Now it’s a war on pipelines

Efforts to block and sabotage pipelines hurt jobs, economic growth, middle class, human safety

Paul Driessen

The radical environmentalist war on fossil fuels has opened a new front: a war on pipelines.

For years, activist zealots claimed the world was rapidly depleting its oil and natural gas supplies. The fracking revolution (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) obliterated that argument, by sending US oil and gas production to new heights. Indeed, it was record gas supplies and plummeting gas prices, combined with the Obama EPA war on coal, that closed down so many coal-fired power plants.

So the battle increasingly shifted to the far more emotional claim that continued reliance on fossil fuels (which provide over 80% of the US and global energy that powers modern civilization and living standards) will cause dangerous manmade global warming and climate change. This gave birth to the climate and renewable energy consortium and the “keep it in the ground” movement. No evidence to the contrary will budge them from their hysteria-laden talking points on looming climate cataclysms.

The journal Nature Geoscience recently published a careful study that found there has been far less planetary warming since 1998 than alarmist scientists and computer models had predicted. Because the models are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide drives climate change, they “run too hot,” resulting in predictions that deviate from actual temperature measurements more and more every year.

But instead of admitting they were wrong, the usual strident suspects in the climate crisis industry doubled down and attacked the study and any news outlet that called attention to it. Britain’s BBC denounced the inconvenient study and displayed not a whit of apology over its climate chaos claims.

Climate campaigners jumped all over Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, insisting without an iota of evidence that manmade greenhouse gases had created or at least intensified them. They’re making the equally absurd claim that shutting down US and Canadian pipelines will somehow reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and prevent climate change and extreme weather – even though China already has 2,363 coal-fired power plants and is adding 1,171 more; India has 589 and is adding another 446; Indonesia and Vietnam are adding 140 to their fleet; and even Germany is burning more coal every year.

Pipelines carry conventional, fracking and oil sands petroleum to markets: natural gas to homes and power plants, oil to refineries, oil and gas to petrochemical plants – and crude oil, refined products and liquefied natural gas to export terminals that send the energy to Europe and Asia. If they can’t prevent companies from producing oil and gas, hydrocarbon haters want to prevent them from shipping it.

“Obviously the best means of transporting oil is none,” said an activist involved in campaigns against the Keystone XL Pipeline. But if there is going to be increased production, “I would rather it go by train.”

Some pipeline protesters somehow think rail or truck transport means the oil will be used domestically, whereas pipelined crude will more likely go to coastal refineries and be shipped overseas. Others claim pipelines are less safe than truck or railroad tanker cars. They cite a 2013 International Energy Agency report that said railroad transport is six times more likely to have an accident than pipelines are – but pipelines spill three times as much oil per-billion-barrel-miles of fuel transported.

However, the study is seriously outdated. It analyzed data from 2004 to 2012 – before the surge in US oil production … and before a monumental increase in rail transportation was necessitated by protests and Obama Administration decisions blocking construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines.

In 2014, the USA set a new record for railroad tanker spills: 141 – versus an average of 24 during the years covered by the IEA report. Rail accidents in Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia and other states resulted in significant oil spills, evacuations and even serious explosions, but fortunately no deaths. However, a 2013 disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec burned 47 people to death and left many others seriously injured. The danger of moving oil on rails and highways through populated areas is clearly high.

Better track maintenance, stronger tanker cars, improved train scheduling and other safety practices would reduce rail accidents and spills. However, US State Department studies concluded that the Keystone pipeline would likely result in fewer than 520 barrels of crude being spilled annually, compared to 32,000 barrels in three rail spills that it evaluated. The same holds true for other modern pipelines.

New pipelines are built with state-of-the-art pipe and other components, to the latest design, manufacturing and construction specifications. Warning systems, automatic shutoff valves, 24/7/365 monitoring and other safeguards further minimize the risk of spills. New lines often replace older pipes that carry greater risks of corrosion and rupturing as they age. New lines can often be routed to avoid population centers and sensitive water and wildlife areas. Because they are underground, once they are installed and grasses are planted, pipelines are invisible except for occasional pumping stations, valves and other small facilities.

Environmentalists tend to focus on potential volumes of oil spilled when a major pipeline rupture occurs, and on impacts to waterways and wildlife. While these are important considerations, human safety should always be of paramount concern. Lac-Mégantic underscores that priority.

Light crude oils from North Dakota’s Bakken Field and other shale plays contain more dissolved gases and thus are more flammable than heavier crudes. That makes explosions more likely. On highways and along rail lines through rural or urban communities, the results would be devastating. The sheer volume of oil to be shipped further underscores these dangers.

