Bill McKibben: poster boy for FAIL

Bill McKibben, an American environmentalist an...

Bill McKibben Image via Wikipedia

We told you so. Willis Eschenbach pointed out weeks ago how pointless and futile the McKibben driven 350.org protests about the XL pipeline were, because they did nothing to alter the fact that the oil would still be used, somewhere. See The Only Choice Is Where It Gets Burned

I mentioned in an essay Friday that:

Dr. Christy ended his essay with the title of this post saying “Don’t demonize energy, because without energy, life is brutal and short”….I thought those were good words to consider, especially since we have activist maniacs like weepy Bill McKibben out to demonize energy on a daily basis. McKibben and his followers, not possessing the intelligence to fully understand what they are doing, think “they won“.

Bottom line: that tar sands oil is going to be burned somewhere, in other countries willing to buy it. Stopping a pipeline has no effect on Canada’s export of the oil, only on American jobs, but McKibben and his 350.org is cluelessly ecstatic over this.

Looks like we were right, only one day later, Canada looks to sell the tar sands oil to China. From Energy Daily:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday that he was looking at exporting more oil to China after the United States delayed a decision on a controversial pipeline.

The conservative Canadian leader, taking part in a summit in Hawaii hosted by Obama said the pipeline decision had produced “extremely negative reactions” and that he discussed oil exports with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

“This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asian markets for our energy products,” Harper told reporters. “I indicated that yesterday (Saturday) to President Hu of China.”

Full story at Energy Daily.

McKibben’s goal of stopping the XL pipeline did nothing but hurt the United States and will have zero a net positive* effect on CO2 emissions from it. He’s not even a useful idiot.

*Update: Commenter Mark W points out that: Actually, this move will increase CO2 production, as it will take more energy to move that oil all the way to China

He’s right.

About these ads

119 thoughts on “Bill McKibben: poster boy for FAIL

  1. So, can we finally acknowledge that poorly targeted environmental activism does nothing but prevent you from finding a job?

  2. The government should sue/charge the 355 org with the amount that was lost for jobs. Simple.

    Everything else is anti-American. ( and I’m not even American)

  3. As a Canadian, I can’t understand why we had to ship our crude to the U.S. for processing. I thought economics says that it is more profitable to ship finished goods. What makes this even stranger is that Alberia, the source of the oil, is mostly (I exagerate, but not much) inhabited by Alberticans (American oil workers) and most of the companies involved in crude extraction are American or multinational, so the profit from oil extraction leaves the country anyway. Therefore, this crude export was all about creating American jobs. Alberian crude was going to go to Texas to create U.S. jobs in refining. Maybe if we sell to China, the laws of economics will apply and we will be allowed to sell semi-finished commodity to them. It would be against the Canadian national psyche to sell a fully finished product.

  4. The inevitable reaction to gross economic stupidity is to find an alternative. Emigrate, or find a new market and that’s just what is happening here. The only loser here is the USA – tens of thousands of jobs gone and loss of economic security – how stupid can you get?

    I guess this is further evidence of the peaking and start of the ultimate decline of the USA, when dubious, economically disastrous, arguments win the day and vacillating presidents do the wrong thing hoping to win a few more votes.

    I suppose the 20-50,000 who will not have a job because of this are supposed to feel warm and fuzzy about their sacrifice at the altar of the false God of Green,

    Winston Churchill used to say:”You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing – eventually!” In this case, I fear it will be too late.

  5. I am sick and tired of radical environmentalists running our government. If they want to turn their own clock back 200 years, it’s okay with me. But don’t force the rest of us to follow along. There is plenty of places they could go to live like “mountain men”, so why don’t they just do it? Oh, I forgot, they couldn’t live without their cell phones, televisons, computers, air conditioning, electric lights, refrigerators, stoves, and automobiles.

  6. Actually, this move will increase CO2 production, as it will take more energy to move that oil all the way to China.

  7. When Israel hits Iran and the Strait of Hormuz gets closed and when Chavez pegs off in the next few months leaving a potential civil war in Venezuela in its wake and oil is at $200+ a barrel and gasoline is $10 a gallon (if you can find it) in the US, methinks that the average US citizen will not be amused.

  8. Actually worse than nothing consdiering all the CO2 emitted getting the oil to China who will certainly burn it with fewer precautions than the US has in place.
    Why do these morons want to destroy their own country?

  9. BC Bill….if you think that the economics of refining the product in Alberta (or Canada for that matter) wasn’t considered you haven’t been paying attention. It is not economical to do so….you need many pipelines to move highly volatile refined products to their market. The capital outlay is enormous, the margins are small.

    Furthermore, Shell had proposed to build a multi-billion dollar refinery to refine oilsands oil in Sarnia but abandoned the project in 2008 due to economics and heavy pushback by environmentalists and first nations.

  10. Don’t underestimate the power of Tides Foundation, Suzuki et al to put the coastal pipeline into an overly burdensome “environmental” review

  11. It’s going to be burned somewhere, and likely it will be burned dirtier, somewhere with fewer environmental regulations. You win this time “environmentalists.”

  12. Will no one rid us of these turbulent climate priests?

    (I mean get them out of our government and universities. Please don’t start threatening the lives of Climate Criers. Were not 10-10 after all)

  13. Canada has backed away from Kyoto as has Japan and China and the USA were never signatories.

    Obama, in service to hi reelection campaign needs the support of the extreme left since he is at 40% approval in the polls. So he shortsightedly and suicidally chose to disable the pipeline.

    I feel sorry for my American friends. However you have only yourselves to blame for this one. Obama is YOUR president and he is blocking the oil pipeline from you.

    Canada will sell the oil to the available markets, China being one of many and USA will have to receive the oil via tanker of some other method that gives you no advantage. He handed a beating stick to the republicans, and the leftists are never really satisfied anyway.

  14. saith MarkW upon November 14, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Actually, this move will increase CO2 production, as it will take more energy to move that oil all the way to China.

    As likely the US will still get a good bit of the oil, just at higher prices (to reflect the extra energy(oil) expended in shipping it less efficiently), thus causing each gallon delivered to a customer to release even more pollution than it otherwise would. This is how you win as an environmentalist, I guess.

  15. There is no guarantee that Canada will be able to build a pipeline to B. C to ship anything anywhere. According to the timeline (http://www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/timeline) on the Enbridge site pipeline operation isn’t scheduled until mid-2016. The regulatory approval process will be completed in late 2012. First Nation groups are opposed so who knows.

    It’s my understanding that existing capacity will initially be used to ship oil sands product to the U.S. so the only thing I see being lost in the short-term are jobs.

    Also, anyone who thinks the planet is going to run out of oil anytime soon hasn’t been paying attention to shale oil, etc.

  16. But you forgot that those who stopped it will be SAVED!!!! Hallelujah!!!!! Bless mother Giai, may she forgive us all!!!

