thats just in CO2 emissions from the actual fracking or removal of the oil from the sand .... they are not specifying all the production and use the petroleum that will be eventually put into the atmosphere from the tar sands...
besides its not all about the CO2 emissions from the areas its about the destruction of the ecology Boreal Forest and the fresh water systems and destruction of the culture of people who depend on the fresh ecology who live there. Sure put some more crap out there for uneducated people. Doh.
With numbers on drill baby drill ... Whats the big deal? They have already drillled and stockpiled oil. They are raising prices to scare you and make a bigger fuckin mess. Its bullshit... anymore petrol production is being sold outside the United States. Like Alaskan pipeline... that oil goes to Japan. Just like the Keystone... that oil will be sold outside our country.
Well the shit flows down. I said stop the whole deal.
I said stop it here in the US at least its a step for a precedent for saying no to big oil. Maybe canada take aim and you know how proud they are possibly get pissed that "we" had the balls to say NO and show a little integrity (of which they so humbly pride themselves upon)
Well the shit flows down. I said stop the whole deal.
I said stop it here in the US at least its a step for a precedent for saying no to big oil. Maybe canada take aim and you know how proud they are possibly get pissed that "we" had the balls to say NO and show a little integrity (of which they so humbly pride themselves upon)
Canada is in complete favor of getting the tar sands to refineries. They have stated if the US rejects the pipeline, it's going to Asia.
I think they should just build their own refineries, but this is the path they have chosen to follow.
From an environmentally conscious point of view, the U.S. option is a no-brainer. The Asia option poses many more environmental issues that environmentalists in the U.S. need to consider.
First off, the pipeline has to cross the Canadian Rockies which poses a bigger challenge due to the topography of the U.S. route. Then you have to consider the risk of loading around 250 super tankers in Straights of Georgia, a beautiful and pristine area that would be devastated by a Exxon-like disaster. And then it will be refined under regulation that I would be very surprised were even close to the EPA guidelines.
I understand the dismay by environmental activists in the U.S., but you need to really consider the environmental consequences if it is successfully rejected and canceled.
thats just in CO2 emissions from the actual fracking or removal of the oil from the sand .... they are not specifying all the production and use the petroleum that will be eventually put into the atmosphere from the tar sands...
besides its not all about the CO2 emissions from the areas its about the destruction of the ecology Boreal Forest and the fresh water systems and destruction of the culture of people who depend on the fresh ecology who live there. Sure put some more crap out there for uneducated people. Doh.
With numbers on drill baby drill ... Whats the big deal? They have already drillled and stockpiled oil. They are raising prices to scare you and make a bigger fuckin mess. Its bullshit... anymore petrol production is being sold outside the United States. Like Alaskan pipeline... that oil goes to Japan. Just like the Keystone... that oil will be sold outside our country.
All that shit is blown waaaayyy out of preportion. Its not as bad as the propaganda propagates. Come here and see for yourself. They never talk about all the good things that companies like Syncrude are doing like, building an emmisions reduction plant to lower emmisions, reclaming the land and reforesting the tailings ponds, all of the wild animals that live in the mine (wolves, deer, foxes, etc) i see them all daily on site, not to mention the Bison farm right on site. So yeah, I get it, producing oil is bad for the environment but at least its not total destruction of the environment like alot of people think. These companies are extremely consious of the environment and have a ton of rules that are in place so that we do not do any uneccessary damage or even hurt a fucking crow. They are very strick on these rules as well, meaning if you violate a environmental rule it will be your first and last offence(at least on their site) All of those people have never been here to see for themselves. They just see some guy on stage crying about it and believe he has to be right. Dont kid yourself if you think he/they arent getting paid big money to slam the oil sands because they do. As I said before, would you rather get oil from the middle east which is soaked in blood or a country known for its conflict free environment? Keep in mind, this is one of the the safest places on the planet to produce fossil fuel energy. And right now we are so addicted to its consumption that we will be producing it longer than we (humans) will be on earth.
Jason P - It's not one or the other. The "US or China" tactic is a ploy by oil companies and their bitches in govt to try to push Keystone thru. The applications for the two pipelines (well, there are two in the Northern Gateway proposal alone, but I digress), are submitted by different companies, and are completely separate projects. The Oiligarchy wants both built.
bennyorr - I've been to ft.mac many times and I don't know what you're seeing 'onsite'...but the sites I've been to are hell on earth. That's literally how I describe it to people. The tailings ponds are the most depressign thing I've ever laid eyes upon, no joke.
The good things Syncrude is doing? .......It really IS total destruction of the environment. Reforestation of tailings ponds? Where is this happening? (sincerely, if you know, tell us).....My understanding is that none of these companies have ever had to provide any sort of legit plan to reclaim the ponds. They just had to agree to do so. You're telling me that when you drive HWY 63 thru that Syncrude cesspool, that you think that can be brought back to it's original state?
Wild animals living in the mine? argh....man....come on.
What about the people of Ft.Chip? Ever bothered to read up on the effects of those downstream from the plants, and the work of Dr.John O'Connor?
And sorry, but it's laughable for a supporter of the oil industry to comment on people being paid to produce studies to support their side. Big Oil is the heavyweight champ of that tactic. Look into the U of Vic's private donor list over the last few years. Former BP execs making 7-figure donations to the faculty that produced the study you quoted. Enbridge/Encana donating to the Aboriginal studies program, while preparing to go head to head with them over the Northern Gateway pipeline....like the emissions building you mentioned; they call it greenwashing. The oil companies are most definitely NOT concerned about the environment...they do as little as possible, and everything they can to influence policy in favour of bigger profits.
Jason P - It's not one or the other. The "US or China" tactic is a ploy by oil companies and their bitches in govt to try to push Keystone thru.
I understand the tactic. And it's a pretty good one to raise alarm to help push the issue through ... but when is all said and done, I don't think they are bluffing.
Canada has a huge black-tar reserve, yes? America is already refining this black-tar reserve since 2010, yes? Canada is looking to increase profits by three-fold by tripling the amount of tar-sands being distributed. So if a maximum profit can be achieved in twenty years (proposed pipeline) or sixty years (under current conditions), do you really think it's a bluff?
I understand the tactic. And it's a pretty good one to raise alarm to help push the issue through ... but when is all said and done, I don't think they are bluffing.
Canada has a huge black-tar reserve, yes? America is already refining this black-tar reserve since 2010, yes? Canada is looking to increase profits by three-fold by tripling the amount of tar-sands being distributed. So if a maximum profit can be achieved in twenty years (proposed pipeline) or sixty years (under current conditions), do you really think it's a bluff?
Not sure what you're saying.....I don't think it's a bluff, I think it's a xenophobia campaign; a misrepresentation to build public support for an unpopular project. Harper's Cons and their oil supporters are trying to build both. Securing the Keystone deal will not prevent China from getting Albertan oil.
I understand the tactic. And it's a pretty good one to raise alarm to help push the issue through ... but when is all said and done, I don't think they are bluffing.
Canada has a huge black-tar reserve, yes? America is already refining this black-tar reserve since 2010, yes? Canada is looking to increase profits by three-fold by tripling the amount of tar-sands being distributed. So if a maximum profit can be achieved in twenty years (proposed pipeline) or sixty years (under current conditions), do you really think it's a bluff?
Not sure what you're saying.....I don't think it's a bluff, I think it's a xenophobia campaign; a misrepresentation to build public support for an unpopular project. Harper's Cons and their oil supporters are trying to build both. Securing the Keystone deal will not prevent China from getting Albertan oil.
If they both say No More... is China going to do? Make sure we dont get our Mc Donalds toys? Honestly. I love chinese culture and people but Im getting really sick of the Chinese Government.
(in my humble opinion of the far future, if we keep sucking the balls of China were all going to evolve into little grey aliens)
I understand the tactic. And it's a pretty good one to raise alarm to help push the issue through ... but when is all said and done, I don't think they are bluffing.
Canada has a huge black-tar reserve, yes? America is already refining this black-tar reserve since 2010, yes? Canada is looking to increase profits by three-fold by tripling the amount of tar-sands being distributed. So if a maximum profit can be achieved in twenty years (proposed pipeline) or sixty years (under current conditions), do you really think it's a bluff?
Not sure what you're saying.....I don't think it's a bluff, I think it's a xenophobia campaign; a misrepresentation to build public support for an unpopular project. Harper's Cons and their oil supporters are trying to build both. Securing the Keystone deal will not prevent China from getting Albertan oil.
Has the Canadian portion of the pipeline been approved???
lol... see the tactic of Americans saying NO is getting the Canadians riled up already... lol
Where do you hail from?
I'm not saying there are not Canadians that are riled up about it. I'm stating that they had no effect in stopping support of the refining of tar sands.
I'm not against conservation and environmentalism. I'm lucky to have a job where the decisions I make have a significant effect on the environment. But I'm also pragmatic in my logic and will go for what is best for the greater good. Eliminating the XL pipeline is not for the greater good. The tar sands will be refined no matter what, even in all future pipelines are dismissed. If the Canadians hold true on their threats to move to Asian markets, the environmental impact will be amplified significantly.
I understand the tactic. And it's a pretty good one to raise alarm to help push the issue through ... but when is all said and done, I don't think they are bluffing.
Canada has a huge black-tar reserve, yes? America is already refining this black-tar reserve since 2010, yes? Canada is looking to increase profits by three-fold by tripling the amount of tar-sands being distributed. So if a maximum profit can be achieved in twenty years (proposed pipeline) or sixty years (under current conditions), do you really think it's a bluff?
Not sure what you're saying.....I don't think it's a bluff, I think it's a xenophobia campaign; a misrepresentation to build public support for an unpopular project. Harper's Cons and their oil supporters are trying to build both. Securing the Keystone deal will not prevent China from getting Albertan oil.
Has the Canadian portion of the pipeline been approved???
The Canadian portion of Keystone XL has, yes....the Northern Gateway pipeline has not.
Jason P - It's not one or the other. The "US or China" tactic is a ploy by oil companies and their bitches in govt to try to push Keystone thru. The applications for the two pipelines (well, there are two in the Northern Gateway proposal alone, but I digress), are submitted by different companies, and are completely separate projects. The Oiligarchy wants both built.
bennyorr - I've been to ft.mac many times and I don't know what you're seeing 'onsite'...but the sites I've been to are hell on earth. That's literally how I describe it to people. The tailings ponds are the most depressign thing I've ever laid eyes upon, no joke.
The good things Syncrude is doing? .......It really IS total destruction of the environment. Reforestation of tailings ponds? Where is this happening? (sincerely, if you know, tell us).....My understanding is that none of these companies have ever had to provide any sort of legit plan to reclaim the ponds. They just had to agree to do so. You're telling me that when you drive HWY 63 thru that Syncrude cesspool, that you think that can be brought back to it's original state?
Wild animals living in the mine? argh....man....come on.
What about the people of Ft.Chip? Ever bothered to read up on the effects of those downstream from the plants, and the work of Dr.John O'Connor?
And sorry, but it's laughable for a supporter of the oil industry to comment on people being paid to produce studies to support their side. Big Oil is the heavyweight champ of that tactic. Look into the U of Vic's private donor list over the last few years. Former BP execs making 7-figure donations to the faculty that produced the study you quoted. Enbridge/Encana donating to the Aboriginal studies program, while preparing to go head to head with them over the Northern Gateway pipeline....like the emissions building you mentioned; they call it greenwashing. The oil companies are most definitely NOT concerned about the environment...they do as little as possible, and everything they can to influence policy in favour of bigger profits.
When was the last time you were here? The main tailings pond at Syncrude(HYW 63) is totally gone, all that is there now in a bunch of dirt and they're reclaiming as we speak(I believe they are making it into a park with a "Giants of Construction" museum. Suncor has done the same in many of the old tailings ponds as well. I do agree that its not pretty but "hell on earth"? Come on, thats the overstatement of the year. What about Saudi Arabia or the gulf of Mexico? All I'm saying is that its not as bad as your pictures say it is. I'd take some photos for you but it could mean my extremely lucritive career so I cant/wont. (Here are a few site to check out though) I feel for the people in communities like Ft. Chip. but nobody is telling those people they have to stay. I mean they drill for, and produce oil there as well. http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5913 http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5909 http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5703
If the Canadians hold true on their threats to move to Asian markets, the environmental impact will be amplified significantly.
This is what I'm talking about ....it's not a threat. It's a proposed pipeline, under review by the CEAA (enviro assessment) and NEB (energy board). I've heard no talk of withdrawing the Northern Gateway proposal if Keystone XL passes in the US or not.
When was the last time you were here? The main tailings pond at Syncrude(HYW 63) is totally gone, all that is there now in a bunch of dirt and they're reclaiming as we speak(I believe they are making it into a park with a "Giants of Construction" museum. Suncor has done the same in many of the old tailings ponds as well. I do agree that its not pretty but "hell on earth"? Come on, thats the overstatement of the year. What about Saudi Arabia or the gulf of Mexico? All I'm saying is that its not as bad as your pictures say it is. I'd take some photos for you but it could mean my extremely lucritive career so I cant/wont. (Here are a few site to check out though) I feel for the people in communities like Ft. Chip. but nobody is telling those people they have to stay. I mean they drill for, and produce oil there as well. http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5913 http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5909 http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5703
I was in the city two months ago, but haven't been up to the sites in a couple years. I'm dumbfounded if that pond is completely gone....that would be one big park. I'll check out your links, thanks...but will also check out some non-industry sources regarding the reclamations, and try to comment later. At first glance - the 'water capping' sounds eerily familiar - like BP claiming the water in the gulf will be just fine 'eventually', thanks to dispersant's (and bogus science).
