Keystone Pipeline

[Derec]

Idiotically, but not surprisingly Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill. Gotta pay the piper (Tom Steyer) I guess ...

 

[arkirk]

Not the "entire surface of the Earth", but a very small fraction. That was the point of the map I included in my post. Please try to keep up.
By the way, that applies even in a post-oil world. Electric cars need lithium for batteries, and rare earth metals for permanent magnets in the motor and of course, large quantities of copper for all the windings in the motor and the wiring throughout. Those metals will have to be mined of course. And then you have to generate electricity by a combination of different methods, all of which involve disturbing the natural world to some degree.

You treat natural ecosystems like they are something we can remove and replace at will.

As opposed to treating them as some sort of sacred extension of the goddess Gaya in which case none of them must be touched by dirty unnatural technology and it's back to the cave with you. Do you realize how much disturbance to the "natural ecosystems" was necessary to enable you to argue on the internet?

You do not recognize the reality of ecological services over which we have little control at all. You refuse to recognize the progressive pollution of our industrial society and the many natural cycles we are interrupting with our voracious appetite for sub surface minerals.

Environmental damage should be taken into account and minimized as much as feasible, sure. But pearl-clutching because an open pit oil sands mine that covers a vanishingly tiny portion of Canadian boreal forest is not pretty is not terribly useful.

You fail to realize that when we move petroleum and heavy metals to the surface, it interferes with the biotic potential of the surface of the earth, with oligodynamic poisoning.

I suggest you don't drink (or eat depending on API gravity) crude oil then.
In Germany there was a slogan parodying know-nothing nuclear power opponents with words "Atomkraft? Nein danke! Mein Strom kommt eh aus der Steckdose." ("Nuclear power? No thanks! My electricity comes from the wall outlet anyway.")
You are similar. Assuming you drive a car (or take a taxi or a bus) one could paraphrase it as "Move petroleum to surface? No thanks. My gasoline comes from the gas station pump anyway."

You demonstrate a primative lack of comprehension of the significance of our pollution of OUR ENVIRONMENT. Strip mines are actually very difficult andalmost impossible to reclaim. How do you deal with 130 sq. mi. of petrochemical sludge ponds? Your thinking about the environment is narrow and the product of an inadequate education.

As other posters have shown, our pollution levels have been going down significantly in recent decades. And difficult is not impossible and such reclamations have already been done.

Two things we need to understand: It was environmentalists such as me that kept raising hell about the obvious pollutants shown in those charts. The specific pollutants on the charts Axulus has so kindly submitted, while greatly reduced on average because of demand for environmental cleanup still are subject to hot spots and un-monitored pollution.

Your remarks indicate you have exactly zero understanding of water and land pollution by crude oil processing such as the Tar Sands projects. You suggest that I don't drink crude oil. It is crude oil polluted water that is the problem. Petrochemical pollutions of water (and especially groundwater) are almost impossible to remediate. Human tolerance of pollutants such as benzine and chlorocarbons and fluorocarbons in drinking water is miniscule. You are just taking the hard line of the ignorant in YOUR RANT.

Typical borreal forest ecosystems are incredibly complex systems with thousands of species. Most of these "restorations" you point to so proudly are actually monoculture lawns on golf courses. The true major strip mines are unrestorable even as golf courses. Most of the strip mines I have seen are indeed not even touched by any restoration at all. The problem comes from the need for the expenditure of energy (and money) to perform any restoration and there simply is not enough profit in these strip mine operations to restore the damage they do. Particularly hazardous is the growth of toxic tailings which then get leached by rainwater. Of course you would not understand that because your energy comes from a coal car. The thought of energy requirements for restoration operations has probably not crossed your mind.

You are far too busy trying to throw mud in my face to try to understand the real problems associated with strip mining, but I do invite you to go find some crude oil, touch it, and run some water through it, then drink that water. You seem almost devoted to promoting pollution.

You really have no business chiding me about my carbon footprint. I venture to say that my carbon footprint is probably less than a tenth of yours. I think a lot of your feelings are colored by fear of losing mobility and the lifestyle you are living today. Perhaps you don't understand that if we survive the current threats to civilization, we will be substituting technologies and social practices that produce at least the same amount of happiness in our population as exists today. Environmentalists also desire a lively, engaged, and creative lifestyle for all people. You are hung up on the specifics of our current technology which is a lot too crude to have much of a future. Recipricating engines are on their way out. So are coal fired power plants, oil fired power plants, giant monoculture farms, strip mines, etc. I have lived long enough to see major C changes in our society at large and can see more coming. I would not presume to draw a picture of the future 30 years from now. 30 years ago, we could not even have THIS CONVERSATION.

You demonstrate little faith in the progressive nature of the advance of human knowledge and seem set on just carrying on with zombie technologies and zombie social systems. Things will be changing. Even if the Keystone Pipeline is allowed to go through, it will not have a long enough lifetime to justify the damage it does to the environment. Even in the U.S. with its brutal banking system and backwards attitude toward humanity in general, progress is being made to revolutionize our energy system, our education system, our medical system, etc. The language you use over and over again is one of fear of the future and expresses a desire for us to remain in static social and physical systems that are becoming outmoded in the developed world. You are not looking forward far enough to even allow for the world to change as it will and MUST.

