portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

sustainability

What do you know about Keystone?

a question.
Currently in 2015 does a pipeline exist from the Canadian oil/tar sands area of Alberta to the United States and Gulf Coast?

If you answered no, then you would have given the same answer I did, because I assumed that was what this Keystone fight was about.

As you can see from the map(s), there are already pipelines in operation. The new Keystone route appears to just be another one that is a shortcut.

map 11.Jan.2015 07:57

izzy

Map of pipelines.

keystone 11.Jan.2015 08:13

anon

What do I know about Keystone?

Tar sands oil is meant more for plastics and other derivative products than for energy production. It's domestic value is to replace the dwindling supply from offshore Gulf of Mexico wells for refineries and plastic plants in TX and LA, as well as for export as the world market now has a lot of plastics production coming from the far east.

I also know that the tar sands oil will be produced, and exported no matter if Keystone is built (expanded) or not. Canada is not going to sit on their hands and ignore the revenue, they'll simply re-route to a more expensive route to one of their seaports if that's what we decide. We'll continue to use tar sands oil as we do today through the existing pipelines, but the increased production will go directly to the orient no matter what we do.

There are much more important fights to fight, such as stopping fracking which is potentially destroying our groundwater supply, and fully funding solar and wind.

The fracking Jinnee is out of the bottle for good 11.Jan.2015 09:43

i9

Whether you believe fracking destroys ground waters (which are usually about 1000 foot down at the most), and fracking for fossil fuels takes place way down about 3000 to 12,000 feet, is irrelevant.

Fracking is here to stay. Its use is blossoming all over the world as a way to bring hundreds of years worth of fuel to the surface for use.

As to Keystone, this is a minor pissing contest that is more a distraction and eco-bubba bait than it is a practical matter. As any pipeline map (you choose one) shows there are multiple existing pipelines moving tar/oil sands from Alberta south to refineries in the Midwest and south. the problem is there is more oil in Alberta than these pipelines can handle, hence the movement by rail into the US.

Fracking and why-leaving-fossil-fuels-in-ground-good-for-everyone even i9 11.Jan.2015 14:45

information

Why leaving fossil fuels in the ground is good for everyone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you read this, a monster of a bill is passing smoothly and quietly through Britain's parliament. It's so big and complex, and covers so many topics, that it makes a mockery of democracy.

The infrastructure bill epitomises the rising trend of legislation-stuffing: cramming so many unrelated issues into one bag that parliamentary votes become meaningless. MPs must either accept this great bundle of unrelated measures in its entirety or reject it in its entirety. So laws can pass which no one in their right mind would have voted for.

[READ MORE]
 link to www.theguardian.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, on the day that MPs sit down in committee to discuss this bill, the journal Nature publishes the most detailed scientific paper yet on how much fossil fuel should be left in the ground if we're to have a chance of preventing more than 2C of global warming.

[READ MORE]
 http://tinyurl.com/nybsqsh [tiny URL link - see attached pic for screen shot]

no doubt 11.Jan.2015 16:32

carbon

No doubt carbon should be left in the ground to the extent possible. But the computer I'm typing on is made of plastic, it's running on electricity that is 40% plus from coal, and I'm burning nat gas so I don't freeze to death. The price of gas is not the issue, managing an orderly transformation of our energy policy is.

I'd like to spend money on solar panels but can't afford to do so unless the economy improves and Congress keeps the tax credits in place. All the solar possible on my roof won't amount to more than 25% of my home energy usage however, so I'll be improving insulation etc bit by bit. But I'll still be burning nat gas for as long as I live in this house.

I'd love to move our entire economy away from burning carbon, but it won't happen overnight and we need to carefully choose what we do in the meanwhile. And the geopolitical choices of getting energy from North America rather than from the Middle East and places like Venezuela and Mexico are not insignificant.

oops 11.Jan.2015 18:15

doh

Yes, Mexico is part of North America. Too bad Indymedia doesn't allow edits.

carbon 11.Jan.2015 21:17

i9

Odd thing, most people would rather keep warm, and eat rather than freeze and starve. there is no real substitute for Fossil fuels despite all the technological advances.

governments are not going to leave fuel in the ground because of peoples beliefs, and really thats what it comes down to. A belief.