The comments about Ft.Chip....well...I don't want to turn this into an argument about first nation rights...but saying 'they don't have to stay' is a bit insensitive, and an oversimplification of the situation.
The comments about Ft.Chip....well...I don't want to turn this into an argument about first nation rights...but saying 'they don't have to stay' is a bit insensitive, and an oversimplification of the situation.[/quote]
Your right, I was incensitive to their situation, my appologies.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,705
Ok kids, here's my latest cut and paste from a liberal blog against keystone. ... :x
There were two scientific studies this week that set the ongoing Keystone pipeline battle in sharp relief.
One was a reminder of just how crucial this fight is. A secret report delivered to the Canadian government's chief bureaucrat showed that changes in tarsands mining methods, which the industry claimed reduced the amount of carbon emissions, were actually "three times as emissions intensive" and that damage to the environment would be both "significant" and "irreversible."
That's one reason the EU moved closer last week to preventing the import of tarsands oil to Europe, and it helps explain why the White House continued to stand strong against Congressional efforts to force a permit for Keystone -- as the president's press secretary pointed out (in a pointed tweet) the administration's new fuel efficiency standards for cars would save more oil than the pipeline could deliver in 45 years.
But the second study made clear to tarsands opponents -- if it hadn't been already -- that this was only one battle in a much larger fight. A new study from a pair of British Columbia scientists shows that there's a lot of carbon in the tarsands -- but a lot more yet in the planet's coal deposits.
If you burned all the tarsands we know about now, you'd raise the planet's temperature more than half a degree -- i.e., half again as much as the global warming we've already seen, which has been enough to make the seas 30% more acid and cut Arctic sea ice 40%. But if you burned all the coal we know about it, the temperature would go up 15 degrees.
At a certain point, I suppose, it doesn't matter -- most scientists think anything more than two degrees Celsius puts us into a zone of extreme danger, and we're already halfway there. Fifteen degrees would be just gilding the lily. Still, it makes it clear that even if, as NASA's James Hansen has said, burning the planet's unconventional fuels like tarsands would mean it was "game over the for the climate," stopping that burning won't be enough. We also have to address the most obvious, conventional forms of energy -- coal, especially. It was the first kind of fossil fuel we learned to burn, 300 years ago. And we've got to kick the habit.
Which is why, even as the political gamesmanship over the Keystone pipeline rages on (with the GOP at the moment making the absurd claim that this export pipeline will lower U.S. pump prices), we've got no choice but to take on other battles. 350.org has been embroiled these last weeks in the fight over a massive new coal plant in Kosovo; closer to home, plans were just announced for a truly massive new coal port in Washington State that would take eight mile-long coal trains a day from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming and ship them straight to China.
We've got to stop projects like this, just as we united to fight Keystone. In fact, we've got -- as soon as possible -- to stop fighting bad things one by one. We don't have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike; we need to change the basic underlying economics, by charging the fossil fuel industry for the damage carbon does in the atmosphere instead of just letting them continue to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for free.
The fact that there's more coal than tarsands doesn't change the math of the Keystone debate. As the scientist who did the study pointed out, this is "not a get out of jail free card" to the tarsands industry, and added that he also opposed the proposed Gateway pipeline to Canada's Pacific coast.
But it is a powerful reminder that we don't get to rest in a fight that we're still losing, a fight that has many fronts but only one central tenet: the future of the earth depends on keeping carbon underground.
"Don't give in to the lies. Don't give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth. And to hope."
Im serious tar sands and this pipeline are a death knell to the planet ... if you dont know that by now in fking marshmallow land..... you better get educated quick.
all I can picture is myself f* in a shack with a shotgun cuz the idiots who think they are in charge of this place ruined it and were going down the shitter quick
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,705
Im serious tar sands and this pipeline are a death knell to the planet ... if you dont know that by now in fking marshmallow land..... you better get educated quick.
all I can picture is myself f* in a shack with a shotgun cuz the idiots who think they are in charge of this place ruined it and were going down the shitter quick
I keep hearing those D. Boon lines:
"Ship's creaking
Taking on bullshit
I fucking scream
Jump ship! Jump ship!"
Only theres too many sharks in the water and nowhere to go.
....
"Don't give in to the lies. Don't give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth. And to hope."
Iowa View: Oil billionaires wrong about clean energy
My name is Rob Hach. I am an Iowa farm boy who moved into town to start a business. That was 10 years ago.
Today my wife and I have 28 employees and four offices in four states at Anemometry Specialists. We work in the wind industry on turbines. We are proud to be among those who help make Iowa the No. 1 state in the country for wind jobs. Iowa also ranks second in electricity generation from wind.
Last August, during President Obama’s rural tour through the Midwest, I had a chance to tell him I have 28 employees working in wind energy who have been kept on our payroll thanks to his administration’s investment in clean energy.
That’s why it makes me so angry to see secretive oil billionaires spending millions of dollars on false smear TV commercials targeting the president’s investments in clean energy. It is difficult to watch these people air their TV ads slapping around the president’s support of my employees’ jobs and ridiculous claims that he created jobs in Mexico and China.
The president kept our doors open and our employees working because of the wind-production tax credit and 1603 Treasury grant program.
And we were able to keep jobs in Iowa. The majority of the people I employ here in Alta are either farm kids or still working on the family farm in the evening. Today, the school district in Alta receives somewhere between 16 percent and 20 percent of its revenue from wind turbines. And almost 30 percent of the taxes paid into the county are off wind turbines.
Wind is an American success story in Iowa.
I support the president and his energy policy because it supports the American farmer and is good for our national security because we still are too dependent on Middle East dictators for our energy needs.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney, in his economic plan, has said wind and solar power are technologies that “make little sense for the consuming public but great sense only for the companies reaping profits from taxpayer subsidies.”
I can tell you that I’m not reaping massive profits like the oil billionaires funding these ads with their billions in subsidies and tax breaks. Right now my wife and I are living invoice to invoice, praying we have enough money to make payroll every two weeks. I have missed Christmas concerts, wedding anniversaries and school plays and sacrificed so much more to keep my business going.
Romney also says in his jobs plan that the highly skilled personnel who design and build heavy capital equipment like wind turbines “comprise only a minuscule fraction of the U.S. labor force. Even if the sector were to grow rapidly, it would not make much of a dent in the overall employment picture.”
I guess he missed the fact that Iowa has turbine or power production facilities in Fort Madison, West Branch, Cedar Rapids and Newton that employ thousands of people. In some counties in Iowa, wind manufacturing companies are now the largest employer.
When this lands in the local paper, I am going to shock a few people. Many people locally know I am a registered Republican. But I believe in voting for the best candidate and the one who understands that clean energy is helping to revitalize small towns across Iowa and bringing manufacturing back to America when so many other industries have fled town.
I want the people to know that the president is keeping my American dream alive. Forget all the special-interest, out-of-state oil money and ads.
The proof of the success of Obama’s investments in clean energy can be seen in the wind blades dotting the landscapes all across Iowa.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,705
Wind, yes! Here's another idea that might prove to be useful. The design shown in this article is great because these windstalks kill fewer birds. Looks pretty cool at night too!:
Wind, yes! Here's another idea that might prove to be useful. The design shown in this article is great because these windstalks kill fewer birds. Looks pretty cool at night too!:
I'm not too informed on green/clean energy, but last year I went on a road trip to Indiana and Michigan with my aunt and uncle and throughout Indiana, I saw tons of solar panels. It was really cool to see. I took some pictures of them.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,705
This is smart thinking. Even smarter thinking would be to continue to look for ways to live with less oil because the reality is all the easy-to-extract stuff is gone and the energy, costs and resources needed to extract oil keeps going up.
This begs the question- why aren't our leaders talking about this? Why aren't they urging us to lessen our commute distances, build walkable communities, improve and expand our rail system (which move more products and passengers per energy unit than cars, planes and trucks) and, at the very least, urge people to drive vehicles that get better gas mileage?
"Don't give in to the lies. Don't give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth. And to hope."
This is smart thinking. Even smarter thinking would be to continue to look for ways to live with less oil because the reality is all the easy-to-extract stuff is gone and the energy, costs and resources needed to extract oil keeps going up.
This begs the question- why aren't our leaders talking about this? Why aren't they urging us to lessen our commute distances, build walkable communities, improve and expand our rail system (which move more products and passengers per energy unit than cars, planes and trucks) and, at the very least, urge people to drive vehicles that get better gas mileage?
they like oil money, brian. if they didn't have huge oil money they would be sad and have to live with less like humble people do.
how dare us expect our leaders and other country leaders to live normally in a humble way.
they desire oil wealth beyond their wildest dreams. for this exact life style they will not promote anything but what suites their agendas.
all that plus many people in our societies are carefree, lazy and stupid
Honestly, very little can go wrong, provided conceited enviro-clowns get out of the way. New frakking methods have made this drastically safer and cheaper. When will the left stop playing politics with our energy and face the facts that nuclear power is clean and safe, that wind turbines and solar panels are expensive and inefficient, and potentially environmentally hazardous, and that frakking poses a minuscule--if any threat whatsoever--to our aquifers.
Gas prices are too damn high--especially for poor, working folk. Maybe the left can put them ahead of politics for once, we can help them out.
The people condemning enabling these advancements are not geologists or engineers, they're rich, spoiled assholes who know nothing of frakking techniques.
Thoughts?
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Comments
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/arti ... nergy.html
Just one of many many appeals by the American People:
http://michiganmessenger.com/52805/doj- ... a-lobbyist
We have no say. Just repackage to BS and add it to the Transportation Bill or Payroll Taxcut Bill. Lawmakers out of control.
Then we wonder why people pray for the end of the world? Cuz theyre tired of same ol ' shit.
thats just in CO2 emissions from the actual fracking or removal of the oil from the sand .... they are not specifying all the production and use the petroleum that will be eventually put into the atmosphere from the tar sands...
besides its not all about the CO2 emissions from the areas its about the destruction of the ecology Boreal Forest and the fresh water systems and destruction of the culture of people who depend on the fresh ecology who live there. Sure put some more crap out there for uneducated people. Doh.
With numbers on drill baby drill ... Whats the big deal? They have already drillled and stockpiled oil. They are raising prices to scare you and make a bigger fuckin mess. Its bullshit... anymore petrol production is being sold outside the United States. Like Alaskan pipeline... that oil goes to Japan. Just like the Keystone... that oil will be sold outside our country.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 433x300521
Option 1 - Pipeline to the U.S. to be refined under EPA guidelines
Option 2 - Pipeline across British Columbia, transport by tanker ships to Asia, and unknown refinery regulations ... if any at all
Pick your poison ....
I said stop it here in the US at least its a step for a precedent for saying no to big oil. Maybe canada take aim and you know how proud they are possibly get pissed that "we" had the balls to say NO and show a little integrity (of which they so humbly pride themselves upon)
I think they should just build their own refineries, but this is the path they have chosen to follow.
From an environmentally conscious point of view, the U.S. option is a no-brainer. The Asia option poses many more environmental issues that environmentalists in the U.S. need to consider.
First off, the pipeline has to cross the Canadian Rockies which poses a bigger challenge due to the topography of the U.S. route. Then you have to consider the risk of loading around 250 super tankers in Straights of Georgia, a beautiful and pristine area that would be devastated by a Exxon-like disaster. And then it will be refined under regulation that I would be very surprised were even close to the EPA guidelines.
I understand the dismay by environmental activists in the U.S., but you need to really consider the environmental consequences if it is successfully rejected and canceled.
All that shit is blown waaaayyy out of preportion. Its not as bad as the propaganda propagates. Come here and see for yourself. They never talk about all the good things that companies like Syncrude are doing like, building an emmisions reduction plant to lower emmisions, reclaming the land and reforesting the tailings ponds, all of the wild animals that live in the mine (wolves, deer, foxes, etc) i see them all daily on site, not to mention the Bison farm right on site. So yeah, I get it, producing oil is bad for the environment but at least its not total destruction of the environment like alot of people think. These companies are extremely consious of the environment and have a ton of rules that are in place so that we do not do any uneccessary damage or even hurt a fucking crow. They are very strick on these rules as well, meaning if you violate a environmental rule it will be your first and last offence(at least on their site) All of those people have never been here to see for themselves. They just see some guy on stage crying about it and believe he has to be right. Dont kid yourself if you think he/they arent getting paid big money to slam the oil sands because they do. As I said before, would you rather get oil from the middle east which is soaked in blood or a country known for its conflict free environment? Keep in mind, this is one of the the safest places on the planet to produce fossil fuel energy. And right now we are so addicted to its consumption that we will be producing it longer than we (humans) will be on earth.
bennyorr - I've been to ft.mac many times and I don't know what you're seeing 'onsite'...but the sites I've been to are hell on earth. That's literally how I describe it to people. The tailings ponds are the most depressign thing I've ever laid eyes upon, no joke.
The good things Syncrude is doing?
Wild animals living in the mine? argh....man....come on.
What about the people of Ft.Chip? Ever bothered to read up on the effects of those downstream from the plants, and the work of Dr.John O'Connor?
And sorry, but it's laughable for a supporter of the oil industry to comment on people being paid to produce studies to support their side. Big Oil is the heavyweight champ of that tactic. Look into the U of Vic's private donor list over the last few years. Former BP execs making 7-figure donations to the faculty that produced the study you quoted. Enbridge/Encana donating to the Aboriginal studies program, while preparing to go head to head with them over the Northern Gateway pipeline....like the emissions building you mentioned; they call it greenwashing. The oil companies are most definitely NOT concerned about the environment...they do as little as possible, and everything they can to influence policy in favour of bigger profits.
Canada has a huge black-tar reserve, yes? America is already refining this black-tar reserve since 2010, yes? Canada is looking to increase profits by three-fold by tripling the amount of tar-sands being distributed. So if a maximum profit can be achieved in twenty years (proposed pipeline) or sixty years (under current conditions), do you really think it's a bluff?
(in my humble opinion of the far future, if we keep sucking the balls of China were all going to evolve into little grey aliens)
I'm not saying there are not Canadians that are riled up about it. I'm stating that they had no effect in stopping support of the refining of tar sands.
I'm not against conservation and environmentalism. I'm lucky to have a job where the decisions I make have a significant effect on the environment. But I'm also pragmatic in my logic and will go for what is best for the greater good. Eliminating the XL pipeline is not for the greater good. The tar sands will be refined no matter what, even in all future pipelines are dismissed. If the Canadians hold true on their threats to move to Asian markets, the environmental impact will be amplified significantly.
When was the last time you were here? The main tailings pond at Syncrude(HYW 63) is totally gone, all that is there now in a bunch of dirt and they're reclaiming as we speak(I believe they are making it into a park with a "Giants of Construction" museum. Suncor has done the same in many of the old tailings ponds as well. I do agree that its not pretty but "hell on earth"? Come on, thats the overstatement of the year. What about Saudi Arabia or the gulf of Mexico? All I'm saying is that its not as bad as your pictures say it is. I'd take some photos for you but it could mean my extremely lucritive career so I cant/wont. (Here are a few site to check out though) I feel for the people in communities like Ft. Chip. but nobody is telling those people they have to stay. I mean they drill for, and produce oil there as well. http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5913
http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5909
http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5703
The comments about Ft.Chip....well...I don't want to turn this into an argument about first nation rights...but saying 'they don't have to stay' is a bit insensitive, and an oversimplification of the situation.
Your right, I was incensitive to their situation, my appologies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mcki ... 00155.html
Beyond Keystone
Posted: 02/24/2012 5:37 pm
Bill McKibben:
There were two scientific studies this week that set the ongoing Keystone pipeline battle in sharp relief.
One was a reminder of just how crucial this fight is. A secret report delivered to the Canadian government's chief bureaucrat showed that changes in tarsands mining methods, which the industry claimed reduced the amount of carbon emissions, were actually "three times as emissions intensive" and that damage to the environment would be both "significant" and "irreversible."
That's one reason the EU moved closer last week to preventing the import of tarsands oil to Europe, and it helps explain why the White House continued to stand strong against Congressional efforts to force a permit for Keystone -- as the president's press secretary pointed out (in a pointed tweet) the administration's new fuel efficiency standards for cars would save more oil than the pipeline could deliver in 45 years.
But the second study made clear to tarsands opponents -- if it hadn't been already -- that this was only one battle in a much larger fight. A new study from a pair of British Columbia scientists shows that there's a lot of carbon in the tarsands -- but a lot more yet in the planet's coal deposits.
If you burned all the tarsands we know about now, you'd raise the planet's temperature more than half a degree -- i.e., half again as much as the global warming we've already seen, which has been enough to make the seas 30% more acid and cut Arctic sea ice 40%. But if you burned all the coal we know about it, the temperature would go up 15 degrees.
At a certain point, I suppose, it doesn't matter -- most scientists think anything more than two degrees Celsius puts us into a zone of extreme danger, and we're already halfway there. Fifteen degrees would be just gilding the lily. Still, it makes it clear that even if, as NASA's James Hansen has said, burning the planet's unconventional fuels like tarsands would mean it was "game over the for the climate," stopping that burning won't be enough. We also have to address the most obvious, conventional forms of energy -- coal, especially. It was the first kind of fossil fuel we learned to burn, 300 years ago. And we've got to kick the habit.
Which is why, even as the political gamesmanship over the Keystone pipeline rages on (with the GOP at the moment making the absurd claim that this export pipeline will lower U.S. pump prices), we've got no choice but to take on other battles. 350.org has been embroiled these last weeks in the fight over a massive new coal plant in Kosovo; closer to home, plans were just announced for a truly massive new coal port in Washington State that would take eight mile-long coal trains a day from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming and ship them straight to China.
We've got to stop projects like this, just as we united to fight Keystone. In fact, we've got -- as soon as possible -- to stop fighting bad things one by one. We don't have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike; we need to change the basic underlying economics, by charging the fossil fuel industry for the damage carbon does in the atmosphere instead of just letting them continue to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for free.
The fact that there's more coal than tarsands doesn't change the math of the Keystone debate. As the scientist who did the study pointed out, this is "not a get out of jail free card" to the tarsands industry, and added that he also opposed the proposed Gateway pipeline to Canada's Pacific coast.
But it is a powerful reminder that we don't get to rest in a fight that we're still losing, a fight that has many fronts but only one central tenet: the future of the earth depends on keeping carbon underground.
Im serious tar sands and this pipeline are a death knell to the planet ... if you dont know that by now in fking marshmallow land..... you better get educated quick.
all I can picture is myself f* in a shack with a shotgun cuz the idiots who think they are in charge of this place ruined it and were going down the shitter quick
I keep hearing those D. Boon lines:
"Ship's creaking
Taking on bullshit
I fucking scream
Jump ship! Jump ship!"
Only theres too many sharks in the water and nowhere to go.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... ean-energy
Iowa View: Oil billionaires wrong about clean energy
My name is Rob Hach. I am an Iowa farm boy who moved into town to start a business. That was 10 years ago.
Today my wife and I have 28 employees and four offices in four states at Anemometry Specialists. We work in the wind industry on turbines. We are proud to be among those who help make Iowa the No. 1 state in the country for wind jobs. Iowa also ranks second in electricity generation from wind.
Last August, during President Obama’s rural tour through the Midwest, I had a chance to tell him I have 28 employees working in wind energy who have been kept on our payroll thanks to his administration’s investment in clean energy.
That’s why it makes me so angry to see secretive oil billionaires spending millions of dollars on false smear TV commercials targeting the president’s investments in clean energy. It is difficult to watch these people air their TV ads slapping around the president’s support of my employees’ jobs and ridiculous claims that he created jobs in Mexico and China.
The president kept our doors open and our employees working because of the wind-production tax credit and 1603 Treasury grant program.
And we were able to keep jobs in Iowa. The majority of the people I employ here in Alta are either farm kids or still working on the family farm in the evening. Today, the school district in Alta receives somewhere between 16 percent and 20 percent of its revenue from wind turbines. And almost 30 percent of the taxes paid into the county are off wind turbines.
Wind is an American success story in Iowa.
I support the president and his energy policy because it supports the American farmer and is good for our national security because we still are too dependent on Middle East dictators for our energy needs.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney, in his economic plan, has said wind and solar power are technologies that “make little sense for the consuming public but great sense only for the companies reaping profits from taxpayer subsidies.”
I can tell you that I’m not reaping massive profits like the oil billionaires funding these ads with their billions in subsidies and tax breaks. Right now my wife and I are living invoice to invoice, praying we have enough money to make payroll every two weeks. I have missed Christmas concerts, wedding anniversaries and school plays and sacrificed so much more to keep my business going.
Romney also says in his jobs plan that the highly skilled personnel who design and build heavy capital equipment like wind turbines “comprise only a minuscule fraction of the U.S. labor force. Even if the sector were to grow rapidly, it would not make much of a dent in the overall employment picture.”
I guess he missed the fact that Iowa has turbine or power production facilities in Fort Madison, West Branch, Cedar Rapids and Newton that employ thousands of people. In some counties in Iowa, wind manufacturing companies are now the largest employer.
When this lands in the local paper, I am going to shock a few people. Many people locally know I am a registered Republican. But I believe in voting for the best candidate and the one who understands that clean energy is helping to revitalize small towns across Iowa and bringing manufacturing back to America when so many other industries have fled town.
I want the people to know that the president is keeping my American dream alive. Forget all the special-interest, out-of-state oil money and ads.
The proof of the success of Obama’s investments in clean energy can be seen in the wind blades dotting the landscapes all across Iowa.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Wind, yes! Here's another idea that might prove to be useful. The design shown in this article is great because these windstalks kill fewer birds. Looks pretty cool at night too!:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-pow ... lades.html
I'm not too informed on green/clean energy, but last year I went on a road trip to Indiana and Michigan with my aunt and uncle and throughout Indiana, I saw tons of solar panels. It was really cool to see. I took some pictures of them.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... -fracking/
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
This begs the question- why aren't our leaders talking about this? Why aren't they urging us to lessen our commute distances, build walkable communities, improve and expand our rail system (which move more products and passengers per energy unit than cars, planes and trucks) and, at the very least, urge people to drive vehicles that get better gas mileage?
how dare us expect our leaders and other country leaders to live normally in a humble way.
they desire oil wealth beyond their wildest dreams. for this exact life style they will not promote anything but what suites their agendas.
all that plus many people in our societies are carefree, lazy and stupid
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Thoughts?
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful