TC Energy scraps Keystone XL pipeline project after Biden revokes key permit(reuters.com)
reuters.com
TC Energy scraps Keystone XL pipeline project after Biden revokes key permit
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/tc-energy-terminates-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-2021-06-09/
442 comments
And yet y'all keep using oil.
If you don't like oil, there's an easy solution, stop buying it.
If you don't like oil, there's an easy solution, stop buying it.
That's not a remotely easy solution. It's just easy to state.
If someone can afford solar panels and an electric car (or don't need a car to get to work), more power to them, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of society.
If someone can afford solar panels and an electric car (or don't need a car to get to work), more power to them, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of society.
It is my understanding that solar pannels have an ROI that is ever shorter. Hell, in many countries there are companies that arrange installation and financing, and that have good prices due to centralised purchasing.
But that is another discussion. The real point is in the first R of the hierachy of the three R's : Reduce, Re-use, Re-cycle. No need to compensate huge use of energy, if you're not using the energy in the first place.
Some of the things we do in our household to reduce energy / CO2 / oil footprint (by decreasing order of impact):
Does this eliminate our footprint? No. But we are using, by my account, 20% that of an average American household. Can everyone do all of this? No, probably not. Buying a well-insulated house is expensive. Not everyone can use public transport. But if everyone made an effort, the world would be a different place today.
But that is another discussion. The real point is in the first R of the hierachy of the three R's : Reduce, Re-use, Re-cycle. No need to compensate huge use of energy, if you're not using the energy in the first place.
Some of the things we do in our household to reduce energy / CO2 / oil footprint (by decreasing order of impact):
* own a house that is well insulated
* instead of heating it, put on a sweater
* instead of using an A/C, close shutters during hot parts of day during hot season
* go on holiday by train or car
* own a tiny car, that is 10 years old (we have two boys)
* use the car only for exceptions (I bring the boys to school in a bus, train for work)
* no red meat, very little other meat
* buy less stuff
* recycle packaging / paper
* when we buy stuff, take into account packaging (reusable bags for rice, pasta, nuts, chocolate, etc)
Does this eliminate our footprint? No. But we are using, by my account, 20% that of an average American household. Can everyone do all of this? No, probably not. Buying a well-insulated house is expensive. Not everyone can use public transport. But if everyone made an effort, the world would be a different place today.
I'm not arguing that people can't reduce their carbon footprint, I'm arguing against a lazy suggestion that people don't actually care because they continue to buy any oil-based products, which is essentially unavoidable in modern society.
How are your going to convince 2 billion other people to do the same thing?
It doesn't matter if only you reduce.
It doesn't matter if only you reduce.
One person at a time. By leading by example, without being judgemental.
Big changes in society never come at once. Womens right, black rights, gay rights. Progress is made bit by bit.
And even if things don't budge, and it stays with just me. All human endeavour is pointless in the end. Each of us has to define what is important to him or her.
Big changes in society never come at once. Womens right, black rights, gay rights. Progress is made bit by bit.
And even if things don't budge, and it stays with just me. All human endeavour is pointless in the end. Each of us has to define what is important to him or her.
100%.
Nearly everyone can do something to reduce their footprint.
We need to encourage more small changes and avoid bashing people for not doing a complete lifestyle redesign straight away.
Just to keep it concrete, there’s huge benefit to reducing meat consumption - and you can still capture a lot of that benefit without going 100% vegan.
Nearly everyone can do something to reduce their footprint.
We need to encourage more small changes and avoid bashing people for not doing a complete lifestyle redesign straight away.
Just to keep it concrete, there’s huge benefit to reducing meat consumption - and you can still capture a lot of that benefit without going 100% vegan.
Most oil you buy indirectly. By buying groceries for example. Most non-local groceries could not be sold without oil-based transportation. In fact, if we stopped having oil-based transportation, we'd face starvation. Alternative fuel trucking and shipping is just not there yet in terms of scale.
I suppose that's my point. I was being a bit sarcasitic, but if we're going to use oil, we should transport it in the safest and most environmentally friendly way possible. If we don't want to use oil, pass lass preventing or limiting its use. Making oil transport be worse helps nobody.
Well, that's the strategy right? We can't cut our addiction to oil in one go, it would kill us. So we make oil more and more expensive, and in parallel we take that money and help get alternative energies to where they need to be.
So I agree that it would have made more ecological sense to say "sure, build your pipeline, but we'll take a steadily increasing cut for every gallon that goes through it, and we're going to spend it on developing solar/hydro/nuclear"
If the pipeline is still profitable, great! The net environmental impact will be positive. If not... tant pis
So I agree that it would have made more ecological sense to say "sure, build your pipeline, but we'll take a steadily increasing cut for every gallon that goes through it, and we're going to spend it on developing solar/hydro/nuclear"
If the pipeline is still profitable, great! The net environmental impact will be positive. If not... tant pis
Which is how it was going to work, since canada has a carbon tax (i mean, it wouldnt be as it flows down the pipeline, but at the point where its used, if in canada, but its kind of the same in the end)
Just a reminder that net environmental impact is not just "how efficient the transportation is" and how much CO2 is emitted, etc etc. It's also about tail risk and what the effects may be if leaks affect local watersheds. And due to the physics of oil pipelines, leaks are basically inevitable. These need to be taken into account when assessing what oil transport is "worse."
These have very tangible effects not only on wildlife but humans who say are getting their water from a contaminated water table.
These have very tangible effects not only on wildlife but humans who say are getting their water from a contaminated water table.
Trains leak more
Trains leak more often. Pipelines leak much larger volume, and the leaks are harder to find.
[deleted]
> Alternative fuel trucking and shipping is just not there yet in terms of scale.
It would be there if we wanted to make the necessary infrastructure investment. Currently everyone's looking at amazing new battery technology to enable electric transportation, but that isn't the only way to get there. We could be electrifying the interstate highway system so that cars can get power directly from the roads, and only need batteries for short local trips.
If we had wanted to enable electric transportation, say, forty years ago that would have been the only option. It would have been expensive but we could have done it. Now, batteries are good enough that we have a choice, but I still think electrifying the highways ought to be something we're seriously thinking about doing.
It would be there if we wanted to make the necessary infrastructure investment. Currently everyone's looking at amazing new battery technology to enable electric transportation, but that isn't the only way to get there. We could be electrifying the interstate highway system so that cars can get power directly from the roads, and only need batteries for short local trips.
If we had wanted to enable electric transportation, say, forty years ago that would have been the only option. It would have been expensive but we could have done it. Now, batteries are good enough that we have a choice, but I still think electrifying the highways ought to be something we're seriously thinking about doing.
I like the idea of a big spend on electric vehicles. The government essentially buys your petro clunker and gives you a $20k tax credit toward an electric vehicle. Maybe shoot for 5 million vehicles a year for only $100 billion per year. Some of the money could come from a gas/CO2 tax.
Electric roadways aren’t mutually exclusive to a credit either. I think putting solar roofs over roadways might be interesting for energy use and keeping the roadway safer. On sensitive areas you might keep the roads from getting snow and ice buildup in the winter.
Electric roadways aren’t mutually exclusive to a credit either. I think putting solar roofs over roadways might be interesting for energy use and keeping the roadway safer. On sensitive areas you might keep the roads from getting snow and ice buildup in the winter.
Another way to get more EVs faster is for EV tax credits to apply to conversions as well as new vehicles. Let's say you have a Honda Civic. Ideally, you'd be able to buy a kit from Honda or a 3rd party that has all the parts including battery boxes and hire your local mechanic to install it.
Right now, hardly anyone does conversions except well-motivated hobbyists because many of the parts have to be made from scratch and you have to do a lot of custom engineering per vehicle. Also the parts that are available tend to be expensive and produced in low volume.
Right now, hardly anyone does conversions except well-motivated hobbyists because many of the parts have to be made from scratch and you have to do a lot of custom engineering per vehicle. Also the parts that are available tend to be expensive and produced in low volume.
"I would like to change society"
"And yet you live in society and participate in its processes! Clearly this invalidates everything you have to say"
"And yet you live in society and participate in its processes! Clearly this invalidates everything you have to say"
Well you do live in a democracy (i am assuming usa here). Participating in society's processes is the answer! There's much more effective ways to disincentivize oil than to force it to be transported in a manner that takes additional fossil fuels. (New/More) Carbon taxes would be a good start.
My criticism is not that people criticize things well failing to be paragons of virtues. My criticism is that i dont think removing pipelines will improve the situation (if anything it makes it worse). Reducing dependence on oil is the answer. That doesn't mean going cold turkey overnight, but it is the thing that should be concentrated on.
I feel like attacking the pipeline to fix climate change, is kind of like trying to fix the drug problem by attacking safe injection sites. It might feel like a victory in some sense but its not actually improving anything and is probably actually increasing harm.
My criticism is not that people criticize things well failing to be paragons of virtues. My criticism is that i dont think removing pipelines will improve the situation (if anything it makes it worse). Reducing dependence on oil is the answer. That doesn't mean going cold turkey overnight, but it is the thing that should be concentrated on.
I feel like attacking the pipeline to fix climate change, is kind of like trying to fix the drug problem by attacking safe injection sites. It might feel like a victory in some sense but its not actually improving anything and is probably actually increasing harm.
We (the USA) barely live in a democracy. Between inequal Senate representation, gerrymandering in state legislatures and the House, a broken, corrupt campaign finance system, and an underfunded election system primarily built to disenfranchise voters of color, it's hard to make the argument that any government in the US represents the will of its constituents.
A majority of Americans support the right to choose [1], a path to amnesty for undocumented persons [2], restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership [3], moving off of fossil fuels and treating climate change like the threat it is [4], a wealth tax on people with a net worth of over $50m [5], the expanded voting rights in HR 1 [6], etc. etc. etc.
Sorry I know I'm overreacting, but I think a lot of people are unaware of how dire the situation really is. If we truly lived in a democracy, we'd be moving towards at least some of these things.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-i...
[2]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-d4f4-dd7d-ab77-fcfd4...
[3]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-cfbd-d112-a97e-ffbde...
[4]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climat...
[5]: https://www.businessinsider.com/over-half-americans-see-weal...
[6]: https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/4/dfp-vox-hr-...
A majority of Americans support the right to choose [1], a path to amnesty for undocumented persons [2], restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership [3], moving off of fossil fuels and treating climate change like the threat it is [4], a wealth tax on people with a net worth of over $50m [5], the expanded voting rights in HR 1 [6], etc. etc. etc.
Sorry I know I'm overreacting, but I think a lot of people are unaware of how dire the situation really is. If we truly lived in a democracy, we'd be moving towards at least some of these things.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-i...
[2]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-d4f4-dd7d-ab77-fcfd4...
[3]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-cfbd-d112-a97e-ffbde...
[4]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climat...
[5]: https://www.businessinsider.com/over-half-americans-see-weal...
[6]: https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/4/dfp-vox-hr-...
A cute, overused reply that doesn’t quite apply here. If you want to reduce your “personal carbon footprint” you absolutely can.
I think the point generally is that you can't appreciably fix the problems we face with individual action.
Why do Americans use so much energy? Because it's cheap as a result of excluding the externality of pollution from the price.
Why do Americans generate so much waste? Because there's no reasonable way to avoid it other than to never purchase any goods that are:
- over-packaged
- packaged in non-sustainable packaging
- created/manufactured in wasteful processes
...because the externality of waste generation isn't factored into the price.
Why do Americans ship such a huge percentage of goods using fossil-fuel-fueled transportation? Because for years we didn't build rail in service of propping up the automobile industry, and because the externality of pollution from car exhaust isn't factored into the transportation price.
There are plenty of people who diligently split their trash, compost, glass, paper, plastics. There are plenty of communities that charge by the pound of unrecyclable waste. There are plenty of subsidies for installing solar panels, and energy companies giving credits for green energy generation (and other programs, like offering to provide only green energy for a premium). After years of this, we still have a huge problem. Individual action isn't the answer. It was always a smokescreen pushed on us by fossil fuel energy companies to avoid taking responsibility themselves.
Why do Americans use so much energy? Because it's cheap as a result of excluding the externality of pollution from the price.
Why do Americans generate so much waste? Because there's no reasonable way to avoid it other than to never purchase any goods that are:
- over-packaged
- packaged in non-sustainable packaging
- created/manufactured in wasteful processes
...because the externality of waste generation isn't factored into the price.
Why do Americans ship such a huge percentage of goods using fossil-fuel-fueled transportation? Because for years we didn't build rail in service of propping up the automobile industry, and because the externality of pollution from car exhaust isn't factored into the transportation price.
There are plenty of people who diligently split their trash, compost, glass, paper, plastics. There are plenty of communities that charge by the pound of unrecyclable waste. There are plenty of subsidies for installing solar panels, and energy companies giving credits for green energy generation (and other programs, like offering to provide only green energy for a premium). After years of this, we still have a huge problem. Individual action isn't the answer. It was always a smokescreen pushed on us by fossil fuel energy companies to avoid taking responsibility themselves.
If it would be just as cheap to ship via train or boat then why make the pipeline? If it costs more to ship then it costs more to sell and less of it will be sold. That, in itself, devoid of any bigger picture market predictions, is a huge win for humanity.
Fuck underpaying for carbon emissions. There need to be some current winners made into losers if we pretend to be humans that care about the future of humanity.
Fuck underpaying for carbon emissions. There need to be some current winners made into losers if we pretend to be humans that care about the future of humanity.
You could get the safety and efficiency advantages of pipelines while still creating the same cost increase through taxes.
Blocking pipelines is not a logical way to achieve that cost increase. That would simply make oil more expensive because it's now less safe/efficient. That does not actually cause the externalities to be priced in like a tax could achieve.
Blocking pipelines is not a logical way to achieve that cost increase. That would simply make oil more expensive because it's now less safe/efficient. That does not actually cause the externalities to be priced in like a tax could achieve.
Conservatives don't like change. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. A carbon tax is the right solution, but it isn't the one we will see in this congress. Meanwhile actually doing something actually makes a difference. Pontificating hypothetical policy is not an alternative solution.
I’m fairly annoyed that the left is shutting down nuclear plants. They obviously don’t care one whit about climate change.
Not bleeding money into nuclear plants has bipartisan support. The way to make nuclear competitive is with a carbon tax. Guess which side opposes a carbon tax.
Do you have anything that supports this? This is not supported by anything I have read thus far and I think we are all aware that Nuclear was actually cheap back in the 60's. USA nuclear costs did increase drastically, especially after three Mile Island and political pressures. Many countries managed to keep costs consistent (Japan, Canada) though. Money doesn't need to bleed into Nuclear, and you should expect to see more investment there in the near future with fusion. The issues in USA with nuclear are over half a century old so I think your comment is disingenuous. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sure, but if they can sell conservatives on blocking the pipeline, why can't they sell conservatives on a carbon tax? If anything, I think it's more likely that the carbon tax could be seen as a bipartisan win between those options.
Because you don't need legislative approval to stop a pipeline from being built. If you're looking to make money but the executive pendulum swing will consistently block you, eventually you'll stop being able to push your behavior that people don't approve of because it isn't worth it. People lost money on Keystone XL. That's a good thing. That's the system working.
Also once you build the pipeline it's now got to be used for years to pay back the cost of building it.
Would be funnier to let them build the pipeline, and then not let them use it.
Would be funnier to let them build the pipeline, and then not let them use it.
> And there's always, like, this premise of, well, it's gonna get shipped anyway. No, it's not. Like, that's the whole point. No, it's not. Your industry is on its way out. And that's the point. And we all know that. You can't sit there and say, "Oh, well, it's gonna go by rail or it's gonna go by ship anyway. No, it's not. The tar sands are on their way out. And that's the reality.
I think this is purposely confusing two different arguments.
Nobody can deny that oil use is becoming less and less attractive and that is a good thing for everyone.
But if it is "on the way out", what's the need for blocking the pipeline? The need is that actually there are still significant usages of oil remaining even though it's "on the way out".
So those significant remaining usages actually DO add validity to the argument that blocking the pipeline will cause additional demand for oil trains/tankers. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to take any action at all.
I think this is purposely confusing two different arguments.
Nobody can deny that oil use is becoming less and less attractive and that is a good thing for everyone.
But if it is "on the way out", what's the need for blocking the pipeline? The need is that actually there are still significant usages of oil remaining even though it's "on the way out".
So those significant remaining usages actually DO add validity to the argument that blocking the pipeline will cause additional demand for oil trains/tankers. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to take any action at all.
The demand for shipping the oil via train or truck will also diminish over time as these horrible and expensive oil reserves are eventually made too expensive to extract. If you build a pipeline and put in the investment then you have standing infrastructure and sunk cost that will compel people to keep pulling out the tar sands oil, even at a loss. If they are forced to use tankers then the (higher) cost per barrel for transport is paid immediately and by the supplier instead of foisted off on some bond holders somewhere.
Pushing the transportation demand to trains/tankers is a GOOD thing, it makes everything visible and obvious and it prevents the oil company from hiding the factors that make this reserve the pile of flaming dogshit we all know it to be.
Pushing the transportation demand to trains/tankers is a GOOD thing, it makes everything visible and obvious and it prevents the oil company from hiding the factors that make this reserve the pile of flaming dogshit we all know it to be.
Perhaps the government should actually subsidize the pipeline to eliminate those extra sunk costs compared to tankers/trains. It would basically be like paying for carbon capture (except you're actually paying for it to just be transported more safely in the first place).
Why subsidize? Let the producer pay the freight. We want to eliminate this oil source anyway, so if there is anything we should be doing right now it is to more heavily tax oil sources like these which have such significant negative externalities.
> But if it is "on the way out", what's the need for blocking the pipeline?
It's economics. Shipping by pipeline is cheaper per gallon than shipping by rail/truck/ships. Even accounting for the huge capital costs to build the pipeline in the first place, once a pipeline is secured the marginal costs of shipping additional gallons is so much lower there would be more prices at which it would be profitable to extract tar sands oil versus if the tar sands extractors have to also account for the increased marginal costs of rail/truck/ships.
Tar sands extraction has already seen mass stoppages when the Saudis flooded the supply chain with oil and dropped the oil costs below what was profitable. (Tar sands extraction is worse for the environment than classic oil drilling and thankfully at least some [though never enough] of those externalities are at play in its costs versus oil drilling.)
Right now the price is up again and tar sands work probably is going back into place and it probably will still be shipped by rail/truck/ship. So the short term problem is the same.
But stopping a pipeline today keeps the pipeline from being a fully depreciated asset for oil sands five/ten/fifteen years from now when the supply/demand curve potentially invert and oil is super cheap again (because demand is way down). The higher marginal costs on shipping especially matter then, because potentially it stops tar sands extraction from again being profitable in far more frightening high supply/low demand periods. In that case it should mean less supply gets put onto the market, especially from high cost extraction techniques such as tar sands.
It's economics. Shipping by pipeline is cheaper per gallon than shipping by rail/truck/ships. Even accounting for the huge capital costs to build the pipeline in the first place, once a pipeline is secured the marginal costs of shipping additional gallons is so much lower there would be more prices at which it would be profitable to extract tar sands oil versus if the tar sands extractors have to also account for the increased marginal costs of rail/truck/ships.
Tar sands extraction has already seen mass stoppages when the Saudis flooded the supply chain with oil and dropped the oil costs below what was profitable. (Tar sands extraction is worse for the environment than classic oil drilling and thankfully at least some [though never enough] of those externalities are at play in its costs versus oil drilling.)
Right now the price is up again and tar sands work probably is going back into place and it probably will still be shipped by rail/truck/ship. So the short term problem is the same.
But stopping a pipeline today keeps the pipeline from being a fully depreciated asset for oil sands five/ten/fifteen years from now when the supply/demand curve potentially invert and oil is super cheap again (because demand is way down). The higher marginal costs on shipping especially matter then, because potentially it stops tar sands extraction from again being profitable in far more frightening high supply/low demand periods. In that case it should mean less supply gets put onto the market, especially from high cost extraction techniques such as tar sands.
The claim about carbon cost of shipping has no numbers attached to it and is most likely completely deceptive. It doesn't account for the energy return on energy invested of tar sands being 3x-10x less than conventional oil, an EROEI of 5 versus 18-50:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
We do not need this oil in particular, there's more than enough other oil, so there's no foregone conclusion that we are going to extract these tar sands.
Further, the need for stopping this particular pipeline is that we are not transitioning quickly enough, and it's a bad capital allocation that hurts our ability to make the investments we do need.
The pipeline isn't being installed to lower the carbon load of bringing the oil to market, it's only there to reduce costs, which means that there will be greater amounts of that oil brought to market, versus cheaper oil from other sources that don't require as much energy intensity. The pipeline only exists for these particular oil investors to profit, instead of other ones in other parts of the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
We do not need this oil in particular, there's more than enough other oil, so there's no foregone conclusion that we are going to extract these tar sands.
Further, the need for stopping this particular pipeline is that we are not transitioning quickly enough, and it's a bad capital allocation that hurts our ability to make the investments we do need.
The pipeline isn't being installed to lower the carbon load of bringing the oil to market, it's only there to reduce costs, which means that there will be greater amounts of that oil brought to market, versus cheaper oil from other sources that don't require as much energy intensity. The pipeline only exists for these particular oil investors to profit, instead of other ones in other parts of the world.
of course we need it, that's why the market was creating the pipeline. pretending that a group of experts can determine what the market needs or is essential, is de facto tyranny. what I can say for sure is that we need cheaper more reliable energy, and it is clear that this pipeline would do that for our country. instead the money and jobs go elsewhere.
what is amazing about this decision is that there was no rush to the courts for an injunction, no reliant interests. the company doesn't even put up a fight. I wonder why that is?
what is amazing about this decision is that there was no rush to the courts for an injunction, no reliant interests. the company doesn't even put up a fight. I wonder why that is?
Does 1) the market need the oil, or do 2) these particular oil producers need the pipeline in order to bring their product to market and compete with others, or do 3) these particular oil producers just want the pipeline to lower costs and increase profits?
The existence of a pipeline only proves 2 or 3, it doesn't necessitate 1.
The existence of a pipeline only proves 2 or 3, it doesn't necessitate 1.
People do more of things that are cheap, do less of things that are expensive.
The point of the pipeline was to lower the cost of moving oil, which would have accordingly increased oil production.
