Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

[GRG55]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

Well said. Anyone who knows how tiresome the workings of a democracy really are would have given a similar gloss... and still supported it. You get the Atticus Finch award in my books.

Talking of efficiencies, however, I have a question: the biggest objection I have to the tar sands is that it seems to sacrifice a lot of fresh water (irreplaceable resource) and natgas (irreplaceable resource) to retrieve the bitumen just to create a convenient "form" of energy - gasoline / diesel etc...

That seems kinda crazy, like a historical artifact of the "cheap oil" age that's staggering onward from sheer momentum...

Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the natgas input for transportation instead and forego digging up a massive area of Alberta and polluting massive amounts of water?

Briefly:

• Fresh water might be an irreplaceable resource, in that there is no obvious substitute for it, but it is most certainly not an non-renewable resource. Perhaps using it in the tar sands is the best possible use for it compared to trying to grow crops on marginal land in arid regions, or watering golf courses?
• Natural gas is not a direct substitute for crude oil. If it was it would not sell at such a significant discount on an energy content basis [$ per btu] to crude oil.
• Condensate and natural gas liquids [NGLs] are already included in the global statistics for "crude oil" production and consumption. More than 10 million barrels per day of the roughly 85-89 million barrels per day of reported global crude oil consumption is actually not crude oil, but condensate and NGL liquids.
• Condensate and NGLs are the easiest components of natural gas to substitute for crude oil in such applications as transport fuel, but not without some challenges. At atmospheric pressure the propane component of NGL has to kept at -44 deg F to keep it in a liquid state. The alternative is to hold it in a pressure vessel [fuel tank]...at 80 deg F that tank will be under 130 psi pressure; at 110 deg F it has to be capable of holding almost 200 psi.
• The remainder of the natural gas stream, which is the majority of it, is very difficult to substitute for crude oil products, particularly transportation. Liquified natural gas [LNG] has to be cooled to about minus 260 deg F. This uses a lot of energy.
• Some energy companies, especially Royal Dutch Shell and South African based SASOIL, have been working for a long time to commercialize natural gas to liquids [GTL] conversion technologies. Both companies have GTL plants in the Gulf State of Qatar. Most of these efforts seem to be some variation of the Fisher-Tropsch process used to create a synthetic liquid fuel from gas. This is the same process that was used by Germany in WWII to convert coal gas into fuel for the military, and by South Africa during the apartheid sanctions to try to become more self sufficient in the manufacture of transport fuels. The dirty little secret is that a huge amount of the inlet energy content, much more than required to make LNG, is consumed in the manufacturing process [roughly one-third of the energy inlet is used up in the process]. Perhaps in time this will improve. Certainly that is one of the goals of the proponents of GTL. But at this time that fuel is a long, long way from becoming any material portion of the transport fuel equation.

We can look at practically any individual industrial process and find many reasons why it should not continue in the belief there must be a better way. Coal fired power stations, nuclear power stations, smelters for base metals, production of fossil fueled automobiles, petrochemical plants that make known carcinogens, and a whole host of other examples. If you really think the footprint [carbon creation, water usage, land area disturbed, etc.] that tar sands makes on the world is unreasonable or irrational, I strongly suggest you have a look at what shale gas drilling is consuming from many, many more water supplies and over a much vaster and far more widespread land area across North America, and now starting in Europe. A concentrated mine site [whether oil sands or open pit hard rock mine] is not a pretty site. But neither is many thousands of miles of lease roads, well sites, gathering system pipelines, compressor stations, and everything else that goes with finding and producing shale gas.

[ST]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

I am not normally an economic nationalist, but I would enjoy seeing this pipeline proposal killed by U.S. public opinion. I don't see any good reason why Canada should be exporting the upgrading and refining jobs to the USA. Canada should take a page out of the USA playbook and look after its own interests first.