The 1,172-mile-long Dakota Access Pipe Line alone carries some 470,000 barrels of oil every day. Hauling that quantity overland would require 700 rail tanker cars per day (256,000 per year) or 2,000 semi-trailer tanker trucks per day on our highways (730,000 per year)! All would go through populated areas along parts of their route. Multiply that times the Keystone and other pipelines in planning or under construction, and the rail/truck “alternative” is mind-boggling in its scale and risks.

A new technology transforms heavy crude oil into pill-sized pellets – self-sealing balls of bitumen that can then be moved in coal rail cars or transported in trucks with less risk of spills. That may eventually reduce the need for new pipelines; but the innovative idea is currently only in the testing stage.

Moreover, we cannot ship natural gas by tanker truck or rail car. Pipelines are essential for that – unless the gas is chilled and liquefied, adding major cost and safety considerations. That’s one more reason 2.5 million miles of liquid petroleum, gas transmission and gas distribution lines already crisscross the USA.

Even more important, some activists are now going far beyond mere rhetoric and protests – and engaging in sabotage of pipeline construction equipment and even pipeline safety valves. These intolerable acts should be met with police action, major fines and lengthy jail terms. Free speech and peaceful protests are a constitutional right. Eco-terrorism and threats to public safety cannot be tolerated.

These radical activists would never give up their reliance on – and addiction to – computers, smart phones, synthetic fiber shoes and clothing, affordable heating and air conditioning, cars, skis, kayaks, wind turbines and solar panels, and all the other blessings that petroleum brings. They should not expect the rest of us to give them up, either. Especially based on the flimsy arguments they present.

For all these reasons, it is hard to understand the increasing opposition of some states and communities to new pipelines: from Minnesota to New York and even Virginia and West Virginia.

It is even harder to understand or tolerate the actions of these tax-exempt anti-pipeline organizations – and equally callous and devious tax-exempt outfits that fund the radical groups: from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to the Sea Change Foundation and its secretive Russian donors, and even to railroad tycoon Warren Buffett’s NoVo Foundation. If they can block pipelines, they will next block rail and truck transport.

If an increasingly divided, partisan, dysfunctional Congress cannot address these problems, let us hope the Trump Administration and some state governors and legislators will do so.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 24, 2017 12:05 pm

I like my oil powered pickup truck. I like natural gas and oil burning heating systems, being warm is good. Get lost, Warmists. Your religion is not mine.

Reply to  John
September 24, 2017 3:05 pm

Plants likes it warm and CO2 rich – oil and gas must be the greenest energy there is.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
September 24, 2017 3:22 pm

Let’s harness our ancient solar power.
That nrg has been stored for us to use into the future

Reply to  Science or Fiction
September 24, 2017 7:56 pm

There is no free lunch, how true. However, there is a way to get a low cost lunch. It only has to produce methane at a under US$2.40/GJ. So its NOT free. It assumes the CO2 can be supplied at a very low cost from all these lets capture that CO2 from a flue schemes.
So all those green tentacles are working to supply the world with a new source of inexpensive methane.
It gets more interesting when you add the oxygen to coal in a power station, see Callide and you need lost of methane to support export contracts. Now it gets interesting.
Those nice Qatar people may have a problem.

Reply to  John
September 24, 2017 6:34 pm

Last time I looked CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O   ∆H = −165.0 kJ/mol
So if we can make H2 in an energy efficient process, then we can convert the CO2 to methane.
The means to extract CO2 from a flue is known.
A new means to make inexpensive hydrogen is now known.
So CO2 to atmosphere problem solved, forever.
Will this stop the Gaia worship now, “We are Saved”?

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Geoff
September 24, 2017 7:34 pm

Problem, Geoff. The hydrogen is gained from one of two sources, reforming of methane or electrolysis of water. The former is the inverse of what you are proposing and the latter requires a good chunk of power.
There’s no free lunch, buddy.

Aidan Donnelly
Reply to  Geoff
September 25, 2017 12:55 am

Disconnect the Solar ‘farms’ from the grid and use them to provide electricity to Methane production plants, supplying hydrogen to start the process by splitting it from water.
Solar acquires real value to the country – unlike the bird-choppers that are never going to be useful except to make some people richer and most poorer

Reply to  Geoff
September 25, 2017 4:29 am

Aiden has got the right idea. The new process uses 90% less power than the existing. No grid connection necessary. Low voltage, high amperage. No problem adjusting current. Do it anywhere there is a methane gas pipe. Fully automatic. Better than a battery. Uses existing infrastructure. All you need is lots of CO2 and there is a vast array of others trying to sequester it.
Then there is the oxygen.

Reply to  Geoff
September 25, 2017 9:11 am

Am I understanding your suggestion correctly: You are proposing splitting the H2 from methane and then recombining it with CO2 to make…methane?
Hmm…may not be so productive.
Use the superfluous energy to crack the H2 from water. At least then you’re not attempting a death spiral.

