Oil Sands

[ZsoZso]

Why can't the pipeline simply go to the coast in Canada and ship from there? Seems like the pipeline would be much shorter and cheaper.

That is also happenning despite lots of protests against it:
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enbridge Gateway Pipeline/ Offshore Tanker Traffic [BC] | Oil Sands Truth: Shut down the Tar Sands

There is already a pipeline operating to the west coast (Vancouver area) called Trans Mountain pipeline system from Edmonton

 

[Canuck]

In between the all Canadian shoulder pats, when do you predict to stop extracting tar sands?

The question is valid, but the cheap shot is uncalled for. It makes you look really bad. I find it strange that you can't see that.

The tar sand extraction will continue as long as the price of oil exceeds the high costs of extraction -- which it will for the foreseeable future. Even if the NDP come to power federally (the Greens don't have a chance) it won't stop the extraction. As a Canadian, I'm embarrassed by the tar sands. I discuss it with my more conservative friends who tell me that (copying from an email): "It's a tough call , Canada was and is built on our resources. With a small population, huge resources and a stable government, its made us rich. It gives us all a life style that is envied around the world and contributes to our universal medical care." Rather than argue, I drive a Tesla and I bought a Leaf for my daughter and I try to consume as little gas as possible.

 

[Doug_G]

I'm sure many of the people who protest pipelines and oil sands also bitch about the price of gas. Practically speaking, as things stand right now the world actually does need this source of supply. The problem isn't really the oil sands, or any other source, it's the consumption.

We need to transition to sustainable transport so we can preserve the oil supplies we have for industrial chemicals and processes that our civilization needs for centuries to come.

 

[Canuck]

I'm sure many of the people who protest pipelines and oil sands also bitch about the price of gas.

Then they'll bitch even further if the pipeline is built, since there's some very good logic to say it will drive prices up, not down:

Why The Keystone Pipeline Will Actually RAISE Gas Prices In the U.S. | Zero Hedge

 

[Jeff Miller]

Practically speaking, as things stand right now the world actually does need this source of supply. The problem isn't really the oil sands, or any other source, it's the consumption.

Consumption is the ultimate problem, but there is a particular problem with the oil sands mentioned by zsozso, namely that total carbon emissions (well (mine?) to wheel) are higher than for conventional oil. The exact amount higher isn't clear, but 20% seems like a typical number:

Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From a climate perspective, tar sand oil is a step in the wrong direction. Not to mention the local destruction caused by the mining.

A well calibrated "at the source" carbon tax (+tariff + rebate) would make all of the discussion about pipelines and mining moot. You could let people build and buy whatever they wanted, knowing that the true carbon prices would be correctly embedded in prices at every step. People could buy the cheapest thing and not worry if it were the right thing for the climate, since the relevant info would already be in the price.

 

[Doug_G]

Consumption is the ultimate problem, but there is a particular problem with the oil sands mentioned by zsozso, namely that total carbon emissions (well (mine?) to wheel) are higher than for conventional oil. The exact amount higher isn't clear, but 20% seems like a typical number:

Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From a climate perspective, tar sand oil is a step in the wrong direction. Not to mention the local destruction caused by the mining.

True, but singling out the Canadian oil sands is just picking a target of opportunity. Conventional oil supplies are drying up worldwide, and there's all kinds of extraction going on all around the world that have higher costs and environmental footprints.

My point is, this is all going to continue unabated unless we do something about consumption.

A well calibrated "at the source" carbon tax (+tariff + rebate) would make all of the discussion about pipelines and mining moot. You could let people build and buy whatever they wanted, knowing that the true carbon prices would be correctly embedded in prices at every step. People could buy the cheapest thing and not worry if it were the right thing for the climate, since the relevant info would already be in the price.

Yes, the correct economic response is a true revenue neutral carbon tax. Unfortunately it's going to be very hard to create a consensus on this.

 

[VolkerP]

I decided to monitor this thread before coming back. I am the OP, but that post was a side note and got moved into a thread of its own. In conjunction with unclear wording, I think it came over quite inflammatory :redface:

I think this is the consensus for the answer to my question:
- extracting hydrocarbons from Canadian soil will continue until it is no longer economical to do so.
- the economics are driven by supply and demand, and the cost balance can be influenced e.g. by carbon tax

Beyond that it still boggles my mind why any government would allow a company to destroy nature to this extend. But we have strip mining for lignite coal in Germany which is disastrous at a comparable level.

 

[nwdiver]

IMO this idea of simply surrendering to economics is wrong. Obviously making the extraction of oil from tar sands uncompetitive with PV will work to stop the practice but there are several paths to victory. Protesting and blocking projects like KXL will help delay this extraction. Reducing supply and increasing the cost of oil only helps make alternatives more attractive.

 

[ZsoZso]

Protesting has limited effects for the following reasons:

1. Businesses do not care about protests, if protesters prevent them from doing their lawful work, they just call the police to take care of the protesters

2. Political parties only care about protests if they have a realistic fear the protesters can sway sufficient number of votes away from them to their competitors. This in turn depends on a number of factors, including:
- size & visibility of the protest (how many people, what percentage of voting population)
- stance of the oppositon on the question, i.e. whether their opposition party is supportive of the cause of the protest

The last subpoint is key in the question of tarsands. None of the major parties would be willing to stop the extraction (green party is a non-player), therefore the governing party has no fear of any protest regardless of other aspects (size, visibility, public opinion).

 

[Robert.Boston]

Beyond that it still boggles my mind why any government would allow a company to destroy nature to this extend. But we have strip mining for lignite coal in Germany which is disastrous at a comparable level.

There's a different sense in the New World about what rights are conveyed by land ownership. In Germany you cannot fell a large tree without a permit; in most places in the US, you can. Germans see the tree as part of the public commons, whereas North Americans see the tree as owned by property owner. Likewise, the North American owner of mineral rights can do most anything to extract those minerals, with only weak bounds placed by public health, worker safety, and environmental issues (e.g. endangered species).

 

[RiverBrick]

Obviously making the extraction of oil from tar sands uncompetitive with PV will work to stop the practice but there are several paths to victory. Protesting and blocking projects like KXL will help delay this extraction.

Unfortunately, they're managing to bypass or find alternatives for every oil sands project that is blocked.

Rail to Sorel-Tracy, East of Montreal, then export by ship is starting soon. The best guess is that the tankers will head for Gulf-Coast refineries. Note that the Quebec rail system is already so flooded with oil from North Dakota fracking that grain shipments are being delayed.


For the longer term, there are pipeline projects ending in Cacouna, Quebec, and in New Brunswick. The Cacouna-bound tar oil will then be loaded onto Super tankers for export. The companies apparently have Federal authorization for this and claim that they don't need any provincial or municipal permission.

 

[dhrivnak]

NWDIVER the only way tar sands will not be developed is when the USA stops using and importing more oil than any other country. Is it bad for the environment YES. But show me where franking is good or that shipping oil from halfway around the world is good.

Buying a Tesla is a good step in the right direction but we have MANY more steps to go.

Those up us in glass houses should not be throwing rocks.

 

[nwdiver]

I'm confused as to what exactly the point here is...

- That stopping tar sands extraction is going to be difficult so we should give up fighting it? That seems absurd.

- That since I still rely on services that rely on fossil fuels I should be supportive of extracting MORE and MORE and MORE? I WANT the cost of transporting goods with fossil fuels to go up... this will drive alternatives and once those alternatives are put to practice I will go out of my way to support them with my business.

If people can afford to waste fuel commuting in an F150 or wake boarding on the lake then our supply of oil isn't dire enough to justify exploiting tar sands...

 

[Robert.Boston]

The key, @nwdiver, is to have the consumer price rise without increasing the producer price. Higher consumer cost discourages low-value uses and encouraging adoption of energy-efficient technologies and other sustainable practices. But if producer prices also rise, they respond (as they have in Alberta) by extracting more, lower-quality forms of crude oil.

There's even a mechanism to do just that: a carbon tax.

 

[nwdiver]

In this case I do agree with the 'All of the Above' approach to breaking our addiction to fossil fuels... Hinder the progress of extracting other sources as much as possible AND make the sources they are able to extract as expensive as possible (A carbon tax).

 

[mspohr]

Kinder Morgan pipeline: Canadian government to buy project for $4.5bn
Kinder Morgan pipeline: Canadian government to buy project for $4.5bn

Reviving this old thread with news that the government is determined to build the Trans Mountain pipeline. They will bail out Kinder Morgan, ram the project through then sell it back.
Appalling corruption to damage the environment.