dagblog - Comments for "Keystone XL & $5.00 Gasoline"

Thanks, both are very

Donal — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:33:45 +0000

Thanks, both are very well-written, and the complaints are very familiar. I know Lynas from his writings against unfettered wind turbines. I disagree with his enthusiastic support of nukes, but as Kingsworth explains, there are no easy answers.

Keep up the good fight,

Saladin — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:02:07 +0000

In reply to Keystone XL & $5.00 Gasoline

Keep up the good fight, Donal.

Sadly nobody is going to leave a trillion dollars in the ground, and the longer its delayed the more valuable it will become. But I am with you.

Had a pair of links I wanted to send your way:

Good one on big picture sustainability:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smart-way-to-play-god-with-limited-land

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6599

"It was inevitable that a utilitarian society would generate a utilitarian environmentalism." One no longer driven by an emotional connection to nature; rather by a quest for "sustainability".

Its a little slow to start but interesting personal history about the shift from conservation for nature's sake to anti-carbonism, the solution to the later threatens the former, Environmentalist is distressed and ostracized by his former comrades.

Best,

And they're all either in

Oxy Mora — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:25:44 +0000

In reply to Well, I'm sure it makes

And they're all either in Canada or Texas, or in Congress.

Well, I'm sure it makes

Verified Atheist — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:54:12 +0000

In reply to All of you guys are ignoring

Well, I'm sure it makes economic sense for some people…

Thanks, Zantrails. I agree,

Oxy Mora — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:04:20 +0000

In reply to All of you guys are ignoring

Thanks, Zantrails. I agree, I'd rather drop the whole thing. We need to conserve and revamp our energy and infrastructure. I'm actually looking for a rationale to slow it down for a while till the other ducks can line up. If not that, to reduce the scale.

All of you guys are ignoring

Zentrails — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:42:39 +0000

In reply to Thanks. It just looks like a

All of you guys are ignoring the fact that the process of turning tar sand into something that can be piped is terrifically bad for the environment itself, never mind what happens when the pipe leaks, which it invariably will.

Canada could easily build a pipeline to their West coast, but there's no chance that will happen. There's a reason they only want to pipe it across the US and it's not because we have refineries on the Gulf.

Bloomberg: "The most vulnerable “are inefficient refineries with high operating costs, high fuel costs. The East Coast refineries probably carry the biggest risk because they compete with the rest of the world.”"

OK so, why again do the Gulf refineries need more oil? They are already running at full capacity and low prices for their product is cutting into their profits. Someone explain to me how this pipeline to the Gulf is going to help them in any way. It's not.

This pipeline actually makes no economic sense whatsoever. Our refineries have no shortage of oil now and none is projected far into the future. Meanwhile, inefficient polluting refineries will go back on-line as soon as heating oil prices go back up or will stay shut down as they should.

Thanks. It just looks like a

Oxy Mora — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:50:58 +0000

In reply to That's a very good question.

Thanks. It just looks like a "last ditch" effort to maximize profits. There's a Texas Water office nearby who are purchasing right of way for a reservoir, I'm going to stop in there and get the skinny.

I think the price differential between specialty chemicals and gas products is enormous and it seems that smaller specialty plants making these would produce equivalent profits. Some of the stuff I see around costs upwards of $20 a gallon.

Industry has not scratched the surface reclaiming petroleum based products. But nobody is calculating the tradeoff between the environmental impact of a pipeline vs. more intelligent local reclamation of what is now being burned as cheap fuel in cement kilns, and even shipped overseas.

That's a very good question.

Donal — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:23:00 +0000

In reply to Donal, stupid question. Why

That's a very good question. A Canadian OpEd piece I posted a while back also asked why refining can't be done locally, thus earning more profit. I suspect it is because refineries are tremendously expensive to build, which is quite a risk in a dwindling market. Tom Whipple wrote an article in January noting that the US is slowly shutting down refineries:

Here is one more thing for those of us who live in the northeastern U.S. to start worrying about - the refineries that make our gasoline, diesel, heating oil, etc. are dropping like flies.

In today's economy, these refineries are simply losing so much money that their owners who are not major oil companies that make billions from oil production are having put them up for sale or close them down. In recent years we lost refineries in Westville, NJ, and Yorktown, Va. A large refinery in southeastern Pennsylvania was shut down in December as was one in New Jersey. A third large Philadelphia refinery is up for sale and will be closed in July if no buyer can be found.

But Whipple didn't completely explain why refineries were shutting down. Part of the problem is declining demand for gasoline and heating oil due to the recession. Part may be that these existing refineries were built to handle light, sweet crude, while available oil is increasingly heavy and sour—or is synthetic crude from the tar sands.

This is part of what Daniel Lerch calls Energy Uncertainty: it is more expensive to keep adapting to changing realities.

As for the pipeline, why not follow the existing pipeline route that doesn't cut across the shallowest parts of the aquifer? It probably costs more, but presumably the infrastructure, rights-of-way, etc. are in place. It has to be easier to monitor two parallel pipelines than two that are hundreds of miles apart.

Donal, stupid question. Why

Oxy Mora — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:47:52 +0000

In reply to Over 600,000 Say No to

Donal, stupid question. Why can't the refining be done in Canada? Obviously, there are existing refineries on the Gulf Coast that they wish to use. But many of those are old structures. Is sea water necessary for cooling?

I think there are a zillion questions which haven't been asked. The industry is just doing what it knows how to do rather than look at overall solutions.

In the first place, this is new technology, the pipes will have hot sludge under enormous pressure. What about piping sea water to new refineries in Canada? Using a vastly smaller footprint up there and only producing extremely high end expensive and specialty chemicals? The market value for a smaller amount might be equivalent. Of course, the Canadians would never put up with it.

I own some country property near the Oklahoma border. Looks like the plan in Texas is to skirt major reservoirs like Lake Texoma. But I should really look into it.

This thing is a disaster waiting to happen.

Over 600,000 Say No to

Donal — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:12:29 +0000

In reply to Keystone XL & $5.00 Gasoline

Over 600,000 Say No to KXL

In an amazing show of strength against the KXL, the goal of 500,000 signatures was reached just before 7 pm last night. It currently stands at over 600,000 signatures.

These will be delivered later today to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Gene Karpinsky, who heads the League of Conservation Voters, told ENS Newswire that handing over 50 giant boxes each holding 10,000 signatures would be a “unified show of our power: our voices against the dollars of Big Oil.”