Reply to  Geoff
September 25, 2017 4:47 pm

Water is subject to a current that splits the water molecule to H2 and O2.
There are multiple forms of water. One of them is split far more easily as compared to H2O.
So is is inexpensive to make H2 and O2. The way to do this was noticed by Sorensen and others but was not fully understood. Water as a chemical is not well researched.
Hydrogen is not easy to store and especially difficult to transport by pipe.
The simplest way of doing so is as ammonia or as methane.
It is now possible to easily manufacture hydrogen in volume and as long as the power input price is below US$48/MWhr and CO2 is available at a very low cost as part of a recovery program at a coal fired power station, then methane can be manufacture at an all in cost below US$2.40/GJ. At such a cost there is no point of sourcing methane via drilling.

Reply to  John
September 25, 2017 5:37 pm

I see no reason not to sue Rockefeller Brothers Fund and other monstrous foundations behind pipelines sabotage. RICO fits them fine. They should also lose their tax exempt status, and their directors should be indicted for fraud and other crimes. Attorneys General should get some balls to go after them.

Tom Halla
September 24, 2017 12:09 pm

The hardcore greens wish for the remaining population to carry them in sedan chairs.

September 24, 2017 12:21 pm

Having lost their expected coronation of Hillary, and losing battles with Trump executive orders, the left is now trying all stops out in their urgency to recoup their position in turning our country into a socialist paradise. Violence is just one of their tools. Expect it to increase along with decrees by left wing judges, demonstrations/riots, fake news, investigations into non existent right wing conspiracies and you name it. They will not give up as long as they continue to control the media and educational system. Good example, when was the last time a new refinery was approved in tne peoples republic of California? A new nuclear power plant, anywhere in the US? And so on.

Reply to  JimG1
September 24, 2017 2:13 pm

A new nuclear plant opened in Spring City, Tenn last year. There were three others planned, but they have run into problems. Not sure where any stand at this point.

Reply to  Sheri
September 24, 2017 6:31 pm

Excuse me but that plant was not “new”. I was hired as a young Radiochemical Laboratory Analyst by TVA and stationed at the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant back in 1980. And last year was just the startup of the second unit of that plant.

September 24, 2017 12:23 pm

We could float the gas to the refineries in giant zeppelins…what could go wrong? 😉

September 24, 2017 12:32 pm

More and more these days I feel that I am living in an absurdist play. Canada has one of the lowest “carbon” footprints in the world; we have one of the highest “carbon” sequestration rates in the world. We are few people in a vast land. We would benefit from pipeline construction and use. Oil oproducts would reach our refineries and ports more readily. And yet, we do not move on these sensible projects. Instead we import crude and ship by rail–even after the tragedy of Lac Megantic. We are a modern state but seem to prefer pursuing the past–returning to less energy and more unreliable sources. Have we gone mad? The few coal burning power sources are to be closed while 5000+ are in existence or being built elsewhere even in Germany. And, we are to have a “carbon” tax although in this province, New Brunswick, we have already achieved the 2030 Paris emissions goal. What is the explanation for such absurdities?

Reply to  Marjorie Spacek
September 24, 2017 1:35 pm

The explanation? Socialism.

Reply to  F. Leghorn
September 24, 2017 3:34 pm

The hippies are now the boomers in charge. Communism was popular with that generation when they were young.
My dad, during the mid 60s was invited to China to meet Mao. I have rejected communism from a young age .It didn’t make any sense for advancing civilization. I was pushed to join a trade union but ended up going into the sciences
We are on a dangerous path right now that will end violently.

Reply to  F. Leghorn
September 24, 2017 4:57 pm

Stereotyping a particular generation is not a good practice or accurate.
I happen to be a Boomer who volunteered to fight in Vietnam *against* the communists, so this theory does not hold water. Every generation has their good members and their bad members and lumping them all into one category is not taking into account the whole picture.
Stereotyping will lead one astray of the truth if you are not careful.
Unfortunately, it is easy to do and everyone does it to one degree or another, but still, keep in mind we are talking about individuals, millions of individuals. There *is* group think/lazy think out there, but we have to be careful, if we are looking for the whole truth.

Reply to  Marjorie Spacek
September 24, 2017 1:39 pm

“What is the explanation for such absurdities?”
To reduce the relatively luxurious living standards of the Western common folk, I believe, so the rest of the world’s common folk will not demand similar things.

Mark B.
Reply to  JohnKnight
September 24, 2017 3:19 pm

Serfs are best keep poor to protect the ruling class. US had a higher median income than U.K. In 1776.

September 24, 2017 12:36 pm

you know…..these “activists” are a very small minority….why do they even have a seat at the table…and why does anyone listen to them?

Reply to  Latitude
September 24, 2017 1:33 pm

Because they make a lot of noise and have sympathizers in key areas and organizations to amplify their message. Squeaky wheel and all that…

Reply to  Latitude
September 24, 2017 1:40 pm

Because we are a western society ruled by minorities.
Everywhere you turn Political Correctness and subjugation to the minority is required. The majority political concencus no longer applies, pressure groups rule our governments.
Everyone I talk to, without exception, recognises this, despite they themselves being participants in a minority group.
We sceptics are a minority group, but are we protected from hate speech, from marginalisation, from gender, colour, or religious stereotyping?
Nope, we are universally ignored, and frankly, I’d rather have it that way, as long as all the other minority groups are treated in the same way, especially the greens.
The benefit we sceptics have is that our understanding in climate change will be understood, shortly. There is no perceptible benefit of promoting individuals of a particular sexual gender, persuasion, religion or skin colour over a more competent individual, other than to distort and wreck democracy.
Minority pressure groups will be seen as the western world’s 21st Century folly when the records are examined in 100 years time.

Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2017 2:50 pm

Just keep in mind…when you see 1000 screaming maniacs…there were 324,999,000 not screaming

Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2017 3:43 pm

In canada and Europe they are no longer the minority. Look at who’s in power in government in these countries. Elected by those that vote.
Everyone except white men, are part of some kind of oppressed group that demands action.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Latitude
September 24, 2017 3:08 pm

They are loud and those behind the cameras like what say.

Reply to  Latitude
September 24, 2017 5:13 pm

The Left owns the institutions of the United States. They own the news media, for the most part, they own the education system, and they own the entertainment industry. And, they have numerous agents still embedded in the Federal government.
The Left has a VERY BIG megaphone with which to spread their leftwing propaganda, and our society has millions of people who can’t separate the real from the unreal. This is why our society is in trouble.
The Left has got a tremendous advantage in the public square. Let’s hope Trump can break the back of this monopoly. Looks like Trump is after the America-haters in the NFL now.
It’s about time someone spoke up about the disgraceful behaviour of Colin Kaepernick and the other ignoramuses in the NFL who think it is a good idea to trash the United States as their means of protest.
Too many hard blows to the head for some of these guys, it looks like to me.
Love what Trump is doing. Keep it up, Mr. President, you have a lot of people who see it the same way you do. A majority, 70 percent according to the last poll broadcast agree NFL players should not use the U.S. flag or Anthemas part of their protest.
Leave football out of it or suffer the economic consequences.
Trump has the moral highground, not the imbeciles in the NFL and throughout the Leftwing News Media.

Reply to  TA
September 25, 2017 7:04 am

Times like this make me think of the players rep to one of the baseball teams back during one of the baseball strikes. When asked about polls that fans did not support the strike he replied that he didn’t care what the fans thought since they weren’t paying his salary.
Attendance at games and viewership on radio and television dropped for years after those strikes, and players salaries over all took a hit because of the lost revenue.
Football faces a similar future as they continue to go out of their way to insult significant fractions of their fan base.

Reply to  TA
September 25, 2017 8:57 am

I heard this morning that Sunday night’s big football game ratings were down 10 percent last night as compared to last year. I did my part: I watched until I saw a couple of idiots take a knee, and I then immediately changed the channel. Looks like a lot of people did the same thing.
Trump is taking the Left’s unAmerican thinking head on. Just what needs to be done.

Reply to  TA
September 25, 2017 5:30 pm

Yep, doing my part going forward. Had I known Tomlin and the Steelers had joined the ranks of America haters I would have skipped their dismal performance against Da Bears yesterday. Only one American on the team, Alejandro Villanueva. Not surprising a fellow Ranger would show himself to be a man, and he is going to be “disciplined” by such a cowardly piece of shite as Tomlin. So disappointed in Roethlisberger I have had the taste of bile in my mouth all day.

September 24, 2017 12:42 pm

Someone needs to do an expose’ on where the money comes from to support these fringe
It would be interesting..

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  tgmccoy
September 24, 2017 1:53 pm

Some of the DAPL protesters were crowd funded.

September 24, 2017 12:42 pm

One thing you say that I disagree with – it isn’t hard to understand this at all.
Like all jealous gods, Gaia demands sacrifices!
It’s just a question of which god they worship.
(and you may think I’m being facetious, but I am absolutely serious)

Reply to  wws
September 24, 2017 3:37 pm

Crowds on Demand is one of them, based in Los Angeles.

Reply to  wws
September 25, 2017 5:36 pm

The political left has it’s religion, killing babies, chopping them up and selling the parts is it’s eucharist.

September 24, 2017 12:45 pm

Mr Driessen forgot to mention the Tides Foundation, which is a huge financial backer of the anti-pipeline movement.

September 24, 2017 12:54 pm

‘you know…..these “activists” are a very small minority….why do they even have a seat at the table…and why does anyone listen to them?‘
Because they sell bad news, exactly what the press wants. We sceptics should copy them and point out the consequenses of the mad policies the CAGW crowd has caused.