The goal of environmentalists is to make oil production as expensive as possible. Increasing the costs of transportation is part of that.
The point of the pipeline was to lower the cost of moving oil, which would have accordingly increased oil production.
The goal of environmentalists is to make oil production as expensive as possible. Increasing the costs of transportation is part of that.
The "logic" employed here is:
"We were told or otherwise made to believe your industry should stop doing what it's doing. Therefore, you should stop doing what you're doing." ("I know the future. You don't exist. So you might as well stop existing now.")
The irony is this person has no idea of "the reality." If the reality was that the pipeline served no purpose, had no value, it would not have gone through the lengthy process it's already been through. And if tar sands oil had no value, it wouldn't be retrieved.
But it will be. It will be retrieved and it will be transported, somehow, for the simple fact that people and industries use it. And if you choose a costlier method of transport, then people will feel those costs. Simply saying "No, it's not gonna go by rail or go by ship. Because I said so." is blind arrogance.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/06/10/tar-sands-compa...
The oil will still be extracted. It will still be transported to the entities who use it.
"We were told or otherwise made to believe your industry should stop doing what it's doing. Therefore, you should stop doing what you're doing." ("I know the future. You don't exist. So you might as well stop existing now.")
The irony is this person has no idea of "the reality." If the reality was that the pipeline served no purpose, had no value, it would not have gone through the lengthy process it's already been through. And if tar sands oil had no value, it wouldn't be retrieved.
But it will be. It will be retrieved and it will be transported, somehow, for the simple fact that people and industries use it. And if you choose a costlier method of transport, then people will feel those costs. Simply saying "No, it's not gonna go by rail or go by ship. Because I said so." is blind arrogance.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/06/10/tar-sands-compa...
The oil will still be extracted. It will still be transported to the entities who use it.
Oil pipelines do one thing - transport oil. Not water, not milk, not corn syrup. Just oil.
Rail can transport anything. Containers, tankers, even rocket booster segments.
Yes, we're absolutely taking a short term hit, but investing in general purpose infrastructure that can be adapted for new technology and demands is a good thing. The continental rail network started off with coal powered steam trains, then diesel, now diesel-electric and even some pure electric locomotives. Maybe this century it will evolve past fossil fuels as well.
So yes, cancel the pipeline, but in its place invest in the safety and reliability of rail networks.
Rail can transport anything. Containers, tankers, even rocket booster segments.
Yes, we're absolutely taking a short term hit, but investing in general purpose infrastructure that can be adapted for new technology and demands is a good thing. The continental rail network started off with coal powered steam trains, then diesel, now diesel-electric and even some pure electric locomotives. Maybe this century it will evolve past fossil fuels as well.
So yes, cancel the pipeline, but in its place invest in the safety and reliability of rail networks.
What about safety and natural disasters from rail and cost?
Let alone the cost of employing all the union railway workers, maintenance crews, technicians, etc and the footprint of the trains themselves operating.
There's a reason pipelines exist, and that is in their simplicity of transporting the product efficiently. Sure they can't transport anything else, but I don't think too many rocket boosters would be traveling to remote areas in Canada.
There's a reason pipelines exist, and that is in their simplicity of transporting the product efficiently. Sure they can't transport anything else, but I don't think too many rocket boosters would be traveling to remote areas in Canada.
> Let alone the cost of employing all the union railway workers, maintenance crews, technicians, etc
Nitpicking to make a point: Employing people and paying them well is not just an expense; it has some enormous benefits.
Nitpicking to make a point: Employing people and paying them well is not just an expense; it has some enormous benefits.
In the context of a discussion about what method of delivering oil is more efficient, wasting resources on employing people for unnecessary tasks does not have enormous benefits. From a society point of view, if the goal is to deliver oil, then it is a societal loss to do it inefficiently just to pay more people.
If the goal is to pay people, then just pay people, no need to do it in a roundabout way of forcing an inefficiency into the system.
If the goal is to pay people, then just pay people, no need to do it in a roundabout way of forcing an inefficiency into the system.
> wasting resources on employing people for unnecessary tasks does not have enormous benefits
Agreed, but that assumes perfect knowledge by business owners of what is most efficient.
I think business owners often lean much too far toward seeing labor as a commodity and an expense, to be minimized. Another approach is to see humans as the most powerful parts of the organization, and to invest in and empower them.
I'm speaking in the abstract; of course it's not always the case that more investment in labor is better. But there is a history of it: For example (and this is more a legend than something I have details on), back in the 1980s American auto companies had long treated workers as commodities. Toyota was far more successful by empowering them; famously, any worker could stop the assembly line.
Agreed, but that assumes perfect knowledge by business owners of what is most efficient.
I think business owners often lean much too far toward seeing labor as a commodity and an expense, to be minimized. Another approach is to see humans as the most powerful parts of the organization, and to invest in and empower them.
I'm speaking in the abstract; of course it's not always the case that more investment in labor is better. But there is a history of it: For example (and this is more a legend than something I have details on), back in the 1980s American auto companies had long treated workers as commodities. Toyota was far more successful by empowering them; famously, any worker could stop the assembly line.
Labor isn't ecologically inefficient. People are alive regardless of if they work.
Paying people well is very negative for the environment.
A poorly paid person will have a smaller car, smaller house, use less electricity and gas, and throw away far less trash.
In fact, wealth is very strongly correlated to environmental impact. Sure, rich people might be buying electric cars and recyclable coffee cups, but it nowhere near offsets the bigger house with A/C...
A poorly paid person will have a smaller car, smaller house, use less electricity and gas, and throw away far less trash.
In fact, wealth is very strongly correlated to environmental impact. Sure, rich people might be buying electric cars and recyclable coffee cups, but it nowhere near offsets the bigger house with A/C...
Then lets pay everyone well to dig holes in their backyard and fill them in.
Employing people is great gain only if they do something productive. If you can employ less people that is greater gain because those others can do something else useful.
Employing people is great gain only if they do something productive. If you can employ less people that is greater gain because those others can do something else useful.
Labor time is a expiring and renewing natural resource. It's OK to use some of it.
Great points, this and the other comment.
But what if the product they’re transporting will kill us all?
No that’s transported by rail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_flask
Used nuclear material is not capable of killing everyone in an accident, nowhere close. More people have died drilling for and refining oil than have died in nuclear accidents, and that’s before we consider the existential risk that global warming poses.
And how many people have died in the strip mining of uranium?
Probably not as many as you think.
Studies from a New Mexico mine ending in the 1970s estimated an extra 62.4 deaths per 100,000 miners. That’s a lot, but it doesn’t even hold a candle to coal mining in the same era. In 1970 the coal mining fatality rate in the US was 960 per 100,000 (1,388 fatalities for 144,480 miners).
Secondly, most uranium is leeched from the ground, not strip mined. This is far safer for the worker, although it does pose other safety considerations for the community.
Third, we can change these things. Coal mining has gone from ~900 per 100,000 workers to ~24 per 100,000 workers. Workplace health and safety standards are a choice we can make as a society. If we can make coal mining safer, there’s no reason we can’t make uranium mining safer.
Studies from a New Mexico mine ending in the 1970s estimated an extra 62.4 deaths per 100,000 miners. That’s a lot, but it doesn’t even hold a candle to coal mining in the same era. In 1970 the coal mining fatality rate in the US was 960 per 100,000 (1,388 fatalities for 144,480 miners).
Secondly, most uranium is leeched from the ground, not strip mined. This is far safer for the worker, although it does pose other safety considerations for the community.
Third, we can change these things. Coal mining has gone from ~900 per 100,000 workers to ~24 per 100,000 workers. Workplace health and safety standards are a choice we can make as a society. If we can make coal mining safer, there’s no reason we can’t make uranium mining safer.
Is that true per joule?
Yes.
The estimate is that nuclear kills 0.04 people per TWh produced. This includes mining, refining, and the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Natural gas kills about 4 people per TWh produced, making it far more lethal than nuclear all considered.
Fascinating in a grim way, rooftop solar is actually more lethal than nuclear, at 0.44 per TWh. Quite literally more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels than died at Chernobyl. With rooftop being such a minuscule percentage of global production, expect that number to change.
By and far the most lethal is coal. The world average is 161 per TWh. But that average is hiding a lot of nastiness, because the true range is between 15 (US) and 278 (China). Quite literally millions of people die each year due to pollution, most of them because of coal.
This is a classic case of how people don’t calculate risk correctly. Nuclear accidents are scary, rare things and so people focus in on them. But in trying to get rid of nuclear we’ve ended up shifting primarily to coal and natural gas, energy sources that kill multiple orders of magnitude more people than nuclear does. But because these people die one at a time in hospitals, we end up missing the scale of the tragedy as a society.
All numbers valid from 2008.
The estimate is that nuclear kills 0.04 people per TWh produced. This includes mining, refining, and the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Natural gas kills about 4 people per TWh produced, making it far more lethal than nuclear all considered.
Fascinating in a grim way, rooftop solar is actually more lethal than nuclear, at 0.44 per TWh. Quite literally more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels than died at Chernobyl. With rooftop being such a minuscule percentage of global production, expect that number to change.
By and far the most lethal is coal. The world average is 161 per TWh. But that average is hiding a lot of nastiness, because the true range is between 15 (US) and 278 (China). Quite literally millions of people die each year due to pollution, most of them because of coal.
This is a classic case of how people don’t calculate risk correctly. Nuclear accidents are scary, rare things and so people focus in on them. But in trying to get rid of nuclear we’ve ended up shifting primarily to coal and natural gas, energy sources that kill multiple orders of magnitude more people than nuclear does. But because these people die one at a time in hospitals, we end up missing the scale of the tragedy as a society.
All numbers valid from 2008.
Rail is very, very safe. In some areas taking the train is safer than walking.
Now to be fair, oil pipelines are usually safer still. But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil.
Now to be fair, oil pipelines are usually safer still. But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil.
> But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil.
Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing.
I think this needs to be achieved some other way, like through carbon taxes, not by blocking pipelines.
Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing.
I think this needs to be achieved some other way, like through carbon taxes, not by blocking pipelines.
> But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil
> Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing.
No, we won’t see our rail transit of oil blocked because it should not exist. The oil should be left in the ground.
> Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing.
No, we won’t see our rail transit of oil blocked because it should not exist. The oil should be left in the ground.
I don't understand what you are proposing here. In terms of actions that we take to curb the use of oil, I am saying those actions should not unfairly discriminate against pipelines vs less safe transports like trains. If we take steps to block pipelines, we should take steps to block oil trains too.
Obviously if we could just snap our fingers and eliminate all dependence on oil, that would be fine since it would eliminate pipelines and oil trains together. But in lieu of that, we need to make choices about how to maximize the efficiency and safety of the oil we do use. Pipelines in some cases might actually be a good way to do that.
Obviously if we could just snap our fingers and eliminate all dependence on oil, that would be fine since it would eliminate pipelines and oil trains together. But in lieu of that, we need to make choices about how to maximize the efficiency and safety of the oil we do use. Pipelines in some cases might actually be a good way to do that.
It's not possible to both maximize the safety and efficacy of using oil while externalizing the long term economic and environmental impact of using oil. The proposed efficiency and safety are entirety predicated on the externalized impact of pollution, climate change, and oil sand fracking.
efficacy sure, but we can maximize safety while also negating environmental impact through heavy taxation directed to alternative energy projects
What's the problem with keeping the more effective technology (pipelines) and instead using taxes to disincentivize the externalities? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?
> But in lieu of that, we need to make choices about how to maximize the efficiency and safety of the oil we do use. Pipelines in some cases might actually be a good way to do that.
Pipelines make oil cheaper and safer, which is the exact opposite of what we need as a species. This both delays transition to cleaner technologies, and it causes even more consumption among those who already use it. People’s consumption of oil is primarily limited by their financial ability; making oil cheaper usually results in them spending the same amount to consume more.
If I had my druthers, I’d fight any expansion of oil exploration, drilling, and transit tooth and nail. At this point drilling for more of it is like continually ordering pizza and swearing that the diet starts tomorrow.
Pipelines make oil cheaper and safer, which is the exact opposite of what we need as a species. This both delays transition to cleaner technologies, and it causes even more consumption among those who already use it. People’s consumption of oil is primarily limited by their financial ability; making oil cheaper usually results in them spending the same amount to consume more.
If I had my druthers, I’d fight any expansion of oil exploration, drilling, and transit tooth and nail. At this point drilling for more of it is like continually ordering pizza and swearing that the diet starts tomorrow.
It would not delay transition to cleaner technologies if you take action to price in the externalities through taxes. Then, we could have both safe and efficient oil, and it wouldn't increase consumption. That is the best outcome for everyone.
Blocking new technologies is a bad solution because it only achieves the second part, limiting increases in consumption. It doesn't allow us to take advantage of safety/efficiency improvements, unlike with carbon taxes where we could have both.
Blocking new technologies is a bad solution because it only achieves the second part, limiting increases in consumption. It doesn't allow us to take advantage of safety/efficiency improvements, unlike with carbon taxes where we could have both.
That’s true, but extremely unlikely politically.
As it stands today, using local action and control to make new oil infrastructure painful and expensive to build is the best way for activists to raise the cost of oil and trim its consumption. This comes with obvious tradeoffs, rail transit is less safe, but it’s an available avenue given that the legislature is hopelessly corrupt and unwilling to do anything to curb oil consumption directly.
As it stands today, using local action and control to make new oil infrastructure painful and expensive to build is the best way for activists to raise the cost of oil and trim its consumption. This comes with obvious tradeoffs, rail transit is less safe, but it’s an available avenue given that the legislature is hopelessly corrupt and unwilling to do anything to curb oil consumption directly.
> stop using oil
If you want to go back to a pre-industrial society, sure.
If you want to go back to a pre-industrial society, sure.
Stop using oil, yeah sure. This will just transfer consumption from the most ethical and environmentally sound jurisdiction in the world to the worst.
Ask the town in Quebec that had many people burned alive from a oil train derailment how safe it is.
The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, in the Eastern Townships region of Quebec, Canada, at approximately 01:15 EDT,[1][2] on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 73-car freight train carrying Bakken Formation crude oil rolled down a 1.2% grade from Nantes and derailed downtown, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-seven people were killed.[3] More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed,[2][4] and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings had to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite.[5] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre (0.6 mi) blast radius.[6] ~ Wikipedia
Ask the town in Quebec that had many people burned alive from a oil train derailment how safe it is.
The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, in the Eastern Townships region of Quebec, Canada, at approximately 01:15 EDT,[1][2] on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 73-car freight train carrying Bakken Formation crude oil rolled down a 1.2% grade from Nantes and derailed downtown, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-seven people were killed.[3] More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed,[2][4] and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings had to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite.[5] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre (0.6 mi) blast radius.[6] ~ Wikipedia
1. Consumption is not moveable like that; you’re describing a process more akin to how manufacturing moves.
The world’s poorest people won’t suddenly be able to afford all this oil infrastructure if the richer nations stop consuming it. Especially if doing so reduces economies of scale.
2. From a global warming perspective, there is no such thing as an ethical jurisdiction to emit carbon from. Carbon is carbon, and it affects us all whether or not it comes with other forms of pollution.
The world’s poorest people won’t suddenly be able to afford all this oil infrastructure if the richer nations stop consuming it. Especially if doing so reduces economies of scale.
2. From a global warming perspective, there is no such thing as an ethical jurisdiction to emit carbon from. Carbon is carbon, and it affects us all whether or not it comes with other forms of pollution.
I should have worded that better. I meant production, if you read it carefully I think it still implies that but I should have been more clear.
By ethical I mean human rights abuse, treatment of women and minorities. Why would you reward Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and punish a place like Western Canada?
By ethical I mean human rights abuse, treatment of women and minorities. Why would you reward Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and punish a place like Western Canada?
The issue is that there is a fixed supply of oil, and every drop that we pull out brings our species closer to extinction. I’d rather not reward Saudi, but I’d much more prefer to halt production of oil ASAP.
What are you basing this off of? Climate models that can't pass back testing with historical data when they are started 5,10,20,30 years ago. Sea level rise the last 150 years has been between 1-3mm a year and rising since the end of the last ice age (24k years). Food production continues to rise, the planet is greener. Extreme weather events are not increasing. The winters in North America have slightly warmed the past 30 years. Less area burned every year. Humans will adapt just fine. I'll source all this later if you really want?
Much of the opposition to pipelines is their propensity to fail. There are many, many pipelines in various states of neglect and failure. With no plans or resources to fix them. We don't even monitor most of them.
We should be decommissioning pipelines, not building new ones.
We should be decommissioning pipelines, not building new ones.
Does building railroads through areas have the same/better environmental/socioeconomic impact as a pipeline?
In terms of oil transport alone it's worse. Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.
> Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.
That doesn't seem to be correct. Maybe you mean spill incidence is higher when transported by rail? Table 9: https://imgur.com/a/3uIKVZc -- this makes it very clear that total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines.
FWIW this table is from a paper that is trying to argue that pipelines are safer. But they quantify safety with the metric "how many people get hurt." In making that argument they make statements like: "The majority of incidents occur on road and rail." << duh, people are usually not around when pipelines spill. Also driving is hazardous.
Also rail cars and vehicles are monitored, whereas long pipelines are not so easily monitored; some spills may not even be detected for a long time. Related physics explaining a little bit of why long pipelines are hard to build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msxMRwQyXI8
That doesn't seem to be correct. Maybe you mean spill incidence is higher when transported by rail? Table 9: https://imgur.com/a/3uIKVZc -- this makes it very clear that total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines.
FWIW this table is from a paper that is trying to argue that pipelines are safer. But they quantify safety with the metric "how many people get hurt." In making that argument they make statements like: "The majority of incidents occur on road and rail." << duh, people are usually not around when pipelines spill. Also driving is hazardous.
Also rail cars and vehicles are monitored, whereas long pipelines are not so easily monitored; some spills may not even be detected for a long time. Related physics explaining a little bit of why long pipelines are hard to build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msxMRwQyXI8
No opinion on rail vs. pipeline transport, but I'll note that these two statements are not in disagreement:
> Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.
> total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines.
The oil pipelines can spill more per incident, or spill more total volume in aggregate, yet still spill at a lower _rate_ if they transport a yet-larger volume of oil compared to trains.
I've noticed this on arguments for/against the Keystone pipeline: the exact same underlying numbers can be framed in terms of rates or amounts, depending on the motivation of the speaker.
> Oil is spilled at a significantly higher rate when transported by rail.
> total volume spilled and volume spilled per incident is far greater from pipelines.
The oil pipelines can spill more per incident, or spill more total volume in aggregate, yet still spill at a lower _rate_ if they transport a yet-larger volume of oil compared to trains.
I've noticed this on arguments for/against the Keystone pipeline: the exact same underlying numbers can be framed in terms of rates or amounts, depending on the motivation of the speaker.
In addition to more oil being spilled, rail lines transit through populated places while pipelines are routed away from them.
There's a rail line running right through the central business district of my town, and it's the primary route between Alberta and the Pacific ocean. I sure wish all that oil was travelling through a pipeline instead of my town.
There's a rail line running right through the central business district of my town, and it's the primary route between Alberta and the Pacific ocean. I sure wish all that oil was travelling through a pipeline instead of my town.
Why can't the rail be rerouted?
because rail is used for things other than oil (the whole reason people in this thread say transporting oil by rail is better), and those things require it to be near populated places.
if you build a dedicated oil railway that doesn't go anywhere populated and just goes from the oilfield to the refinery, then you've reinvented a pipeline, but worse.
if you build a dedicated oil railway that doesn't go anywhere populated and just goes from the oilfield to the refinery, then you've reinvented a pipeline, but worse.
That doesn't mean the impact is as large
Yes and no.
If you’re only going to use oil, it’s worse. But rail is much more flexible than a pipeline, and it can easily move food, people, garbage, and other various products that a society needs.
If you’re only going to use oil, it’s worse. But rail is much more flexible than a pipeline, and it can easily move food, people, garbage, and other various products that a society needs.
I'd say rail is worse, there is the safety issue, but also pollution (diesel exhaust emissions + carbon footprint), and noise pollution.. would much rather a pipeline going through my neighborhood than a railroad.
When the pipeline is working perfectly that may be true, but if it is spilling upstream of you and polluting your groundwater with hydrocarbons and you don't know until it's started to cause health issues because monitoring a long pipeline is hard...you might feel differently then.
The long tail risk is just higher when it comes to a pipeline.
The long tail risk is just higher when it comes to a pipeline.
That’s not true pipelines can transport oil, ammonium nitrate, be laid with internet fiber, and a variety of other chemicals.
It's true in spirit, if not the letter. Oil pipelines are useless for other things until they're cleaned and repurposed which isn't a cheap process.
Getting the pipeline route established is a pretty significant upfront cost. Easements, land purchases, agreements with all the various stakeholders are expensive. Even not reusing the existing oil pipeline, being able to repupose the corridor and corridor access points to lay a natural gas pipe or some other linear infrastructure is a pretty big deal.
Rail is also a linear infrastructure which can be used to put fiber in the ground cheaply.
Is there really demand for laying fiber between Hardisty Canada and Nebraska?
r/conservative and r/conspiracy are popular.
Assuming you happen to have one of those products that need to move in the exact same place as oil once did, sure. But a lot of these pipelines go between wells and refineries or docks, a path useless for anything but oil.
> The continental rail network started off with coal powered steam trains, then diesel, now diesel-electric and even some pure electric locomotives.
The actual evolution process was wood-powered steam trains, then coal-powered steam, then electric, then diesel-electric.
Yes, in the US, several railroads electrified then deelectrified, because it turns out that (for freight at least) diesel-electrics get you most of the useful benefits of electric locomotives without all of the problems of having to string up electric catenary and worry about provisioning traction power stations for your 1000s of miles of mainline track.
The actual evolution process was wood-powered steam trains, then coal-powered steam, then electric, then diesel-electric.
Yes, in the US, several railroads electrified then deelectrified, because it turns out that (for freight at least) diesel-electrics get you most of the useful benefits of electric locomotives without all of the problems of having to string up electric catenary and worry about provisioning traction power stations for your 1000s of miles of mainline track.
There can be a substantial cost saving switching from diesel to electric fully.
India for example has been investing in this convertion last 2-3 years and are expecting 4-5 billion dollars savings every year by going full electric in the next 2 - 3 years.