I agree with this sentiment. Perhaps, I am a little biased having wholly grown up in Ft. McMurray and having had summer jobs at Syncrude (though I have been in the U.S. for a long time), but why not look after their own interests first? Ultimately, the political security of these reserves will be valued far greater than others; why not have the jobs to go with it?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

I agree with this sentiment. Perhaps, I am a little biased having wholly grown up in Ft. McMurray and having had summer jobs at Syncrude (though I have been in the U.S. for a long time), but why not look after their own interests first? Ultimately, the political security of these reserves will be valued far greater than others; why not have the jobs to go with it?

When did the economic nationalists in Canada ever provide jobs for people? And when did preservationists ever preserve anything but misery and poverty?

I was at Fort Smith, North-west Territory for a couple of days. In a town not even two-blocks square, I witnessed chairs being thrown through the windows and walls of their hotel at night. And outside of town, within walking distance of the town, there were tee-pees, the inhabitants of which had to poop upon cardboard when they had to go potty--- because there were no town services, no municipal infrastructure whatsoever. When I write "no infrastructure", I mean NOTHING. People walked through the woods to get to town because there were not even streets.

South of Ft. Smith on a dirt trail through the dark woods of Wood Buffalo National Park and then south across an ice road over Lake Athabasca, and then further south along a dirt road are the tar-sands. They begin with Exxon's Kurl Oil-Sand Project, north of Ft. Mc Murray, Alberta.

Being the slow learner here and an "official" moron, I would think that tar-sand development is the best thing that ever happened to Canada's North. Extracting and up-grading oil from the tar sands will provide energy, industry, jobs, development, and money in the North for 100 years or more.

It's hard for me to imagine that anyone could oppose tar-sand development in northern Alberta. What is there to preserve in the North but poverty, unemployment, and misery?

[c1ue]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

National boundaries are a completely artificial construct. Are you suggesting that all nations on earth should develop an entirely internal economy with impermeable barriers at their perimeters?

If not, perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative to trading based on comparative advantage that you might use to persuade me?

Again I'm not sure what you're poking at.

If oil is truly a Peak Cheap resource, it is more than a little disingenuous to say that Canada's export of a highly in demand product is on par with import of oranges.

The "comparative advantage" you speak of here is largely one-sided.

Or are you going to tell me that Canada is getting maximum value out of its energy export to the US?

[c1ue]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

Talking of efficiencies, however, I have a question: the biggest objection I have to the tar sands is that it seems to sacrifice a lot of fresh water (irreplaceable resource) and natgas (irreplaceable resource) to retrieve the bitumen just to create a convenient "form" of energy - gasoline / diesel etc...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/0...d/#more-48745v



GRG55 can speak to his view on the reliability of CERA and the US Department of Energy with regards to this analysis.

But if this is correct, the difference in water use between oil sands and PEMEX oil is apparently about 1.5%

In addition, Canada apparently has a law specifically prohibiting oil sands from consuming more than 2.2% of the Athabaska River's flow - with typical usage of 1%:

http://www.ethicaloil.org/fact/mythb...ing-our-water/

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

Again I'm not sure what you're poking at.

If oil is truly a Peak Cheap resource, it is more than a little disingenuous to say that Canada's export of a highly in demand product is on par with import of oranges.

The "comparative advantage" you speak of here is largely one-sided.

Or are you going to tell me that Canada is getting maximum value out of its energy export to the US?

Oil has a world market, one uniform price worldwide. To-day's oil price is quite high in nominal terms compared to the price that it used to be at. I would think that Canada is getting a very high price for its oil exports to the U.S, because oil has a uniform worldwide price. Canada has the advantage that its heavy oil ( tar sand oil ) will last for 100 years or more. The U.S. wants a reliable supply of oil and a reliable supply of oil that will last for 100 years or more, not to mention a supply from a friendly and allied country nearby. The U.S. is willing to pay the world price for that oil.... So what is wrong with that arrangement?

Please understand that America does not want to have to buy oil from Iran, Syria, Pakistan, nor Venezuela, and worse--- to do so for a century or more. America does not want to have to financially support its enemies, especially when Saudi-Arabia's supply of oil may not last for another century.

If Canada had 300 million people, then exporting its oil might not be a sound idea. But Canada has 35 million people spread over half of the continent of North America. Exporting up-graded oil and bringing in foreign exchange makes economic sense. Everyone wins with free-trade.

[GRG55]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

Again I'm not sure what you're poking at.

If oil is truly a Peak Cheap resource, it is more than a little disingenuous to say that Canada's export of a highly in demand product is on par with import of oranges.

The "comparative advantage" you speak of here is largely one-sided.

Or are you going to tell me that Canada is getting maximum value out of its energy export to the US?

Once again C1ue you are quick to respond. And slow to answer.

I will repeat:

"...If not, perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative to trading based on comparative advantage that you might use to persuade me?"

[c1ue]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

Once again C1ue you are quick to respond. And slow to answer.

I will repeat:

"...If not, perhaps you would like to suggest an alternative to trading based on comparative advantage that you might use to persuade me?"

Your 'repetition' left out the first part of what you wrote, to wit:

National boundaries are a completely artificial construct. Are you suggesting that all nations on earth should develop an entirely internal economy with impermeable barriers at their perimeters?

I'll note that I spoke nothing of the provenance of national boundaries, nor advocated any free or restricted trade, but merely noted that comparative advantage is a theory which has clear and obvious limitations in terms of describing actual vs. theoretical benefits for participants.

I also gave an example in which 'comparative advantage' took a back seat to geopolitical maneuvering, and concluded with the (at least to me) obvious point that a nation of 33 or so million people abutted by a nation with 10 times the population and the strongest military in the world, is hardly in a position of equitable negotiation.

If you'd like to discuss the merits and mechanisms of comparative advantage, I'd suggest that you might want to consider how to inject these real world influences and impacts into the equation.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

The State Department assigned an important environmental impact study of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to a company with financial ties to the pipeline operator, flouting the intent of a federal law meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects.

The department allowed TransCanada, the company seeking permission to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas, to solicit and screen bids for the environmental study.

At TransCanada's recommendation, the department hired Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston, even though it had previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a "major client" in its marketing materials.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...#ixzz1aGTIm7k9

[c1ue]

Re: Tar Sands Showdown in the Nebraska Sandhills

Keystone: round 1
Gateway: round 2

Article 1: open letter from Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, Canada

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...e-development/

An open letter from the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, on Canada’s commitment to diversify our energy markets and the need to further streamline the regulatory process in order to advance Canada’s national economic interest.
Canada is on the edge of a historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional trading partner in the United States or to continue with the status quo.
Virtually all our energy exports go to the United States. As a country, we must seek new markets for our products and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear: we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country. We must expand our trade with the fast-growing Asian economies. We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of Canadians and their families.
Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project, no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydroelectric dams.
These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special-interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources. Finally, if all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: Sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further. They do this because they know it can work. It works because it helps them to achieve their ultimate objective: delay a project to the point it becomes economically unviable.
Anyone looking at the record of approvals for certain major projects across Canada cannot help but come to the conclusion that many of these projects have been delayed too long. In many cases, these projects would create thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians, yet they can take years to get started due to the slow, complex and cumbersome regulatory process.
For example, the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline review took more than nine years to complete. In comparison, the western expansion of the nation-building Canadian Pacific Railway under Sir John A. Macdonald took four years. Under our current system, building a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff required the approval of the federal government. This delayed a decision by two months. Two valuable months to assess something that thousands of Canadians have been doing for over a century.
Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination. It must be based on science and the facts. We believe reviews for major projects can be accomplished in a quicker and more streamlined fashion. We do not want projects that are safe, generate thousands of new jobs and open up new export markets, to die in the approval phase due to unnecessary delays.
Unfortunately, the system seems to have lost sight of this balance over the past years. It is broken. It is time to take a look at it. It is an urgent matter of Canada’s national interest.

i.e. US doesn't want it? We'll sell to China

Article 2: how this battle is going to play out

Through most of 2011, Canadian energy officials in politics and industry watched with bewildered helplessness and some shock as Washington allowed environmentalists to seize control of TransCanada’s $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline issue. They stood by aghast as President Barack Obama, a captive of U.S. green activists and Hollywood movie stars, caved in to political pressure and postponed a decision to approve the project, a potential economic bonanza that promised to deliver thousands of jobs to Americans and billions of barrels of Canadian oil sands production to Texas. No such green hijacking is going to take place in Canada, at least not without an official fight. On the eve of hearings, which begin Tuesday in Kitimat, B.C., into the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline — to carry the same oil sands production from Alberta to the West Coast and on to China — the Harper government clearly aims to do what Barack Obama cannot or will not do in America, namely stand up to the growth-killing professional green movement.

It is a cliché in journalism to declare metaphorical wars at the drop of a news release. In this case, it looks like war is exactly what Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver launched Monday in an unprecedented open letter warning that Canada will not allow “environmental and other radical groups” to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”
What a welcome war this is. Never before has a Canadian politician challenged the hitherto saintly protectors of the environment in such direct language. More importantly, Mr. Oliver took straight aim at a troubling trend in Canadian environmentalism — the foreign funding of Canadian green activist groups with the express purpose of shutting down Canadian resource development — first documented in the National Post by Vancouver investigative writer Vivian Krause.

“These groups,” said Mr. Oliver, “seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interests to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.”

Not many Canadian politicians would dare lock horns with Hollywood’s best scene stealers and myth makers — the likes of veteran director Robert Redford, Avatar creater James Cameron, mermaid Daryl Hannah and superstar Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have lent their personas to various movements aimed at shutting down large portions of the Canadian economy.

Mr. Oliver, in an interview yesterday, said “we’ve got some $500-billion in projects that will be coming up that are in the Canadian national interest over the next 10 years, and we cannot take them for granted.” There are groups, he said, that have radical green agendas that receive “money coming from the states.”

The Harper government’s objective is to prevent projects from being tied up in never-ending regulatory processes. The Kitimat review of Gateway is already headed for a logjam, with 4,000 individuals and groups seeking standing. If the hearings could accommodate 10 people a day through 200 sitting days a year, it would take two years just to exhaust the list of intervenors, many of whom are staged entrants aimed at prolonging the Gateway review.

Exactly how Ottawa could short-circuit the looming Gateway marathon isn’t clear, although Mr. Oliver said Ottawa may have to impose time limits. “We do want to address timelines, to make sure there are fixed timelines” to bring some predictability to the approval processes. “This is federal jurisdiction and so we can either through regulation or maybe legislation deal with these issues.”

None of this went down well with Greenpeace, the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council, Elizabeth May’s Green Party and others. Ms. May wrapped herself in green nationalism, saying Canada did not have an “energy policy,” something she seemed to think involved reducing dependence on imported oil. She cited the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union — which includes thousands of Canadian journalists — as authority for her claims.

Reporters, meanwhile, pushed Mr. Oliver to come up with the names of foreign organizations with radical agendas that are funding green groups in Canada. He did mention the U.S-based Tides organization, an outfit exposed by Ms. Krause in the National Post series last year.

The foreign-funding issue is clearly a sensitive one for green groups. One of the major recipients of U.S. foundation backing is the Dogwood Intitiative, a leading anti-pipeline group that has received funding from the U.S. Tides foundation and the Hewlett and Packard foundations. They’ve poured more than $50-million into the Dogwood’s Great Bear Rain Forest program, which aims to shut down oil tanker traffic to the B.C. coast, and hence block access to any Gateway pipeline.

Dogwood tried yesterday to downplay its foreign funding. It said in a statement that foreign oil companies invested nearly $20-billion in the oil sands while “the blogger Vivian Krause [said] U.S. charitable foundations have given Canadian environmental groups less than 1.5% of that amount over a 10-year period.” That works out to $250-million dollars from U.S. activists foundations to troublemakers such as Dogwood.

By drawing attention to the foreign-funding issue, Mr. Oliver has taken direct aim at a radical green movement that has succeeded in paralyzing a U.S. president. Fortunately, the Harper Conservatives appear to have no intention of following Mr. Obama’s lead.

$50 million in lobbying? That's hardly chump change.