Reply to  Niels
September 24, 2017 2:04 pm

Bad news travels, good news convinces.
Ask any decent salesman what he does to sell his product and he will say:
1 Ignore the competitions claims.
2 Demonstrate the benefits of your product.
3 Make it personal to your audience.
4 Never argue with a customer.
Everyone is a customer of climate change. Sceptics sell their perception of it. Our perception is of a positive outcome if the planet warms and we have empirical, historical evidence to demonstrate that.
There is no empirical evidence ever produced that CO2 causes global warming. No one can argue that point, although they will try, but it is a fact and it is positive.
There is no empirical evidence ever produced that demonstrates global warming was bad for mammals. They will argue that volcanoes and meteor strices were bad, but its just nonsense as climate change today has nothing to do with them.
Every single ‘scientific’ catastrophic prediction of climate change over the last 40 years has failed. Nuff said.
The only empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 has affected mankind in any way is that the planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years of satellite observations. They have no argument.
Sell the positives mate, don’t engage in arguments.

September 24, 2017 12:58 pm

And who is behind this attack on American energy independence? Is Clinton correct? Could it be a stunt staged by foreign interests using the homegrown useful idiots of America?

September 24, 2017 1:44 pm

Hello from New Zealand .We have just last night completed the repairs to a pipeline from our only oil refinery in New Zealand at Marsden Point to Auckland .It was installed 32 years ago and has worked extremely well till an unknown digger damaged the outer skin of the pipe some years ago . Corrosion ensued in the acidic peat soil and the pipe eventually ruptured.The big problem was that the Auckland Airport ran out of jet fuel and over 500 flights were canceled and many more were diverted to refuel at other airports in New Zealand Australia and in some Pacific Islands .We have gas lines from the Taranaki gas fields to most major cities in the North Island and the dairy industry is reliant on gas or coal for heat to manufacture milk powder for export ..A few years ago the major Maui line to the north ruptured due to subsidence and the Fonterra Dairy Company was extremely lucky that they had three factories that were still coal fired despite the Greens rant of:” Keep the coal in the hole “

September 24, 2017 1:47 pm

Being against pipelines is like being against arteries and veins in a human body.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  BallBounces
September 26, 2017 12:00 am

Good analogy.

September 24, 2017 1:49 pm

“The journal Nature Geoscience recently published a careful study that found there has been far less planetary warming since 1998 than alarmist scientists and computer models had predicted. Because the models are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide drives climate change, they “run too hot,” resulting in predictions that deviate from actual temperature measurements more and more every year.”
(Explain why you think it is wrong,otherwise your one word comment fails) MOD

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 24, 2017 2:09 pm

Steven Mosher
“The only empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 is having any unusual effect on mankind is that the planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years.”
The non published journal of HotScot.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 24, 2017 4:00 pm

I remind you that your work is done.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 25, 2017 7:03 am

Steve Mosher just means that the article is wrong, because no matter whether the models are running too hot or running too cold, their projections are physically meaningless.
Steven knows this because he’s very familiar with meaningless charts portrayed as science. See Figure 13 at the link for the BEST example of all.
From about 1860 through 2000, the error bars on the global air temperature record are smaller than the limits of accuracy of the instruments themselves.
It’s a miracle!
They know the unknowable.
And you, too, can do magic by employing statistics while ignoring science. It’s the consensus climatologist Way.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 25, 2017 7:07 am

Steve considers himself to be one of the elite. Therefore he expects us to be swayed merely by his statements. Actually humbling himself to present evidence is not necessary.

I Came I Saw I Left
September 24, 2017 1:55 pm

I think the wind’s been taken out of the pipeline protesting. Trump’s not going to put up with the lawlessness Obama encouraged.

September 24, 2017 2:02 pm

Australia is going down the same insane path, Marjorie.

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
September 24, 2017 2:12 pm

Mike Borgelt
I have faith in the Aussie public to smell a rat.
I have never met an Aussie that isn’t a sceptic by nature.

September 24, 2017 2:25 pm

So called environmentalists have joined forces with the Progressives to help the UN instill The New World Order. Anarchists, almost all of them. They won’t be happy until they are in control and they don’t care how much damage to society is required. Then the real damage will commence.

September 24, 2017 2:25 pm

This just proves that this eco activism has nothing to do with CO2 reduction or environmental protection, but to harm society. The goal it to destroy capitalism and open for a socialistic totalitarien regime.

September 24, 2017 2:33 pm

Warren Buffett invests in trains. One of his oil trains derailed and did a number on a Canadian town.
The accident rate for pipelines is lower.
I grew up in Omaha. I even know Warren’s wife’s former hairdresser (she sells insurance now). Warren is not a swell guy. He is only in it for the money.

Reply to  M Simon
September 24, 2017 2:46 pm

The train wreck is mentioned in the article.
“2013 disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec burned 47 people to death and left many others seriously injured”

Reply to  M Simon
September 24, 2017 3:29 pm

That train was carrying shale oil from north Dakota,going to a refinery in Newbrunswick. Shale oil which is very high in H2s. A very flammable gas, which is also deadly if inhaled when rates are over 400 PPM.

Ray in SC
Reply to  M Simon
September 24, 2017 3:44 pm

M Simon,
You have completed the money circle. I believe Buffet was linked to funding for DAPL.

Roger Knights
Reply to  M Simon
September 25, 2017 12:47 am

“Warren Buffett invests in trains. One of his oil trains derailed and did a number on a Canadian town.”
It wasn’t one of Buffett’s trains. It was a line owned by a guy in Chicago. He was featured extensively in the news after the incident.

September 24, 2017 2:37 pm

Maybe the activists can go here to protest. They have a significant amount just waiting to be tapped.

Wight Mann
September 24, 2017 2:42 pm

All these folks can give up all consumption of fossil fuels from any source for any purpose. Then, having some credibility, they can come talk to me.

September 24, 2017 2:42 pm

Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking

September 24, 2017 2:57 pm

“These radical activists would never give up their reliance on – and addiction to – computers, smart phones, synthetic fiber shoes and clothing, affordable heating and air conditioning, cars, skis, kayaks, wind turbines and solar panels, and all the other blessings that petroleum brings. They should not expect the rest of us to give them up, either. Especially based on the flimsy arguments they present.”
I have to agree with this observation. I would also include journalists and their ilk who generally live in cities and are completely dependent on external sources for heat and electricity. Since I can drive south toward the center of my state on a highway that runs parallel to railroad tracks, I can verify that natural gas is transported by buried pipelines in this state, because there are pressure break stations at various points. Not sure if that’s the correct term for it, but they are there, and they are labeled as NG transport.
I strongly suggest that the activists be somehow rounded up, moved to a completely “green” environment and made to stay there for a minimum of 18 months. As someone observed, they are crowdfunded, and I have found a recruiting source based in Los Angeles that pays people to engage in these and other kinds of protests, usually including considerably damage to the areas they invade. Did anyone besides me notice the piles of trash left behind by the pipeline protesters last winter? They can’t even clean up after themselves! Frankly, I have no desire to give up hot water, winter heating, or gas for cooking. Nor do i wish to give up electricity, although I have oil lamps for emergencies if I need them. There are a lot of other things I wouldn’t give up for one second, including the varieties of fruits and vegetables available at grocery stores, some of them raised locally, ditto chickens and eggs.
I would like to see just how sincere these so-called activists really are when they are forced to live in a completely non-tech world for a prolonged stretch. I want to see for myself how these silly people will survive without the stuff that they take for granted right now. This is not like the notions promoted in Mother Earth News in the 1970s, a magazine that recommended more Earth-friendly living. I’m specifically referring to a completely primitive lifestyle; no indoor plumbing, no electricity, no external source for heat, hand pumping their own water (yeah, how long would that last?), raising their own veggie plots (aren’t they all Vegans?) and no EMTs or ER services handy for when one of them has a cardiac event or breaks a bone.
The Amish and Mennonites have been doing it for quite a long time, but I wouldn’t inflict these bozos on them. And this isn’t like dressing up in period clothing to go to a Renaissance festival or Faire. I am as serious as cancer when I say “18 months of it, with no time off for good behavior”.
I do not believe any of them would last past the end of the first day, especially with winter coming on. But that’s just me. 🙂

Reply to  Sara
September 24, 2017 6:08 pm

I doubt they would last very long. They pontificate about how people should live while sitting drinking their soy latte ‘coffee’ (yuk) in their urban settings, clueless about how their lives would be impossible without electricity, gas, oil. They have no clue about how their food is produced, trains, trams and buses run, etc. It really annoys me that these ignorant activists wag the tails of our useless governments.
The people who endanger lives should feel the full weight of the law and be put away for a very long time, preferably without the benefits of modern civilization.

September 24, 2017 3:11 pm

British Columbia has been busy blocking Alberta pipelines that would go to the coast. The mayor of Vancouver who is funded by US foundations like Rockefeller has been one of the lead obstructionists. He spews the usual leftist propaganda of a carbon free economy. This week, Jason Kenny, one of the top candidates to lead the new conservative party in Alberta, suggested that maybe Alberta should give them a carbon free economy since BC gets all their oil and refined products from Alberta. This is one of the suggestions I have been making for two years now. Cut them off and grind grind their entire province to a halt within about a week and half. Up until now, we in Alberta haven’t had anyone that would stand up and fight these loons.

Monna M
Reply to  Rob
September 24, 2017 8:59 pm

Rob, I live in BC. We’re not all eco-activists. You don’t need to shut down the entire province. It would probably be sufficient to shut down the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. That’s where most of them live. And I don’t think a week and a half is long enough. Make it a month. We in the rest of the province (“beyond Hope”) could get our imports from somewhere else for a while.
(For those unfamiliar with British Columbia, Hope is a small town at the east end of the area known as the Lower Mainland. Every highway from the Port of Vancouver to the Interior of BC passes through Hope, making it the gateway to the Interior.)

September 24, 2017 3:18 pm

This article describes succinctly what has gone wrong with the whole fossil fuel scare due to imagined future crisis by climate change to civilization. From Margaret Thatcher fighting the coal unions in Britain and James Hansen in the 1980’s and later VP Al Gore issuing his decree on the future ‘carbon’ bomb, is what laid the groundwork for the environmental movement to begin mobilizing against what was responsible for civilization advancing into the 21st century. Things like the Exon Valdez and other oil spills didn’t help any either.
As other commenters have mentioned, follow the money on how and why it has led to this. A lot of people and organizations now have got a lot of dogs in this fight, not to mention Governments of every stripe that now realize a ‘carbon’ tax is another way to raise revenues. And bankers and trading houses relying on the trading of carbon permits. Or a few rich countries paying the Paris Accord to pay off a lot of third world countries for supporting the cartel against FF and forcing rich countries into a forced conversion to intermittent renewables that have no chance of replacing fossil fuels which will cripple our economies. Or certain captains of industry with philosophical or corporate goals to implement this ‘final solution’, or their preferred solution that benefits their bottom line. And this only happens to a few countries with democracies and free speech that allow this to reach the depths that it has. Do we think that Putin in Russia doesn’t encourage this domestic strife, while he has an iron grip on whatever he wants domestically? Or the Saudi’s or any other tin pot dictatorship regime that is completely unaccountable to anyone?
One thing that is absolutely certain is that the GDP of the world, as well as our quality of life are set by energy usage. For the foreseeable future, economic growth and our well being including the betterment of the entirety of humanity will have to utilize FF for the foreseeable future. If that goes south because a handful of ecoterrorist provocateurs, financed and led by high priests of the CAGW industry who can disrupt our basic way of life, then the current right wing vs. the leftist Antifa riots will look like a walk in the park. Especially when people and countries start shooting at each other. This is our true problem with this issue, not 1 degree C of warming per doubling of CO2.

September 24, 2017 3:24 pm

Warmistas have found that the facts have not been running in their favour for about thirty years and have now decided that we have entered the Anthropocene where facts just no longer matter. The important thing is what they feel, and they feel it is hotter, drier and a lot windier, catastrophic and threatening. In their constant search for some new gripe about modern life, Warmistas have now come across pipelines and believe that they may fit their agenda. Despite the carnage of bats and birds brought down by their beloved wind-turbines, the Warmistas now enlist the difficulty of wee timorous furry creatures in stepping over or under the pipelines as a major defect, added to the remote possibility that one of these heavy engineered conduits will suddenly burst and spill. Warmistas will soon move on to some new shibboleth of Modern Life’s conveniences for their attack arsenal.

September 24, 2017 3:59 pm

Park a string of black DOT-111 tank cars along a siding filled with crude for long enough, eventually it will start to pressurize as the volatiles come out of solution.
That car is not designed to be pressurized.
Buffet makes serious money moving crude in rail cars.

September 24, 2017 4:04 pm

“Light crude oils from North Dakota’s Bakken Field and other shale plays contain more dissolved gases and thus are more flammable than heavier crudes. That makes explosions more likely. On highways and along rail lines through rural or urban communities, the results would be devastating. The sheer volume of oil to be shipped further underscores these dangers.”
This is incorrect. Green propagandists have stated this repeatedly, but Bakken crude is within the margin of error of flammability for light sweet crude. ALL Light Sweet crude oils have “more dissolved gases” in it than heavier and more sour crude oils. If you have a train derail at speed, there’s probably gonna be a fire no matter if you are carrying Bakken Light Sweet or Venezuelan Heavy Sour. Newer rail cars have not solved this.
The only reason this started getting press because such high-grade crude oil was never transported in such quantities via rail in the US before the Bakken boom and the watermellons needed something to complain about.
Local fire departments have looked into this issue repeatedly and have not changed their training. Meanwhile, Ethanol trains derail and catch fire, because you CAN’T transport it by pipeline, and the watermelons stay silent.

September 24, 2017 4:21 pm

A great economic cost is being imposed on the energy industry and on society at large by these whackos motivated and animated by climate alarmists who profit from fearmongering. When the dust settles on this issue and the sun sets on the climate alarmism industry there’s going to be lawsuits against these guys all the way from the Hansens and Gores and DiCaprios to the NYT and the Guardian.

Tom Gelsthorpe
September 24, 2017 4:37 pm

Hobbling the fuels that drive the tractors and trucks that produce and deliver food, and power the electricity that runs the modern world, is biting the hands that feed you. It is not visionary, idealistic or moral. It is depraved.

Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
September 24, 2017 5:16 pm

You guys are all leaving out those things other than transportation and heating fuels that come from crude.
A few of those things:
Plastics: goes into construction of just about every piece of technocrap available right now, including phones, tablets, computers, microchips, jump drives. They also go into food storage, camera lenses, contact lenses, medical replacements such as heart valves and prosthetics, household cleaning stuff, car parts, etc., etc., etc.
Synthetic fabrics: clothing! Shoes! Purses! Cold weather insulation in clothing! Automobile fabrics! Leggings!
Housing insulation: Tyvek keeps your hovel warm and toasty in the winter and cooler in the summer than it would without that insualtion
Tires: they aren’t just rubber any more!
The materials that come out of crude oil don’t just end up in your car. If you want to make the point, it isn’t all that difficult by asking one of these idiot activists to give up all the oil-sourced stuff he has in his posession, starting with that phone or tablet and going on from there.
My favorite: polystyrene cups. 🙂

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  Sara
September 24, 2017 8:24 pm

“My favorite: polystyrene cups.”
Actually, any disposable cup relies on plastic. Before being coated with plastic, paper cups were coated with parafin, a petroleum product.

September 24, 2017 5:06 pm

I’ve kept a running photo-essay on the energy nonsense. Can be Googled:
Energy Curiosities, Bob Hoye

Tom Judd
September 24, 2017 5:40 pm

“Obviously the best means of transporting oil is none,” said an activist involved in campaigns against the Keystone XL Pipeline. But if there is going to be increased production, “I would rather it go by train.”
It would be extraordinarily silly to accept the foregoing statement at face value. Even discounting the significant safety benefits of transporting highly flammable, ignitable, combustible, explosive, incendiary, and threatening and dangerous liquids and gases through buried pipelines (as opposed to human error prone railroads running through day care centers) one must at least consider the environmental benefits. It makes absolutely, completely, positively, totally, and utterly no sense at all – none, nada, zip – to expend the energy required to transport hundreds of tons of rolling stock every time you’re shipping just that gas or liquid, and then transport those hundreds of tons – empty – back again to get another load when you could just simply pump that liquid or gas through a pipe.
So, since there’s no practical reason on Earth to oppose these pipelines, what might be the real underlying reason? I’ll give you a hint: what does a rigid pipe ejecting a warm fluid resemble? I think we all know the answer. But, just in case it’s not quite clear yet let us consider that we’ve become a society of many many genders with possibly many more genders on the way. Now does one get it? Pipelines appear to be oh so singularly gender male-centric. I mean seriously, c’mon, what other possible reason could there be to object to the safest and most efficient transport system for a vital good.
Now, I guess it would do little good to point out that what comes out the end of these long tubular, rigid tubes is actually a black viscous liquid as opposed to a white creamy viscous liquid, or that that black viscous liquid simply flows out the end instead of being spit out rapid fire.
So, to gain approval for these pipelines we may have to reconsider our approach and make them less male-centric. Perhaps we could assemble them in very short lengths. Of course there’d still be substantial girth so perhaps a paint scheme could thinnify them. Maybe each section could appear downward curving and flaccid. Maybe we could make them soft and noodley. But, in the end, we just may have to vaginalize those pipelines.

September 24, 2017 6:12 pm

“Now” it is a war on pipelines? Really? Where you been? There has been an active war against “pipelines” since the 1800s. What are you, sixteen years old?

September 24, 2017 9:30 pm

The climate obsessed areas misanthropic and destructivevas any 20th century (or North Korean) collectivist ever was.

September 25, 2017 7:34 am

Energy transfer partners is adding about $3 / barrel to nd prices and tax revenues! They are going after the jerks in court.

September 25, 2017 9:42 am

The radical environmentalist war on fossil fuels has opened a new front: a war on pipelines.

The author probably must have missed the news coming out of Canada during the last few years… Perhaps the fact that no Russian oligarch was involved made it less interesting although shady characters abound here, defended in the media by the husband of the Environment Minister to boot

Joel Snider
September 25, 2017 12:24 pm

This is a standard Progressive tactic – break what exists (or let it go to ruin), so you have to use theirs – or at least you just can’t use yours.
Out here on the west coast, the coastal state governments are also doing their best to block shipping of targeted products through their ports, or even on rail.
That’s one of the reasons I was hoping former Governor John Kitzhaber (who resigned under evidence of corruption) would be more thoroughly investigated – I’m fairly certain you could find coordination and conspiracy between the three coastal states governors.
But no, they quietly swept that one under the rug.

September 26, 2017 12:20 pm

Follow the money and you will find that the war on US energy production is being funded from off shore interests who want the US out of the global energy sales market and back into the purchaser mode.

%d bloggers like this: