Keystone Pipeline XL passes first hurdle

[waldo]

aside from the significantly greater GHG emissions level tarsands processing has over 'conventional oil'... it doesn't sit well with pipeline proponents when one points out that tarsands bitumen is a clear signature on peak oil.

A myth. Do the calculations from well to axel and the difference is small to non-existent.

so... you're a myth buster then! Interesting that with a focused reference on production processing, you would extend reference to a vehicle usage level... we can certainly add that in to, if you'd like

batter up!

the U.S. EPA response to the U.S. State Departments Environmental (draft) Impact Statement on the Keystone XL pipeline:

Extraction and refining of Canadian oil sands crude are GHG-intensive relative to other types of crude oil. Our calculations indicate that on an annual basis, and assuming the maximum volume of 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of pipeline capacity,

annual well-to-tank emissions from the project would be 27 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) greater than emissions from US “average” crude. Accordingly, we estimate that GHG emissions from Canadian oil sands crude would be approximately 82% greater than the average crude refining the US, on a well-to-time basis

.

The approproate comparison is to the places that would sell the oil that US needs if they dont take Alberta oil: http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/329

the particular point of specific comparison was clear... however, it is most rewarding to be able to highlight you thrusting forward another industry source. Yes, clearly... you favour industry flavoured skew, don't you? Your linked graphic reference associates to the IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates study that, as described by the NRDC, didn't completely qualify the basis for its low estimates... low estimates said to likely associate with the following low emission estimate, skew study practices:

-

Mixing tar sands with other fuel sources

: CERA considers mixed barrels of bitumen (tar sands) and natural gas condensates (called diluent). Because the emissions from the latter source are so much lower, mixing the two sources effectively lowers the apparent impact of Canadian tar sands. This approach is also used in several other studies relied upon by CERA.[4] Instead of reporting the results separately in terms of gasoline produced from bitumen and gasoline derived from natural gas liquids, the approach mixes the crude oil and natural gas sources, effectively making bitumen emissions appear lower by about 6% on a well-to-wheels basis.

-

Assumes lower amounts of steam used than the current industry average

: Heating up the ground to extract a barrel of bitumen takes a lot of thermal energy (by way of steam). Current practices in industry range from 2 to 7 units of steam to produce each unit of oil (or steam-oil-ratio, SOR). CERA cites the use of a SOR of 3, while several of the studies referenced by CERA consider cases where the SOR is either 2.5 or 3.[5] However, the current industry average steam usage is about 20% higher than the value used by CERA, at about 3.6 SOR rather than 3. Our estimate is that adjusting CERA results from 3 to 3.6 SOR would result in an additional 3% increase in lifecycle emissions.

-

Omits Direct Land Use Change Emissions

: Emissions from the removal of vegetation and trees, soil, and peatland are significant particularly for mining practices and should be included. In a study involving five major Canadian and U.S. universities, Yeh et al (2010) estimated that surface mining of tar sands resulted in between a 0.9 to 2.5% increase in the lifecycle emissions versus the U.S. average baseline. CERA recognizes that direct land use emissions could increase their estimate for surface mining by as much as 6% on a lifecycle basis but did not include these emissions in their calculations.

-

Fugitive emissions

: Fugitive emissions can come from sources such as leaks as well as from practices such as the creation of tailing ponds which release methane (CH4). The CERA report does not appear to add fugitive emissions into its estimates although this is difficult to verify. Some of the sources CERA relies upon include an emissions factor while others do not. Yeh et al (2010) estimated that fugitive emissions from tailing ponds (mining) could add 0 to 9% emissions compared to the baseline.[6] The representative value reported by Yeh et al (2010) would result in an additional 2.8% increase in lifecycle emissions.

-

Venting and Flaring Emissions

: Venting and flaring emissions are not included in a number of the source studies relied upon by CERA, such as CAPP (2008), RAND (2008), and the U.S. Department of Energy’s GREET lifecycle model.[7] It is unclear whether CERA applied a factor for these emissions. Nevertheless, TIAX (2009) estimated that the range of between 0.5 g/MJ (for mining) to 3.3 g/MJ (for in-situ) would result in a 0.5 to 3.6% increase in well-to-wheel emissions versus the baseline.

-

Emissions from Production of Natural Gas and Electricity

: CERA states that indirect emissions are not included in its evaluation. Significant amounts of emissions can be associated with imports of natural gas, electricity, and other products. The Jacobs (2009) study estimated that the inclusion of these emissions would add about 4.3 to 5.7% to total lifecycle emissions.

You also need to include the CO2 emitted by burning the oil. What is the point of saving 50% emissions in production if you emit 10x that amount burning the oil?

the context offered was production processing; i.e., well-to-tank. As I said, we can certainly extend that to consumption... but that wasn't the initial context.

I don't take EPA claims seriously anymore. They are just another shill for the environmental lobby.

yes, clearly... you favour industry flavour... and you prefer to shill for yourself, hey? Do you lump the EPA into your oft labeled "climate mafia", as reflects upon the TimG_Conspiracy®?

[BubberMiley]

As I said: people who actually have to work for a living do not talk about shutting down an industry.

Get to work and make me more wealthy, and quit wasting valuable time posting on internet forums you lazy sod.

[Shady]

So why exactly can't we build this pipeline between Canada and the United States? Are we all going to be suddenly off oil completely in a couple of years? Is unemployment so low that we don't need the construction jobs associated with it? Are gas prices so low that we don't need the extra productivity and capacity? What gives? Seriously.

[Guest Derek L]

[/indent]

yes, clearly... you favour industry flavour... and you prefer to shill for yourself, hey? Do you lump the EPA into your oft labeled "climate mafia", as reflects upon the TimG_Conspiracy®?

You seem in the Greenpeace camp…..How many campaigns does Greenpeace have to improve the environment in Communist China?

The hypocrisy of Greenpeace

But perhaps Greenpeace is. This is what this multinational environmental corporation has become. It wants us to believe that Canadian governments, which enforce some of the toughest environmental standards on earth, are inseparable from the oil industry, while it celebrates China, a country whose government actually is the oil industry. The Communist state government really does control its petro-giants, including PetroChina and Sinopec.

Greenpeace’s claim that China is leading the world in climate-change efforts is bizarre enough on its own, since the country is already the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, though its economy is still roughly just a third of the size of America’s. And its emissions are projected to double over the next two decades. The country has been opening up not one but two new coal-fired power plants every single week. Underground coalmine fires in China that have burned for years are responsible for emitting more GHGs annually than all the projects in Canada’s oil sands region put together. But Greenpeace thinks China is worth celebrating because it’s lately been the world’s “biggest investor in renewable technology”. That’s like applauding Roseanne Barr as a leader in weight-loss just because she spends the most money on diet products.

None of this makes any sense, unless of course you understand the relationship Greenpeace has with the Chinese government. Greenpeace, like so many Western corporations, has identified China as an untapped market for growth – a place where it can do what it does best: raise millions and millions of dollars. But when you want to be a politically active group in a country where politically active groups are illegal, you have to mute your criticisms of the regime. How else can one explain Greenpeace’s strident criticisms of Canada, and muted criticism of China?

Mike Hudema, the organization’s anti-oilsands point man, called the criminals who were sentenced last week “courageous” for standing up to the Canadian government.

Really? Let’s see Greenpeace try a stunt like that in China to protest the truly grievous environmental destruction going on in that country. Then we’ll talk about courage.

So why the oil sands , and by extension the pipeline, and not Red China?

I admitted who I’ve worked for, and my stance on the issue.....What is the true motivation of those opposed to the pipeline & tar sands?

If you/they/Greenpeace truly cared for the planet, I'd think you'd start with the world's worse polluter.....just saying

Edited September 9, 2011 by Derek L

[TimG]

the particular point of specific comparison was clear... however, it is most rewarding to be able to highlight you thrusting forward another industry source.

What makes you thing that your "Big Green" sources are reliable? After all these Big Green outfits need to collect $100s of millions every year. They need to grab headlines. They need a crusade that plays well with the idle rich in the US and Europe. Do you really think that truth and accuracy are a priority for them?

In any case, take the numbers from the big green report, add the CO2 emissions caused by burning the oil and you get the chart in the CERA report. The fact is emissions from production are a small part of the total emissions from oil/gasoline and if someone really cared about emissions they would be focusing on reducing consumption because that is where the majority of emissions come from. But, as I said, big green cares about donations - not solutions.

Edited September 9, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

So why the oil sands , and by extension the pipeline, and not Red China?

so you're still sticking with the "Red" China usage? Who, anymore, refers to China as 'Red China'? Why temper yourself... why not go full bore and use the equally dated name, 'Communist China'?

so long as you keep referencing to the shlock Levant/Alykhan lack of ethics, your information will be equally dated. We've had a ton of MLW posts detailing just what measures China has taken in regards to emission reductions, towards world-leading positions and initiatives in sustainability... and there has certainly been no lessening the call for China to do more, particularly in terms of it's rapid industrialization. If you're singling out Greenpeace for a presumed lack of attention towards China, I would suggest you review it's East Asia focus...

[waldo]

What makes you thing that your "Big Green" sources are reliable? After all these Big Green outfits need to collect $100s of millions every year. They need to grab headlines. They need a crusade that plays well with the idle rich in the US and Europe. Do you really think that truth and accuracy are a priority for them?

notwithstanding the described lack of accountability and transparency within the CERA study initiatives, that extracted subset of the NRDC critical review of your favoured CERA industry consultants report is very precise... it shouldn't be hard for any industry schill to knock down... get to it; chop, chop!

In any case, take the numbers from the big green report, add the CO2 emissions caused by burning the oil and you get the chart in the CERA report. The fact is emissions from production are a small part of the total emissions from oil/gasoline and if someone really cared about emissions they would be focusing on reducing consumption because that is where the majority of emissions come from.

no - sorry, TimG decree doesn't allow you to arbitrarily dismiss the identified CERA study faults. Again, the focus was processing - wheel-to-tank. As for your continued Captain Obvious highlighting of the consumption side... it wasn't the focus of what was being discussed/offered. If you're pondering, whimsically, on a lack of caring about consumption emissions... see the EPA.

[Guest Derek L]

so you're still sticking with the "Red" China usage? Who, anymore, refers to China as 'Red China'? Why temper yourself... why not go full bore and use the equally dated name, 'Communist China'?

I did, in the same post, refer to them as communist China.

so long as you keep referencing to the shlock Levant/Alykhan lack of ethics, your information will be equally dated. We've had a ton of MLW posts detailing just what measures China has taken in regards to emission reductions, towards world-leading positions and initiatives in sustainability... and there has certainly been no lessening the call for China to do more, particularly in terms of it's rapid industrialization. If you're singling out Greenpeace for a presumed lack of attention towards China, I would suggest you review it's East Asia focus...

So I’ve gone to their East Asia page, where are the protests and acts of civil disobedience in Red China?

I've found two, two people went in the office of a clothes maker in Hong Kong.....and a group "protested" a planned power plant that was already canceled.....

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/08/17/china-environmental-protests-a-victory-for-people-over-party-not-so-fast/

Where's the outrage?

[Guest Derek L]

Here's one....

Municipal authorities in Dalian, a city in northeast China, have ordered the closure of a recently built p-xylene plant after protests by local residents. The protests erupted a few days after waves from a tropical storm nearly swept through the facility, raising fears of an environmental disaster.

but wait

Chinese newspapers have reported that the Fujia plant will be relocated, although Jiang says such an operation would be extremely costly.

A protest against the government

There has also been a deliberate and targeted campaign to round up lawyers, activists, and bloggers, around a hundred people in total. Some have been detained, some disappeared, others threatened.

A few, who seem to have reposted internet messages calling for peaceful gatherings, face extremely serious subversion charges.

[TimG]

TimG decree doesn't allow you to arbitrarily dismiss the identified CERA study faults.

The claims of a donation hungry big green outfit don't allow to claim that there faults with the CERA study.

Again, the focus was processing - wheel-to-tank.

No it wasn't. I said 'wheel to axel'. You are the one who tried to shift the basis of discussion which fit better with the propoganda you had to sell. The only meaningful discussion of oil emissions is one based on the 'wheel to axel' emissions. 'wheel to tank' is a environmentalist propoganda trick which allows the to exgarrate the importance of emissions during production in order to build a crusade and attract more donations.

[waldo]

The claims of a donation hungry big green outfit don't allow to claim that there faults with the CERA study.

gotcha... your industry "donation fed" CERA consultants certainly have a particular kind of ranking to that you comparatively describe as "donation hungry".

No it wasn't. I said 'wheel to axel'. You are the one who tried to shift the basis of discussion which fit better with the propoganda you had to sell. The only meaningful discussion of oil emissions is one based on the 'wheel to axel' emissions. 'wheel to tank' is a environmentalist propoganda trick which allows the to exgarrate the importance of emissions during production in order to build a crusade and attract more donations.

you truly are obtuse... your 'wheel-to-axel' (axel??? it's called 'well-to-wheel', duh!) reference was in reply to my earlier post that was very clear in terms of a production/processing (well-to-tank) slant. Your post followed mine! Would you really like me to re-post the sequence for you!!!

are you having an even tougher day than normal... check out the full life-cycle terminology... you know, the one industry created/uses! When you find 'well-to-tank', ask yourself how industry standard life-cycle terminology came to be infiltrated by, as you say, "propaganda tricks"!

[waldo]

Derek L, you highlighted an example of 'suggested' repression in China... hey now, since you appear to be all about "ethical oil" (as Levant/Velshi appear to be your favoured go-to's), where's the industry ethics in seeking to do business with the China you're framing? You decried a lack of outrage! Where's your own outrage over the lack of industry ethics you're highlighting!

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L, you highlighted an example of 'suggested' repression in China... hey now, since you appear to be all about "ethical oil" (as Levant/Velshi appear to be your favoured go-to's), where's the industry ethics in seeking to do business with the China you're framing? You decried a lack of outrage! Where's your own outrage over the lack of industry ethics you're highlighting!

I have no “outrage” with doing business with China……I’d personally love an increase in tar sands oil, via BC, being sold in China……..Greenpeace is opposed to tar sands oil (and the pipeline) going through the United States…..are you saying they would be ok with tar sands oil being sold to China as long as it’s through a trans BC pipeline?

If that’s the case, find me the link to donate money to Greenpeace……..

To clarify, Greenpeace is opposed to North American pollution, but not Chinese?

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L, you highlighted an example of 'suggested' repression in China... hey now, since you appear to be all about "ethical oil" (as Levant/Velshi appear to be your favoured go-to's), where's the industry ethics in seeking to do business with the China you're framing? You decried a lack of outrage! Where's your own outrage over the lack of industry ethics you're highlighting!

To add for full disclosure, I live about ten minutes away from the Burnaby terminus.....

[TimG]

gotcha... your industry "donation fed" CERA consultants certainly have a particular kind of ranking to that you comparatively describe as "donation hungry".

Not really. Money is one motivator. Ideology is another. The fact is there are no particularily reliable sources on this topic. However, dualing sources aside - when you do the calculations that take into account the emissions emitted by burning the oil you get a true picture of the relative impact of oil sands production and that impact is fairly small.

[waldo]

I have no “outrage” with doing business with China……

so it's selective ethics then, hey? Within his book "Ethical Oil", Levant trumped up his own personal brand of outrage over the ethics of importing Saudi Oil, given the human rights violations he speaks to. But, as you state, business ethics in selling to a suggested repressive country is a whole different matter. Apparently.

I’d personally love an increase in tar sands oil, via BC, being sold in China……..Greenpeace is opposed to tar sands oil (and the pipeline) going through the United States…..are you saying they would be ok with tar sands oil being sold to China as long as it’s through a trans BC pipeline?

If that’s the case, find me the link to donate money to Greenpeace……..

To clarify, Greenpeace is opposed to North American pollution, but not Chinese?

I'm not saying anything about Greenpeace, you are... trying to. By the way, given your stated profession/ties, are you feeling... lucky?

[Guest Derek L]

so it's selective ethics then, hey? Within his book "Ethical Oil", Levant trumped up his own personal brand of outrage over the ethics of importing Saudi Oil, given the human rights violations he speaks to. But, as you state, business ethics in selling to a suggested repressive country is a whole different matter. Apparently.

I'm not saying anything about Greenpeace, you are... trying to. By the way, given your stated profession/ties, are you feeling... lucky?

I do see it as apples and oranges.....I’d very much be in favour of the Chinese relying on “us” (North America)for energy, as opposed to financing the United States military in defending/securing middle eastern oil……Getting tired of the Arabs having “us” (pun intended) over the barrel.....

Oil & clean water is the lifeblood of the planet, and we have lots of it.

You'd think I'd be opposed to Keystone XL.....

Just wait until the offshore oil and gas kick off......There's decades worth of natural gas just off of Clayoquot Sound

[jacee]

Denying it does not make it any less true. Here are some pro enviro sources

http://web.uvic.ca/~stucraw/Lethbridge/InterestingArticles/CANCER.HTM

Then your have the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" (Motto: "May we live long and die out.") praised on that reliable enviro site Grist.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-15-want-to-join-the-voluntary-human-extinction-movement

But like racism, the anti human beliefs of enviros rarely surface obviously but you see it in their endless opposition to any development and an dogmatic insistance that anything natural should be left the way it is. They see no value in human construction or technology even if that construction and technology improves the lives of humans.

The fact is every animal changes its environment to suit its needs. Humans are no different. We obviously cannot ignore the ecological aspects to what we do, on other hand, we should not treat every human caused change as a bad thing. There are many times when wiping out an ecosystem to create places to live and grow food are good things and we should not worry about it.

It's all a matter of degree of disruption of earth, and balance isn't it.

Have we gone too far already ... is a matter of opinion here but many scientists say we have.

" Even the most pessimistic doomsayers concede that humans have the capacity to arrest Gaia's deteriorating condition. Cancer cells can't think, but humans can. Cancer cells can't know the full extent of the harm they're doing to the organism of which they are a part, whereas humans have the capacity for planetary awareness. Cancer cells can't consciously modify their behavior to spare their host's life and prolong their own, whereas humans can adjust, adapt, innovate, pull back change course. Gaia's future, and humans' with it depends on it."

Re fool or fuel ... if it fools you, it will fuel you.

Edited September 10, 2011 by jacee

[TimG]

Even the most pessimistic doomsayers concede that humans have the capacity to arrest Gaia's deteriorating condition.

Now you are demonstrating your own anti-human bias.

My question: where is your evidence that Gaia's condition is deteriorating?

It can't be species extinctions because that has happened many times in the past an Gaia did just fine.

It can't be warming because Gaia was much warmer in the past and Gaia did just fine.

It can't be deforestation because ice ages did that over and over. Gaia did just fine.

What concrete evidence do you have?

Your entire premise that "Gaia's condition is deteriorating" is an assumption based on a world view that sees humans as a cancer that must be controlled. It is a vile anti-human assumption.

Edited September 10, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

You seem in the Greenpeace camp…..How many campaigns does Greenpeace have to improve the environment in Communist China?

The hypocrisy of Greenpeace

So why the oil sands , and by extension the pipeline, and not Red China?

I admitted who I’ve worked for, and my stance on the issue.....What is the true motivation of those opposed to the pipeline & tar sands?

If you/they/Greenpeace truly cared for the planet, I'd think you'd start with the world's worse polluter.....just saying

They are, and quite effectively it seems to me. It's all a question of method and they are supporting and encouraging positive developments there.

[jacee]

Now you are demonstrating your own anti-human bias.

My question: where is your evidence that Gaia's condition is deteriorating?

It can't be species extinctions because that has happened many times in the past an Gaia did just fine.

It can't be warming because Gaia was much warmer in the past and Gaia did just fine.

It can't be deforestation because ice ages did that over and over. Gaia did just fine.

What concrete evidence do you have?

Your entire premise that "Gaia's condition is deteriorating" is an assumption based on a world view that sees humans as a cancer that must be controlled. It is a vile anti-human assumption.

That's a quote from your first link. Interesting read. Not anti-human though as the quote shows.

You'll have to ask those questions of an environmental scientist, which I am not.

[TimG]

You'll have to ask those questions of an environmental scientist, which I am not.

A dodge.

Saying "Gaia's condition is deteriorating" is a value judgement - not a scientific claim.

It is no different from saying "Jesus died for our sins".

If you agree with the statement then you should be able to explain why or you should simply acknowledge that it is a tenet of your eco-religion and you accept it on faith.

[jbg]

You seem in the Greenpeace camp…..How many campaigns does Greenpeace have to improve the environment in Communist China?********

If you/they/Greenpeace truly cared for the planet, I'd think you'd start with the world's worse polluter.....just saying

To the contrary they protest in China all the time, and in North Korea too.

Not.

[Guest Derek L]

They are, and quite effectively it seems to me. It's all a question of method and they are supporting and encouraging positive developments there.

I’ll play the (pragmatic) Devil’s advocate for a moment……….Let’s say I’m in your camp for now and I oppose everything oil……..Realistically, North America, even if the technology was here today, wouldn’t be switching to another primary fuel source for at least a decade, possibly two………..in the meantime, at best current North American usage will slightly decline (with more efficient cars etc) or stay the same…….So oil still will be used, that’s a fact.

Now putting on my “environmental thinking cap” and facing the fact that oil is here to stay for now, you have to find the lesser of many evils………..Would it be better to continue to rely upon Middle East oil or increase the production and usage of the various forms (Natural gas included) available in North America?

Putting Mid-East politics/relations aside, as a newfound environmentalist, I’d think it would be easier to put pressure on North American energy companies & governments of all levels, to lessen the environmental impact of oil & gas production and usage……….as opposed to Middle East dictators…..and China and India………..Would you agree?

As for the Oil sands, face it, the usage won’t be stopped until they are no longer economically viable……..Quite wasting your resources…….Greenpeace has an annual budget of ~3-400 million dollars…….Chevron alone last year earned ~198 BILLION……..It’s not even like bringing a knife to a gun fight………concentrate your efforts on something attainable……Of the three pipelines being discussed (Keystone XL, Enbridge, Trans Mountain) two of the three (Keystone XL & Trans Mountain) will happen, the third (Enbridge) is 50/50.

Like Waldo pointed out a few pages earlier, legally, it’s easier in North America to expand on current refineries then it is to build new ones…..The same is true with pipelines……Keystone and Trans Mountain are expansions of current ones…….They both will happen. Now if ones takes a pragmatic approach, a pipeline is more environmentally friendly (once built and properly maintained) then the approach that is being lobbied by some unions and railroad companies…….(see CN’s proposal for a “pipeline on rails”)

What do you feel, since the oil is going to go to Asia anyways,is less environmentally friendly……A stationary pipeline or non-stop, mile plus long, diesel trains hauling tank cars? How many pipelines have major leaks in North America annually? How many Trains derail?

If you want to be successful in your aims for creating a cleaner Earth, figure out how to do it in such a way as it becomes a major money making venture that is viable………You’ll have energy companies, investors, lobbyists, politicians and lawyers banging at your door in no time.

In other words, don’t “fight the system”, create a new system that’s not built on fantasy and idealism, but MONEY.

If you build it, they will come

Edited September 10, 2011 by Derek L

[CPCFTW]

so it's selective ethics then, hey? Within his book "Ethical Oil", Levant trumped up his own personal brand of outrage over the ethics of importing Saudi Oil, given the human rights violations he speaks to. But, as you state, business ethics in selling to a suggested repressive country is a whole different matter. Apparently.

You don't see the difference between selling oil to an unethical country and buying it from them? Like maybe the proceeds from one transaction are used to fund terrorism while the other transaction creates economic growth and jobs which improve the quality of life of a billion people? Nope, no differences there.

Please feel free to explain to me your moral dilemma with selling oil to China to help their economy continue to grow and prosper. I would especially love to hear you compare it to funding terrorism by buying Saudi oil.

Edited September 10, 2011 by CPCFTW