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.
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.
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
Not only will the oil be burned somewhere; but shipping it further will presumably result in more net CO2 for the amount of usable energy when it is burned.
McKibben: Keystone cop (and just as absurd as the originals).
I was just wondering what the trucker’s union thinks of this pipeline idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Doesn’t Warren Buffett own those railroads that will transport the oil??? hummm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://www.justabovesunset.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lbtp_tragedy.jpg
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!
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…
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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!
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.