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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bring on the watermelon farmers…
Obama is an overeducated idiot. I am only grateful that my fellow Americans will fire him in only one year. It can’t come too soon!
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).
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.
As opposed to well-targeted environmental activism? Which is different, how? Examples, please.
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.)
“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.
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. ..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. “