The networks are very different , single public owner/lots of private owners , frieght/passenger ratios are different, Density is different etc,however there can be cost savings
India for example has been investing in this convertion last 2-3 years and are expecting 4-5 billion dollars savings every year by going full electric in the next 2 - 3 years.
The networks are very different , single public owner/lots of private owners , frieght/passenger ratios are different, Density is different etc,however there can be cost savings
Yes in India gets coal super cheap and they use a ton of it to make their electric. All these electric cars are just coal cars, all these electric trains are just coal trains
They are also building quite a bit of solar power. The obvious difference between actual coal trains and electric trains (even running on coal electricity), is that you don't need to change a thing in the trains themselves to reduce the emissions of the system. Certainly it would be nicer if India already generated their electricity carbon neutrally, but moving from coal powered electric trains to PV powered electric trains is so much easier than from diesel trains.
Sure, but most of Europe use electric and we generate a lot of our electricity from nuclear and hydro. By switching to electric India can change to other sources of electricity in the future.
It is in parallel to solar investments in station and on top of trains and along the tracks as well. My understanding is that they plan to go fully green.
Given the variations in solar generation and no mention of storage I am assuming it is equivalent green power to offset rather than actual used.
Given the variations in solar generation and no mention of storage I am assuming it is equivalent green power to offset rather than actual used.
That was before we got this good at making batteries — and we're still getting better.
Keystone proposed to transported one thing - Canadian Oil to Canadian tankers. Outside of running the pipeline in the states, it would not impact US oil prices - outside of extra capacity which is heavily regulated to control price.
Isn't oil one of the most fungible commodities?
It’s arguably one of the least. Oil is not one thing, it’s a blend of hundreds or thousands of different compounds. There is a world of difference between light sweet crude and oil sands, and those are different from sour oil.
Some types of oil must be diluted with other types of oil can consume it, such as tar sands oil.
Some types of oil must be diluted with other types of oil can consume it, such as tar sands oil.
Being generic comes at a cost of doing everything less well. Sometimes that's the right trade off, but i'm not sure that's the right trade off here, especially when it comes to safety and envornment.
> I'm not sure that's the right trade off here, especially when it comes to safety and environment.
Can you give some reasons why you think that?
Can you give some reasons why you think that?
My understanding is that transporting oil by rail takes more energy (so more carbon), and if things go wrong, they go much worse than if things go wrong in a pipeline.
I think pipelines make sense as long as we are continuing to use oil. This particular pipeline project was pretty stupid though, and kenny's support of it was either gross incompetence or an indirect way to defraud tax payers.
I think pipelines make sense as long as we are continuing to use oil. This particular pipeline project was pretty stupid though, and kenny's support of it was either gross incompetence or an indirect way to defraud tax payers.
Hydrogen would be a viable alternate use for the pipelines in the long term. There are some promising projects going on in Alberta for producing hydrogen in less carbon intensive ways.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-air-product...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-air-product...
Hydrogen is even smaller than helium, which is used for leak testing vacuum systems.
I hypothesize that a hydrogen leak is less destructive than an oil leak, but that's still a problem.
I hypothesize that a hydrogen leak is less destructive than an oil leak, but that's still a problem.
Making a pipe leak tight to hydrogen versus leak tight to oil is not even playing in the same ballpark. Hydrogen leaks through practically everything, oil is viscous.
Plus hydrogen burns much more easily and the flame is transparent.
Plus hydrogen burns much more easily and the flame is transparent.
Atomic radius of helium is smaller than hydrogen 31 vs 53 pm. Hydrogen gas is also typically in the form H2, which is much larger. At the same time ofc oil pipelines will still be too leaky.
Favoring a shotgun approach towards GHG emissions downstream is there a better approach towards building an infrastructure distributing hydrogen?
That question isn't intended as rhetorical
That question isn't intended as rhetorical
It seems it's hard to transport pressurized hydrogen in pipelines as hydrogen embrittles steel. Gas utilities are trying to implement this to lower the carbon footprint of their gas (when hydrogen comes from renewable sources).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
> Rail can transport anything. Containers, tankers, even rocket booster segments.
While I get the idea and oppose oil infrastructure made possible by the greenhouse gas subsidy (i.e., that the gasses are dumped on the public), rail can't efficiently transport electricity. It's not infrastructure for low-carbon or zero-carbon energy (with some possible future exceptions).
While I get the idea and oppose oil infrastructure made possible by the greenhouse gas subsidy (i.e., that the gasses are dumped on the public), rail can't efficiently transport electricity. It's not infrastructure for low-carbon or zero-carbon energy (with some possible future exceptions).
What does that have to do with anything? Do you suggest you can transport electricity in oil pipelines?
Rail can transport electricity reasonably efficiently in the form of aluminium.
Find a place with abundant electricity. Ship aluminium ore there by rail. Smelt the stuff there with the cheap electricity. Ship the resulting aluminium back.
The end result is more energy efficient than using a power line to move the electricity to the aluminium ore.
Find a place with abundant electricity. Ship aluminium ore there by rail. Smelt the stuff there with the cheap electricity. Ship the resulting aluminium back.
The end result is more energy efficient than using a power line to move the electricity to the aluminium ore.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Trains need tracks but airplanes don't. Airplanes can also transport water, milk, corn syrup, and oil.
Forget about trains and build more planes.
Forget about trains and build more planes.
The economics of shipping oil by plane vs train, tanker or pipeline are laughably poor.
Trains are pretty laughable compared to pipes https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-263B-3126
If paywalled maybe you can still see https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-FR879_expert_G_...
If paywalled maybe you can still see https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-FR879_expert_G_...
Why not just use catapults and cut out the middleman? Landing could be difficult but I'm willing to offer a discount on really big nets.
Rail networks can be easily sabotaged, and therefore suck.
That's why the US for the most part uses trucks not trains.
Interestingly, the max-flow min-cut theorem was apparently developed as a way to find the best way to sabotage railroads (i.e.: how to cause to cause the most harm with the fewest "cuts" = sabotage).
That's why the US for the most part uses trucks not trains.
Interestingly, the max-flow min-cut theorem was apparently developed as a way to find the best way to sabotage railroads (i.e.: how to cause to cause the most harm with the fewest "cuts" = sabotage).
I'm completely ignorant on the topic, are pipelines not easily sabotaged?
Pipelines can transport oil continuously and quickly but they leak all the time.
> Rail networks can be easily sabotaged, and therefore suck.
> That's why the US for the most part uses trucks not trains.
Do you mean, that's why the U.S. built infrastructure around interstate highways and not rail? Why did European countries and other places conclude differently?
Is there anything you can recommend reading about it? The more scholarly the better.
> That's why the US for the most part uses trucks not trains.
Do you mean, that's why the U.S. built infrastructure around interstate highways and not rail? Why did European countries and other places conclude differently?
Is there anything you can recommend reading about it? The more scholarly the better.
> That's why the US for the most part uses trucks not trains
Nope. The interstate highway system followed the railroad system. It also followed world war 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Rail infra investment stopped after ww2 and never restarted. All of these railroad engine power train tech improvements may have happened, but the rails on ground infrastructure peaked in the 1950's .
Interstate highways also made most of the US accessable to heavy aircraft in case an emergency airport needed to be assembled on short notice. It's a network of runways. Interestingly, the German Autobahn has a lot more curves, but it's debatable if that is to make them harder to bomb or to keep drivers awake.
Also many US cities had full fledged local rail systems that were paved over to make way for roads and cars.
Nope. The interstate highway system followed the railroad system. It also followed world war 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Rail infra investment stopped after ww2 and never restarted. All of these railroad engine power train tech improvements may have happened, but the rails on ground infrastructure peaked in the 1950's .
Interstate highways also made most of the US accessable to heavy aircraft in case an emergency airport needed to be assembled on short notice. It's a network of runways. Interestingly, the German Autobahn has a lot more curves, but it's debatable if that is to make them harder to bomb or to keep drivers awake.
Also many US cities had full fledged local rail systems that were paved over to make way for roads and cars.
Were interstate highways designed to be used as emergency airstrips in case of war?
No, they were not.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/landing-of-hope-and-glory/
No, they were not.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/landing-of-hope-and-glory/
I never heard of the 1-in-5 thing.
The runway concept was something my dad used to talk about.
The fastest, most effective way to transition from fossil fuels is to limit their supply. Any parent knows you can read all you want about how to raise a child before it's born, but the real learning starts at birth. Within seconds you learn more than before when it was abstract.
Likewise, to learn to live without fossil fuels, shutting down supply will lead us to face the actual problems we have to solve, not theoretical. Obviously, don't shut everything all at once, and protect the helpless, hospitals, and necessary things.
Among the rest of us, no one will be injured. Entrepreneurs will innovate. Inconveniences will lead to learning and life improvement.
Likewise, to learn to live without fossil fuels, shutting down supply will lead us to face the actual problems we have to solve, not theoretical. Obviously, don't shut everything all at once, and protect the helpless, hospitals, and necessary things.
Among the rest of us, no one will be injured. Entrepreneurs will innovate. Inconveniences will lead to learning and life improvement.
Decisions are trade offs. The cost of resources will become more scarce here. Which means the poor will pay more for their fuel prices. If you believe that no one will be injured, you are looking at level one impacts. Any decision needs to be looked at as a trade off.
Russia, China, India, and Iran must be so happy with the ways we shoot ourselves in the arm. Fracking moved us closer to getting away from the Middle East, but the pipeline cancellation, the fracking fights, and the anti-nuke efforts is forcing us to get closer to them.
Russia, China, India, and Iran must be so happy with the ways we shoot ourselves in the arm. Fracking moved us closer to getting away from the Middle East, but the pipeline cancellation, the fracking fights, and the anti-nuke efforts is forcing us to get closer to them.
Pipeline spills affect drinking water and ecology for US citizens. Fracking has externalities that again, can directly hurt our populace and ecosystems we live adjacent to. Nuclear is just hard to do right, and I for one am glad we are careful with where/when we deploy it.
I disagree with this framing that "we shoot ourselves in the arm." As a US citizen I think a better way to think of it is that we insist on proceeding with caution when it comes to diversifying our energy supply, and while in the short term we do have a dependence on foreign fossil fuels, there are certainly many efforts being made to reduce that. And many of these efforts don't involve looking for more non-renewable oil.
If you think of our energy supply as a long-running software service that can't go down, replacing foreign oil with fracking+local pipelines is like replacing old short term dependencies on new short-term dependencies that we pay maintenance cost on. Negative externalities must be factored into those cost decisions. Similarly nuclear is like building a very complex internal service that, if done right, will pay huge dividends, but if done wrong, can be quite catastrophic and expensive.
I disagree with this framing that "we shoot ourselves in the arm." As a US citizen I think a better way to think of it is that we insist on proceeding with caution when it comes to diversifying our energy supply, and while in the short term we do have a dependence on foreign fossil fuels, there are certainly many efforts being made to reduce that. And many of these efforts don't involve looking for more non-renewable oil.
If you think of our energy supply as a long-running software service that can't go down, replacing foreign oil with fracking+local pipelines is like replacing old short term dependencies on new short-term dependencies that we pay maintenance cost on. Negative externalities must be factored into those cost decisions. Similarly nuclear is like building a very complex internal service that, if done right, will pay huge dividends, but if done wrong, can be quite catastrophic and expensive.
> As a US citizen I think a better way to think of it is that we insist on proceeding with caution
As others have pointed out, this isn't going to stop the oil from being pumped, as it is still economical (though less so, and dirtier) to move by train.
The keystone pipeline project has been thoroughly studied. All we have done is make sure that the Canadian oil field externalities are now even higher.
It is not at all unfair to call it foolishness rather than caution.
As others have pointed out, this isn't going to stop the oil from being pumped, as it is still economical (though less so, and dirtier) to move by train.
The keystone pipeline project has been thoroughly studied. All we have done is make sure that the Canadian oil field externalities are now even higher.
It is not at all unfair to call it foolishness rather than caution.
Caution in the case of Keystone XL is about potential spills, not the actual pumping of the oil. It's okay that oil is being pumped there, if the economic engine so demands. It's good that it's being transported by rail, because it's less likely to create an (additional) environmental catastrophe.
You might say it's dirtier to move the oil by train, I'd say it's responsible and a price worth paying to protect sensitive ecologies from inevitable pipeline leaks. You say externalities are higher, I say your worst case summed externalities are lower.
You might say it's dirtier to move the oil by train, I'd say it's responsible and a price worth paying to protect sensitive ecologies from inevitable pipeline leaks. You say externalities are higher, I say your worst case summed externalities are lower.
Surely the many efforts being made to reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels all fall into the bucket of nuclear, fracking and small amounts of windmills/solar, but those can't make up the difference any time soon due to intermittency alone. So you seem to be saying you're against all the ways of reducing dependence on foreign fuels but are sure that dependency will be reduced.
> So you seem to be saying you're against all the ways of reducing dependence on foreign fuels but are sure that dependency will be reduced.
First of all, if foreign fossil fuels are a dependence, and we are striving to remove that dependence, it is worth considering what our new dependence will be on. Is it going to be on local fossil fuels, extracted at great cost to our own quality of life? I'd hope not. The global economy is already interconnected as hell, we don't need to be in such a rush that we make a bad decision rewiring our supply chains. We should implement a superior replacement first, and we're definitely in the R&D phase of that.
Secondly, I'm certainly not against all ways of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and I resent that you present it as a binary. Fracking and nuclear are cool technologies, but it's pretty damn important to scrutinize how and when they're being deployed. Slow is good in this case. I'm very against using "oh no we're dependent on foreign fossil fuels" as a rallying cry to avoid environmental due diligence and to ignore all the negative environmental externalities that occur from the realities of dirty energy. Like, building a long oil pipeline is not externality free. The physics of such an endeavor make it so that spills are basically unavoidable, and often difficult to find before damage is done to the long term health of ecosystems and humans.
In terms of "how will we remove our dirty energy dependence" at large, I think it's fair that nobody has a real answer yet. The problem is not "the US depends on dirty foreign fossil fuels" -- the problem is that "everyone depends on dirty fossil fuels." Most countries understand at some level that they need to fix this.
My money is on a combination of fixing the issues that prevent renewables (including wind/solar/geothermal) from making up the better part of our energy budget (and sure intermittency/storage is part of that story, though if you're that aware you must know that tons of innovation is happening in this space too right), and renewable fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, etc).
For just rearranging the US energy dependence graph there are potential solutions to be had that are cleaner than fracking like leaning harder on natural gas which is relatively plentiful here. It seems likely that we could do more nuclear, but when you get into the weeds of suitable nuclear sites the story isn't as optimistic as you might naively think. And again, nuclear is not as clean as folks might imagine.
In general I think it's dangerous to look at the picture and be like "okay looks like X, Y, and Z are the only solutions" ignoring the timescale over which you have to solve the problem, the metric by which you measure the gravity of the problem, the total cost of potential solutions including all enumerable externalities, and potential / ongoing technological advancements.
First of all, if foreign fossil fuels are a dependence, and we are striving to remove that dependence, it is worth considering what our new dependence will be on. Is it going to be on local fossil fuels, extracted at great cost to our own quality of life? I'd hope not. The global economy is already interconnected as hell, we don't need to be in such a rush that we make a bad decision rewiring our supply chains. We should implement a superior replacement first, and we're definitely in the R&D phase of that.
Secondly, I'm certainly not against all ways of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and I resent that you present it as a binary. Fracking and nuclear are cool technologies, but it's pretty damn important to scrutinize how and when they're being deployed. Slow is good in this case. I'm very against using "oh no we're dependent on foreign fossil fuels" as a rallying cry to avoid environmental due diligence and to ignore all the negative environmental externalities that occur from the realities of dirty energy. Like, building a long oil pipeline is not externality free. The physics of such an endeavor make it so that spills are basically unavoidable, and often difficult to find before damage is done to the long term health of ecosystems and humans.
In terms of "how will we remove our dirty energy dependence" at large, I think it's fair that nobody has a real answer yet. The problem is not "the US depends on dirty foreign fossil fuels" -- the problem is that "everyone depends on dirty fossil fuels." Most countries understand at some level that they need to fix this.
My money is on a combination of fixing the issues that prevent renewables (including wind/solar/geothermal) from making up the better part of our energy budget (and sure intermittency/storage is part of that story, though if you're that aware you must know that tons of innovation is happening in this space too right), and renewable fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, etc).
For just rearranging the US energy dependence graph there are potential solutions to be had that are cleaner than fracking like leaning harder on natural gas which is relatively plentiful here. It seems likely that we could do more nuclear, but when you get into the weeds of suitable nuclear sites the story isn't as optimistic as you might naively think. And again, nuclear is not as clean as folks might imagine.
In general I think it's dangerous to look at the picture and be like "okay looks like X, Y, and Z are the only solutions" ignoring the timescale over which you have to solve the problem, the metric by which you measure the gravity of the problem, the total cost of potential solutions including all enumerable externalities, and potential / ongoing technological advancements.
The most effective way to transition from fossil fuels is to make an alternative more economical.
For example, there is the “methanol economy”, in which solar or nuclear energy is used to create syngas from water and CO2. The syngas is then transformed into methanol or other higher energy density fuels. When they are burned, you get the CO2 and water back - it’s a closed cycle, like a battery in an electric car. But, it is practical for air transport propulsion.
For example, there is the “methanol economy”, in which solar or nuclear energy is used to create syngas from water and CO2. The syngas is then transformed into methanol or other higher energy density fuels. When they are burned, you get the CO2 and water back - it’s a closed cycle, like a battery in an electric car. But, it is practical for air transport propulsion.
But is the supply actually being limited? Won't a similar amount of fuel be transported via rail or trucks? What is the carbon footprint of transporting X kg of fuel over pipeline vs rail?
It seems to me that the main outcome is that the same amount of fuel is transported with a costlier (environmentally, and financial) vehicle.
It seems to me that the main outcome is that the same amount of fuel is transported with a costlier (environmentally, and financial) vehicle.
I don't see how we can ever get off oil practically and environmentally friendly without more nuclear energy generation capacity in the US and globally.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_em...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Electric...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/pub...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_em...
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/16D76/production/_108485539_optim...
Transportation is 14% which is not insignificant. But EV transport still requires charging from the powerplant, materials, mining, disposal. I am hopeful we will overcome them but we will exchange pollution problems for new different pollution problems.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_em...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Electric...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/pub...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_em...
https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/16D76/production/_108485539_optim...
Transportation is 14% which is not insignificant. But EV transport still requires charging from the powerplant, materials, mining, disposal. I am hopeful we will overcome them but we will exchange pollution problems for new different pollution problems.
Nuclear energy is far too expensive and far too slow to build, it will not contribute much to our energy future. Our build rate for nuclear is tiny, less than 1GW/year, and there is little hope of scaling nuclear production capacity to something 100GW/year or more, which is what we would need if nuclear is going to contribute in a significant way to a climate solution.
In contrast, we are scaling solar, wind, and storage production at a huge rate, and the increases in production capacity are huge each year.
It's been a few months since I've don the napkin math, but at the current rate of production increases, extrapolated to 2035, we will just barely be able to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable electricity. Electrification of many primary fossil fuel uses, such as heat and transportation, will require 1/3 to 1/4 as much energy (see the amount of rejected energy in the top right here [1]). But at the same time, the developing world will be greatly increasing their use of energy services, and renewables will be the easiest way to do that. So even though developed countries' total energy use will go down as we electrify, developing countries' use will go up.
[1] https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...
In contrast, we are scaling solar, wind, and storage production at a huge rate, and the increases in production capacity are huge each year.
It's been a few months since I've don the napkin math, but at the current rate of production increases, extrapolated to 2035, we will just barely be able to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable electricity. Electrification of many primary fossil fuel uses, such as heat and transportation, will require 1/3 to 1/4 as much energy (see the amount of rejected energy in the top right here [1]). But at the same time, the developing world will be greatly increasing their use of energy services, and renewables will be the easiest way to do that. So even though developed countries' total energy use will go down as we electrify, developing countries' use will go up.
[1] https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...
The progress we have made is great but there are still plenty of places that it may not be viable due to lack of sunshine, good weather, considerable wind.
Energy production with out long-term, long-duration energy storage doesn't solve our current problems.
Q. Has longer-duration energy storage been solved with out my awareness?
Energy production with out long-term, long-duration energy storage doesn't solve our current problems.
Q. Has longer-duration energy storage been solved with out my awareness?
Though there are several nations that may not have enough wind and sun for their needs, these are a tiny tiny percentage of total energy needs of the globe. These nations will find ways to import energy, just as they currently do, either through electrical grids of through chemical storage of electricity as electrically-derived ammonia or methane or methanol or kerosene. Or maybe they pay somebody to do direct air capture, or through carbon capture and sequestration.
There are several ways to provide energy during the worst sun and wind lulls, and though we will likely use all of the below to some extent, we won't know the full mix until the next 10-15 years of tech development show which is the cheapest mix of techniques.
1) overprovisioning solar and wind generation to provide more during the lulls, at the cost of providing extra most of the time
2) flow batteries, such as vanadium redox, are having ever increasing pilots. There are also long-duration startups with extremely experienced teams that are taking bets on completely novel chemistries that will give us more shots on goal.
3) As we decarbonize industry, we will end up with massive amounts of energy stored in chemicals. Industrial policy is creating massive electrolyzer capacity for hydrogen, which doesn't store super well, but which will be the base for transformation into other chemicals that can be used for fuels such as ammonia (primary use is fertilizer but might end up being used for ocean shipping too). Current fossil fuel tech for creating and breaking hydrogen chains may make synthetic kerosene economical, which would allow us to keep the current airline fleet flying without modification.
4) Demand response. Currently the electrical grid has very little price information, which will not be economically efficient as we switch to nearly all primary generation having zero marginal cost, and times of great excess of electricity supply. As we build time-based prices into electricity, we will find that demand for many large energy users is quite flexible, and we will discover the true demand elasticity. This will make the entire economy more efficient than our current utility pricing schemes (at least US utility pricing, I'm not as familiar with the rest of the world.)
We don't need to know everything right now, because the energy world will be unbelievably different within 10 years. After nearly a century of almost no change, the energy world is undergoing a tech revolution which will catch nearly all the old giants off guard. Which is why so many fossil fuel majors are having to write down so many assets, and have not read the writing on the wall that even their financiers have now seen. Utilities (again, at least in the US), are significantly less sophisticated than even the fossil fuel majors, and have no idea of the huge changes they will see in the coming decades.
There are several ways to provide energy during the worst sun and wind lulls, and though we will likely use all of the below to some extent, we won't know the full mix until the next 10-15 years of tech development show which is the cheapest mix of techniques.
1) overprovisioning solar and wind generation to provide more during the lulls, at the cost of providing extra most of the time
2) flow batteries, such as vanadium redox, are having ever increasing pilots. There are also long-duration startups with extremely experienced teams that are taking bets on completely novel chemistries that will give us more shots on goal.
3) As we decarbonize industry, we will end up with massive amounts of energy stored in chemicals. Industrial policy is creating massive electrolyzer capacity for hydrogen, which doesn't store super well, but which will be the base for transformation into other chemicals that can be used for fuels such as ammonia (primary use is fertilizer but might end up being used for ocean shipping too). Current fossil fuel tech for creating and breaking hydrogen chains may make synthetic kerosene economical, which would allow us to keep the current airline fleet flying without modification.
4) Demand response. Currently the electrical grid has very little price information, which will not be economically efficient as we switch to nearly all primary generation having zero marginal cost, and times of great excess of electricity supply. As we build time-based prices into electricity, we will find that demand for many large energy users is quite flexible, and we will discover the true demand elasticity. This will make the entire economy more efficient than our current utility pricing schemes (at least US utility pricing, I'm not as familiar with the rest of the world.)
We don't need to know everything right now, because the energy world will be unbelievably different within 10 years. After nearly a century of almost no change, the energy world is undergoing a tech revolution which will catch nearly all the old giants off guard. Which is why so many fossil fuel majors are having to write down so many assets, and have not read the writing on the wall that even their financiers have now seen. Utilities (again, at least in the US), are significantly less sophisticated than even the fossil fuel majors, and have no idea of the huge changes they will see in the coming decades.
Thank you for your excellent response. You seem very knowledgeable on the energy sector and it's dynamics.
I agree with most of what you have written. I have to disagree on nuclear though.
I think nuclear is no different than the other avenues to clean energy and will also go through the same new tech development to reduce costs, risks, and management overhead. At least that's what I hope!
I agree with most of what you have written. I have to disagree on nuclear though.
I think nuclear is no different than the other avenues to clean energy and will also go through the same new tech development to reduce costs, risks, and management overhead. At least that's what I hope!
Oil is all going to get transported by rail or truck. BNSF stock going up should please Buffet.
I don't know about your second sentence, but your first sentence is absolutely correct.
I am an Albertan who lives in Calgary, where TC Energy is headquartered. I am by no means a shill for Big Oil and am thankful that I do not work in that industry.
Having said that, I do not think that blocking the supply side of the equation helps as much as certain parties believe that it does. As long as the demand for oil exists, the suppliers will find a way.
This also has side effects that some parties do not consider: Railroads have finite capacity, and when more of that capacity is absorbed by oil shipments, there is less capacity for the transportation of other goods, like grain.
I am an Albertan who lives in Calgary, where TC Energy is headquartered. I am by no means a shill for Big Oil and am thankful that I do not work in that industry.
Having said that, I do not think that blocking the supply side of the equation helps as much as certain parties believe that it does. As long as the demand for oil exists, the suppliers will find a way.
This also has side effects that some parties do not consider: Railroads have finite capacity, and when more of that capacity is absorbed by oil shipments, there is less capacity for the transportation of other goods, like grain.
Demand is partly driven by how cheap oil is.
There is demand for energy. Cheap oil is a great source. If oil gets more expensive because it now has to be shipped with more risk in smaller quantities via rail/truck, then renewables can compete even better.
I don't think there's any realistic policy option to reduce energy demand as a whole, but if we can reduce demand for certain types of energy we might have a shot.
There is demand for energy. Cheap oil is a great source. If oil gets more expensive because it now has to be shipped with more risk in smaller quantities via rail/truck, then renewables can compete even better.
I don't think there's any realistic policy option to reduce energy demand as a whole, but if we can reduce demand for certain types of energy we might have a shot.
Oil is fungible and the market is global. Making it less efficient to transport oil in North America just reduces the profit margin for North Amereican oil companies.
I'm all for reducing oil company profits, but I think it would be better to do that through carbon taxes than by forcing operational inefficiencies.
I'm all for reducing oil company profits, but I think it would be better to do that through carbon taxes than by forcing operational inefficiencies.
I agree with a carbon tax, but I also think we don't need to go out of our way to support north american oil companies. If that oil gets pumped out its going to get burned as well.
Oil is fungible, but like any commodity it still obey's supply and demand.
Oil is fungible, but like any commodity it still obey's supply and demand.
allowing a pipeline to be built isn't really "going out of our way". if it were being subsidized, that would be a problem.
but in general, i think it's better to allow a local oil industry, and properly tax and regulate it, than it is to allow all those profits to go offshore to less-regulated, less taxed foreign operations. people aren't going to stop using oil just because they can't get the locally-produced stuff.
but in general, i think it's better to allow a local oil industry, and properly tax and regulate it, than it is to allow all those profits to go offshore to less-regulated, less taxed foreign operations. people aren't going to stop using oil just because they can't get the locally-produced stuff.
The keystone XL received investment and loan guarantees from government.
Beyond that there's a lot of goverment effort that's needs to happen to "allow" it to be built. Securing right of ways or emininent domain on land it passes through.
Beyond that there's a lot of goverment effort that's needs to happen to "allow" it to be built. Securing right of ways or emininent domain on land it passes through.
It seems like the executive branch of the US government has the power to impair the oil industry in North America, but not to implement a carbon tax. It seems to me like it will help a little on the margin, but not nearly as much as carbon pricing would.
No doubt this is true, but it sure would be nice if we could instead tax the oil and raise revenue for the public good, rather than deliver profits to private railroad companies.
this is only kind of true. WHile rail IS more expensive you can't compare a barrel in a pipeline with a barrel on a train. Pipelines need to carry diluted oil products to make them flow and then sometimes return that back to the source, so there's extra flow. Pipelines use far LESS energy to transport which is kind of ironic; and they are way, way safer.
I don't see this as an environmental move based on the political signalling it buys and other moves made by the US administration. If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls.
I don't see this as an environmental move based on the political signalling it buys and other moves made by the US administration. If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls.
The Natural Resources Defense Council says:
>Tar sands extraction emits up to three times more global warming pollution than does producing the same quantity of conventional crude. It also depletes and pollutes freshwater resources and creates giant ponds of toxic waste. Refining the sticky black substance produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous by-product. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” [senior policy analyst for NRDC’s Canada project] says. “It’s nasty stuff.”
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-s...
>Tar sands extraction emits up to three times more global warming pollution than does producing the same quantity of conventional crude. It also depletes and pollutes freshwater resources and creates giant ponds of toxic waste. Refining the sticky black substance produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous by-product. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” [senior policy analyst for NRDC’s Canada project] says. “It’s nasty stuff.”
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-s...
This is unrelated to the claim that transport by pipeline is less environmentally harmful than transport by train or truck.
I was responding to the parent's last sentence:
>If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls.
I was pointing out that tar-sands oil probably does not meet the "relatively clean" criteria.
>If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls.
I was pointing out that tar-sands oil probably does not meet the "relatively clean" criteria.
If they can't transport as much by train or truck (due to capacity/expense) then thats a gain for the environment.
If a big fat permanent pipeline makes it more cost effective to extract and sell even more tar-sand oil, then thats a loss for the environment.
If a big fat permanent pipeline makes it more cost effective to extract and sell even more tar-sand oil, then thats a loss for the environment.
Seems related? Making Canadian crude less competitive means less tar sands oil extraction.
Biden lifted sanctions on Russia to allow an undersea pipeline,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674
I don't think demand reduction was an objective with Keystone.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674
I don't think demand reduction was an objective with Keystone.
The first sentence in the linked article says it’s a gas pipeline, which is very different than an oil pipeline.
[deleted]
A high price of oil makes it profitable to sell oil.
A market-based acceleration in renewables energy use requires well funded energy companies to pivot. High priced oil doesn't get them to do that. Low priced oil doesn't either, but a sharp drop in oil prices can.
Some other incentive is still necessary.
A market-based acceleration in renewables energy use requires well funded energy companies to pivot. High priced oil doesn't get them to do that. Low priced oil doesn't either, but a sharp drop in oil prices can.
Some other incentive is still necessary.
> A high price of oil makes it profitable to sell oil.
Only if your costs are below the high price. Blocking this pipeline raises their costs to transport the oil, eating into profits.
Only if your costs are below the high price. Blocking this pipeline raises their costs to transport the oil, eating into profits.
It doesn't cause a shift into renewables. The providers along that pipeline might simply be fucked. The regional and global rate just stays more attractive to the more vertically integrated players.
[deleted]
You know there's more to the equation than that.
Disagree on the supply-side angle: If we cut our dependence on oil for power and transport but the supply stays high, it’ll lead to a drop in prices. People will be incentivized to find new profitable uses for this cheap oil, which will then cause oil usage to go back up again. If we cut supply while cutting demand, that’s less likely.
Of course in the end, the real solution is a carbon tax that factors the bad externalities of oil into its price (which would likely make it unprofitable for a lot of purposes regardless of the free market price). However, that seems unlikely in the near future due to one party denying that the problem even exists. In light of that, I could see a (grim) argument that really rough solutions like denying pipeline permits are the best we’ve got on hand at the moment.
Of course in the end, the real solution is a carbon tax that factors the bad externalities of oil into its price (which would likely make it unprofitable for a lot of purposes regardless of the free market price). However, that seems unlikely in the near future due to one party denying that the problem even exists. In light of that, I could see a (grim) argument that really rough solutions like denying pipeline permits are the best we’ve got on hand at the moment.
Isn't the point of the pipeline to send the oil to Gulf Coast refineries? There's not that many direct uses for dirty Bakken crude, which also happens to be particularly dangerous to ship by train.
The alternative methods of transport will be more expensive, which will lead to a decrease in demand.
Yeah, I’ll just not drive to work...
This has never been true for consumers. The only “demand” it impacts are companies, who then move their jobs to China where they can use coal powered plants.
There is no world where this artificial increase in prices is good.
Green energy is improving, nuclear is improving. It’s improving because it has to compete with alternatives, like oil. Green energy is not cheap or widespread enough today for consumers or industry. So it’s only the people of the country that lose.
This has never been true for consumers. The only “demand” it impacts are companies, who then move their jobs to China where they can use coal powered plants.
There is no world where this artificial increase in prices is good.
Green energy is improving, nuclear is improving. It’s improving because it has to compete with alternatives, like oil. Green energy is not cheap or widespread enough today for consumers or industry. So it’s only the people of the country that lose.
This has always been true of consumers.
- Let's buy a smaller/more efficient car instead of the bigger/less efficient one
- Let's move closer to work
- Let's carpool
- Let's not buy our teenager a car just yet
Etc, etc. Cost of ownership effects all sorts of choices, always has, always will.
- Let's buy a smaller/more efficient car instead of the bigger/less efficient one
- Let's move closer to work
- Let's carpool
- Let's not buy our teenager a car just yet
Etc, etc. Cost of ownership effects all sorts of choices, always has, always will.
I was wondering, just for the effect, if i could translate this list into the world of computers
-Buy smaller/more efficient computers instead of the bigger/less efficient one
-let's move closer to work
-let's share computers
-let's not buy our teenagers a computer just yet
Feels strange to read. But ok, who knows, maybe compu, umm, smartphones fall out of favour some day as well.
-Buy smaller/more efficient computers instead of the bigger/less efficient one
-let's move closer to work
-let's share computers
-let's not buy our teenagers a computer just yet
Feels strange to read. But ok, who knows, maybe compu, umm, smartphones fall out of favour some day as well.
> -Buy smaller/more efficient computers instead of the bigger/less efficient one
I've run laptop cpu based desktops instead of desktop cpus (chromebox, nuc, lots of similar products with less known branding). It probably makes a difference, especially it you have a dedicated GPU in the desktop. Max power is certainly reduced, usually idle power too, for raw compute tasks there's a balance because the tasks will take longer and maybe end up using similar power. For games and stuff, you'll get way less fps (or lower settings, or realistically both), but use less power if you play the same amount of time.
> -let's move closer to work
I dunno how much power difference this makes.
> -let's share computers
I've done this, one at a time limits max power consumption, but may lead to higher utilization. Multiple monitors and keyboard/mice is an option too, but more fiddly. Maybe a little power savings vs two desktops, but it worked better with two gpus, so maybe not.
> -let's not buy our teenagers a computer just yet
This is kind of like the sharing one earlier.
I've run laptop cpu based desktops instead of desktop cpus (chromebox, nuc, lots of similar products with less known branding). It probably makes a difference, especially it you have a dedicated GPU in the desktop. Max power is certainly reduced, usually idle power too, for raw compute tasks there's a balance because the tasks will take longer and maybe end up using similar power. For games and stuff, you'll get way less fps (or lower settings, or realistically both), but use less power if you play the same amount of time.
> -let's move closer to work
I dunno how much power difference this makes.
> -let's share computers
I've done this, one at a time limits max power consumption, but may lead to higher utilization. Multiple monitors and keyboard/mice is an option too, but more fiddly. Maybe a little power savings vs two desktops, but it worked better with two gpus, so maybe not.
> -let's not buy our teenagers a computer just yet
This is kind of like the sharing one earlier.
We do that stuff.
> -Buy smaller/more efficient computers instead of the bigger/less efficient one
Smaller process size and better power management makes your mobile device have better battery life. 80 Plus, energy star, performance-per-watt benchmarks.
> -let's move closer to work
Hughesnet and dial-up are not good WFH options.
> -let's share computers
Cloud, client/server.
> -let's not buy our teenagers a computer just yet
Cancelled Instagram-for-kids?
> -Buy smaller/more efficient computers instead of the bigger/less efficient one
Smaller process size and better power management makes your mobile device have better battery life. 80 Plus, energy star, performance-per-watt benchmarks.
> -let's move closer to work
Hughesnet and dial-up are not good WFH options.
> -let's share computers
Cloud, client/server.
> -let's not buy our teenagers a computer just yet
Cancelled Instagram-for-kids?
From a consumer perspective
- Cheaper phones, they're just slower
- Lower resolution videos and images, less data, less cpu cost.
- Single shared desktop instead of everyone having a laptop
- Literally the same
---
From a business/software eng perspective
- Less compute, let things take longer.
- More efficient programming languages. Simplify problems (e.g. use aggregate statistics instead of working on the whole data set).
- Timesharing on servers
- Pen and paper for people who don't really need one? Don't buy the delivery driver a computer, just tell them where to go? This one is hard to make a business analogy out of.
- Cheaper phones, they're just slower
- Lower resolution videos and images, less data, less cpu cost.
- Single shared desktop instead of everyone having a laptop
- Literally the same
---
From a business/software eng perspective
- Less compute, let things take longer.
- More efficient programming languages. Simplify problems (e.g. use aggregate statistics instead of working on the whole data set).
- Timesharing on servers
- Pen and paper for people who don't really need one? Don't buy the delivery driver a computer, just tell them where to go? This one is hard to make a business analogy out of.
[deleted]
If you work with information, there is no fundamental reason to live close to "work". It is much more efficient to live where you want to live as there is no need to travel - you are already there.
Yep. Americans used to drive enormous boat sized cars, then suddenly a lot of people liked these small Japanese cars.
I wonder why that happened????
I wonder why that happened????
That’s my point, you should always try to do what benefits your people (as a leader). Idk what this is, it’s just disproportionately negatively impacting the poor and middle class.
At the same time, this forces jobs over seas and Biden lets Russia build a pipeline to Europe limiting the USAs ability to sell and compete. Literally none of this is helping the environment or the citizens he leads.
At the same time, this forces jobs over seas and Biden lets Russia build a pipeline to Europe limiting the USAs ability to sell and compete. Literally none of this is helping the environment or the citizens he leads.
I'm just addressing this part "This has never been true for consumers. The only “demand” it impacts are companies", it's wrong, it does impact demand from consumers, substantially.
Whether impacting consumer demand is a net positive for the population (due to climate change) or net negative for the population (because it's preventing useful stuff) isn't something I really want to weigh in on on the internet, I don't hold strong enough or well supported enough opinions.
Whether impacting consumer demand is a net positive for the population (due to climate change) or net negative for the population (because it's preventing useful stuff) isn't something I really want to weigh in on on the internet, I don't hold strong enough or well supported enough opinions.
I, a consumer, chose to live in a place where I could get to work without a car (and not having to drive was an explicit part of my decision-making). Consumers make this kind of choice all the time. That not every consumer can choose not to drive doesn't mean the idea of trying to influence consumer behavior is unreasonable.
This has never been true for consumers.
Well thats just not true. People make decisions about what to drive and how to drive it and how far to drive it based on the price of gas.
Well thats just not true. People make decisions about what to drive and how to drive it and how far to drive it based on the price of gas.
Why not tax the pipeline to simulate that cost increase? Isn't that the best of all worlds?
In an idea world, probably, but unfortunately taxes are politically toxic in the US, to the extent that imposing a new tax whose costs will ultimately be born by consumers is impolitic in a way that creating new consumer costs whose revenue accrues to private actors isn't. Voters aren't rational, and elected officials can't do a lot about that.
Also, revoking the permit can be done entirely by executive action, where a new tax would require cooperation from Congress, which the administration would never get.
Also, revoking the permit can be done entirely by executive action, where a new tax would require cooperation from Congress, which the administration would never get.
[deleted]
This was actually the argument of the governments of Canada, to build it, but add a carbon tax.
Canada now has a federal carbon tax, BC has a carbon tax and Alberta did have one, but the previous government was thrown out in favour of a deeply conservative one (that is now woefully unpopular so the pro-carbon tax party is probably coming back).
You can see one possible issue with the case of the Albertan government changing. Easy to add/remove taxes, hard to add/remove pipelines. There's also even some question of whether the carbon tax will be effective. It arguably hasn't done that much in BC. This is probably because for political reasons it has been set low. A previous conservative government "froze" the tax at low rates. Scientists note the tax needs to be literally $100s more per ton of CO2 to be effective.
In my experience the carbon tax has seemed like a good idea, but has seemed in practice more of a political tool to generate the public acceptance of pipelines. The actual CO2 impact of the pipeline is absolutely in zero way mitigated by the carbon tax.
Canada now has a federal carbon tax, BC has a carbon tax and Alberta did have one, but the previous government was thrown out in favour of a deeply conservative one (that is now woefully unpopular so the pro-carbon tax party is probably coming back).
You can see one possible issue with the case of the Albertan government changing. Easy to add/remove taxes, hard to add/remove pipelines. There's also even some question of whether the carbon tax will be effective. It arguably hasn't done that much in BC. This is probably because for political reasons it has been set low. A previous conservative government "froze" the tax at low rates. Scientists note the tax needs to be literally $100s more per ton of CO2 to be effective.
In my experience the carbon tax has seemed like a good idea, but has seemed in practice more of a political tool to generate the public acceptance of pipelines. The actual CO2 impact of the pipeline is absolutely in zero way mitigated by the carbon tax.
that pipeline that now will never exist was substantially owned by the Canadian and ALbertan government. If it was built we would see a very efficient transfer of profit directly to new initiatives. Now we're no further ahead AND we own a pipe-less pipeline project.
[deleted]
Unfortunately that demand is sticky. In North America, we have built our entire societies around plentiful fossil fuels. We cannot just turn that ship around on a dime.
Except I doubt everyone is going to walk to work, eat only locally grown produce in the winter (hope you like potatoes), feed the world without fertilizer and replace plastics with ... what, smug self-satisfaction?
The track system of course has finite capacity, but how close to that finite capacity are they running, and how much of that capacity is the new oil demand?
If new new oil demand makes the capacity go from 9% to 12% that is one thing, and quite another going from 68% to 98%...
If new new oil demand makes the capacity go from 9% to 12% that is one thing, and quite another going from 68% to 98%...
I think it is a case of popular politics but poor policy. It appears like Canada has decided that they do not want to be in resource extraction for environmental purposes, but in their bid to be socially responsible, they are for the most part ignoring the potential political and social fallout of such a policy. Sure, it will make oil and gas operations more untenable in Canada, but ultimately that probably wont matter much since other producers that already dictate the price through cartels will quickly fill demand to their own benefit.
Whether or not people want to think about it, Canada exports a lot of natural resources, and if they want to stop, which is fine, they better have a real plan for transitioning those industries, and have an idea of what they will do in lieu of a that huge chunk of their exports going away. Its really easy to say something like "just transition away from oil" but history has shown that it is very difficult to do, especially for a province beholden to federal policy.
These costs are massive but are largely being ignored, or just offloaded as only Alberta's problem. They are running the risk of hollowing out a huge portion of the economy without any real plan which has pretty severe consequences as seen in places like the rust belt, which will end up sowing the seeds of populist resentment amongst communities that will feel used and abandoned, especially in places that already feel largely ignored by federal politics like western Canada.
Whether or not people want to think about it, Canada exports a lot of natural resources, and if they want to stop, which is fine, they better have a real plan for transitioning those industries, and have an idea of what they will do in lieu of a that huge chunk of their exports going away. Its really easy to say something like "just transition away from oil" but history has shown that it is very difficult to do, especially for a province beholden to federal policy.
These costs are massive but are largely being ignored, or just offloaded as only Alberta's problem. They are running the risk of hollowing out a huge portion of the economy without any real plan which has pretty severe consequences as seen in places like the rust belt, which will end up sowing the seeds of populist resentment amongst communities that will feel used and abandoned, especially in places that already feel largely ignored by federal politics like western Canada.
> It appears like Canada has decided that they do not want to be in resource extraction for environmental purposes
Do you have a moment to talk about Calgary? Canada is the fourth largest producer of crude oil in the world. Not bad for a county half the population of California over the same area as the USA.
They might talk a good talk, but they aren’t going to stop oil production until they run out. Same as anyone else.
Do you have a moment to talk about Calgary? Canada is the fourth largest producer of crude oil in the world. Not bad for a county half the population of California over the same area as the USA.
They might talk a good talk, but they aren’t going to stop oil production until they run out. Same as anyone else.
The more fossil fuel infrastructure we build out, the harder it will be to make the transition to clean energy. Adding costs to fossil fuels is not a bad thing.
Absolutely. We should be exploring ways to financially disadvantage refineries and fueling stations as well. Have to find every weak point in fossil infra to exploit towards a failure mode. This drives the cost up, making electrified options (that don’t emit carbon) more competitive sooner.
>> This drives the cost up, making electrified options (that don’t emit carbon) more competitive sooner.
Interesting take on "competitive". I guess we could encourage renewables or capture externalities, but why do that when we can rig the entire system "for fairness"?
Interesting take on "competitive". I guess we could encourage renewables or capture externalities, but why do that when we can rig the entire system "for fairness"?
If there were a carbon tax and similar mechanisms, I wouldn’t need to advocate for tilting the playing field, as the market would solve this naturally. Unfortunately, a carbon tax (“capture externalities” in your comment) is untenable in the US and fossil fuels continue to receive hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies.
It’s a climate emergency with all of the urgency of afternoon tea. You must destroy demand for the root cause of the situation, as soon as possible (hence my comment).
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2011969118
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fue...
It’s a climate emergency with all of the urgency of afternoon tea. You must destroy demand for the root cause of the situation, as soon as possible (hence my comment).
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2011969118
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fue...
[deleted]
Must be nice to be so rich that you can choose to pay more for things.
I don’t have a solution for the species constantly borrowing from the future. The bill comes due eventually. If you think being poor sucks now, wait for water shortages and crop failures. I get it, everyone wants the benefits without the costs. But there are costs.
Obligatory “we should have carbon taxes and cap and trade to help make the transition fair and equitable”. I’m aware the wealthy are culpable for higher per capita CO2 emissions, and as such they should bear a greater burden in this regard. Life ain’t fair unfortunately.
Obligatory “we should have carbon taxes and cap and trade to help make the transition fair and equitable”. I’m aware the wealthy are culpable for higher per capita CO2 emissions, and as such they should bear a greater burden in this regard. Life ain’t fair unfortunately.
Could always make the carbon tax revenue neutral. Then it mostly becomes a subsidy for the poor who aren't jumping on planes 10x/year.
[deleted]
Imagine if we seized property and gave it to a private company to build wind farms. I'm sure the response would be worse than what happened here.
Your comment is interesting given that some of the strongest voices against the Keystone XL pipeline are the indigenous tribes whose lands and water would be jeopardized by it.
Why do we have to do the 'g[i]ve it to a private company' part?
Who is downvoting you? Why? Your comment is perfectly on point IMO.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Energy is a money game.
Adding costs due to adding inefficiency in the supply chain is definitely a bad thing, since you could easily achieve the exact same outcome with a tax instead.
This is true, but if new taxes are politically untenable (which, in the current US political environment, they definitely are), the choice isn't between inefficiency and a tax, it's between inefficiency and the status quo. Politics is the art of the possible.
Wouldn't the pipeline operators have willingly agreed to a levy or tax of some sort if the alternative is complete shutdown?
Probably, but even if they did, it's probably not within the power of the executive to create such a mechanism.
If that's the case, you have a good point.
Sure, but you should also just not give permits when the project is dangerous (which was what multiple agencies and courts had suggested in this case but one of the last three administrations was trying to overrule them)
You're right for some oil but there isn't enough rail infrastructure to enable Canadian crude growth without pipelines. Discounting WCS crude diffs to WTI will price out most long term production growth without offsetting higher crude flat price. Demand for oil isn't perfectly inelastic, so higher flat price enables more fuel switching (e.g. electric).
> Oil is all going to get transported by rail or truck.
... which is more expensive than transporting by pipeline, thus increasing the cost of oil, cutting the development of marginally-viable oil exploration projects, and hastening the point at which it is uncompetitive with renewables and killed. This is working exactly as intended.
... which is more expensive than transporting by pipeline, thus increasing the cost of oil, cutting the development of marginally-viable oil exploration projects, and hastening the point at which it is uncompetitive with renewables and killed. This is working exactly as intended.
You could also stretch and call it an indictment of externalizing oil production costs. I'm aware that building and running a refinery is an extremely expensive operation, to the point where it isn't economical to either mobilize a refinery, or base them at the site of extraction.
That said, running a refinery also has local costs that are usually externalized, in terms of local pollution and populace movement. Canada itself though has a fairly large amount of space, but perhaps a surfeit of people. Why doesn't TC energy (or other Canada producers) build a refinery somewhere in Canada and transport to there?
That said, running a refinery also has local costs that are usually externalized, in terms of local pollution and populace movement. Canada itself though has a fairly large amount of space, but perhaps a surfeit of people. Why doesn't TC energy (or other Canada producers) build a refinery somewhere in Canada and transport to there?
Alternatively, it could just encourage fracking and refining closer to the delivery point. Smaller economies of scale would be offset by lower transport cost. At the same time, pollution would likely increase.
The only real lever the government has is increasing fuel taxes, but that would result in roots from people who are barely making it before massive increases in transportation costs.
The only real lever the government has is increasing fuel taxes, but that would result in roots from people who are barely making it before massive increases in transportation costs.
Or... maybe the market will react to higher oil prices and choose other fuels? Might be wanting to hodl TSLA and not rail stocks.
Oil != gas for your car. It's fuel for millions of homes, transportation of all those goods you buy and out of market food, plastic products, fertilizer that has allowed us to feed millions, etc. Your electric car is a very small part of that.
>It's fuel for millions of homes
3% of oil goes towards residential uses.
> transportation of all those goods you buy
16% of oil goes to diesel for transportation
>plastic products, fertilizer that has allowed us to feed millions,
1.5% of oil goes to all petrochemicals combined
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
The vast plurality of oil goes to making gasoline which is used in motor vehicles.
3% of oil goes towards residential uses.
> transportation of all those goods you buy
16% of oil goes to diesel for transportation
>plastic products, fertilizer that has allowed us to feed millions,
1.5% of oil goes to all petrochemicals combined
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
The vast plurality of oil goes to making gasoline which is used in motor vehicles.
Sure, and to the extent that the feedstocks for all of those processes become more expensive, it makes cleaner alternatives more competitive in sectors where they exist, and in sectors where they don't, creates stronger incentives to develop new ones. It's not like this one pipeline will mean suddenly there's no more fertilizer, but any slight increases in cost will help incentivize change at the margins.
You... can't heat homes with electricity?
You missed the point. The upthread poster made a gag about BNSF as a way of arguing that this was somehow a corrupt gift to the transportation industry (which... yeah, whatever).
I quipped about Tesla to indicate that, no, the market adapts along every available axis and renewable power is if anything more likely to benefit than some rail outfit that just happens to be owned by Warren Buffett.
You missed the point. The upthread poster made a gag about BNSF as a way of arguing that this was somehow a corrupt gift to the transportation industry (which... yeah, whatever).
I quipped about Tesla to indicate that, no, the market adapts along every available axis and renewable power is if anything more likely to benefit than some rail outfit that just happens to be owned by Warren Buffett.
How does that work?
I mean, putting aside the political & scientific issues around clean energy etc.
How does the government get to revoke a permit after significant work and money was already spent based on getting the permit in the first place? Does the government pay compensation? Does the company have to file a lawsuit?
I mean, putting aside the political & scientific issues around clean energy etc.
How does the government get to revoke a permit after significant work and money was already spent based on getting the permit in the first place? Does the government pay compensation? Does the company have to file a lawsuit?
The text of the permit included a clause that said it could be revoked solely at the discretion of the president. So all it takes is the president deciding to revoke it.
I'm kind of fascinated that people see such a breezy permit as an important factor in the decision to build something or not. Of course they need the permit to construct the border facility, but they aren't going to make the investment decision just based on the existence of the permit.
I'm kind of fascinated that people see such a breezy permit as an important factor in the decision to build something or not. Of course they need the permit to construct the border facility, but they aren't going to make the investment decision just based on the existence of the permit.
Government gonna govern. Unless there are specific appeal clauses in the relevant permission processes, most governments can (and will) do what they want on this sort of issue. You can interpret it as a prevarication over the private individual/company, or as a reaffirmation of society's right to change its mind.
This sort of scenario is precisely why private interests lobby so hard to add arbitration rules to international free-trade agreements, btw; they want to protect their investments against changes in political winds, by moving judgements on compensation to a dodgy world of ad-hoc pseudo-legal structures.
This sort of scenario is precisely why private interests lobby so hard to add arbitration rules to international free-trade agreements, btw; they want to protect their investments against changes in political winds, by moving judgements on compensation to a dodgy world of ad-hoc pseudo-legal structures.
Look at the history of this permit: Obama's administration being against it; agencies and courts during Trump's administration being against it, but being fought; Biden's administration being against it. There was never certainty here and this company was gambling, hoping there is another administration today.
There is no mention in the article about the previous permit being revoked by the court for being illegal.
Could you supply some specifics/citations for the previous permit being revoked for being illegal?
Sure.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone...
Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone...
Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...
It doesn't say it is illegal rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary.
>In Thursday's ruling, Morris wrote that the State Department's analysis of potential environmental effects fell short of a "hard look" on the effects of current oil prices on the viability of Keystone, cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and potential oil spills.
>In Thursday's ruling, Morris wrote that the State Department's analysis of potential environmental effects fell short of a "hard look" on the effects of current oil prices on the viability of Keystone, cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and potential oil spills.
> It doesn't say it is illegal
Yes it does.
> rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary.
It was revoked because it was illegally issued (in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and thr Administrative Procedure Act) because the analysis was not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for issuing it.
Yes it does.
> rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary.
It was revoked because it was illegally issued (in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and thr Administrative Procedure Act) because the analysis was not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for issuing it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
Section 6 doesn't say any of that. (b) talks about an exhaustive review, but it just says it would be bad for the climate and economy.
The text is the same in the Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01...
Section 6 doesn't say any of that. (b) talks about an exhaustive review, but it just says it would be bad for the climate and economy.
The text is the same in the Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01...
The previous permit was revoked by a court due to NEPA issues.
Then-President Trump subsequently issued a permit himself using his presidential power: this one didn't require a NEPA environmental review because neither NEPA nor the APA apply to actions by the President. The whole thing is a little wonky because both the older and newer ones are "presidential" permits, but since the State Department had actually issued the prior one, the APA and NEPA applied.
The permit President Biden revoked was Trump's replacement one.
Then-President Trump subsequently issued a permit himself using his presidential power: this one didn't require a NEPA environmental review because neither NEPA nor the APA apply to actions by the President. The whole thing is a little wonky because both the older and newer ones are "presidential" permits, but since the State Department had actually issued the prior one, the APA and NEPA applied.
The permit President Biden revoked was Trump's replacement one.
So was the permit Trump issued illegal? Or was it just "crass" and not what people are used to?
(I'm not supporting it, I'm curious as to how much of the process is really specified in law an how much of it relies on norms.)
(I'm not supporting it, I'm curious as to how much of the process is really specified in law an how much of it relies on norms.)
His permit wasn't illegal, just not through the usual processes. It's very on-brand for him in a variety of ways.
This permit system arises from a series of executive orders that normally delegate authority to the State Department. By hooking in the State Department, the NEPA environmental review requirements (which apply to Federal agencies) get triggered.
While the Obama administration likely purposely slow-rolled many of these permits (including Keystone XL's) before ultimately denying them, the Trump administration as a matter of policy fast-tracked them for approval and also invited new applications where things had been previously denied. Keystone XL was one of these re-applications.
Trump's State Department did an environmental review, mostly relying on earlier work, and quickly issued the permit. The administration later lost in court with the court saying the review was insufficient. They probably could have done another one and just reissued it that way: courts saying "do more NEPA," agencies taking a long time to come to the same conclusion, and the result simply being delayed is not uncommon in these kinds of reviews.
But environmental impact statements take a long time, and instead of doing that they just had the President personally issue the permit and thereby sidestep the requirement to do the review at all.
This permit system arises from a series of executive orders that normally delegate authority to the State Department. By hooking in the State Department, the NEPA environmental review requirements (which apply to Federal agencies) get triggered.
While the Obama administration likely purposely slow-rolled many of these permits (including Keystone XL's) before ultimately denying them, the Trump administration as a matter of policy fast-tracked them for approval and also invited new applications where things had been previously denied. Keystone XL was one of these re-applications.
Trump's State Department did an environmental review, mostly relying on earlier work, and quickly issued the permit. The administration later lost in court with the court saying the review was insufficient. They probably could have done another one and just reissued it that way: courts saying "do more NEPA," agencies taking a long time to come to the same conclusion, and the result simply being delayed is not uncommon in these kinds of reviews.
But environmental impact statements take a long time, and instead of doing that they just had the President personally issue the permit and thereby sidestep the requirement to do the review at all.
> So was the permit Trump issued illegal?
Legal doesn't mean "criminal or not criminal", it is about adhering to legal processes. Even if these rules are set by executive-derived departments, they have to be followed or a court may block actions (via injunction) or otherwise the organization will not progress in pursuit of something like a permit request. Norms are a testament to historic quagmires (both legal and process-wise) that the organizations have experienced and try to avoid.
In the case of Trump's order, it was legal in the sense that it circumvented those rules altogether as it was outside most of the legal machinations. An order for the permit and was enacted directly by the executive head. This does not preclude a challenge in the judicial arenas (which is what happened). You can sue about anything in the US, even if the POTUS ordered it, and it gets a hearing if there's the slightest political support.
Legal doesn't mean "criminal or not criminal", it is about adhering to legal processes. Even if these rules are set by executive-derived departments, they have to be followed or a court may block actions (via injunction) or otherwise the organization will not progress in pursuit of something like a permit request. Norms are a testament to historic quagmires (both legal and process-wise) that the organizations have experienced and try to avoid.
In the case of Trump's order, it was legal in the sense that it circumvented those rules altogether as it was outside most of the legal machinations. An order for the permit and was enacted directly by the executive head. This does not preclude a challenge in the judicial arenas (which is what happened). You can sue about anything in the US, even if the POTUS ordered it, and it gets a hearing if there's the slightest political support.
[deleted]
The economics of Canadian oil sands production are just not that marginal for production to be affected by this. Suncor figures that their fully loaded breakeven oil price is $35 WTI [1](WTI is currently trading in the $60s).
All that has happened here is more oil getting shipped by rail with a higher carbon footprint.
[1] https://www.suncor.com/-/media/project/suncor/files/investor...
All that has happened here is more oil getting shipped by rail with a higher carbon footprint.
[1] https://www.suncor.com/-/media/project/suncor/files/investor...
Does anyone know what the cost of transporting oil by rail, pipeline, or truck is in terms of dollars per barrel? Seems like it would make it easier to understand whether it affects the viability of oil production.
A lot of comments here saying that this will increase the cost of oil so make oil extraction more profitable. But I wonder, this won't increase demand, because it's increasing cost. So it's a net-win, right? Tar-Sand oil is so environmentally unfriendly that the alternative is better, afaik. But this ignores falling costs for renewables. Since the price of renewables is falling drastically, this should bolster energy creation via renewables (since it becomes more competitive) and therefore also driving the cost further down. So this could also accelerate the progress of switching to renewables.
I think the better way would be to build the pipeline without subsidies at all and increase taxes on it. So we won't see a cheaper price and have a better mode of transport, but that's probably not politically feasible, so this is the next best option.
I think the comments declaring "oil will find a way" are completely wrong. This is not about eliminating oil and I think most supporters of the scrap will know this.
I think the better way would be to build the pipeline without subsidies at all and increase taxes on it. So we won't see a cheaper price and have a better mode of transport, but that's probably not politically feasible, so this is the next best option.
I think the comments declaring "oil will find a way" are completely wrong. This is not about eliminating oil and I think most supporters of the scrap will know this.
Oil will move and oil will get purchased, so this is a net negative for the environment as the alternative means of transport emit more.
The existence of the pipeline very well could induce demand equivalent or greater than what will be wasted transporting it by other means.
But it won’t. The impact on price is negligible because of the size of the market.
But trains and trucks will definitely be used. And will use more carbon.
It’s pretty similar arithmetic that this will result in more carbon released.
Comically, the way to stop production is to lower the price of oil so extraction no longer makes sense from these locations. If anything a higher price for oil means more extraction because it becomes more profitable. And more oil transported using dirtier means.
But trains and trucks will definitely be used. And will use more carbon.
It’s pretty similar arithmetic that this will result in more carbon released.
Comically, the way to stop production is to lower the price of oil so extraction no longer makes sense from these locations. If anything a higher price for oil means more extraction because it becomes more profitable. And more oil transported using dirtier means.
Making the movement of oil more expensive makes oil more expensive, meaning oil will be purchased less, and alternative forms of energy will be purchased more, no?
Sure but moving by rail emits more greenhouse gas _now_ as opposed to less now later maybe more. Plus there are way more rail accidents like this one from 2013 killing 47 people and destroying a town: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disas...
Changes in price aren’t the only issue with oil pipelines - there are also reliability issues (despite repeated promises from pipeline companies, pipelines leak) and issues around treaty lands.
Oil spills from trucks and trains are much more detectable, meaning residents don’t need to worry about them secretly contaminating water supplies. Pipeline spills are harder to detect, so you don’t necessarily know until oil has already seeped into the ground.
There are a lot of good reasons to stop oil pipeline projects.
Oil spills from trucks and trains are much more detectable, meaning residents don’t need to worry about them secretly contaminating water supplies. Pipeline spills are harder to detect, so you don’t necessarily know until oil has already seeped into the ground.
There are a lot of good reasons to stop oil pipeline projects.
Do you have sources to support your idea is more than just conjecture? I just finished an engineering risk management course and transporting oil by rail was unambiguously riskier.
Oil use depends on the cost of oil. As such while less efficient than a carbon tax this is a small net benefit to the environment.
Oil doesn't really have an alternative right now for many of its applications. Plus, at the beginning of the pandemic gas was dirt cheap, yet no one needed it. However, this discussion was about transportation of oil, and the idea is that pipelines are more efficient than rail or trucks (if that even makes sense), so it's a pity the decision to halt the project is more political than even environmental.
Increasing the price only needs to reduce usage in any areas to see a net benefit.
As to transportation options, boats and trains are extremely efficient to the point where pipelines don’t make that big of an environmental difference.
As to transportation options, boats and trains are extremely efficient to the point where pipelines don’t make that big of an environmental difference.
According to [1] the cost in 2018 was $5/barrel via pipeline, vs $10-$15/barrel by train. Also, for Alberta boats are not an option since it's a landlocked province. Also, Alberta's oil sands are the world's largest oil reserves after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, so a pipeline would be very economical once it starts running.
Also, quote from [2]: While long-haul oil and gas pipelines are also more economical and environmentally friendly than other modes of transport like rail or trucking (pipelines create 61 to 77% less greenhouse gas emissions than rail when moving crude over long distances, says one recent study), they also have a safe delivery rate of greater than 99.999%.
This is quoted from Enbridge's website, which is a pipeline company, which may be a bit biased, however I doubt they are lying.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-...
[2] https://www.enbridge.com/Your-questions/User-submitted/Why-a...
Also, quote from [2]: While long-haul oil and gas pipelines are also more economical and environmentally friendly than other modes of transport like rail or trucking (pipelines create 61 to 77% less greenhouse gas emissions than rail when moving crude over long distances, says one recent study), they also have a safe delivery rate of greater than 99.999%.
This is quoted from Enbridge's website, which is a pipeline company, which may be a bit biased, however I doubt they are lying.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-...
[2] https://www.enbridge.com/Your-questions/User-submitted/Why-a...
As you guessed the source is biased. The question isn’t if pipelines are more efficient in use, the question is if the construction of pipelines + operation of pipelines over their lifespan is a significant net environmental savings. And that’s both much closer and largely irrelevant vs the environmental cost of the oil shipped via the pipelines.
As to being lower cost, again the lower cost isn’t a savings for the environment it’s a savings for the oil company.
As to being lower cost, again the lower cost isn’t a savings for the environment it’s a savings for the oil company.
Is it right for a government to revoke a permit after issuance for no fault of the permit holder?
Will the permit holder be compensated for lost revenue from the oil pipeline they had been given permission to build but now cannot?
What would happen had the permit been revoked after the oil pipeline was already operational?
Will the permit holder be compensated for lost revenue from the oil pipeline they had been given permission to build but now cannot?
What would happen had the permit been revoked after the oil pipeline was already operational?
It's been clear for many years that there are already more fossil fuel projects in the pipeline than what the planet can handle. This wasn't a secret.
The fault of these companies was pretending that they can ignore the climate crisis.
The choice is actually quite simple: Either we find a way to stop projects already in the pipeline and sometimes already in operation or the planet gets burned. I know which one I'd choose.
The fault of these companies was pretending that they can ignore the climate crisis.
The choice is actually quite simple: Either we find a way to stop projects already in the pipeline and sometimes already in operation or the planet gets burned. I know which one I'd choose.
Pretty much unrelated, but I think pipelines are cool (but fossil fuels aren’t!) - if you want to read about milk and beer pipelines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport#Other_sys...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport#Other_sys...
This is great news, but a $1/gallon carbon capture tax would be even better.
So, a regressive tax that hurts the poor and would end up only benefiting the special interests and creating more do-nothing gov’t bloat?
If you’re already playing with other peoples’ money and trying to change behavior I would suggest less stick, more carrot.
If you’re already playing with other peoples’ money and trying to change behavior I would suggest less stick, more carrot.
Such tax proposals usually try to be net zero. That means at the end of the year the poor are given the money back, and the rich are not.
[deleted]
Got any other good ways to tax the working poor? $1/gallon tax is a very regressive tax.
This idea that oil is on its way out is truly laughable. In fact, cancelling this pipeline might do far more harm than good.
Simple exercise:
- Fire-up Excel - Model a future with 100 million electric cars - Determine how much power (not energy) will be required to plug them in every day
Now answer a simple question: Were is this energy going to come from?
Then realize that the oil economy goes way beyond just fuel. This is a complex problem with an almost unlimited number of variables.
For example, the buttons and the cloth of the shirt you are wearing are likely made with oil byproducts. The same is the case for parts of the sewing machines, tools, computers and even the building where it was made. The machines required oil-based lubricants. The factory used other oil-based products, such as release agents and other chemicals. The people who work there, in turn, could not live or even get to work, without myriad products made from or that require oil derivatives. And then there’s the vehicles, transportation and communications systems, all of which depend on oil for materials (plastics) and fuel.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Ignoring reality does not lead to better outcomes.
Go back to power required to charge 100 million vehicles. Given our current energy infrastructure we would have to burn astronomical quantities of everything we can burn in order to support “clean” transportation. Either that or we have to start building nuclear power plants at a pace and a scale never before seen.
Not saying this pipeline saves the world. I am simply suggesting we are failing to exercise critical thinking and, because of this, tend to focus on the wrong problems.
It is far easier for politicians to sell “pipeline = evil) than to discuss the energy realities of all-electric transportation at scale.
One gets you votes. The other one gets you voted out. And that’s how we end-up on the wrong path.
Simple exercise:
- Fire-up Excel - Model a future with 100 million electric cars - Determine how much power (not energy) will be required to plug them in every day
Now answer a simple question: Were is this energy going to come from?
Then realize that the oil economy goes way beyond just fuel. This is a complex problem with an almost unlimited number of variables.
For example, the buttons and the cloth of the shirt you are wearing are likely made with oil byproducts. The same is the case for parts of the sewing machines, tools, computers and even the building where it was made. The machines required oil-based lubricants. The factory used other oil-based products, such as release agents and other chemicals. The people who work there, in turn, could not live or even get to work, without myriad products made from or that require oil derivatives. And then there’s the vehicles, transportation and communications systems, all of which depend on oil for materials (plastics) and fuel.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Ignoring reality does not lead to better outcomes.
Go back to power required to charge 100 million vehicles. Given our current energy infrastructure we would have to burn astronomical quantities of everything we can burn in order to support “clean” transportation. Either that or we have to start building nuclear power plants at a pace and a scale never before seen.
Not saying this pipeline saves the world. I am simply suggesting we are failing to exercise critical thinking and, because of this, tend to focus on the wrong problems.
It is far easier for politicians to sell “pipeline = evil) than to discuss the energy realities of all-electric transportation at scale.
One gets you votes. The other one gets you voted out. And that’s how we end-up on the wrong path.
I am all in favor of the idea of pipelines, because they improve on rail/road transport from an efficiency perspective.
Having said that, the US seems not to have the legal or ethical framework in place to make them work, because the leaks are too common, too slowly-discovered, and too enormous. So maybe doing pipelines correctly is actually uncompetitive with other forms of moving oil, because time and time it again it seems to be a rejected option by the people building leaky pipelines.
Having said that, the US seems not to have the legal or ethical framework in place to make them work, because the leaks are too common, too slowly-discovered, and too enormous. So maybe doing pipelines correctly is actually uncompetitive with other forms of moving oil, because time and time it again it seems to be a rejected option by the people building leaky pipelines.
I am not sure that’s right. Despite popular memes, the goal of the oil industry isn’t to destroy the planet. I have a friend who works in that industry. I did not understand just how difficult the work is until he got this job and shared what he learned.
We are very much removed from this reality. We pump gasoline at the station and buy plastic spoons and forks without a sense of what it took to get there.
Pipelines are no different from any other engineering endeavor. They are difficult to design and build and, no, we can’t make them perfect any more than you can make a hammer or a screwdriver indestructible. I don’t think it is about the US being incompetent or careless. I also don’t think it is about nefarious intent on the part of corporations. I could not imagine a nastier industry to navigate, from a political and regulatory perspective.
This, I think, is the problem. The deep political divisions in the US create a situation where energy policy is, at best, disjointed, disorganized and likely misplaced.
I think shutting down modern pipelines is ridiculous. Not because I love oil. No. I think it is because I try hard to be realistic about not just energy, but also the massive and deep chain of products and services that depend on oil derivatives. Simple example: Tens to hundreds of millions of people world wide would have died from COVID if we did not have oil and it’s derivatives to support what we had to do to protect ourselves, fight it and find a cure.
Perspective is important.
We are very much removed from this reality. We pump gasoline at the station and buy plastic spoons and forks without a sense of what it took to get there.
Pipelines are no different from any other engineering endeavor. They are difficult to design and build and, no, we can’t make them perfect any more than you can make a hammer or a screwdriver indestructible. I don’t think it is about the US being incompetent or careless. I also don’t think it is about nefarious intent on the part of corporations. I could not imagine a nastier industry to navigate, from a political and regulatory perspective.
This, I think, is the problem. The deep political divisions in the US create a situation where energy policy is, at best, disjointed, disorganized and likely misplaced.
I think shutting down modern pipelines is ridiculous. Not because I love oil. No. I think it is because I try hard to be realistic about not just energy, but also the massive and deep chain of products and services that depend on oil derivatives. Simple example: Tens to hundreds of millions of people world wide would have died from COVID if we did not have oil and it’s derivatives to support what we had to do to protect ourselves, fight it and find a cure.
Perspective is important.
The specifics of transporting oil are foreign to me, and my guesses about differences and magnitudes of cost are sourced primarily from [0].
Having said that, it seems that the enormous savings to be had by using pipelines should be channeled back into more sensors, robustness, and/or monitoring. The article I linked cites $50B of annual savings on oil transported by Keystone XL. Great! Maybe let's put 10-20% of that back into more sensors, hiring more people for monitoring/inspections, or better.
When I look at the Wikipedia page of oil spills, I want oil pipelines if the US can be like Canada, where spills often release <1000 barrels (still a lot, but representing very fast response), not a place where it's hundreds of thousands of barrels, and not detected by the companies themselves most of the time.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-...
Having said that, it seems that the enormous savings to be had by using pipelines should be channeled back into more sensors, robustness, and/or monitoring. The article I linked cites $50B of annual savings on oil transported by Keystone XL. Great! Maybe let's put 10-20% of that back into more sensors, hiring more people for monitoring/inspections, or better.
When I look at the Wikipedia page of oil spills, I want oil pipelines if the US can be like Canada, where spills often release <1000 barrels (still a lot, but representing very fast response), not a place where it's hundreds of thousands of barrels, and not detected by the companies themselves most of the time.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-...
I think one of the bigger issues in general with the US is that our infrastructure is older. This is a natural effect of being first movers on a range of technologies.
For example, I remember travelling to Europe and South America and having better mobile phone services and features than the US. The reason at the time is that we were stuck with a massive investment that was made in the early days of cell phones. Other parts of the world, where deployment was what I might call phase 2, had the ability to take advantage of next generation ideas and technology.
I would imagine the same is true of oil pipeline technology. I don't know any more about oil transportation than you do. Yet, I think I might be correct in making the assumption that older (50+ years?) pipelines exist in the US and it it these that might lead to the conclusion that we don't build them well. The facts, however, could be precisely the opposite to this conclusion: We built them very well. They survived 50+ years without issues. And now they are starting to show their age and need extensive repairs or replacement.
This is where I think politics might get in the way. I think you actually want brand new, high tech pipelines. They are likely far better for the environment across a range of criteria.
By turning oil and energy into a political mess we can't make the right decisions, which might very well be to build new high-tech pipelines and replace the old ones.
The oil economy isn't going away for a long time, 100+ years. Transportation fuel is only one variable in the vast array of benefits we derive from fuel. Look around your house, everything you own depends of oil. It would be hard to identify items in modern life that would be possible without oil and oil derivatives.
Here's the fallacy committed by those equating oil with bad things for humanity or the planet. We would literally have to go back to pre-industrial revolution humanity in order to be able to truly get to a post-oil society. Now imagine the damage eight billion people would do to the environment if we could not rely on oil and derivatives. We would burn down every forest on the planet. We would deplete every single farmable patch of soil of nutrients. We would destroy ecosystems at an unimaginable rate. A post-oil society cannot support eight billion people on this planet without doing unimaginable damage all ecosystems we touch.
We need to do all we can to make cleaner use of oil and derivatives. It isn't going away. And having a war against the very infrastructure that makes it safer is truly not intelligent.
For example, I remember travelling to Europe and South America and having better mobile phone services and features than the US. The reason at the time is that we were stuck with a massive investment that was made in the early days of cell phones. Other parts of the world, where deployment was what I might call phase 2, had the ability to take advantage of next generation ideas and technology.
I would imagine the same is true of oil pipeline technology. I don't know any more about oil transportation than you do. Yet, I think I might be correct in making the assumption that older (50+ years?) pipelines exist in the US and it it these that might lead to the conclusion that we don't build them well. The facts, however, could be precisely the opposite to this conclusion: We built them very well. They survived 50+ years without issues. And now they are starting to show their age and need extensive repairs or replacement.
This is where I think politics might get in the way. I think you actually want brand new, high tech pipelines. They are likely far better for the environment across a range of criteria.
By turning oil and energy into a political mess we can't make the right decisions, which might very well be to build new high-tech pipelines and replace the old ones.
The oil economy isn't going away for a long time, 100+ years. Transportation fuel is only one variable in the vast array of benefits we derive from fuel. Look around your house, everything you own depends of oil. It would be hard to identify items in modern life that would be possible without oil and oil derivatives.
Here's the fallacy committed by those equating oil with bad things for humanity or the planet. We would literally have to go back to pre-industrial revolution humanity in order to be able to truly get to a post-oil society. Now imagine the damage eight billion people would do to the environment if we could not rely on oil and derivatives. We would burn down every forest on the planet. We would deplete every single farmable patch of soil of nutrients. We would destroy ecosystems at an unimaginable rate. A post-oil society cannot support eight billion people on this planet without doing unimaginable damage all ecosystems we touch.
We need to do all we can to make cleaner use of oil and derivatives. It isn't going away. And having a war against the very infrastructure that makes it safer is truly not intelligent.
As a Canadian, born in Calgary, Alberta, I'm saddened to hear this. But it seems to be part of the platform of the Democrats.
As a citizen of Earth, I'm of mixed feelings. On the one hand heavy crude from the tar sands, which is some of the most polluting oil on the planet, because it requires so much energy to extract, will keep shipping by rail to the United States. That involves more spills than a pipeline and burning yet more fuel. That's bad.
On the other hand that makes the prices higher and both constrains the volume of output and the price at which it's profitable to extract. Both things that mean more of that tar sands oil will stay in the ground. That's good.
On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil the US otherwise would have imported from Canada. That's potentially bad.
I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any accurate idea either.
Edit: and the downvotes are because you disagree with my economic analysis? Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party lines. Actually judging by the downvotes, I think it was a smart political move. I really wish HN would require a comment with a downvote, even if it's only visible to the OP.
As a citizen of Earth, I'm of mixed feelings. On the one hand heavy crude from the tar sands, which is some of the most polluting oil on the planet, because it requires so much energy to extract, will keep shipping by rail to the United States. That involves more spills than a pipeline and burning yet more fuel. That's bad.
On the other hand that makes the prices higher and both constrains the volume of output and the price at which it's profitable to extract. Both things that mean more of that tar sands oil will stay in the ground. That's good.
On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil the US otherwise would have imported from Canada. That's potentially bad.
I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any accurate idea either.
Edit: and the downvotes are because you disagree with my economic analysis? Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party lines. Actually judging by the downvotes, I think it was a smart political move. I really wish HN would require a comment with a downvote, even if it's only visible to the OP.
> On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil the US otherwise would have imported from Canada.
This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources.
Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply.
Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source.
This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources.
Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply.
Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source.
The oil from the tar sands isn't clean, there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada (I'm Canadian too before anyone jumps on that). Sure, it's extracted under better working conditions than many places in the world, but the damage to the environment is substantial, it's a very energy intensive process and furthermore it is much worse in terms of impact and energy use than almost all other means of obtaining oil.
Alberta seems to be expecting this oil thing to keep the province going forever; it is over. Diversify, try new things, for your sake and the sake of the rest of Canada. Please stop expecting this to get better. 2015 was a warning, it's now officially ending and the time to start moving on has passed, every day not diversifying the economy of Alberta is just a day of economic procrastination.
Edit: Sure energy security, keep some for us, but let's not make it the backbone of our economy.
Alberta seems to be expecting this oil thing to keep the province going forever; it is over. Diversify, try new things, for your sake and the sake of the rest of Canada. Please stop expecting this to get better. 2015 was a warning, it's now officially ending and the time to start moving on has passed, every day not diversifying the economy of Alberta is just a day of economic procrastination.
Edit: Sure energy security, keep some for us, but let's not make it the backbone of our economy.
> there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada
Energy security, not propping up authoritarian regimes with terrible human rights records, not requiring military interventions to protect a stable supply of oil.
Maybe not good enough reasons to change the balance, but reasons nonetheless.
Energy security, not propping up authoritarian regimes with terrible human rights records, not requiring military interventions to protect a stable supply of oil.
Maybe not good enough reasons to change the balance, but reasons nonetheless.
Alternative: phase out oil. Also solves those problems.
Right, while you wave your magic wand to try and accomplish that, the world will keep using oil.
Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow transition not a switch we can flip.
Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow transition not a switch we can flip.
> Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow transition not a switch we can flip.
And trains lend themselves much better to slow declining transition than a new pipeline. Can be used for other cargo; are a bit more expensive so they are a mild financial disincentive; the contaminated material (tanker cars) are by definition mobile and therefore easier to deal with at EOL.
And trains lend themselves much better to slow declining transition than a new pipeline. Can be used for other cargo; are a bit more expensive so they are a mild financial disincentive; the contaminated material (tanker cars) are by definition mobile and therefore easier to deal with at EOL.
I think that economies are stubborn beasts, if they can avoid change they will. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any sort of energy transition to occur gracefully while oil is in supply. As the price goes up we'll see some industries priced out and over time we'll see early adopters convert but we're not going to see a smooth transition for the populace at large.
It really depends on what “at large” you mean and the timing. If we passed a carbon tax and told everyone that oil will never be cheaper than it is now the phase-out would be relatively smooth: people would buy smaller, fuel efficient vehicles and EVs; there’d be more carpooling and combined trips; and people would be quicker to use transit or remote work. The same is true for home heating, various trades using equipment like lawnmowers, etc. — make a clear promise and do so across the board so people have the incentive to make capital investments.
The problem there is if you need to do it quickly: if the SUV/truck trend hadn’t caught on, for example, fleet economy wouldn’t have reversed the improvements we saw in the 80s and early 90s. The longer we wait, the harder that gradual transition will be.
The problem there is if you need to do it quickly: if the SUV/truck trend hadn’t caught on, for example, fleet economy wouldn’t have reversed the improvements we saw in the 80s and early 90s. The longer we wait, the harder that gradual transition will be.
This. To me it's like being a paper form printing company when computers were just becoming mainstream. Your days are numbered, deal with it and survive or don't and you wont.
We will be using petroleum products long after everyone on this forum is dead. Might still be 60-70% of current demand as well, maybe higher.
A lot of innocent people are going to feel a lot of pain when that happens (along with completely guilty people of course) - I don't think it's avoidable myself but I can definitely sympathize with the people fighting to try and cushion the transition.
All very good reasons to invest in a domestic refinery and let Canada enjoy its own riches.
USA cutting off one of the most ethical jurisdictions in the world. Sacrificing energy independence and for what? Endless war and military expense propping up authoritarian governments with ongoing human rights abuses.
The US is the largest oil producer in the world.
Yet Russia is the largest oil supplier to the US
The US is the largest oil supplier to the US. You can kinda thank W for that.
I think that actually occurred under Obama.
It did, which is kind of hilarious in hindsight because he kept saying “we can’t just dig our way to lower prices”, and they had no idea that some Texan would invent fracking…
The economy of Alberta depends less on revenues from oil and gas than the economy of neighboring British Colombia depends on real estate (aka flipping houses), and is roughly as diversified as Ontario (in terms of % of economy coming from various sectors) which is the other heavy weight economy in Canada.
People keep saying that Alberta needs to diversify as though this is some sort of epiphany that the province refuses to have, but it honestly just reveals the ignorance of the person making that claim regarding the current economic state of Canadian provinces.
People keep saying that Alberta needs to diversify as though this is some sort of epiphany that the province refuses to have, but it honestly just reveals the ignorance of the person making that claim regarding the current economic state of Canadian provinces.
Yet Alberta is feeling economic pain in a way that Ontario and BC do not seem to share.
They aren't diversified enough.
They aren't diversified enough.
Yeah because housing hasn't crashed (yet). Also Alberta is feeling economic pain only in comparison to the crazy boom years prior. It is still literally the highest GDP/capita of any province, its unemployment rate ranks it 5th amongst Canadian provinces, its government is still the least indebted on a per-capita basis of any province, it has the highest labor force participation rate of any province, etc, etc. The fact that Alberta is still paying federal transfer payments to the rest of Canada should be sufficient shorthand to convince you that the economy is not as dire as you would think when viewing it from the outside.
Do you trust the Kenney government to diversify properly? All we've seen so far is them waste a bunch of money on Hydrogen.
> This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources.
Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally less.
> Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply.
I think we're saying the same thing?
> Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source.
Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town. People sure aren't there for the weather.
Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally less.
> Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply.
I think we're saying the same thing?
> Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source.
Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town. People sure aren't there for the weather.
Hrm, my wording might have been a bit off itself but I mostly just wanted to highlight and rebut what could be worded in your original statement as a sort of fatalist "Even if we reduce what's coming from Canada it won't effect overall production". I do agree that the impact won't solve global warming or potentially cause a reflection in gas pump prices, but the supply is definitely elastic and while the demand is inelastic in the long term short term price fluctuations do actually cause short term fluctuations in demand so there is a fair bit of elasticity there as well.
People will find ways to reduce their car commute when prices spike and, especially, oil power plants will defer operation to cheaper (possibly less clean :sigh:) alternatives.
People will find ways to reduce their car commute when prices spike and, especially, oil power plants will defer operation to cheaper (possibly less clean :sigh:) alternatives.
Given how large the oil market is and how generally inelastic the demand is, I would wager any overall reduction in demand will be marginal. There won't be no effect, but I don't see there being a large effect either.
Not much else they can do with the same amount of inbound value. They are trying to go hydrogen but they have a small population, pretty right leaning and only a handful of schools. They should have tried to change their policies back in 2009 during that boom but the politicians in Alberta aren’t very forward thinking. That and they don’t play well with the rest of populated country (read BC, Ontario, Quebec)
It's hard not to be sympathetic to those Albertans whose lives will be impacted by this decision. However, for too long Canada has relied on extractive industries leading to a mild case of Dutch disease. Perhaps the loss of Keystone will jump-start Alberta's nascent start-up scene and other non-polluting sectors of its economy.
Most of Canada, outside of Alberta, has long transitioned away from extraction dominant industries. There still is a whole bunch of it around - but, in BC it accounts for 5.7% of the economy and in Canada at large all natural resource extraction only accounts for 10% of the economy. The majority of Canada's economy is now service oriented.
This claim is nominally true, but leaves out a metric boat-load of context, in the classic "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" sense. BC only has resource extraction take up 10% of it economy, but it is more dependent on real estate (aka flipping houses) as a percentage of its economy that Alberta is dependent on Oil and Gas. Flipping real estate isn't exactly a great foundation for an economy, but sure it has transitioned away from extraction.
Secondly, the majority of Canada's economy is service oriented, but due to the way Canada is structured, the super-majority of the transfer payments that the federal government makes to the various provinces comes from resource extraction generated revenues.
The following statements are not meant to be value judgements, they are just simple statements of fact that should give color to the context that is missing from the parent comment. For non-Canadian HN users, in order to guarantee a relatively equal standard of living for Canadian citizens regardless of where they happen to live, the federal government distributes billions of dollars every year to various provinces, taking from the more wealthy provinces and helping shore up the budgets of the less wealthy provinces. These revenues have been generated in overwhelmingly large part by resource extraction, and the service oriented economies of other provinces show 0 possibility of taking up the slack for these revenues should resource extraction end, they simply don't generate enough surplus on a per-capita basis. Without these revenues large portions of Canada would face absolutely devastating cuts to government revenues and thus services, and frankly no government has really put forth any sort of solution to this, outside of larger deficits on a temporary basis. How Canada navigates this difference between its aspirations, a service oriented non-resource economy, and the reality on the ground, an absolute dependence on resource revenues for current quality of life, is probably the biggest question it will face in the 21st Century.
Secondly, the majority of Canada's economy is service oriented, but due to the way Canada is structured, the super-majority of the transfer payments that the federal government makes to the various provinces comes from resource extraction generated revenues.
The following statements are not meant to be value judgements, they are just simple statements of fact that should give color to the context that is missing from the parent comment. For non-Canadian HN users, in order to guarantee a relatively equal standard of living for Canadian citizens regardless of where they happen to live, the federal government distributes billions of dollars every year to various provinces, taking from the more wealthy provinces and helping shore up the budgets of the less wealthy provinces. These revenues have been generated in overwhelmingly large part by resource extraction, and the service oriented economies of other provinces show 0 possibility of taking up the slack for these revenues should resource extraction end, they simply don't generate enough surplus on a per-capita basis. Without these revenues large portions of Canada would face absolutely devastating cuts to government revenues and thus services, and frankly no government has really put forth any sort of solution to this, outside of larger deficits on a temporary basis. How Canada navigates this difference between its aspirations, a service oriented non-resource economy, and the reality on the ground, an absolute dependence on resource revenues for current quality of life, is probably the biggest question it will face in the 21st Century.
At least when it comes to BC and Ontario we've got some insanely high margin businesses kicking around now in the form of tech companies and banking and investment - I am quite skeptical of your assessment that these industries would fail to carry the homesteading supplements and, honestly, I'm not really certain how much sense those supplements continue to make. I don't know if they're significantly impacting Canada's ability to project territorial claims at this point - most border issues outside of underwater resources and transportation control (i.e. the northwest passage for shipping) seem pretty well settled. Does supporting population living in such inhospitable areas really make economic sense to Canada?
For non-Canadians, if you live in certain economic development zones the Canadian government effectively pays you a bunch of money annually (Northern Residents Deduction) to just keep living there. We just saw how vulnerable these communities are to natural disasters like a pandemic - they also often suffer food security problems during blizzards and rail outages[1]. If there's an economic reason to support communities up there I'm all for it, but I really don't see why we want to go out of our way to subsidize that life choice.
Also specifically on the topic of BC real-estate-as-a-service - it's pretty fucking insane and I have no idea why this market is sustaining itself at this point, we're all due for a shock one of these days that will hurt really bad. That said - BC's economy is still only ~20% driven by the real estate market and, if we saw a price drop, we'd likely see a lot more labour market accessibility go along with it.
1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-rail-servi...
For non-Canadians, if you live in certain economic development zones the Canadian government effectively pays you a bunch of money annually (Northern Residents Deduction) to just keep living there. We just saw how vulnerable these communities are to natural disasters like a pandemic - they also often suffer food security problems during blizzards and rail outages[1]. If there's an economic reason to support communities up there I'm all for it, but I really don't see why we want to go out of our way to subsidize that life choice.
Also specifically on the topic of BC real-estate-as-a-service - it's pretty fucking insane and I have no idea why this market is sustaining itself at this point, we're all due for a shock one of these days that will hurt really bad. That said - BC's economy is still only ~20% driven by the real estate market and, if we saw a price drop, we'd likely see a lot more labour market accessibility go along with it.
1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-rail-servi...
We're talking about completely different things here, and it's a bit concerning that you're so confident about your understanding of the Canadian economy and various provincial economies while not knowing what Equalization payments are or how they work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canad...
As you can see this has absolutely nothing to do with projecting territorial claims, which is why I specifically did not mention that in my description. As I did specifically mention in order to provide relatively level standards of living across the country the federal government transfers money away from more wealthy provinces to less wealthy provinces. As you can see from the table in that link I posted above, provinces like Quebec receive over 10% of their annual budget in the form of transfer payments, this is an even larger percentage of the budget for some of the maritime nations. If you look at the second table on that page you'll note that literally only Ontario and Alberta have higher than Canadian average, average incomes, indicating that these transfer payments are largely funded by those two provinces, and because Alberta is so much higher, it is largely funded by them. As I indicated, figuring out a way to square the reality of these payments vanishing with the current quality of life they afford is a huge challenge for Canada.
Secondly, you talk about Alberta needing to diversify but say "BC's economy is still only ~20% driven by real estate", do you understand that this means that BC is less diversified than Alberta? That BC is more dependent on a single sector, and that sector is literally just flipping homes, not doing any sort of productive manufacturing, or providing a service? Like, I'm not sure how you're so confident in your diagnosis of Alberta's woes, while simultaneously appearing to have no concern for BC?
As you can see this has absolutely nothing to do with projecting territorial claims, which is why I specifically did not mention that in my description. As I did specifically mention in order to provide relatively level standards of living across the country the federal government transfers money away from more wealthy provinces to less wealthy provinces. As you can see from the table in that link I posted above, provinces like Quebec receive over 10% of their annual budget in the form of transfer payments, this is an even larger percentage of the budget for some of the maritime nations. If you look at the second table on that page you'll note that literally only Ontario and Alberta have higher than Canadian average, average incomes, indicating that these transfer payments are largely funded by those two provinces, and because Alberta is so much higher, it is largely funded by them. As I indicated, figuring out a way to square the reality of these payments vanishing with the current quality of life they afford is a huge challenge for Canada.
Secondly, you talk about Alberta needing to diversify but say "BC's economy is still only ~20% driven by real estate", do you understand that this means that BC is less diversified than Alberta? That BC is more dependent on a single sector, and that sector is literally just flipping homes, not doing any sort of productive manufacturing, or providing a service? Like, I'm not sure how you're so confident in your diagnosis of Alberta's woes, while simultaneously appearing to have no concern for BC?
Ah my apology I thought you were specifically talking about the northern resident credit. Wealth sharing between provinces is an extremely common habit world-wide, the US has loads of this and, most of the wealth sharing ends up coming from sources that aren't tied to natural resource exploitation like the financial markets in NYC. Quebec is a big beneficiary of these payments but Ontario and BC are both excluded from these benefits - losing the oil revenue likely means these payments (and nation wide standard of living) would suffer as a result but I don't think that's a surprise when it comes to considering any artificial economic action. We're talking trading some of our excess productive capacity for cleaner air or cleaner water or not being submerged due to global warming - free money won't ever emerge from regulation - but we might end up losing less "goodness" to externalities like pollution.
On the topic of BC's economy, it is unhealthy but the fact that BC's economy comes 17.4%[1] still only puts it 4.4% above Canada at large (13.01%)[2] - that compares to Alberta which derives 16.12% of it's economy from mineral/oil/gas extraction which is 7.9% above Canada at large (8.21%)[2].
BC absolutely has a real estate issue and it's quite concerning - but there is a lot more "natural" activity in that sector nation-wide compared with Alberta's oil dependency. I think it's also fair to view that while the 17.4% of BC's GDP covers pretty much all the economic activity related to real-estate the 16.12% in Alberta misses a lot of the knock-on benefits of the oil industry and dependent businesses... but that's an opinion.
1. (sourced 2018 - wikipedia) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/British_... I rounded up in the previous post
2. (sourced 2017 - wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada#Key_industri...
3. (sourced 2019 - statistica whatever that is) https://www.statista.com/statistics/608354/gdp-distribution-...
On the topic of BC's economy, it is unhealthy but the fact that BC's economy comes 17.4%[1] still only puts it 4.4% above Canada at large (13.01%)[2] - that compares to Alberta which derives 16.12% of it's economy from mineral/oil/gas extraction which is 7.9% above Canada at large (8.21%)[2].
BC absolutely has a real estate issue and it's quite concerning - but there is a lot more "natural" activity in that sector nation-wide compared with Alberta's oil dependency. I think it's also fair to view that while the 17.4% of BC's GDP covers pretty much all the economic activity related to real-estate the 16.12% in Alberta misses a lot of the knock-on benefits of the oil industry and dependent businesses... but that's an opinion.
1. (sourced 2018 - wikipedia) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/British_... I rounded up in the previous post
2. (sourced 2017 - wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada#Key_industri...
3. (sourced 2019 - statistica whatever that is) https://www.statista.com/statistics/608354/gdp-distribution-...
> Most of Canada, outside of Alberta, has long transitioned away from extraction dominant industries
And yet, Alberta was the most economically successful province, literally subsidizing all others. Go figure how the service transition worked out...
And yet, Alberta was the most economically successful province, literally subsidizing all others. Go figure how the service transition worked out...
Alberta fundamentally has to shift gears - just like Saudi Arabia. The world will move on from fossil fuels and they had better have a plan to transition.
Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably intelligently.
Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably intelligently.
> Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably intelligently.
How so? Oil production is ticking back up and is higher than any time since about 2010.
How so? Oil production is ticking back up and is higher than any time since about 2010.
> Alberta fundamentally has to shift gears - just like Saudi Arabia.
The only problem here is that Alberta was forced to give up all its money in equalization payment, and has none left.
The only problem here is that Alberta was forced to give up all its money in equalization payment, and has none left.
Norway is an entire country that has just slightly more people than the province of Alberta, which is to say that is it much smaller than Canada, while having oil reserves equal to or greater than those in Alberta. Alberta should obviously have been more diligent in saving up oil revenues generated, but this ignores the fact that a huge amount of oil revenues generated in Alberta have gone to help the rest of the country develop as well. Roughly 250-300 billion dollars from Alberta has transferred to the rest of the country since Alberta's discovery of oil, which would essentially give funding equivalent to the Norwegian sovereign fund. So when people say "where did all the money go?" the answer is that it went to hospitals in Chicoutimi, roads in Neepawa, schools in Battle Harbor, etc, etc. Trying to compare sovereign Norway with a single province in a confederation is always going to give a skewed view of what Alberta should or should not have done with its resource wealth.
> Alberta should obviously have been more diligent in saving up oil revenues generated
It was literally all stolen by the Federal government through equalization payment. Can't really blame Alberta here...
It was literally all stolen by the Federal government through equalization payment. Can't really blame Alberta here...
> start-up scene and other non-polluting sectors of its economy
Because all modern-day chip are so much environmentally friendly...
Because all modern-day chip are so much environmentally friendly...
Coincidentally, four major Canadian producers are uniting in an alliance for net-zero by 2050. The four are responsible for 90% of oil-sands production [1]. To me, this makes Canadian energy a more responsible source compared to many US-based and other international producers. [2]
[1] https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/major-canadian-oilsands-producers...
[2] https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-net-...
[1] https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/major-canadian-oilsands-producers...
[2] https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-net-...
Net-zero amongst companies is often a matter of paying a tax on what you still emit or shifting the accounting of emissions to not fully measure the entirety of your emissions (or to offload that onto other parts of society).
It's fine to encourage companies to try and do things like that, but it's also important to keep that congratulatory tone in check when it comes to a world that still incentivizes profits singularly and doesn't necessarily put the price of ecologic externalities that they might deserve.
Net-zero sounds perhaps cool but there should be some important education done for everybody to understand that it's far from Gross-zero (or near zero), which would be much closer to what we actually need to avoid some pretty cataclysmic collapses sooner than most people realize.
It's fine to encourage companies to try and do things like that, but it's also important to keep that congratulatory tone in check when it comes to a world that still incentivizes profits singularly and doesn't necessarily put the price of ecologic externalities that they might deserve.
Net-zero sounds perhaps cool but there should be some important education done for everybody to understand that it's far from Gross-zero (or near zero), which would be much closer to what we actually need to avoid some pretty cataclysmic collapses sooner than most people realize.
Well, I don't think we can take all the credit. Suncor is a US company, my dad used to work there during the takeover when it was Petro Canada.
Edit: I take that back, it's always been a Canadian company. I'm thinking about something else, there was another takeover or merge with a US company back before 2000. That's before the Suncor merger.
Very heartening to see though.
Edit: I take that back, it's always been a Canadian company. I'm thinking about something else, there was another takeover or merge with a US company back before 2000. That's before the Suncor merger.
Very heartening to see though.
> and the downvotes are because....
The downvotes are because they disagree with your politics.
The tough part is all your statements hold truth. We must face that if we want to find real answers.
Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has no relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your statements must be part of the conversation.
[ upvoted ]
( instantly downvoted )
The downvotes are because they disagree with your politics.
The tough part is all your statements hold truth. We must face that if we want to find real answers.
Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has no relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your statements must be part of the conversation.
[ upvoted ]
( instantly downvoted )
Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has no relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your statements must be part of the conversation.
[ upvoted ]
( instantly downvoted )
This site's guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
[ upvoted ]
( instantly downvoted )
This site's guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
It's odd because I'm all over the place on the political spectrum, and I didn't even take a side here other than to discuss how it makes me feel thinking about the place of my birth, which will suffer, and expressing my uncertainty in whether this is a good or bad thing overall - which is more honest than what any of those politicians have done.
Maybe people don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in black and white where it agrees or disagrees with their views. I don't like to believe that's true, but it probably is in general.
Maybe people don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in black and white where it agrees or disagrees with their views. I don't like to believe that's true, but it probably is in general.
It seems unfair and unnecessarily hostile to speculate about a subset of people you just addressed ("Maybe people don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in black and white") when the only thing you know about them is that they disagreed with you for some reason. It is of course natural to be annoyed by downvotes, but the urge to start painting yourself as a victim and the anonymous mass as unthinking tends to create a really bad atmosphere for discussion.
Now, if you wanted to criticize the downvote mechanism in general, maybe it would be considered off topic by HN rules, but it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable.
Edit: Also, perhaps some of your downvotes are due to your commenting on your own downvotes. Personally, I always downvote those kinds of comments (including the self-fulfilling-prophecy version: "I'll be downvoted/flagged for this, but..."), even if I find the rest of the post interesting, or completely agree with them. But I have no idea if other people do that.
Now, if you wanted to criticize the downvote mechanism in general, maybe it would be considered off topic by HN rules, but it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable.
Edit: Also, perhaps some of your downvotes are due to your commenting on your own downvotes. Personally, I always downvote those kinds of comments (including the self-fulfilling-prophecy version: "I'll be downvoted/flagged for this, but..."), even if I find the rest of the post interesting, or completely agree with them. But I have no idea if other people do that.
Other reasons I might speculate about are just as uncharitable. Such as, they have no understanding of microeconomics as applied to a good with inelastic demand. Or they just read the first sentence and down voted and moved on.
At best I think one could argue I phrased things such that it rubbed people the wrong way. Possibly the last comment about politicians.
At best I think one could argue I phrased things such that it rubbed people the wrong way. Possibly the last comment about politicians.
> Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has no relevance to the conversation.
Actually, it's not. It should be, but it's not. In fact, on HN, downvoting purely to signal disagreement, without offering any rebuttal or substance, is working-as-intended. pg and dang have said so themselves. It's one of the reasons HN is not actually the place to go for those who are intellectually curious, despite that being the site's claimed purpose.
Actually, it's not. It should be, but it's not. In fact, on HN, downvoting purely to signal disagreement, without offering any rebuttal or substance, is working-as-intended. pg and dang have said so themselves. It's one of the reasons HN is not actually the place to go for those who are intellectually curious, despite that being the site's claimed purpose.
I agree - it’s a well reasoned post and I enjoyed reading it.
Yeah. My first reaction is that this is great news, but as you say, the oil may now come from Brazil, Iran, etc. On the whole, I think it's a win for the environment, but I would like to see a detailed analysis of the predicted effects of this decision on oil exploration, extraction, and consumption.
I do feel a bit sympathetic for the company driving this project. They invested billions of dollars and over a decade of time only to see the project killed at the last minute. This is a consequence of our erratic and unpredictable political system - every four years we seem to completely change energy policy. It's the price of our democracy, but I'm sure it's frustrating for CEOs.
Edit: It's frustrating to see the parent comment get downvoted. If you disagree, explain why in a comment - no need to bury a perfectly reasonable perspective.
I do feel a bit sympathetic for the company driving this project. They invested billions of dollars and over a decade of time only to see the project killed at the last minute. This is a consequence of our erratic and unpredictable political system - every four years we seem to completely change energy policy. It's the price of our democracy, but I'm sure it's frustrating for CEOs.
Edit: It's frustrating to see the parent comment get downvoted. If you disagree, explain why in a comment - no need to bury a perfectly reasonable perspective.
> That involves more spills than a pipeline
Have you got a good source for this? I can only find information about ocean oil spills for transport. The rail ones are barely ever mentioned and much less than the pipeline ones.
Have you got a good source for this? I can only find information about ocean oil spills for transport. The rail ones are barely ever mentioned and much less than the pipeline ones.
Maybe this:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/safety-i...
... (not my area, but I was curious too)
... (not my area, but I was curious too)
This PDF has a bit on spills on the last page.
https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/pipelines.pdf
https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/pipelines.pdf
Not sure why they are downvoting you. People here seem to not get the concept of supply and demand. Specially when the demand is inelastic in the short-medium term
> I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any accurate idea either.
> Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party lines.
Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably rational but different decisions? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.
> Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party lines.
Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably rational but different decisions? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.
> Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably rational but different decisions?
Yes, that's basically what politics is about in a nutshell, making different tradeoffs based on values. I'm not sure any of them actually had a sufficiently detailed analysis or model to justify having any certainty in their decision.
> But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.
Don't get me wrong, I don't understand the issue either. I'm just honest about that fact and merely espoused why it's a complicated dilemma. This is all unintentional consequences and it's not clear which was the best call for the environment, the countries involved, or the world at large.
I would have liked to see an in-depth study of the tradeoffs and a rational decision based on that rather than a political decision, which seems to be what we got all three times.
Yes, that's basically what politics is about in a nutshell, making different tradeoffs based on values. I'm not sure any of them actually had a sufficiently detailed analysis or model to justify having any certainty in their decision.
> But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.
Don't get me wrong, I don't understand the issue either. I'm just honest about that fact and merely espoused why it's a complicated dilemma. This is all unintentional consequences and it's not clear which was the best call for the environment, the countries involved, or the world at large.
I would have liked to see an in-depth study of the tradeoffs and a rational decision based on that rather than a political decision, which seems to be what we got all three times.
It was scrapped either because the Chinese decided they don’t want your tar or because we want to screw them.
That sums up the dilemma.
Killing the pipeline will help but not in a vacuum. Continued policy/pressure needs to be applied to move away from oil, which is probably best for the sake of the world.
Killing the pipeline will help but not in a vacuum. Continued policy/pressure needs to be applied to move away from oil, which is probably best for the sake of the world.
userbinator(2)
I only downvote cause of your comments about voting. Like the guidelines say "that shit boring".
Your other points were creative even if a little /edgy/ and could(will?) get conversation on their own.
Your other points were creative even if a little /edgy/ and could(will?) get conversation on their own.
We all need to transition to renewable energy. It's not good for Canada to become more invested in the oil economy, just as electric cars, trucks and renewables are starting to boom. It's neither good for you environmentally or economically if you have a 10+ year horizon.
So we continue prop up terrorist regimes for the next few decades.
Electric is approaching winning on its own merits. Giving billions to horrible people in the mean time is not an acceptable solution.
Oil independence is great for America and Canada. Independence “from” oil is a separate if related matter.
A half way point is to allow drilling and pipeline and add taxes to local oil and major tariffs on external oil.
We get oil independence, alternative tech will be encouraged to replace expensive oil. Only losers are people that use oil.
Electric is approaching winning on its own merits. Giving billions to horrible people in the mean time is not an acceptable solution.
Oil independence is great for America and Canada. Independence “from” oil is a separate if related matter.
A half way point is to allow drilling and pipeline and add taxes to local oil and major tariffs on external oil.
We get oil independence, alternative tech will be encouraged to replace expensive oil. Only losers are people that use oil.
Isn't the US already a net exporter of oil at the moment?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41754
That is a recent thing. It can easily go the other way again.
That is a recent thing. It can easily go the other way again.
Our current government structures seem incapable of planning more than 1 year out. Without radically higher oil prices it seems unlikely we'll see the large scale changes needed.
Shut down as many pipelines as we can, stop producing oil, build solar farms, build wind farms, build nuclear, everything should be on the table and done simultaneously if we want our grandchildren to have a live remotely similar to ours.
The framing of governments and media seems like only half steps are possible, but those steps will still kill us.
Shut down as many pipelines as we can, stop producing oil, build solar farms, build wind farms, build nuclear, everything should be on the table and done simultaneously if we want our grandchildren to have a live remotely similar to ours.
The framing of governments and media seems like only half steps are possible, but those steps will still kill us.
I wish we had a more informed perspective on oil. Yes it’s very important that we move individual and public transportation to electric now that we have the batteries to do so. Yes we need to switch energy production to renewables and zero carbon generation. Yes we need to get as much heat generation as possible for homes, commerce and industry switched to electric. All of these have in common the fact that we should not be burning oil. But, and this is a big but, we still need oil to produce a vast array of materials and compounds that our civilization depends on. Medicine and agriculture are two huge users that we cannot do without. We can’t shut down all oil production and drive the cost through the roof without destroying healthcare and creating famine. Please argue rationally, frame combustion of oil as wasteful while lionizing responsible usage that does not contribute to atmospheric CO2 and improves the human condition.
The lack of productivity in the conversation comes from voices like yours which compromise themselves internally before even facing the opposing side.
Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external pressure, would be gradual.
That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down the next one that comes up. Etc etc.
"Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all in the past 50 years.
==========
EDIT:
One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase in production, great subsidies. How did they do this?
Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so nothing should change"
It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was acting like they're already doing everything they can.
Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly state truths and what should happen.
Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external pressure, would be gradual.
That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down the next one that comes up. Etc etc.
"Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all in the past 50 years.
==========
EDIT:
One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase in production, great subsidies. How did they do this?
Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so nothing should change"
It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was acting like they're already doing everything they can.
Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly state truths and what should happen.
> That's why one must always advocate for the position purely and without compromise.
If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to compromise with you in return.
You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the one you are giving.
You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing arguments, or address points of criticism.
If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to lose to status quo bias, from people who would just choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme position.
If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to compromise with you in return.
You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the one you are giving.
You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing arguments, or address points of criticism.
If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to lose to status quo bias, from people who would just choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme position.
If I was the president I would explain how, without drastic changes, most species on earth will go extinct in the next 50 years and that humans could be one of them. Then I'd explain that we need to immediately change from fossil fuels. Then, only then, when negotiating with companies, governors, etc, we would get to the brass tacks of how, when, and what compromises could be need to make it happen.
But we're both nobodies on a public forum arguing, why, oh why, should one start from a compromised position?
But we're both nobodies on a public forum arguing, why, oh why, should one start from a compromised position?
So you’re just going to contradict your reasoning about “of course nothing drastic will happen” by stating “if I were president there’d be drastic changes” in the same thread? This is exactly the superficiality I was arguing against. The only convincing you’re doing is that we shouldn’t listen to you.
Alberta oil sands oil is the most expensive and dirtiest oil source on the planet. So when oil demand drops, the Alberta oil sands will be the first place to stop operating. Plastic will be made from the cheapest oil.
It's also possible that eventually we'll make plastic using CO2 as the feed-stock rather than oil.
It's also possible that eventually we'll make plastic using CO2 as the feed-stock rather than oil.
Huge win for climate !
https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/tr...
Just 190,000 more miles to go !
https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/tr...
Just 190,000 more miles to go !
I'm a bit confused by all the anti Canadian pipeline sentiment in the US. Is this a Biden thing or something broader. I get the focus on using less oil, environment, etc. But Canada is a key US ally and oil is still a strategic resource. It seems crazy for the US to not want Canadian oil. What am I missing?
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/images/Fig19.png is a decent illustration of one of the issues here: the US has been reducing its demand for oil imports over the past decade. In addition, the kind of oil that comes out of the tar sands in Alberta is pretty much the lowest, worst grade of oil possible (not to mention some of the most expensive to produce!), so if you've got more oil than you know what to do with, it's the first one you'd want to stop buying.
Besides the environmental issue of "we don't want to spend any extra money subsidizing oil production," there's also a strong amount of concern about the impact along the construction pipeline--particularly among the indigenous lands it would travel against the wishes of the indigenous people who live there.
Besides the environmental issue of "we don't want to spend any extra money subsidizing oil production," there's also a strong amount of concern about the impact along the construction pipeline--particularly among the indigenous lands it would travel against the wishes of the indigenous people who live there.
It not only hurts an ally, it also indirectly puts money in the pockets of not so friendly/progressive countries. This Keystone XL stuff is peak virtue signaling by Biden et al. It makes no sense.
The part you are missing is Canadian tar sands oil has a very high carbon footprint to produce, amongst the worst in the world.
[deleted]
If you're concerned about Trump and Russia, you should note that the pro-Russian Nordstream 2 didn't face any sanctions from the Biden administration.
Breaking Keystone benefits Russia, but y'all smart people ain't ready for that yet.
Breaking Keystone benefits Russia, but y'all smart people ain't ready for that yet.
I find Biden's position on this to be odd given that he also agreed to a Russian oil pipeline recently (see https://nypost.com/2021/05/26/biden-waiving-sanctions-on-rus... or https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/biden-defends-decisi...). The reality is we need oil. It is energy dense and supports a significant portion of our economy and individual lives. Oil pipelines can have spills, but they are comparatively rare. Now this oil will be transported through some other means, at a higher cost to consumers, with potentially greater environmental risk.
I am also deeply concerned that the withdrawal of permits signals an extreme degree of instability in America's business environment, which future investors and entrepreneurs have to now think about. Why would anyone invest here if they can't be sure what the government will allow or disallow next, especially with the fast-moving leftward political shift? A weaker business environment has numerous secondary implications. If the US economy is weaker, while other economies are getting stronger, our influence in the world will be impacted (economically, militarily, culturally).
I am also deeply concerned that the withdrawal of permits signals an extreme degree of instability in America's business environment, which future investors and entrepreneurs have to now think about. Why would anyone invest here if they can't be sure what the government will allow or disallow next, especially with the fast-moving leftward political shift? A weaker business environment has numerous secondary implications. If the US economy is weaker, while other economies are getting stronger, our influence in the world will be impacted (economically, militarily, culturally).
> I find Biden's position on this to be odd given that he also agreed to a Russian oil pipeline recently
It's a gas pipeline, not an oil pipeline, which is very different.
> The reality is we need oil.
The reality is that we need -- and for the most part have -- cleaner sources of energy. Whether or efforts to kneecap supply is a good move right now is certainly up for debate.
> Now this oil will be transported through some other means, at a higher cost to consumers, with potentially greater environmental risk.
That's true, and is not great. But if you make oil more expensive, cleaner alternatives become more attractive.
> I am also deeply concerned that the withdrawal of permits signals an extreme degree of instability in America's business environment
To be fair, this particular permit had a clause saying it could be revoked at any time by the sitting president. And another poster points out (haven't had a chance to verify) that this particular pipeline has been opposed for over a decade, even during the Trump administration, with the permit approval essentially happening for political reasons.
It's a gas pipeline, not an oil pipeline, which is very different.
> The reality is we need oil.
The reality is that we need -- and for the most part have -- cleaner sources of energy. Whether or efforts to kneecap supply is a good move right now is certainly up for debate.
> Now this oil will be transported through some other means, at a higher cost to consumers, with potentially greater environmental risk.
That's true, and is not great. But if you make oil more expensive, cleaner alternatives become more attractive.
> I am also deeply concerned that the withdrawal of permits signals an extreme degree of instability in America's business environment
To be fair, this particular permit had a clause saying it could be revoked at any time by the sitting president. And another poster points out (haven't had a chance to verify) that this particular pipeline has been opposed for over a decade, even during the Trump administration, with the permit approval essentially happening for political reasons.
> If the US economy is weaker, while other economies are getting stronger, our influence in the world will be impacted (economically, militarily, culturally).
To many people, that's a feature, not a bug. (The CCP being one of them, of course. The implications of domestic powers aligning with the CCP are left as an exercise for the reader.)
To many people, that's a feature, not a bug. (The CCP being one of them, of course. The implications of domestic powers aligning with the CCP are left as an exercise for the reader.)
[deleted]
Odd? democrats are hypocrites.
No wall for Americans yet they pay for walls in other countries. Trump is a racist for saying don't immigrate here illegally? Harris is ignored for worse. Democrats demand infrastructure and oppose obstruction... yet did nothing when Trump wanted it and obstructed him at every step.
The list goes on and on... Biden isn't odd... he's a hypocrite. He's a democrat. But I repeat myself.
No wall for Americans yet they pay for walls in other countries. Trump is a racist for saying don't immigrate here illegally? Harris is ignored for worse. Democrats demand infrastructure and oppose obstruction... yet did nothing when Trump wanted it and obstructed him at every step.
The list goes on and on... Biden isn't odd... he's a hypocrite. He's a democrat. But I repeat myself.
This is a disaster, fiscally, environmentally, and politically. It’s a waste of all the money spent thus far, it will lead to an increase of statistically more dangerous transportation methods, and raise the price of other foreign oil imports to compensate. All around just bad policy.
Oil being less convenient and more expensive is a win if you are a green energy absolutist (like me). It makes other energy sources that much more enticing.
It's simply ridiculous that there's going to be oil brought in on trucks which will be significantly less efficient than a pipeline.
The only sensible thing would be to have a pipeline, with zero trucks doing that work in its place, plus a carbon tax on top of that oil to adjust the price.
The carbon tax could be applied uniquely to oil brought on the pipeline so as to equalize the cost of that oil with that which will instead be brought over on trucks.
Which means no misaligned incentives to increase oil consumption but also no inefficiency from trucks doing the work in its place. That tax revenue is effectively new wealth since it represents the saved inefficiency of the alternative of having no pipeline.
The only sensible thing would be to have a pipeline, with zero trucks doing that work in its place, plus a carbon tax on top of that oil to adjust the price.
The carbon tax could be applied uniquely to oil brought on the pipeline so as to equalize the cost of that oil with that which will instead be brought over on trucks.
Which means no misaligned incentives to increase oil consumption but also no inefficiency from trucks doing the work in its place. That tax revenue is effectively new wealth since it represents the saved inefficiency of the alternative of having no pipeline.
Sure, that would be better, but we do not live in fantasy land. You are making best (but unreachable in today's political climate) the enemy of good.
On further thought, it would be best if both the pipeline and the oil transport by trucks/trains are taxed out of existence.
On further thought, it would be best if both the pipeline and the oil transport by trucks/trains are taxed out of existence.
Is it infeasible? Wouldn't the pipeline operators happily agree to a tax or levy as part of their permit if the alternative is that they have to shut down?
> You are making best (but unreachable in today's political climate) the enemy of good.
From another perspective, you are doing that: fossil fuels will be a necessity to some extent, if not forever, for centuries more. They are used for much more than just generating electricity and transportation. What you advocate will make that necessary use of fossil fuels more expensive, reducing standard of living, and more polluting, harming the environment--that which you claim to care about most.
Absolutism is generally problematic.
From another perspective, you are doing that: fossil fuels will be a necessity to some extent, if not forever, for centuries more. They are used for much more than just generating electricity and transportation. What you advocate will make that necessary use of fossil fuels more expensive, reducing standard of living, and more polluting, harming the environment--that which you claim to care about most.
Absolutism is generally problematic.
The claim that they would be needed for centuries more is fairly unfounded. Especially if we point out that we will have zero-carbon fuels that are chemically equivalent to fossil fuels but created by carbon capture powered by renewable energy (we are already playing with tech like that today, let alone centuries from now).
But yes, using the word "absolutist" was in bad taste.
But yes, using the word "absolutist" was in bad taste.
Peak virtue signaling by environmentalists/Biden. It makes no logical sense and net harms the environment.
Here is your Friday afternoon, dump it when no one things we are looking.
I do believe that we should be doing alternative energy at this point - but it's also clear that this particular decision has a lot of negative side-effects (including greater exports over trains and trucks, and increased dependency on oil-fracking and bad middle eastern regimes).
I do believe that we should be doing alternative energy at this point - but it's also clear that this particular decision has a lot of negative side-effects (including greater exports over trains and trucks, and increased dependency on oil-fracking and bad middle eastern regimes).
It's Wednesday.
I don't know that that's so clear at all. It's an oil pipeline to import canadian oil for domestic refiners. Domestic refined petroleum consumption peaked in 2018 and has been going down (and of course has cratered during the pandemic).
There's actually no good case to be made for this thing at all from current data. You have to project an increase in demand that doesn't seem to be coming.
Bottom line: this pipeline was proposed in the middle of the post-peak-oil boom in oil prices. It made sense in an imagined world of ever rising oil prices and ever larger SUVs. The world kinda moved on.
Also:
> increased dependency on oil-fracking
This is tar sand oil. While not every drop necessarily qualifies, depending on your definition, this is process-extracted secondary petroleum. It's very much in the same category as "fracked" oil in terms of extraction efficiency.
There's actually no good case to be made for this thing at all from current data. You have to project an increase in demand that doesn't seem to be coming.
Bottom line: this pipeline was proposed in the middle of the post-peak-oil boom in oil prices. It made sense in an imagined world of ever rising oil prices and ever larger SUVs. The world kinda moved on.
Also:
> increased dependency on oil-fracking
This is tar sand oil. While not every drop necessarily qualifies, depending on your definition, this is process-extracted secondary petroleum. It's very much in the same category as "fracked" oil in terms of extraction efficiency.
What do you mean Friday/no one's looking?
I understand traditionally that's when you break bad news, but this is the middle of the week.
I understand traditionally that's when you break bad news, but this is the middle of the week.
I don't like the oil economy at all, but revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
It seems like bad precedent for the assumption to be that the federal government will pull the carpet out from under your feet (losing you your entire investment) whenever the political winds shift.
Today it's an oil pipeline, but tomorrow it could be for a solar installation in a nature reserve, or new hydropower, or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant.
It seems like bad precedent for the assumption to be that the federal government will pull the carpet out from under your feet (losing you your entire investment) whenever the political winds shift.
Today it's an oil pipeline, but tomorrow it could be for a solar installation in a nature reserve, or new hydropower, or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant.
> or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant.
Nah, that would never happen.
"Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2 plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up."
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
Nah, that would never happen.
"Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2 plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up."
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
It seriously boggles my mind that the present environmental activists are celebrating the shuttering of nuclear power plants when they are mostly just being replaced by natural gas turbines (or fuel oil).
Like, yeah, solar and wind and hydro are great, but we also keep saying you can't build PV in the desert because it'll cool them down (Nevada), that solar thermal vaporizes birds (California), that wind mulches birds (California), and that hydro power consumes to much land and destroys river systems (name a state with big rivers).
Nuclear isn't nearly as harmful if you have recycling processes in place (recycling has been completely shuttered in the US) and don't build oversized reactors because of a regulatory failings that make many small reactors exponentially more expensive than a single massive one.
Like, yeah, solar and wind and hydro are great, but we also keep saying you can't build PV in the desert because it'll cool them down (Nevada), that solar thermal vaporizes birds (California), that wind mulches birds (California), and that hydro power consumes to much land and destroys river systems (name a state with big rivers).
Nuclear isn't nearly as harmful if you have recycling processes in place (recycling has been completely shuttered in the US) and don't build oversized reactors because of a regulatory failings that make many small reactors exponentially more expensive than a single massive one.
This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome.
> It erodes trust in institutions
So the sequence of events here was:
Permit denied in normal administrative course.
Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations without sufficient support by subsequent administration, resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation after the initial decision.
Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in the previous approval being revoked.
Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous order.
Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for that criticism is...bizarre.
So the sequence of events here was:
Permit denied in normal administrative course.
Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations without sufficient support by subsequent administration, resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation after the initial decision.
Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in the previous approval being revoked.
Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous order.
Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for that criticism is...bizarre.
I think it's important to also realize that Canada domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a effort of last resort - every direction except south wants nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain profitable.
I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being withdrawn without warning when literally every other route open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by the same basic facts.
1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada.
2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as pointed out by the comment below
I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being withdrawn without warning when literally every other route open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by the same basic facts.
1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada.
2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as pointed out by the comment below
Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going ahead?
Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for any delays caused by other governments?
Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for any delays caused by other governments?
Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been up and down so many times now I'd lost track.
>revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome
It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst possible outcome.
It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst possible outcome.
From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project.
If you're making a broader argument that, say, people won't trust plumbing permits in building construction because the federal government revoked a permit for a cross-border oil pipeline... I suppose there's no way to know, but personally I just don't really buy it.
If you're making a broader argument that, say, people won't trust plumbing permits in building construction because the federal government revoked a permit for a cross-border oil pipeline... I suppose there's no way to know, but personally I just don't really buy it.
I agree that this is unlikely to start the slippery slope all the way down to plumbing permits. But it's pretty easy to imagine it putting a damper on other large-scale projects that will span administrations. Off the cuff I'd guess this is not what folks building reservoirs, power plants, transmission lines, rail, shipyards, etc want to see. What do you do? Get your permit and wait for a change of party and see if your permit poofs out of existence before breaking ground?
> From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project.
What is climate activists' perspective on the price of everything increasing, leading to everyone's standard of living declining and poor nations remaining poor?
What is climate activists' perspective on the price of everything increasing, leading to everyone's standard of living declining and poor nations remaining poor?
Can’t speak for everyone, but my perspective is: ‘We can afford high prices more easily than an apocalypse.’
I don't think we/they would grant the underlying premise that it's impossible to achieve low prices or a high standard of living, either here or abroad, without fossil fuels.
I think there's unfortunately a pretty solid overlap between people cheering this decision and people who bemoan the erosion of trust in government institutions.
But who can blame people for lack of trust. Mom said we could have candy if we cleaned our room and dad showed up and changed that. Room isn't gonna get cleaned the second time around.
But who can blame people for lack of trust. Mom said we could have candy if we cleaned our room and dad showed up and changed that. Room isn't gonna get cleaned the second time around.
Taking people's property and giving it to a private company erodes trust as well.
It certainly does,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an absolute win.
Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are playing semantic games and don't actually believe this argument.
[deleted]
Don't you understand that there are many people who, deep down, feel that destroying the fossil fuel industry is an absolute imperative, consequences be damned? For example, here's one in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580
[deleted]
> I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome.
Why?
It was obvious from the start of the planning that this project was at risk from political intervention given the continuous protests and the general political landscape (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision).
It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading towards ecological conservation, that international treaties limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go downwards given the rise of viable electric car models.
The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of not accounting for obvious risks, I don't shed any tears for them. They were aware, never forget that.
Why?
It was obvious from the start of the planning that this project was at risk from political intervention given the continuous protests and the general political landscape (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision).
It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading towards ecological conservation, that international treaties limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go downwards given the rise of viable electric car models.
The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of not accounting for obvious risks, I don't shed any tears for them. They were aware, never forget that.
You missed some details there. It was approved under the Obama administration before it was rejected by the state department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the national interest." The state department was only involved since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years in the making because of political pressure.
The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously have been far better not to permit it in the first place. Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and an opposing government wins the next election - now there's precedent to just pull the plug.
Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won permission to build a house and a new city council is elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to trust your government after that?
It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..."
If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won permission to build a house and a new city council is elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to trust your government after that?
It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..."
If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
> If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
The thing is: circumstances change, science evolves as new data is discovered. Permits are a human concept, humans can choose to modify and revoke them - but (absent someone inventing 23rd century Starfleet technology) humanity cannot reasonably stop climate change - we're past that point anyway and only doing damage control.
Our grandchildren will curse us all for the "but they had a permit!!!" attitude - no matter if it's about climate change or Nestle and almond farmers bleeding water supplies dry!
The thing is: circumstances change, science evolves as new data is discovered. Permits are a human concept, humans can choose to modify and revoke them - but (absent someone inventing 23rd century Starfleet technology) humanity cannot reasonably stop climate change - we're past that point anyway and only doing damage control.
Our grandchildren will curse us all for the "but they had a permit!!!" attitude - no matter if it's about climate change or Nestle and almond farmers bleeding water supplies dry!
A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an untrustworthy government.
A government needs to be able to change its mind and always act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane.
Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in what gets built? And that it is likely that the early construction was done without full understanding by those groups impacted directly?
A government needs to be able to change its mind and always act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane.
Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in what gets built? And that it is likely that the early construction was done without full understanding by those groups impacted directly?
Live by the sword, die by the sword. These companies have been playing politics and lobbying all along themselves. And they only got the permit to begin with because of political winds shifting. This is the risk they take (like drilling in the arctic) when you make big bets on things that are extremely politically controversial and arguably not in the public interest (certainly not in the interest of the people whose lives are being turned upside down by eminent domain to make this possible).
So in that sense your solar installation example isn't appropriate because generally solar installations aren't that controversial, aren't built on the broken backs of people who lived there, aren't against the public interest, and don't require millions in lobbying $$ to manipulate politicians to get it done to begin with.
So in that sense your solar installation example isn't appropriate because generally solar installations aren't that controversial, aren't built on the broken backs of people who lived there, aren't against the public interest, and don't require millions in lobbying $$ to manipulate politicians to get it done to begin with.
They should have known going in it was a sham permit. When you take advantage of one of the most corrupt and inept administrations in modern times, you get what you pay for.
Investments have risks. This is a risk. I'm so tired of how we constantly frame things in terms that investments can't go bad.
Are you proposing that governments should be unable to revoke permits? Because that's really the only way to prevent permits being revoked after a company has spent billions of dollars.
I think the more pragmatic answer to these companies is "don't invest billions of dollars in controversial projects that can be undone if your permits are revoked"
I think the more pragmatic answer to these companies is "don't invest billions of dollars in controversial projects that can be undone if your permits are revoked"
You contradict yourself arguing that the government should be able to revoke any permit, and then saying, don't invest in projects with permits which can be revoked.
Any project can be 'controversial' depending on who is in power. The real pragmatic answer is that the government should be liable for investments lost by revoking a permit.
Any project can be 'controversial' depending on who is in power. The real pragmatic answer is that the government should be liable for investments lost by revoking a permit.
This project has been controversial since inception, though, and that did not change when Trump and the GOP came into power in 2016, despite what seems to be a sham approval rammed through by that administration. The controversy and lawsuits did not magically disappear.
Governments should only be allowed to revoke permits in narrowly defined circumstances laid out in the permit at the time it is granted. Governments should have as much (I would say even more) of an obligation to keep their word as any other party doing business in the economy.
I think you might be confusing Keystone XL with the rest of the Keystone pipe system. Keystone XL was to be a 1200 mile addition to the Keystone system, and they had just barely started laying pipe. They have paid about 90 miles of it.
Or more micro, the reversion of your homes building permit and HVAC as the unit you installed is now out of code, and some force of the government would be used to enforce your compliance, such as taxes or fines.
The Keystone XL permit was originally denied, then (illegally) approved by Executive Order. The nature of Executive Orders is that they can be, and frequently are, tossed out by the next guy in office. This isn't a big secret, so I don't have a ton of sympathy for anyone who "spent billions laying pipes" under a permit granted by EO. If they wanted a lower risk of losing everything, they should've waited for the standard permit process, instead of gambling on the EO and that Trump would win another term.
It was originally denied by political decree.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-re...
It was political from end to end, and was never denied on fundamental grounds, but instead has been governed by protectionism. What made it particularly farcical is that at the same time Obama was pontificating about the horror's of Alberta's oil and turning an environmental new leaf, US shale oil exploration (just as bad in every dimension) was growing at a staggering pace, and is now multiples the output of Alberta's oils ands.
The quicker we transition to renewables the better, but the farce of Keystone was always just politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-re...
It was political from end to end, and was never denied on fundamental grounds, but instead has been governed by protectionism. What made it particularly farcical is that at the same time Obama was pontificating about the horror's of Alberta's oil and turning an environmental new leaf, US shale oil exploration (just as bad in every dimension) was growing at a staggering pace, and is now multiples the output of Alberta's oils ands.
The quicker we transition to renewables the better, but the farce of Keystone was always just politics.
I would not have been revoked if it wasn’t illegal.
That's... a wild contortion of what it means to be legal. When the government grants a permit for me to do something, the sane thing is to assume that it is a legal thing to do.
You can redefine, or re-interpret the law later to make something _now_ illegal, but that absolutely does not mean it was illegal at the time. That's 1984-style history rewriting.
You can redefine, or re-interpret the law later to make something _now_ illegal, but that absolutely does not mean it was illegal at the time. That's 1984-style history rewriting.
Previous permit was also revoked by court. The analogy someone else already provided is apt.
Kid asked dad if he can get a candy after mom said no. Then started crying when mom came and said it's not allowed.
Kid asked dad if he can get a candy after mom said no. Then started crying when mom came and said it's not allowed.
Yeah. Would you put private money into infrastructure in the US after this? I wouldn't.
That leaves just government-funded infrastructure, with all the efficiency that usually brings...
That leaves just government-funded infrastructure, with all the efficiency that usually brings...
[deleted]
The pipeline wasn't for public use, so I don't think talking about public infrastructure applies here.
From dictionary.com: "The fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools." In this sense, pipelines are infrastructure.
Revocation is one of the first terms in the permit:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06...
(in that permit, it comes right after revocation of an earlier, similar permit)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06...
(in that permit, it comes right after revocation of an earlier, similar permit)
> revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I agree that it's not ideal, but we have to remember things are changing rapidly, and we need to take decisive action if we have any hope of minimizing the most severe impacts of climate change.
With the rapid price decline in solar and batteries, the shift to EVs and so many other things going on, we have to remember that anyone who invests in the "old way" is taking a huge risk. In this case their risk did not pay off.
They could have chosen not to take that risk, or invest in something less risky.
I agree that it's not ideal, but we have to remember things are changing rapidly, and we need to take decisive action if we have any hope of minimizing the most severe impacts of climate change.
With the rapid price decline in solar and batteries, the shift to EVs and so many other things going on, we have to remember that anyone who invests in the "old way" is taking a huge risk. In this case their risk did not pay off.
They could have chosen not to take that risk, or invest in something less risky.
Alex Blumberg: ...and, [pipeline company] Enbridge says, stopping the pipeline won't stop the development of tar-sands oil. The oil will just travel in less safe ways, like by rail.
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: But Tara says that argument is missing the entire point.
[Attorney and activist] Tara Houska: The idea is always like, you know, we're replacing old ones that are leaking. How about instead of replacing them and expanding them—which is what you're actually doing—you decommission the old one and pull it out of the ground and clean up the earth that you've contaminated?
Ayana: I like that option better.
Tara: And there's always, like, this premise of, well, it's gonna get shipped anyway. No, it's not. Like, that's the whole point. No, it's not. Your industry is on its way out. And that's the point. And we all know that. You can't sit there and say, "Oh, well, it's gonna go by rail or it's gonna go by ship anyway. No, it's not. The tar sands are on their way out. And that's the reality.
https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/76h4r25