Castanet

So, if you're promoting the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to get more bitumen out of the ground and ship it to other countries are you also a person that doesn't believe climate change is caused by human industry?

Or, if you want to see the expansion but also believe that humans accelerated climate change how does one position square with the other?

The "zealots" exist on both sides ... either trying to stop continued "easy" use of oil ... or saying that you can't fight the status quo ... our minds were made up before we got here, the poll just gave us an excuse to scream out our position ... I can still have a beer with you as long as we don't talk about this subject, I hate getting frustrated ... (but I still keep posting here so I must like frustration subconsciously)

spooker wrote:So, if you're promoting the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to get more bitumen out of the ground and ship it to other countries are you also a person that doesn't believe climate change is caused by human industry?

Or, if you want to see the expansion but also believe that humans accelerated climate change how does one position square with the other?

The "zealots" exist on both sides ... either trying to stop continued "easy" use of oil ... or saying that you can't fight the status quo ... our minds were made up before we got here, the poll just gave us an excuse to scream out our position ... I can still have a beer with you as long as we don't talk about this subject, I hate getting frustrated ... (but I still keep posting here so I must like frustration subconsciously)

What if you simply support the pipeline expansion because you believe a) the bitumen will be needed for quite some time as we ease away from fossil fuels in a sensible way that doesn't cause energy poverty, and b) this is the most environmentally sensible way to get that bitumen where it needs to go?

rustled wrote:What if you simply support the pipeline expansion because you believe a) the bitumen will be needed for quite some time as we ease away from fossil fuels in a sensible way that doesn't cause energy poverty, and b) this is the most environmentally sensible way to get that bitumen where it needs to go?

I'm not saying that bitumen has to go away right now ... but why increase capacity if we're going to be transitioning away from it?

It sounds more like a race ... get the product there faster before we transition ... producers are reading the writing on the wall and want to exploit the "car is everything generation" before the market closes ...

spooker wrote:

rustled wrote:What if you simply support the pipeline expansion because you believe a) the bitumen will be needed for quite some time as we ease away from fossil fuels in a sensible way that doesn't cause energy poverty, and b) this is the most environmentally sensible way to get that bitumen where it needs to go?

I'm not saying that bitumen has to go away right now ... but why increase capacity if we're going to be transitioning away from it?

It sounds more like a race ... get the product there faster before we transition ... producers are reading the writing on the wall and want to exploit the "car is everything generation" before the market closes ...

I understand what you're suggesting about those profiting from fossil fuels hurrying to make their profit. Interestingly, several have been diversifying into renewables. They see what's coming, too.

Realistically, it looks like the transition will take decades. Pushing to get it done more quickly has caused energy poverty in several jurisdictions, has negatively impacted the grid's ability to deliver consistent energy during peak demand, and has had significant unintended negative consequences for the environment. We've learned from this. It is unlikely moving the transportation sector away from fossil fuels will happen in the near future.

Meanwhile, our current pipelines are no longer meeting current need. Thinking globally, unless we move toward nuclear our increasing population will drive the need for more energy, and realistically those needs cannot yet be met everywhere with renewables.

During transition, we can rely more heavily on rail and train to meet current need. I suspect this would burn more fossil fuels to transport it this way, but more importantly we'd be taking a far greater risk with the environment, and with people's lives as we saw in Lac Megantic. That was a very unusual occurrence, thank goodness, but we should also consider the lives lost in traffic accidents involving transport as well. And the cost of maintaining and upgrading transportation infrastructure.

To me, it simply seems practical to use pipelines.

Here's something new to think about:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bitumen-balls-pellets-pipelines-rail-train-transport-energy-alberta-technology-1.4277320

spooker wrote:Here's something new to think about:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bitumen-balls-pellets-pipelines-rail-train-transport-energy-alberta-technology-1.4277320

Beat you to it...

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=74415

Bsuds wrote:Beat you to it...

http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=74415

True ... but I posted to the relevant thread first?

Bitumen balls.......whatever will CAPP come up with next to expand the tar pits? There's enough bitumen in storage now to pave a couple of Trans Canada Hwys plus all of the neglected B.C. roads. Perhaps they should think about using those reserves first? China is well on its way to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy anyway. Doubt if they'll be paying more than the bare minimum for AB bitumen in the meantime.

Cactusflower wrote:Bitumen balls.......whatever will CAPP come up with next to expand the tar pits? There's enough bitumen in storage now to pave a couple of Trans Canada Hwys plus all of the neglected B.C. roads. Perhaps they should think about using those reserves first? China is well on its way to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy anyway. Doubt if they'll be paying more than the bare minimum for AB bitumen in the meantime.

not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.

maryjane48 wrote:not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.

I'm surprised you are encouraging an increase tanker traffic MJ

GordonH wrote:

maryjane48 wrote:not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.

I'm surprised you are encouraging an increase tanker traffic MJ

*removed* i wasnt aware if we got oil from states it would have to be shipped. we do have pipelines going south

maryjane48 wrote:not only that, after the hurricanes theres going to be a glut of cheap sweet crude on market. canada could cash in by importing it and refining it.

GordonH wrote:I'm surprised you are encouraging an increase tanker traffic MJ

maryjane48 wrote:*removed* i wasnt aware if we got oil from states it would have to be shipped. we do have pipelines going south

Well, sweet crude you mentioned usually comes into US via oil tanker from an OPEC country. So you want them unload in US then pipe it up to Canada.
Even if Canada could process it, why not just reroute the tankers.