Ohhhh the penny drops

[callmeslick]

I'll leave the Keystone decision up to two groups, if I could;
1. the people who drink water from the aquifer the pipe traverses and,
2. the overall view of scientists as to the environmental impact of using oil extracted in such a manner, and of such poor quality.

[Pudfark]

How do ya think? The Canadians are obtaining their oil? Where the majority of our oil comes from?

[callmeslick]

it may be the bulk of Canadian oil, but isn't the bulk of ours overall(a good chunk of it, yes),but Canadians have to deal with the damage entailed by the dirty extraction method.

[fatman]

Mark Ruffalo

[Pudfark]

it may be the bulk of Canadian oil, but isn't the bulk of ours overall(a good chunk of it, yes),but Canadians have to deal with the damage entailed by the dirty extraction method.

Well this now qualifies me to teach kindergarten..."What a Slick, explain.....duh"
You say it's a Canadian problem....yes, it is....it's called profit. You say it's their dirty method and they have to deal with it....I say, whatever they do? You have to live with it....to include, whether they take responsibility for it....as in BP or you send'em yer money for it and ignore the poor, here.

R_D should be having a good laugh at your naive "expense", Slick....I did.

[Darkhorse]

2. the overall view of scientists as to the environmental impact of using oil extracted in such a manner, and of such poor quality.

Slick you need to do at the least a little research on the product coming from Canada.
1. It is not "FRACKED", it is surface mined.
2. Bitumen, the heavy-oil that comes from Canada is used for many things. Next time it rains thank GOD you have it over your head and when you drive your car it's under your tires!
3. We now get most all of our heavy-oil from Venezuela, getting it closer would make it cheaper!
4. If the Keystone pipeline does not happen the Northwest pipeline will and the heavy-oil will go to China. Obama is backed by the company that wants to build the Northwest pipeline, you do the math.
There are down sides to the heavy-oil; harder to transport, costs more to refine but technology is moving forward and chipping away at those costs.
It would be great to move away from oil and coal. It will not happen overnight and you shutting it down before there is a viable replacement will only strangle this country!

[Pudfark]

I have forgotten the name of the method used in extracting oil in Canada..

It is a thermal process and involves steam to separate the oil from the sands, if I remember correctly?
It was rumored, years ago, ten or so...that to make the process financially viable back then, oil had to be above $100 bucks a barrel. Seems they've found a cheaper or better way to get it out.

My point earlier was about which way the water flows from Canada....mostly, north to south..perhaps, I was to subtle. What is amusing to me....Slick pontificates on "green energy" and lords it over everybody, cuz he can afford it.....yet he is on "oil heat" and I'm on electricity.

[Pudfark]

Comment on this R_D, Chipz?

Oh, Canada
How America's friendly northern neighbor became a rogue, reckless petrostate.

For decades, the world has thought of Canada as America's friendly northern neighbor -- a responsible, earnest, if somewhat boring, land of hockey fans and single-payer health care. On the big issues, it has long played the global Boy Scout, reliably providing moral leadership on everything from ozone protection to land-mine eradication to gay rights. The late novelist Douglas Adams once quipped that if the United States often behaved like a belligerent teenage boy, Canada was an intelligent woman in her mid-30s. Basically, Canada has been the United States -- not as it is, but as it should be.

But a dark secret lurks in the northern forests. Over the last decade, Canada has not so quietly become an international mining center and a rogue petrostate. It's no longer America's better half, but a dystopian vision of the continent's energy-soaked future.

That's right: The good neighbor has banked its economy on the cursed elixir of political dysfunction -- oil. Flush with visions of becoming a global energy superpower, Canada's government has taken up with pipeline evangelists, petroleum bullies, and climate change skeptics. Turns out the Boy Scout's not just hooked on junk crude -- he's become a pusher. And that's not even the worst of it.

Entire article here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... /oh_canada

For the record, I'm not picking on Canada. Just curious and if you have the time and read the whole article, your thoughts/observations would be appreciated. Thanx.

[Darkhorse]

Interesting read Pud.

[callmeslick]

2. the overall view of scientists as to the environmental impact of using oil extracted in such a manner, and of such poor quality.

Slick you need to do at the least a little research on the product coming from Canada.
1. It is not "FRACKED", it is surface mined.

it is extracted from oil sands. A messy, environmentally dubious method that produces relatively low-grade petroleum.

2. Bitumen, the heavy-oil that comes from Canada is used for many things. Next time it rains thank GOD you have it over your head and when you drive your car it's under your tires!

not what I'm talking about.

3. We now get most all of our heavy-oil from Venezuela, getting it closer would make it cheaper!

given the building required, and the shipping distance, are you sure it's that much of a bargain.

4. If the Keystone pipeline does not happen the Northwest pipeline will and the heavy-oil will go to China. Obama is backed by the company that wants to build the Northwest pipeline, you do the math.

I will, as soon as you do the facts. Who are these people, and how are they involved?

There are down sides to the heavy-oil; harder to transport, costs more to refine but technology is moving forward and chipping away at those costs.
It would be great to move away from oil and coal. It will not happen overnight and you shutting it down before there is a viable replacement will only strangle this country!

until you focus on the alternatives that WILL BE NEEDED, sooner than later, you lose the technical edge that will determine who the dominant player in the next economic era will be. It's that simple. We have the luxury of massive natural gas supplies, and ought to lean on them during the transition, rather than piss away economic and environmental resources on 19th century energy. I'm surely knowledgable enough to realize the costs involved with extracting the gas, and the oil from offshore rigs, but to build, at great expense, and oil pipeline, when we need LNG piping, strikes me as sort of foolish.