Keystone XL’s Collapse Leaves Canada’s Oil Heartland Seeking Payback

I did not make the assumption you claim .. however the assumption is 100% valid. Just because you do not know the oil markets - is not reason to project your made up nonsense onto others.

1) Supply and Demand - is not a fairy tale .. and your claim that Nigeria can just ship to someone else is false .. it is not so easy - and is a false assumption on your part

but this matters not - as I did not make the above claim - and would definitely not rely on supply and demand alone to decrease industrialization .. Western Oil Companies are drilling right now in third world nations - this should be happening .. and we need to work with the world...

You have yet to recognize what the problem is - and so can't even comprehend what the solutions might be.

2) The raging fact of which you are in denial -- is that purchasing from Nigeria - is transporting our pollution problems to other nations - a violation of the New Green Deal.

What exactly do you think it meant "Thou shalt not transport our pollution problems to other nations" - what did you think this refers to ?

Tell me Sport - what would this be referring to - if not the example you have in front of you ?

 

Yes, I know what you said. I just don't believe your idea that tar sands oil saves the oceans. It contributes more CO2 and that is the issue concerning the oceans, which I pointed out absorb a significant portion of that gas.

Tar sands oil is NOT a solution to pollution.

I pointed out that your Nigeria thing is a red herring, as tar sands oil is not going to cause a reduction in Nigerian production. More specificlly, it's not going to change the price of oil, as the world produces far too much oil to be affected by the amount of oil than the increase this pipeline could possibly contribute. It's capitalism.

There are alternatives to oil that are economically competitive - even given the support our government already gives this one source of energy.

I'm pointing out that capitalism would present different solutions. Fuel for electric cars is cheaper than gas on a mileage basis. And, transportation is the major use of oil in the US.

I don't see that you have presented a solution to anything other than how our government can help raise oil company profits by taking property of US citizens through use of eminent domain and other coercive techniques, while accepting the greater CO2 pollution that oil represents, which is an externalized cost we all face.

 

1) Your claim that buying from Canada over Nigeria contributes to more CO2 - is demonstrably false - Preposterous nonsense on Steroids.

You cherry picked one small part out of a huge process .. where Nigeria is better - and are ignoring the entire rest of the equation. This is irrational myopic - self induced blindness.

You are completely ignoring the major sources of CO2 emissions and Ocean Pollution - you want to save a penny - to lose a million dollars - is how bad your argument is.

Do feel free to quantify the amount of CO2 from extraction - verses the other sources .. and then compare the differential to that number.


2) Your claim that CO2 from oil sands -is thus a bigger contributor to CO2 and thus an Ocean issue is completely false.

3) Even if you took the extraction difference to CO2 "Nigeria" - Oil Sands - not including transportation by tanker which makes the difference even bigger This is still a on a rain drop in the midst of a hurricane .. as Nigeria is a massive Ocean Polluter .. CO2 differential being a fraction of a rounding error.

This kind of mindless math - and denial of Science - is the hallmark of Blue's Enviro Platform .. bad argument after bad argument - desperately clinging to the thinnest of straws..

 

I don't even slightly agree. The amount of additional oil a single pipeline could produce is NOT going to change the world demand for oil.

You'll have to explain how this could possibly support your call for a pipeline in the US.

I'm truly impressed by you dedication to the green new deal.

But I don't believe you have the impact of your pipeline identified.

It's not going to change how much oil Nigeria pumps for the reasons of capitalism pointed out above.

Also, the only "transporting" problem is that of their oil pumping operations for whatever oil we buy. It's the USA that would be putting that carbon into the atmosphere.

The green new deal does NOT say that we have to stifle the growth of 3 world nations. And, it wouldn't matter even if it DID. The amount of oil Nigeria sells isn't going to change based on a US pipeline.

Today, we export our pollution to the rest of the world in terms of CO2. THAT is serious. We are the world leaders in CO2 emissions per capita.

If we want to stop exporting our energy/environment problems to third world countries, we would work on solutions that are NOT fossil fuel based. And, we would help third world countries solve their own energy needs in ways other than fossil fuel, too - like China does (though they do it because it is both politically and economically beneficial to do so).

So, why does China see it as politically and economically beneficial to help emerging nations with energy solutions that are not fossil fuel based?

 

I did not say that. Please respond to what I said.

If you think there is an issue being ignored, then state it.

Overall, tar sands oil is a larger contributor of greenhouse gas than other major sources on a per unit energy basis.

I've never seen data that would suggest that tanker costs amount to a noticeable economic or environmental issue, as the oil itself is such a gigantic amount of carbon and the ships are so huge.

Well, I do know how you feel.

But, it still looks to me like the only benefit of the pipeline is oil company revenue.

Piping oil out of the upper US central region has a history of raising the price of oil to US regional refineries. And, for very sound reasons of economics.

 

Everything changes demand .. what on earth are you talking about -- and who cares as this was not even my argument - good grief you are lost.

Drilling in Nigeria - rather than drilling in Canada - incentivizes industrialization of a non first world nation - which is the root cause of CO2 levels and current growth.

For the 10th time --

.Good - at least I read and understood it .. and since you didn't know my argument - how could you have had believed the impact.

What part of "Industrialization of non industrialized nations" is the biggest contributor to CO2 - by far - dwarfing your CO2 from production differential .. by many orders of magnitude - do you not understand.

Would you like to do the math ? - or "Redo it" as I have already done much of it for you.

28% of global emissions .. from China industrializing roughly 300 Million over 25 years. If you have any knowledge of the subject matter and a smattering of mathematical and scientific ability - You would understand immediately the quantities we are talking about - CO2 via industrialization.

If you can't see where that path leads - even if you can't see the end - Just the Mountain in the Distance .. not knowing exactly how high - but really really high .. in comparison to the ant hill you are focusing on - then we can go through it step by step.

What part needs explaining ?

Now you are attributing a claim to me that I already told you was false .. Painful the first time - how shall we catagorize the second ?

When we get oil from somewhere else - the we are transporting the responsibility for mitigating the pollution problems associated with that production - somewhere else.

 

I'm asking you to use your math.

The amount of additional oil that a US pipeline could carry is essentially 0% of the world production. It's not going to change anything related to world production. It won't change Nigerial or anywhere else.

Spitting in the ocean does not change the sea level.

Again, the pipeline you want is not going to change anything in Nigeria.

Again, this pipeline is not going to change anything in Nigeria.

Again, this pipeline is not going to change anything in any other part of the world. It's spitting in the ocean.

And, let's remember that the largest per capita emitter of green house gasses is the USA. China has more total emissions, but that is because they are WAY more populous and are emerging. They aren't going to use less oil (or coal) based on anything we do or don't do.

China is already committed to clean energy. They lead in every aspect of clean energy - the most patents/research. The most production. The most installation. The most exports. Nobody touches them.

We should be that good! There is a LOT of money to be made in clean energy. It is an emerging economic sector, coming at a time when some of our own traditional sectors are declining.

Yes, we should work toward clean energy solutions.

But, you are still proposing no more than spitting in the ocean.

PLUS, tar sands oil is MORE polluting. It is WORSE for our Earthly environment. A pipeline for that oil is a bad idea for everyone (property owners on the route, climate, pollution, price of oil in the north central US, etc.) EXCEPT it would lead to greater oil company profits.

 

You make this completely nonsense claim - and then ask me to do the math -- .

Your claim is 1) CO2 from conventional is higher than Oil Sands - but gave no quantification .. how much higher ?

but - for back of napkin calculation - knowing Obama's own study did not find any significant difference .. lets be super generous and say 20% higher are the extraction costs.

2) you claimed that this extra CO2 - is greater than the extra CO2 created by purchasing from Nigeria - and that

3) Ocean Pollution from this CO2 is greater than the Pollution from purchasing from Nigeria.

So lets investigate a gallon of Gas - how much CO2 comes from this gallon - and what percentage is the CO2 of Extraction.

Again napkin numbers but lets say 2% - the vast majority of the Carbon comes from transport - refining - and burning - out the tail pipe.

OK .. so we are talking 20% of 2% = 0.4% Now you have to subtract the transport differential - Pipeline is way more energy efficient than Tanker -and way better for the Oceans -- and we are getting near zero .. but lets say 0.3% is the differential on a liter of fuel.

0.3% more CO2 by getting from Nigeria - and you are claiming this increase - causes greater damage to the Oceans due to the increase in CO2 - than pollution caused by Nigerian Production .

There was no numbers - no support for this claim -- just a random grasping at straws. but we are not finished.

Ocean Pollution alone is reason enough.. what's more though - is that by purchasing from Nigeria - you increase industrialization - which increases the consumption of liters of the total liters.

If we buy something 1 million barrels a day 5% of our consumption from Nigeria - 2015 stat -

U.S. will import 62% more crude by 2022 due to domestic production declines, says EIA

and we increase this amount by 620 thousand barrels per day - at $60 per barrel/ and of course this price increases due to your desire to decrease production .. but use todays price = 31 million dollars .. Per Day in revenue - into the pockets of Nigerian Citizens -

The increase in pollution is massive due to the consumption that this 31 million dollars a day will produce .. due to financing and incentivizing industrialization just on this increase .. never mind the other 50 million from the normal production .. 80 million a day from the petro economy that you desperately want to support.

So calculate the pounds of CO2 x 0.3% x 1.62 million barrels

vs the pounds of CO2 created by 81 million dollars a day in spending.

Nigeria 0.65 metric tons per person US - 15.5 metric tons per person .. roughly a 20 times difference .. and lets bring Nigeria half way to your dream of getting them to first world levels of consumption.

increasing the carbon - per person from - 0.65 metric tons to 7 metric tons .. an increase of roughly 6.5 MT per person x 206 million individuals.. over 20 years

= 66.96 million metric ton per year increase. compared to 450 kg per barrel = 0.45 MT x 1.6 million barrels x 0.3% differential x 365 days per year = 0.78 MT of Carbon.

So for every barrel of oil we transport to Nigeria - just through industrialization - the increase to CO2 is near 100 times of the incremental difference .. so you save a penny - to spend a dollar w/r to emissions.

but lets say it was equal - the difference in Ocean Pollution is massive between production in Canada and Nigeria -

Not building pipelines is dumb and dumber - massively increasing CO2 and Ocean Pollution.

 

If O Canada! wants to sell its crap tar sands oils to the Chinese then O Canada! needs to build the pipelines and expand the ports in its country.

 

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Why did the US become reliant on so-called OPEC oil?

There's a very real scientific reason for that.

The US has mostly heavy and intermediate grade oils.

From a 42-gallon barrel of California Heavy or Oklahoma Heavy, you get a whopping 9 gallons of gasoline.

From a 42-gallon barrel of Illinois Intermediate, you get 13 gallons of gasoline and from a barrel of West Texas Intermediate, you get 19 gallons of gasoline.

But, from Dubai Light, Iranian Light, Saudi Light, Kuwaiti Light, Bonny Light, et al you get 26 gallons of gasoline.

Figure it out yet?

Refining capacity in the US is fixed and unchangeable, since it takes ~17 years to build a new oil refinery.

Currently, you have 168 operating oil refineries, but only 16 produce gasoline. That means your gasoline supply is fixed and unchanging and no matter what you do, you can only produce N-barrels of gasoline per year.

How then do you increase the gasoline supply without building new refineries?

Simple....you import light oils from other States.

For the record, oil companies own only 13 of those 168 oil refineries. The remaining 155 oil refineries are owned and operated by Valero, Tesoro, Goodway, Hunt, Nustar, WRB, PDV, Frontier, Motiva and about a dozen others and those are non-oil companies meaning they do not conduct research or exploration, nor do they own oil fields or the rights to oil fields. They simply buy oils on the global market and refine them.

Of those 13 owned by oil companies, half are owned by foreign oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Citgo (Venezuela).

Canadian Tar Sands is, well, tar. You get 7-9 gallons of gasoline from it and it is high in Sulfur and the cost of the catalysts needed for Sulfur Redux to meet EPA Tier III Standards is cost-prohibitive.

That's why Canadian Tar Sands sells for 1/3rd to half the price of benchmark oils like WTI (West Texas Intermediate).

So, what are those other 152 refineries producing? Your life. All that you are is oils.

You eat oils, you drink oils, you wear oils, you smear oils on your body, and in your hair, there's oils all over your home and car, and if you get sick you take oils as medication.

You also save people's lives.

You desperately need those light oils from Nigeria and the Middle East and Mexico and South America.

It's from those light oils --that you don't have-- that you get the Esters you need to make the prescription drugs you need to save people's lives.

Can you get those Esters elsewhere?

Sure. You can grow them.

You can get them from certain plants, but that would mean plowing under your food crops to grow those plants and that would reduce the amount of food crops and cause food prices to rise.

Or...you could increase the amount of crop land that you currently farm and that will do what?

Increase CO2 even more.

Oooops....

 

You need both heavy and lite at a refinery - this conflicts with nothing I said. Your claim that Oil Sand Crude is 1/3 to1/2 the cost is not true ... and the reason you give for "most" of the price differential is not true - some yes - but your numbers are way off -

Was some good info on the differences in "Light ends" between heavy and light ..gasoline being on the light side - nowhere in my post do I say we should not import any light oil however .. so there is some confusion here. "oooopps"