity! When so many people, living in cities, are demanding these near eco Nazi laws upon our nation, that it is strangling itself into a 2nd or 3rd rate nation, beholding & in debt to everyone else, to make all our products, and taking away all our manufacturing jobs, it is WRONG, and totally hypocritical! Even our National Forest -"Public Lands", are being systematically locked up, re-zoned and we are being locked out, due to some of the "crazy law's" coming down from people that think nature, should remain Human free, rather than allowing the Public access, or to be even allowed on or in their "Public Lands".
Final land use proposals are out for Southern California forests | News | Santa Maria Sun, CA
They have completed a lot of the above re-zoning changes, basically removing 380,000 acres from public or fire access roads. These fire access roads that the public and fire trucks use to use to get back into these forests, will now be allowed to degrade, left to revert back to nature, and be gated and blocked off. So the next big fire, will have no easy access, allowing whatever endangered plants and animals back in there, to just burn up!!! Makes total sense to me.... Just like leaving millions of board feet of good potential lumber, left standing there to rot or for the wood peckers and beetles in the Yosemite area forests after that last big forest fire! Ah, yes sir, thats the Eco right thing to do with all that burnt wood, left standing on OUR public lands. Let it rot, so it too can be more fuel for the next big fire! (That's counter efficient to me).
Yosemite Rim fire – Debate over what to do with the burned lumber | hikehalfdome.com/
Oh, I did read that the Eco groups, are now agreeing to "allow" 10% of the 270,000 acres of burnt forest to be logged. Thats great, just leave 90% to rot, thats much better and makes way more Cents!!! (Can you imagine the logging jobs that would open up if they put that wood to use? Imagine how fast new trees could be planted, once the dead wood was removed, too! I even read someone wanted to build a power plant, with smoke scrubber,, to burn the dead trees, to produce electrical power! It could have been a total win-win! Nope! Let it rot!!)

So just like so many other things, a few people, are taking something that was originally good, (ecology, I use to be all for it), and pushing it so far left now it has become ridiculous! So for me "Efficiency" is knowing when to say enough is enough!

 

Why yes, I do.

Much, much less than you apparently are guessing for what is gained; and you are forgetting that copper is recycled. Environmentalism does not imply living in a cave and shivering when it gets cold, it means:

1. Minimize waste
2. Maximize efficiency
3. Re-use
4. Recycle
5. Use source energies like sun and wind
6. Live SUSTAINABLY, in a fashion that does not lead to climate change, more pollution, and an Earth choked with plastic and toxins.

My home used 78 kWh of electricity this past month, and 90% of that amount was sourced from either PV or wind*. That is about 1% of the average amount of fossil fuels an average US home burns as electricity every month. So while you can say I rely on a dirty 1% and be correct, it is foolish to continue burning the other 99%.

Currently about 10% of the national energy budget is non fossil fuel derived. If environmentalism as outlined above was practiced uniformly, our national energy budget would be sustainable, TODAY. Meaning no burning of any fossil fuels.

*All my electricity is from the grid. I pay $5 a month to be connected, and 13 cents a kWh for clean sourced energy, 11 cents for coal sourced. My most recent bill was just under $14.

 

So which takes more resources to build? A wide screen TV or a not so dissimilar PV panel? Which has a smaller life cycle environmental foot print?

Which takes more resources to build? A MW of coal fired electricity or a MW of wind power (or PV)? Which has a large life cycle environmental cost?

Arguing that PV (or wind for that matter) is environmentally "costly" is a straw man argument.

Icarus

Contrary to your notion, allowing a certain portion of a forest to "rot" as you say is essential to forest ecology. There is a life cycle to a natural forest, and yes, it does include rotting timber, wood peckers, beetles etc.

 

Absolutely.

A bicyclist exhales CO2;
So does a Sherman tank.

Getting around on a bicycle can be an excellent, environmentally sound transport.
Buying a Sherman tank to out-Jones the neighbor with a Hummer is pretty stupid.

Arguing that supporting bicycles should imply supporting consumer tanks is silly.