  17. The older classification system has been replaced supposedly because of misuse of the terms defining the !Q ranges of the categories. This is how it goes:

    IQ Range Classification
    70-80 Borderline deficiency
    50-69 Moron
    20-49 Imbecile
    below 20 Idiot

    Please do not mis-categorize BIll’s usefulness.

  18. BC Bill says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:59 am
    What makes this even stranger is that Alberia, the source of the oil, is mostly (I exagerate, but not much) inhabited by Alberticans (American oil workers) and most of the companies involved in crude extraction are American or multinational, so the profit from oil extraction leaves the country anyway.

    But not much…? How about a whole lot? In the Alberta oil patch, [oil sands] extraction is populated by Newfoundlanders; Fort McMurray sounds like St. Johns. For the conventional resource, the largest drilling contractors are Canadian, and the oil (refined or not) is Canadian. In all my travels around the upstream end of the patch, I rarely hear an American accent. The profit going SOB (South of Border) is based on a fraction of the dollar price of the oil to any SOB company. Refineries aren’t that profitable any more. Necessary, but not profitable. I do suggest checking one’s premises!

  19. McKibben and his fellow travelers simply use warmlogic, which has nothing to do with what is real, but is based on their fantasy that oil is bad because the process of burning it produces evil, planet-destroying C02. Their “thought” process then goes: oil is bad, and therefore, anything which makes it easier to both procur and process that oil is immoral, even if that particular way in fact produces the least amount of C02, being the most efficient. If something is inherently immoral, then the argument that “someone else will just do it if we don’t” doesn’t fly.
    Thus we have this “victory” of the carbonistas over evil oil. In Water (melon) World, it is a very real victory.

  20. The radical environmentalist are not just about getting rid of fossil fuels. The word is that they want to replace fossils fuels with clean, renewable energy. Some estimates suggest that solar will be cheaper than coal in the next five years, its price is coming down so fast! Of course, there are times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, so forms of energy storage will need to be developed. However, by just delaying the pipeline for a few years, it is indeed possible that the pipeline will be come uneconomical, especially considering the enviromental costs of tar sand oil. And then we will need to retrain all of those petroleum engineers and coal miners to work on solar energy. That will be a difficult transition.

  21. Maybe Greenpeace can build a sail powered tanker to help out the Chinese, who I bet will refine the syncude to Canada and U.S. EPA standards.

    Of course, all of Greenpeace Vessel burn fossil fuels (although the Rainbow warrier can sail on the wind too). Maybe their helicopter only burns biofuels.

  22. The economical reason for not building refineries in Canada is not about costing more to move the finished product. It is because refineries are expensive (and maybe impossible to build in our new green climate) and it is was cheaper to just move oil to a refineries that already exists but are under-utilized. Plus there is no 5 years of permitting and law suits to use existing refineries. They are talking about 7 billion for the pipeline, that might not even build a single refinery, let alone enough to process all the oil. I’m in Saskatchewan and I would love to see refineries being built up here, but I’m realistic about the chances and economics of it.

  23. Plus Saskatchewan and Alberta are both already suffering from a labour shortage and people from BC and Ontario are too superior and smug to move out here to work. The people from the Maritimes however move here all the time and are smart enough to go where the work is instead of just complaining and demanding the world should bring everything to them.

  24. Time for the econaughts to stop using fossil fuel altogether. I promise I will use their share sparingly and wisely to keep my family and I safe and healthy and warm. Remember, no backsies, …… 8^D

  25. Like most things in life, there are winners and losers here.
    As an outsider, with no strong feelings on the subject, I can see that the US is not amongst the winners. What sort of American would think this is a good idea ?

  26. Guest Post: Energy Independence – The Big Lie

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-energy-independence-big-lie

    The green energy Nazis despise coal and nuclear power, which account for 31% of our energy supply. They want to phase coal out. They aren’t too fond of fracking either, so there goes another 23% of our supply. You might be able to make out that itsy bitsy green circle with the 7% of our supply from renewable energy. And more than half of that energy is supplied by hydro power. Less than 2% of our energy needs are met by solar and wind. For some perspective, we need to use the equivalent of 17 billion barrels of oil per year to run our society and solar and wind supplies the equivalent energy of about 300 million barrels of that total. I think our green energy dreams will come up just a smidgen short of meeting our demands.

    Lets talk losses for a moment…

    AC Transmission Line Losses

    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/

    [snip]

    According to the Department of Energy, California lost about 19.7 x 109 kWh of electrical energy through transmission/distribution in 2008. [1] This amount of energy loss was equal to 6.8% of total amount of electricity used in the state throughout that year. At the 2008 average retail price of $0.1248/kWh, this amounts to a loss of about $2.4B worth of electricity in California, and a $24B loss nationally.

    And for the current boondoggle in the Northeast we have this:

    Studies in New England where transmission for 12GW of wind (24% of energy) is estimated to cost $17B or 6.6 cents per kWh or twice the cost of the natural gas saved. $17B is a midrange estimate with cost estimates going as high as $25B. This is in addition to the $45B for the wind turbines. Total cost is 8 times the cost of the natural gas saved.

  27. I think the reason there is no economic case, in terms of transporting raw/finished goods, is the that modern refining has very little product loss. In fact, in the case of heavy oils like those from tar sands, I believe that there is actually an increase in volume after refining due to all the hydrogen that must be added to upgrade it for maximum productivity, which could yield an increase in overall transportation costs.

  28. I don’t know anything about crude oil and energy generation, but if the object of selling the oil is to improve the Canadian economy, wouldn’t it be more effective and of longer term benefit if the oil was burnt in Canada to produce electricity and heat at very very low cost to households, and possibly even zero cost to businesses and factories located in Canada.

    Surely that would bring a long term and widespread increase in the Canadian standard of living. Or wouldn’t that work ?

  29. So, can we finally acknowledge that poorly targeted environmental activism does nothing but prevent you from finding a job?

    The “green” movement is simply the “red” movement that has changed colors. It is about using environmental concerns to advance the global socialist agenda. In this case, diverting energy resources from the US to China. If you look at environmental policy, it is always about hamstringing the economies of Western Europe and North America and diverting resources to other places where there are no “environmental” agitators. It isn’t about the environment at all. It is about using environmental concerns to further the global socialist agenda.

  30. I look forward to the day when the Chinese sell enough US treasuries to pay for a new pipeline corridor in Canada for multiple oil and gas lines to the coast for Asian export at locked in prices and no possibility of it going down coast to whacko California.

  31. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:23 am
    BC Bill says:………
    But not much…? How about a whole lot? In the Alberta oil patch, [oil sands] extraction is populated by Newfoundlanders; Fort McMurray sounds like St. Johns. For the conventional resource, the largest drilling contractors are Canadian, and the oil (refined or not) is Canadian. In all my travels around the upstream end of the patch, I rarely hear an American accent. The profit going SOB (South of Border) is based on a fraction of the dollar price of the oil to any SOB company. Refineries aren’t that profitable any more. Necessary, but not profitable. I do suggest checking one’s premises!

    Yes, the comment about Alberticans was more than a small exageration, though one sure has the impression that in Calgary executive positions in oil and gas exploration and development are disproportionalely held by Americans.

    On the economics of refining, I guess that United States should be grateful that they have at least temporarily been saved from the terrible economic folly of refining crude in Texas. In Canada we may just have to suffer the economic hardship and refine crude ourselves if we want to sell oil sands oil (sarc). There you go readers, don’t look on this as a win for the greens, but a fortuitous reprieve from entering into a bad deal! (more sarc).

  32. Dave Worley says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:41 am
    POTUS negotiating “Pacific Trade” agreement overseas now.

    No correlation of course.

    I’m not sure what the one thing has to do with the other, so you’re very likely correct that there is no correlation.

  33. Billd and everyone else it is oil sands, not tar sands. I know tar sand sounds worse therefore its popularity. For those that think the oil sands production area is some huge blight on the earth, see if you can find it on Google earth.Then after you have found it compare its production area to the size of a city. In my example the active production area is only 1/3 the size of Edmonton.

  34. Obama may likely come to regret this decision.

    In the next election, Republicans are going to accuse Obama of costing America jobs, energy, and money.

    Should the Gateway (west coast) pipeline get approved within a year, the Republicans will have an even bigger stick to hit Obama with. Throw in an oil shortage — perhaps caused by Middle East unrest — and you have a perfect storm.

  35. Ever notice how we’re all running out of carbon fuels, oil, coal ,etc…..
    …but countries have enough to sell to other countries?

    Obviously, Canada is not worried about running out………..

  36. BC Bill: After reading your comments a couple of times, I have concluded that it is your intention to slander and ridicule your Albertan neighbors. Characterizing our oil industry as populated with American oil workers is complete nonsense as is your contention that the industry is made up of mostly American and multi-national companies.

    Our industry is dominated by Canadian companies, Encana, ARC, Talisman, Imperial Oil not to mention the hundreds of small and medium producers. Together they re-invest profits to the tune of $25 – $30 billion annually as opposed to your moronic suggestion that the profits are being siphoned-off to some evil empire.

    I work in the industry every day. I have nearly 20 young men working for me today. They hail from Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and as far afield as South Africa. Most of the guys here today are (shock and horrors!) British Columbians! I printed-off what you had to say about them. I`m afraid the moderators won`t allow me to tell what your fellow BCèrs had to say about you.

  37. How have these idiots been allowed to impose such a negative influence on mega business decisions that could massively benefit the US. economy well into the distant future. Why does America allow itself to be influenced by this small group of idiots who believe they can change the world by hitting the US hard and bringing its misguided intentions to have such a catastrophic effect on what was once a great world leading economy? Why is the US government seemingly so impotent against this dangerous cult? We in Britain have our own problems with these stupid people, but casting them aside, as they surely will be, will not be made any easier if you in the United States allow such dangerous people to gain seriuos control of your country.. Come on America, get your act together, show some of your historic backbone and demonstrate some resolve in the interests of your economic future, Your leadership in casting aside this misguided but influetial group of anti-capitalist boneheads is vital to your future and to that of the rest of the world..

  38. The irony is that we will end up buying the Canadian tar oil, but shipping it through the Canal up to the Gulf to the refineries, since the ecotards will tolerate zero refineries on the left coast. So, we will end up with a higher spill risk (ships’ spill risk is almost ten times higher than pipeline spill risk). Just add on the transportation costs. Hahaha! Obama is definitely not a useful idiot, just the other kind.

  39. It’s sad, really. We (Alberta) wanted this pipeline, because we WANT to contribute to North America’s energy independence. It makes economic and political sense for the US to obtain oil from Canada instead of Venezuela or any middle-east country.

    However, the product will continue to be produced, Oilsands production will continue to get more efficient, and production will continue to ramp up, no matter who buys it.

    Don’t let the red-herring about a pipeline to the coast being blocked fool you. There already is a major pipeline going to port, and product is already moving west. If increasing that capacity runs into trouble, it won’t be insurmountable: more pipelines will be built and oil will flow.

    There’s the key: THE OIL WILL FLOW, there will always be a market, the giant natural oil polluted area known as the Oilsands will be cleaned up one way or another.

    Americans in Alberta? Only someone not in Alberta would believe that. We’ve come to appreciate and embrace the work ethic of Maritimers, and even the occasional Ontarian and Quebecer, once they realize they can practically write their own paycheque amounts when working in the patch in Alberta.

  40. sarc
    Watch out Canada, next thing McKibben will be demanding is that you stop oil sands development or face sanctions and possible invasion if that doesn’t work
    /sarc

  41. BC Bill;
    It would be against the Canadian national psyche to sell a fully finished product.>>>

    Oh my, coffee all over the screen thanks a bunch. The truth hurts. When you spray coffee through your nose and laugh until you start to lose consciousness, it hurts even more.

  42. Latitude:
    That’s because the oil engineers understand that oil is continually being produced by abiogenic production in the earth’s mantle, and that we have an infinite supply because of that. True, stuff that isn’t pooled in domes we have to work at a bit to get it out if the domes have move out of place to the source (tectonics). Tar/shale sands are all over North America and mostly have yet to be exploited. Solar and wind power can never ever compete with oil and gas in the long run, mostly because of durability issues.

  43. The irony of a “have” telling the “have nots” why they necessarily should have not was not lost on the people there. Suzuki did the same thing in Vancouver at the occupy rally. Poor judgment and revealing. Dennis Moore? (clue MPFC)

  44. So instead of making a mere $10/barrel now Canada will be able to make above $100/barrel… sounds like good news for Canada.

  45. Anthony,
    Thanks for staying on this issue, it needs to be exposed.
    As I mentioned before, I worked on the start up of a major oil sands project over 30 years ago and it was a challenge getting all the upgrading units started up not to mention the challenge of minus 40 F.
    Minor point, it should be called “oil” sands not tar sands to avoid the negative connotation that the oil haters wish to portray re this massive oil resource.

  46. Don’t worry folks, this is all just strategy on us Canucks part. OK, we’re lucking out here, but we’ll claim it is a strategy. Or at least I will. OK, so its not a strategy at all, its just luck.

    1. There’s enough oil in the Canadian oil sands and shale deposits for everyone. We can supply China and the US and Europe too for that matter. Its just a matter of getting it from where it is to where it needs to go.
    2. So we’re gonna get China to pay for the pipeline to the coast. Please, don’t any of you tell them that from the coast it has to be put on supertankers to get to China. Of course, if someone else has a supertanker hanging around, and enough cash, we’ll fill that one up too. Ships don’t have to go to China, my understanding of this whole ocean thingy is that they can go anywhere there is a port that can unload them. Where are those refineries in the US again? Any in Texas? Does Texas have any ports?
    3. Once China is locked in on paying for our pipeline to the coast, the American 2012 election will be over. If the Obama loses, I’m certain the new President will approve the north-south pipeline in nothing flat. If Obama loses on the other hand…. he’ll wait a few weeks before sucker punching his loyal voters and approve the pipeline.

    My only concern is that at the rate the United States is borrowing money from China, will the U.S. have enough credit left to be able to borrow the money from Chiina to build the north-south pipeline. I’ve heard that China is actually in favour of a north-south pipeline that is extended to the coast. Seems they have this idea that the U.S. may want to shut down their refineries because they cause jobs…err, oops, I mean they cause pollution. So, they’ll pick up the oil from Canada, ship it to China to refine it, and then instead of sending empty supertankers back, they can send gasoline instead, offloading it to the pipeline headed for the U.S. and pick up more crude at the same time.

  47. A number of commenters have wondered why Canada exports crude instead of refining it, or using the energy to manufacture finished good.

    The reason is the impact of resource exports on foreign exchange rates.

    Exporting resources drives up the value of your dollar, which drives down the price of goods and services purchased from other countries, making it cheaper to do the value add outside Canada.

    Of course, the Canadian Government could offset this natural disadvantage for non resource businesses, by using the export earnings to eliminate domestic taxes – the way they do in the Middle East. But this would mean shrinking the government, ditching vast numbers of useless civil servants, and drastic cutbacks to lazy vote buying policies at election time.

  48. Actually China may not want the oil. A huge oil field with ~80 % Saudi Arabia’s initial reserves has been found in the South China Sea with China claiming sovereignty over the majority although significant areas are off Vietnam. Of course at this stage this is probably a gross underestimation.

    It is interesting that despite the gloomy forecasts the supply of fossil fuels seems to keep finding ways to surprise us.

    First huge resources of gas are being discovered on the back of new technologies as well as new oil discoveries.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if Tommy Gold was right and these aren’t fossil fuels after all but formed in the crust of the Earth where limestone is subjected to heat, pressure and chemical effects ?

    It wouldn’t be the first time an intelligent individual was proven right despite the “consensus” dogma – history is littered with examples – otherwise medicine’s finest treatment may still be leaches.

    Micro-organisms ? – Don’t be silly.

  49. Its not “tar sands”. They are “bituminous sands”. Oil sands is not correct, either, but much closer than “tar sands”. Tar is a totally diferent chemical composition, and made from totally different sources.

    CO2 may NOT go up, sending the oil to China. To transport by large tanker takes about 0.2 HP per net tonne. For rail, its 2.5 HP. Pipelines have similar HP needs, but as the traffic on a pipeline is only one way, it would be less than rail (the train usually goes back empty, doubling the miles travelled). By water is cheaper, as long as the distance is less than 10 times the length of the pipeline. At a guess, with a pipeline to BC and the extra handling and other factors, the CO2 made transporting to China will be about the same as going to Texas, or maybe a little more.

    But the problem will be Pipeline capacity will be at its limit in 2014 or 2015. This will drop the price of Canadian oil by up to $10/bbl, or more, that can’t get in the pipeline. This will equate to nearly 10 billion dollars out of the Alberta economy per year.

    Supply and demand drops the price of the oil. Not S&D of the oil, but supply and demand of pipeline space. Lack of space causes an increase in supply of oil at the pipeline intake. The greater the supply, the lower the price. Not at the outlet, of course, just at the inlet. The outlet price will still be the global price. The pipeline company gets the difference.

    But, at 10-20 bucks a bbl, it becomes economical to use trains. To ship 600,000 bbls a day via trains, you will need about 10 unit trains (100 cars with 60,000 bbls total cargo). But, you will need 3 trains there, as it takes two days to get there, and a day to unload and turnaround. So you will have 3 trains there, and 3 coming back, times 10. 60 trains will be needed, to get 600,000 bbls per day moving.

    So, yes, CO2 will go up, way up, by a factor of two, but the oil will still get to Texas.

    Well done, Weepy Bill, well done.

    ps- And the cost of everything else shipped by rail will go up, due to lack of space on the rails. As just about everything travels by rail, that means the price on everything will increase. But only in North America.

    But rail equity stocks will be a good investment. And pipeline companies.

  50. Eric Worrall says:
    November 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Yeah, I don’t see those middle-east oil exporting countries complaining that they must not sell their oil in order to keep their government jobs.

  51. davidmhoffer:

    What you have said does make a lot of sense… EXCEPT… it implies, someone very intelligent is really running things. I just don’t see how that can possibly be!! GK

  52. Canadians are quite happy to export the oil – it is just foreign exchange after all. At least the Chinese are solvent and they won’t make us take Bomark missles in exchange for it.

    The decision against the Sarnia plant, traditional home to value-added oil in Canada, was crazy. It would have put the entire pipeline inside Canada and almost all the jobs. Are spooks and green fronts agitating the locals? Who knows. It’s geo-oil-politics.

    It could have followed the same route as the other pipes so no whining about where it goes and what it crosses. Turns out we even know how to make steel pipe! Who-da thought… Next thing you know we will be making welding rods and cars.

    Newfies in Alberta: Yeah dat’s a some fine wage you got up dere and you look good in a Pook Toque too! Real Canadians working really hard and we t’anks ya for it.

  53. You don’t want our oil? Fine. You are our friends, so we gave you first dibs, but if you don’t want it, someone else will. Hope we have some for you when you need it…

  54. We in Canada are getting tired of American Eco-Imperialists trying to force their policy options on us. Now that Keystone is at least delayed, these same folks will turn to trying to kill the Northern Gateway proposal to move that oil to the West Coast for shipping to Asia. They will use the Tides Canada foundation to fund the protesters and will supply organizational assistance. Tides Canada gets its funding from billion dollar American foundations set up by tycoons who have already made their riches.

  55. if you take Mckibbens on face value, he and his ilk make no sense. They vilify even those trying to be green! But if you look beneath their rhetoric to their real motives it makes a lot of sense. They are not out to make the planet better – they are out to erradicate man as a part of the planet.

  56. this post seems to be saying that if your neighbor wants to dump his slop in your yard you should let him because if you don’t he’s just going to let it run into the street, and then someone loses the opportunity to get paid for doing the dumping, and the slop is going to end up in your water supply no matter what.

  57. Thankfully, as foreseen by the (C)AGW prophesiers, the Arctic Ocean will soon be free of sea ice, at least for most of the year. Thus no long pipelines are needed, they can just ship it to China in supertankers across the open Arctic waters, and soon the Chinese will be releasing lots more carbon emissions to continue transforming the Earth into a warm and slightly-wetter paradise, courtesy of Canada and McKibben. What could go wrong?

  58. Jeff Grantham says: November 14, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    “Slop”? That is probably the most assinine analogy to have ever been posted here.

  59. Upgrading or refining in Alberta has some merits, but as a rule of thumb is twice as expensive as doing it in the US (brownfield expansion), and four times as expensive as building in Asia (witness recent Reliance refinery in India). tough to spend the extra several billion and wait five plus years, for little added return.

  60. So the idea of the greens is that we will only use renewable energy.
    Ok then so we have electric cars and trucks.
    How are these machines to be lubricated?

    Whale oil anyone?

  61. An interesting note about transporting Alberta crude to the west coast ports…
    The major shareholder in Canadian National Railway is now BILL GATES who holds a controlling interest.
    One wonders if he invested in order to control the possibility that Canada would begin to sell Alberta Oil Sands petroleum to China. Getting oil to China you need a pipeline to the West Coast or… trains hauling oil.

  62. It is not just this delay to Keystone, it is the idea that next year there will be another delay, and another …

    As Harper said, it “underscores” Canada’s requirement to secure non-US customers for our oil. More tankers will run aground etc. because Hansen, Gore and Suzuki have been successful in protecting an acquifer that wasn’t in danger, and pure prairie vistas for the cowboys in Ford trucks.

    NIMBY is at the bottom of it all.

    But Canada will gain, ultimately, as availability of alternate customers always drives up the price of a product.

    The US needs a Stupid tax for anyone on Hansen’s/Gore’s distribution lists.

  63. Patrick, the Tides Foundation has been active for some years in BC, spreading around the baksheesh. In the most recent municipal elections, they bought themselves the Mayor of Vancouver. Tides was his largest campaign contributor.

    And they’ve been dumping money into the Dene alliance for years. That’s a key reason why the Dene, alone among the aboriginal groups, held out in opposition against the McKenzie pipeline.

    So yes, we are all getting a bit tired of US eco-imperialism. Our own home grown fanatics are troublesome enough (come on down Dizzy Lizzy May).

  64. The Chinese are laughing at America’s stupidity. The lunacy in the U.S. is almost as ridiculous as the German pledge to shut down their nuclear fleet. Vladimir Putin wants to know where Europe is going to get the firewood they’re eventually going to need to stay warm in the winter. If McKibben and the nutjobs keep it up, they’ll have half of New England burning wood for heat.

  65. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:46 am
    BC Bill: After reading your comments a couple of times, I have concluded that it is your intention to slander and ridicule your Albertan neighbors. Characterizing our oil industry as populated with American oil workers is complete nonsense as is your contention that the industry is made up of mostly American and multi-national companies.

    Our industry is dominated by Canadian companies, Encana, ARC, Talisman, Imperial Oil not to mention the hundreds of small and medium producers. Together they re-invest profits to the tune of $25 – $30 billion annually as opposed to your moronic suggestion that the profits are being siphoned-off to some evil empire.

    I work in the industry every day. I have nearly 20 young men working for me today. They hail from Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and as far afield as South Africa. Most of the guys here today are (shock and horrors!) British Columbians! I printed-off what you had to say about them. I`m afraid the moderators won`t allow me to tell what your fellow BCèrs had to say about you.

    Imperial Oil is controlled by Exxon Mobil, Shell Canada is owned by Royal Dutch Shell, BP Canada owned by BP, Addax owned by Sinopec of China, Encana has an American division. etc. I understaind that about 50% of the developed bitumen sand reserves are overtly owned by foreign interests and the share holders in the publicly traded “Canadian” companies would be a mix from wherever.

    I don’t think I was slandering Albertans but I was poking some fun at them as many Canadians do not agree with the rapid development of the oil sands. Even former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, who was instrumental in developing the bitumen has expressed dismay over the rate of extraction. Based on some of the comments above, we are apparently now extracting at a rate beyond our capacity to refine. My main point was that I cannot understand how we Canadians can continue to be so stupid as to export raw materials at ever increasing rates intstead of developing, in this case our refining capacity, and heaven forbid, maybe some energy dependent industries that might locate here to take advantage of our energy resources. Should there be any limit on the extraction rate, should there be any attempt to use the resource strategically for a long term benefit or to maximize benefit to Canadians? None of these issues were ever addressed in the media. Every story focussed on enviromental concerns for the pipeline, as if all Canadians and Albertans were in favour of selling the resource as quickly as possible to maximize short term interests. I know that bituman creates jobs for Canadians. Refining does too, and so does manufacturing so why aren’t those sectors being developed? From a Canadian persepective, the discussion should be a lot broader than the enviromental risks of shipping crude to Texas.

  66. I do wish that everyone south of the border would start to understand that the Athabasca OIL sands are called the Athabasca OIL sands for a reason. Tar is a product of petroleum refining or coal distillation. The OIL in the OIL sands is crude oil or bitumen that needs to be separated from the sand. Not Tar. One assumes that this is because Americans are used to referring to the La Brea “Tar” pits. However, this is not what we call the Athabasca Oil Sands (and indeed the La Brea Tar pits are also misnamed). http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_4/LaBrea.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt#Chemistry

    As far as refining the crude oil in Alberta, the fact is we do not have enough labour to construct and man a refinery even if it was economic. (it isn’t because if it was, the oil companies would be building one) There is a reason why so many of the workers in Fort MacMurray have Newfoundland accents — there are not enough people in the western Canadian labour pool. In fact, we can not even man all the drill rigs available. There are 800 drill rigs available in the province but only 500 are working because of the lack of trained personnel. There is a shortage of workers in western Canada across the board.

    The delay in the Keystone XL pipeline costs 1 million dollars a day. Trans Canada and other companies will be looking elsewhere to protect their capital. And everyday, the oil gets more expensive for ALL consumers. *Trans Canada is proposing to reroute the pipeline around the Nebraska sand hills – but it is still a question as to whether POTUS will consider a new route before 2013. He has said he won’t.

    Meanwhile, the crude oil may move west, east and even south by other means (trains, booster pump stations on existing pipelines), However, one thing is certain, there will be strong incentives to broaden the market for the oil which means higher energy costs for all North Americans as offshore demand is realized. Not only has Obama shot Americans in the foot, but also Canadians as we are tied hand in glove to US pricing and demand given that our market is only 10% or less of the American market.

    But at least we are working.

    Perhaps those with a more socialist bent don’t see that as a requirement. Like many in the EU.
    ==============

    And as an additional comment on the Ogallala aquifer, those folks worrying about it should trim their own demand as they are MINING the aquifer at the moment and may be killing the water supply all on their own. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/245537/20111108/aquifer-water-levels-dropping-high-plains-threatening.htm

  67. crosspatch says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:09 am
    “The ‘green’ movement is simply the “red” movement that has changed colors. It is about using environmental concerns to advance the global socialist agenda.”

    There’s some truth to that observation. However Greenies come in different flavors, besides Watermelon. First there are greedy, power-hungry Greenies, like His Goreness, whose personal lives are the antithesis of Socialism, but who can nevertheless form symbiotic relationships with Socialists, through some mechanism that I don’t fully comprehend. Then there are misanthropes, Luddites, and generic True Believers.

  68. Dave Worley says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:41 am
    POTUS negotiating “Pacific Trade” agreement overseas now.

    No correlation of course.
    —————-
    He’s probably going to work a deal to buy refined gasoline from them.

  69. Did it occur to anyone that McKibben really doesn’t care about the CO2? He’s happy because he’s helped to further economically weaken the US, which is the real goal of the AGW movement.

  70. BillD says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:29 am
    The radical environmentalist are not just about getting rid of fossil fuels. The word is that they want to replace fossils fuels with clean, renewable energy. Some estimates suggest that solar will be cheaper than coal in the next five years, its price is coming down so fast!

    Dream on, MacDuff! Whose estimates are those? It is fanciful to suppose that we could cover enough land with solar panels (or wind-turbine bird killers) to replace nice, compact coal-fired electrical plants that run day and night, in all sorts of weather.

    Of course, there are times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, so forms of energy storage will need to be developed.

    What do you propose? Giant battery farms? The only workable solution is to keep your coal (or natural-gas, or nuclear) power plants running constantly to provide baseload power for the grossly inefficient, fitful, ‘clean’, ‘renewable’ energy, so expensive it would not exist at all but for government subsidies and rate increases on the poor consumers.

    However, by just delaying the pipeline for a few years, it is indeed possible that the pipeline will be come uneconomical, especially considering the enviromental costs of tar sand oil. And then we will need to retrain all of those petroleum engineers and coal miners to work on solar energy. That will be a difficult transition.

    Not likely. By delaying the pipeline, and by refusing to permit Americans to drill in their own lands, and by all the other enviro-whacko policies of this administration, you will end up forcing Americans into the kind of energy poverty you already see in the UK. But then, that’s the real aim of the ‘green’ watermelons, isn’t it? First you have to destroy the country in order to ‘save’ it—for a clique of Marxist overlords.

    /Mr Lynn

  71. crosspatch says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:09 am

    ……. If you look at environmental policy, it is always about hamstringing the economies of Western Europe and North America and diverting resources to other places where there are no “environmental” agitators. It isn’t about the environment at all. It is about using environmental concerns to further the global socialist agenda.
    ______________________________________
    In a word Watermelons. I am very glad I do not have children because the world the watermelons are bound and determined we will live in will be Nasty, Brutal and Short!

    Three centuries of technical advancement straight down the tubes with a world government to make very sure we do not have the chance to climb out of serfdom again.

  72. Oh BC Bill: You have been caught-out. You are a fabricator of falsehoods. You are an oil-hater who couldn’t pass-up the opportunity to take a few swipes at a people and an industry that you despise. Please don’t pretend anything less.

    The discussion about the development of Alberta’s resources is a discussion for Albertans alone as the owners of the resource. When BC is willing to allow Albertans to have a say in the development of ski areas, ocean fisheries and mines in B.C. and when Albertans share in the revenue from Ontario gold mines and Quebec hydro-electric facilities then we might consider to allow you a place at our table. Until then, mind your own business.

  73. There is no appetite in Canada for a company to invest another $2B in studies — so yes the word is that the pipeline goes elsewhere — and fairly soon. My understanding is that if the USA decides it wants/needs the oil it can pay for any environmental studies and present a package to the Canadian companies which will then see if it looks profitable. Otherwise learn Mandarin if you want details on the oil’s future.

    Sorry about that but $2B is not packet change.

  74. Bill McKibbon hardly needs me to speak for him, but I think you’re missing an important point. The conversation about the development of the Keystone pipeline really relates to the question of whether continuing to burn fossil fuels is a good idea, especially if these fuels derive from carbon rich tar sands oil. Maybe it’s best to leave this resource in the ground, rather than risking adding to already high ratios of carbon in the atmosphere. I know you disagree with this, but the conversation still needs to occur.

  75. Patrick Hrushowy says:
    November 14, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    We in Canada are getting tired of American Eco-Imperialists trying to force their policy options on us…..
    _____________________________________
    Got any Tar pits we can send these Eco-Imperialists into?

  76. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Bill McKibbon hardly needs me to speak for him, but I think you’re missing an important point. The conversation about the development of the Keystone pipeline really relates to the question of whether continuing to burn fossil fuels is a good idea, especially if these fuels derive from carbon rich tar sands oil. Maybe it’s best to leave this resource in the ground, rather than risking adding to already high ratios of carbon in the atmosphere. I know you disagree with this, but the conversation still needs to occur.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh contraire Hugh. We need more carbon in the atmosphere to spur plant growth and (if the CO2 warmista theory is correct) to keep us from freezing over the next 30 years according to the IPCC leaked report saying it is going to get COLD!

  77. In the Spanish example, we found that each renewable job cost the Spanish taxpayer between $752,000 and $800,000. Even more troubling is the fact that diverting these critical resources cost the Spanish economy 2.2 jobs for every job created. Further, the jobs created in Spain were temporary — two-thirds of them were in installation.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/05/promise-from-green-jobs-overstated-harms-ignored/#ixzz1djiTeXTu

    This is what we have to look forward to…

  78. Jeff Grantham says:
    November 14, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    this post seems to be saying that if your neighbor wants to dump his slop in your yard you should let him….
    ____________________________
    Jeff,
    Do you drive a car or use Public Transportation???
    Have a computer???
    Live in a building???
    Eat food you do not raise yourself???
    Wear clothes you did not make from hand spun materials you grew/raised???

    If you are not completely self sufficient with a ZERO carbon foot print. If you have not discarded EVERYTHING made of plastics or metals or made in a factory, then you are a HYPOCRITE!

    When you and Al Gore and Maurice Strong and Bill McKibben and Hansen and the rest of the greenies go back to wearing homespun clothing, living in self-built homes and eating home grown food – all done without using any type of metal tools, THEN I might just listen. Otherwise you are CONDEMNING me to a lifestyle YOU do not wish to live.

  79. BillD says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:29 am
    The radical environmentalist are not just about getting rid of fossil fuels. The word is that they want to replace fossils fuels with clean, renewable energy. Some estimates suggest that solar will be cheaper than coal in the next five years, its price is coming down so fast!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The environmentalist lobby complains about the area of disturbance of the Athabasca Oil Sands which is relatively small, yet they are prepared to cover the landscape with solar panels and wind farms that make it look picayune in comparison? What is the logic in that?

  80. The U.S. isn’t losing a thing and neither is Canada. In the short term the existing pipelines can handle more oil by using higher capacity pumps. In order to sell to China a pipeline has to be built going out to the Pacific ocean and that’s got its own set of problems making it a non-starter for at least several years.

    Obama simply had to make a choice about which voter block was the worst to alienate going into an election year

    a) the people whose property needed to be condemned via eminent domain for the pipeline to traverse and the environmentalist whackos they were temporarily aligned with or

    b) thousands of out-of-work roughnecks anticipating getting a job building the new pipeline

    The oil is still getting delivered to the US in the meantime and the decision about the pipeline will get delayed until the 2012 presidential election is over.

    I reckon the people who would likely be working on the pipeline are red state residents (the path of the pipeline from Canada to Texas is through “the heartland”) and these states’ electoral college votes go to republicans anyhow so Obama had more votes to gain by throwing a bone to the greenies.

  81. crosspatch says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:09 am
    “The ‘green’ movement is simply the “red” movement that has changed colors. It is about using environmental concerns to advance the global socialist agenda.”
    ____________________________________
    Larry Fields says:
    November 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    There’s some truth to that observation. However Greenies come in different flavors, besides Watermelon. First there are greedy, power-hungry Greenies, like His Goreness, whose personal lives are the antithesis of Socialism, but who can nevertheless form symbiotic relationships with Socialists, through some mechanism that I don’t fully comprehend……
    ________________________________
    It is quite simple really “Socialism” has never been about “equality” that is just the lies told to the masses. H. L. Mencken hads the correct interpretation “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

    That is why when you scratch the surface of a green socialist you often find hatred not kindness.

  82. This man is disgusting. Using Pseudoscience and garbage to promote environmental noise. Every organisation lobbying asist the pipeline should have to employ them in real jobs not junk green jobs.

  83. Gail Combs said:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Jeff Grantham says:
    November 14, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    this post seems to be saying that if your neighbor wants to dump his slop in your yard you should let him….
    ____________________________
    Jeff,
    Do you drive a car or use Public Transportation???
    Have a computer???
    Live in a building???
    Eat food you do not raise yourself???
    Wear clothes you did not make from hand spun materials you grew/raised???

    If you are not completely self sufficient with a ZERO carbon foot print. If you have not discarded EVERYTHING made of plastics or metals or made in a factory, then you are a HYPOCRITE!

    When you and Al Gore and Maurice Strong and Bill McKibben and Hansen and the rest of the greenies go back to wearing homespun clothing, living in self-built homes and eating home grown food – all done without using any type of metal tools, THEN I might just listen. Otherwise you are CONDEMNING me to a lifestyle YOU do not wish to live.
    ———————————————————————
    Bravo Ms Combs!!!

  84. I’m out in the Alberta oil patch right now doing exploration. When you see how much money it costs to find oil, you can’t believe it only costs a buck a litre!

    Doesn’t matter to me or nature who buys it!

  85. If the pipeline doesn’t get rerouted around the Ogallala in planning, then another company that has pipelines to Chicago will take a good chunk of the crude and send it south from there. fuelfix.com It may take buying an existing north south pipeline and reversing the flow, but the shipment of oil won’t get slowed down by much. At worst, it won’t be done by the folks in charge of the Keystone XL proposal.

  86. RE: Main Article
    Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday that he was looking at exporting more oil to China after the United States delayed a decision on a controversial pipeline.

    And of course, Canadian former CIBC chief economist Jeff Rubin has been saying as much all along. It appears he is now making a living by writing and speaking about the economy and the consequences of declining petroleum availability.

    This is presented only as a heads-up example of what is being said abroad.

    ———–

    THE GLOBE AND MAIL
    Economy Lab
    Delving into the forces that shape our living standards

    Time for Canada to find new trading partners
    JEFF RUBIN
    Special to Globe and Mail Update
    Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 5:24AM EDT

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/time-for-canada-to-find-new-trading-partners/article2132282/

  87. If the McKibbens of the world get their way, the next time we are forced to fight multi-trillion dollar campaigns for geo-political control of oil resources in the middle east, we will have these folks to thank.

  88. BillD says:
    November 14, 2011 at 10:29 am
    Some estimates suggest that solar will be cheaper than coal in the next five years, its price is coming down so fast!

    Good luck with that. The US is complaining to China because the price of solar is coming down so fast. Obama is leading the charge to keep solar prices high in the US to create green jobs. Voodoo economics.

  89. Frankly, I don’t blame the Canadians one bit. While it’s nice to consider your trading partners and neighbors the bottom line is the welfare of your own people. I just wish Washington felt the same way.

    BTW, if you can come up with a way to squash the Tides Foundation, you’d be doing mankind a favor.

  90. Obama gets elected, and promptly abandons Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. This forces nuclear plants to come up with storage plans on-site, effectively hamstringing nuclear power

    3 years later, he puts the kibosh on an oil pipeline extension project in the midst of a mini-depression when people need jobs, harming both the energy independence of the U.S. and the job market.

    And people like this guy? He has no plan for energy in the U.S., he seems to simply oppose everything that might help us.

  91. BC Bill, do you even have any idea just how vast the Oilsands are? Do you think we’re likely to “use them up” any time soon???

    People far more qualified than you or I have been poking around there for decades, tallying and identifying what’s under there, and they tell us the amount of recoverable oil is vast, truly vast, and the overall amount dwarfs the entire middle east’s supply.

    If we’re pulling 3 million bbl/day, in a year let’s round that to 1000 million barrels, or a billion barrels. We’re talking about two TRILLION in the ground…. or two thousand year’s supply at that rate. Granted, it’s not all extractable using current technology, but technology improves. That’s just the areas currently known to contain oil, not some vast overestimation to attract investors… and Alberta is not the only place on the planet with this kind of oil. Other areas will be able to extract oil using the tech that has been developed right here in the last few decades.

    Already the cost of extraction and the amount of NG used is far lower than the greenies are claiming, because they’re still going by the old, scary sounding numbers. In fact, the label “dirty oil” as originally used in an attempt to smear Alberta is now a misnomer, since there are other “dirtier” supplies of crude.

    I really despise Luddites… and those blocking Oilsands production are Luddites. I say they’re all welcome to just go live in the wilderness somewhere and leave the real world alone. (In the real world, gas doesn’t come from the gas station… just as cat food doesn’t come from the can).

  92. bubbagyro says:
    November 14, 2011 at 11:54 am
    The irony is that we will end up buying the Canadian tar oil, but shipping it through the Canal up to the Gulf to the refineries

    I’ve read that it will be shipped down to the Gulf by rail, at an extra cost to the consumer of a nickel a gallon.

  93. Jeremy says:
    November 14, 2011 at 9:49 am

    So, can we finally acknowledge that poorly targeted environmental activism does nothing but prevent you from finding a job?

    As opposed to well-targeted environmental activism? Which is different, how? Examples, please.

  94. Gail Combs says:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    ————
    Don’t buy any goods produced by burning coal in polluting countries like China, India etc.
    And whatever they do they MUST NOT burn wood for heat or cooking. You know about all the pollution cause by burning wood so, don’t do it.
    (i think it might be against the law in CA to even light a wooden match.)

  95. “Where are those refineries in the US again? Any in Texas? Does Texas have any ports?”

    There are two refineries in northwestern Washington State, not far at all from BC. Look up Anacortes Refineries, you’ll find Shell and Tesoro. I drive by them every day on my way to work.

    According to this link, these refineries already process oil via pipeline from the Alberta oil sands fields.

  96. The environmental interests in the US are heavily funded by competing interests….primarily the Saudis.

    A few weeks ago, it was reported that the Saudis retained the law firm of NORTON ROSE (remember that name because it comes up again later) to send threatening letters to a number of Canadian media outlets, including CTV, that if they continue to air “Ethical Oil” advertising, they would be sued.

    On September 22, 2011, the Globe and Mail reported a story which said in part “the UK Tar Sands Network demands that the “British government stop defending Canada’s criminal record on climate change.”

    In the story which can be viewed here:

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/keep-alberta-oil-off-your-hands-environmentalists-warn-british-pm/article2175933/?service=mobile

    it said that “We would just like to say that David Cameron needs to look at how far he is sidling up to Canada in terms of pushing tar sands oil at a time when people in Europe and the UK are opposed to tar sands extraction,” Gemma Long, a campaigner with the group, said in a telephone interview from Britain.”

    So the spokesperson campaigner is someone named Gemma Long……and Gemma Long just happens to be….wait for it…..a banking lawyer specializing in “energy, financial institutions and transport” with the same law firm, NORTON ROSE. You can check it out here for yourself.

    http://www.nortonrose.com/people/50037/gemma-long

    Environmental groups are not environmental groups at all…they are foreign government shills….pure and simple. ..

  97. The Keystone XL decision may be delayed, but the Brent-WTI premium is falling now to around half what it was It looks like those pesky entrepreneurs have found a way of getting shale oil to the south coast and out of the country by barge and rail anyway.

  98. The White House seems to be unable to develope a set of balls, bit like No 10 Downing Street.
    Sell the stuff to China, they need the power to make Wind turbines. I love it, and we go around telling China that they running there economy the wrong way and making too much money out of us Westerners, I bet they cannot believe their luck.

  99. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    “Bill McKibbon hardly needs me to speak for him, but I think you’re missing an important point. The conversation about the development of the Keystone pipeline really relates to the question of whether continuing to burn fossil fuels is a good idea, especially if these fuels derive from carbon rich tar sands oil. Maybe it’s best to leave this resource in the ground, rather than risking adding to already high ratios of carbon in the atmosphere. I know you disagree with this, but the conversation still needs to occur.”
    Hugh,
    The issue is not whether we burn fossil fuels but rather who do we purchase the fossil fuels from, a friendly neighbor with whom we have a lot a lot of trading across the border, or from an unfriendly OPEC nation who wishes our demise. There is no other choices since the alternative liquid transportation biofuel pushed by the administration is non existant and will not supply our transportation needs for many, many decades. There are many more Solyndra’s on the way.

    Also the technology of processing carbon rich fuels seems to have gone over your head. As I explained in another post the heavy oil sands is processed, sulfur removed, and hydrogen added to allow it to be used just as any light sweet crude. That has been going on for over 30 years!!

    Just today I heard that the state of Nebraska and the Keystone owners reached a compromise by re routing the pipe line around the so called environmentally sensitive area.
    This compromise was rejected by Obama, so now we know the environmental issues were only a ruse as far as the Administration is concerned. Can’t blame the Republican governor any more.

  100. CodeTech says:
    November 15, 2011 at 2:41 am
    BC Bill, do you even have any idea just how vast the Oilsands are? Do you think we’re likely to “use them up” any time soon???
    ….Other areas will be able to extract oil using the tech that has been developed right here in the last few decades.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    So true. A firm I was associated with did some reviews of applying Canadian Oil Sands technology in several places including Nigeria until we decided the risk of personal injury or kidnapping was too great and withdrew our services. But there are indeed other places in the world with oil sitting waiting for application of our technologies to extract the oil.

  101. Lee L says:
    November 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    An interesting note about transporting Alberta crude to the west coast ports…
    The major shareholder in Canadian National Railway is now BILL GATES who holds a controlling interest.
    One wonders if he invested in order to control the possibility that Canada would begin to sell Alberta Oil Sands petroleum to China. Getting oil to China you need a pipeline to the West Coast or… trains hauling oil.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Actually it is a lot simper that that – CN has lines to Ports at Vancouver/Seattle; Prince Rupert; Mississippi oil barge ports; Great Lakes Ports, New Orleans, and East Coast Parts. The other major Canadian Railway has similar port outlets and is affiliated with CP Shipping.

    So, where did you want that oil to go again?

  102. Some facts on Keystone Pipeline latest proposal, Unfortunately the Administration is still dragging it’s feet, catering to the environmental lobby :

    http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/2935195/Latest-News/TransCanada-Keystone-reroute-agreement-could-speed-approval-process.html

    “TransCanada: Keystone reroute agreement could speed approval process
    11.15.2011 |
    “TransCanada Corp. said it reached a tentative deal with Nebraska officials that would move the planned route of its Keystone XL pipeline project away from an environmentally sensitive region, possibly reviving a stalled approval process for the controversial oil conduit. ”
    Keywords:
    By BEN LEFEBVRE
    TransCanada Corp. said it reached a tentative deal with Nebraska officials that would move the planned route of its Keystone XL pipeline project away from an environmentally sensitive region, possibly reviving a stalled approval process for the controversial oil conduit.
    The Calgary-based energy company will support a bill introduced in the State legislature Monday that will seek a new route avoiding the Sandhills, a region of sandy soil that sits atop the Ogallala aquifer, one of the world’s largest.
    “I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route,” Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for Energy and Oil Pipelines, said in a statement.
    TransCanada’s move is a rapid response to the US State Department’s decision last Thursday to delay its final decision of the cross-border pipeline for up to 18 months because of concerns about its environmental impact.
    Approval for the expansion, which would more than double the amount of heavy Canadian crude TransCanada ships from Alberta’s booming oilsands to the heart of the US refining industry in Texas, was expected to be given by the end of this year.
    The delay was a victory for environmentalists who maintain that oilsands crude contributes more to global warming than other types of oil, but it irked the pipeline’s supporters in the Canadian government and in the North American energy industry.
    Companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Valero Energy Corp. and ConocoPhillips have spent billions of dollars either growing oil production in Alberta’s oilsands, or refurbishing their refineries to handle heavy crude. ”
    “If the expansion is completed, the Keystone pipeline system would bring about 1.1 million bpd of crude to the US. Without the key oil conduit, oil producers in land-locked Alberta would face a glut that might result in depressed prices for their crude, and US refiners would have to keep sourcing most of their heavy crude from overseas. “

Comments are closed.