 

[NobleSavage]

Does anyone really think the XL section of the Keystone won't be built? Shit, I'll be surprised if construction even slows down.

 

[Axulus]

I was thinking recently, why does the federal government even need to approve the project? Shouldn't approval be done on a state by state basis? If the federal government wants to pass a law banning it, that's one thing, but why does it need to authorize it? What is preventing the states involved authorizing it themselves on a state by state basis?

 

[arkirk]

I was thinking recently, why does the federal government even need to approve the project? Shouldn't approval be done on a state by state basis? If the federal government wants to pass a law banning it, that's one thing, but why does it need to authorize it? What is preventing the states involved authorizing it themselves on a state by state basis?

Probably the fact that it is not just interstate commerce. It also is international commerce. What I am concerned about is the lack of good sense by the Republicans and some Democrats who are either sold out to this project...or possibly invested in it...like Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton.

 

[Axulus]

I was thinking recently, why does the federal government even need to approve the project? Shouldn't approval be done on a state by state basis? If the federal government wants to pass a law banning it, that's one thing, but why does it need to authorize it? What is preventing the states involved authorizing it themselves on a state by state basis?

Probably the fact that it is not just interstate commerce. It also is international commerce. What I am concerned about is the lack of good sense by the Republicans and some Democrats who are either sold out to this project...or possibly invested in it...like Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton.

A strong majority of Americans support its approval. So, democratically speaking, it should be approved, no?

• CBS News, Jan. 9-12, 2015. "Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada through the United States to refineries in Texas?" Favor: 60 percent. Oppose: 28 percent. Unsure or no answer: 12 percent. (Margin of error ± 3 percent.)

• USA Today/Princeton Survey Research Associates International, Nov. 13-16, 2014. "Should Congress and President Obama approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada's oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas, or not?" Yes: 60 percent. No: 25 percent. Unsure: 14 percent. (Margin of error ± 3.6 percent.)

• Pew Research Center, Nov. 6-9, 2014. "Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada's oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas?" Favor: 59 percent. Oppose: 31 percent. Unsure/refused: 10 percent. (Margin of error ± 3.1 percent.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rnst-says-strong-majority-americans-back-key/

 

[dismal]

Feds regulate interstate pipes. However it went through all the federal regulatory procedures long ago. It is not at all common for a president to override the professional bureaucracy.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I was thinking recently, why does the federal government even need to approve the project? Shouldn't approval be done on a state by state basis? If the federal government wants to pass a law banning it, that's one thing, but why does it need to authorize it? What is preventing the states involved authorizing it themselves on a state by state basis?

Many of the states don't want it (or want concessions) and the company was trying to do and end run.

 

[arkirk]

Idiotically, but not surprisingly Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill. Gotta pay the piper (Tom Steyer) I guess ...

WHO WOULD BRAG THEY ACCOMPLISHED THIS?

 

[bilby]

Idiotically, but not surprisingly Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill. Gotta pay the piper (Tom Steyer) I guess ...

WHO WOULD BRAG THEY ACCOMPLISHED THIS?

Are you STILL labouring under the misapprehension that some people are unaware that open-cut mines are ugly, or that industrial activity results in the production of pollutants?

It might help your blood pressure to realise that EVERYONE KNOWS. They just don't care.

Pointing out to people that mines are ugly, and that fossil fuels cause pollution is a waste of breath. You might as well point out to people that eating food leads to obesity; or that breathing leads to CO₂ emissions - (almost) everybody KNOWS; but they don't CARE because they want to keep eating and breathing, more than they want to be thin or to reduce Global Warming.

Of course there is a need to ensure that the pollution we cause is, as far as possible, managed so as to minimise harm. But that argument is also not new to anybody - we all know.

The reasons people do things you don't like has NOTHING to do with their lack of knowledge. They know, and they do it anyway. So your attempts to educate people are futile.

 

[bleubird]

Really.Maybe in Australia.But,in 'Marica most are ignorant drones.

 

[arkirk]

WHO WOULD BRAG THEY ACCOMPLISHED THIS?

Are you STILL labouring under the misapprehension that some people are unaware that open-cut mines are ugly, or that industrial activity results in the production of pollutants?

It might help your blood pressure to realise that EVERYONE KNOWS. They just don't care.

Pointing out to people that mines are ugly, and that fossil fuels cause pollution is a waste of breath. You might as well point out to people that eating food leads to obesity; or that breathing leads to CO₂ emissions - (almost) everybody KNOWS; but they don't CARE because they want to keep eating and breathing, more than they want to be thin or to reduce Global Warming.

Of course there is a need to ensure that the pollution we cause is, as far as possible, managed so as to minimise harm. But that argument is also not new to anybody - we all know.

The reasons people do things you don't like has NOTHING to do with their lack of knowledge. They know, and they do it anyway. So your attempts to educate people are futile.

In the flow chart, it appears you didn't notice the little arrows indicating expanding pollution. When you contact many of the pollutants from this operation, you get sick and maybe die from it. A culture and a technology that constantly sets up environmental sacrifice zones and must do so to continue is a doomed society. Its own bad practices have consequences far beyond the area of the strip mine. You seem to be asleep on this matter. Do you really think people KNOW THE DETAILS OF THESE PROJECTS? Do you think YOU KNOW the details of these projects? What is solvent used to remove excessive mineral content from the bitumen? When the minerals (containing heavy metals) are removed and dissolved, have they become less toxic or less of a problem? You think you know that this stuff could not be a problem for you where you happen to live? That is only because you do not understand what your home state will look like with sea level rise and also how water environments are polluted with petroleum leaks and spills of all kinds. Your response to this question is to go back to the old, tired, dirty, inefficient zombie technology you know and not see a way forward and away from the continued sacrifice of living systems for dead ones. It may be futile to try to convince you of anything...that is your problem. I feel assured that not everybody is like youl There is no satisfactory minimization of the harm you cause when you produce massive volumes of toxic waste and carbon emissions on the scale of these tar sands projects, of difficult to process waste and just dump it on the surface of the earth and into our really fragile atmosphere. Persistent organic and heavy metal pollutants are not something good to produce. They power nothing and kill about everything. Try using your noggin a bit. I know it might be difficult for you and I can only guess you are ignorant...or perhaps you are malignantly mean spirited toward the living systems that sustain your life.

 

[NobleSavage]

It may be futile to try to convince you of anything...that is your problem.

Which witty saying should I use here? Pot meet kettle...first take the plank from your own eye...my irony meter just broke...

 

[Derec]

Many of the states don't want it (or want concessions) and the company was trying to do and end run.

Where does it say that "many of the states do not want it"? The southern leg (Cushing Marketlink) was completed without many problems (other than ecomentalists chaining themselves to equipment and such). The reason the northern leg needs federal approval is because it crosses the international border but the process should have been completed years ago. The ongoing delays by Obama are pure politics.

 

[Derec]

Two things we need to understand: It was environmentalists such as me that kept raising hell about the obvious pollutants shown in those charts. The specific pollutants on the charts Axulus has so kindly submitted, while greatly reduced on average because of demand for environmental cleanup still are subject to hot spots and un-monitored pollution.

There is a big difference between wanting to clean up industries and wanting to abolish industries.

Your remarks indicate you have exactly zero understanding of water and land pollution by crude oil processing such as the Tar Sands projects. You suggest that I don't drink crude oil.

It was a snarky remark for sure. But it serves a purpose. Oil is toxic to humans. Gasoline that you put in your car is toxic. But we need them in our economy and will for few more decades.

It is crude oil polluted water that is the problem. Petrochemical pollutions of water (and especially groundwater) are almost impossible to remediate. Human tolerance of pollutants such as benzine and chlorocarbons and fluorocarbons in drinking water is miniscule. You are just taking the hard line of the ignorant in YOUR RANT.

And yet we need the oil. So the obvious solution is to minimize water pollution due to oil production, not to shut it down.

Typical borreal forest ecosystems are incredibly complex systems with thousands of species. Most of these "restorations" you point to so proudly are actually monoculture lawns on golf courses.

Much demand for golf courses up in northern Alberta is there? Also I would need some source for that claim.
The fact is that only a very small portion of Alberta's boreal forest is affected by strip mining anyway.

The true major strip mines are unrestorable even as golf courses.

So let's just give up all the things that require strip mined minerals, shall we?

Most of the strip mines I have seen are indeed not even touched by any restoration at all.

That would make sense if they are still active mines.

The problem comes from the need for the expenditure of energy (and money) to perform any restoration and there simply is not enough profit in these strip mine operations to restore the damage they do.

Yet the oil sands operations have to restore those areas by law. I doubt that will be the case with Orinoco oil sands in Venezuela which just shows why getting our oil from Canada is preferable.

Particularly hazardous is the growth of toxic tailings which then get leached by rainwater. Of course you would not understand that because your energy comes from a coal car. The thought of energy requirements for restoration operations has probably not crossed your mind.

Coal is much dirtier than oil sands, yet I do not see nearly as much vitriol against it.

You are far too busy trying to throw mud in my face to try to understand the real problems associated with strip mining, but I do invite you to go find some crude oil, touch it, and run some water through it, then drink that water. You seem almost devoted to promoting pollution.

I am hardly devoted to promoting pollution. I am devoted to a being realistic about it. Issues with pollution are not limited to oil sands. Furthermore, shallow oil sands deposit have contaminated local water before humans ever got there given that say Athabasca River cuts right through those deposits.

You really have no business chiding me about my carbon footprint. I venture to say that my carbon footprint is probably less than a tenth of yours.

I very much doubt that.

I think a lot of your feelings are colored by fear of losing mobility and the lifestyle you are living today.

I certainly would not cherish living in a akirkutopia if that's what you mean.

Perhaps you don't understand that if we survive the current threats to civilization, we will be substituting technologies and social practices that produce at least the same amount of happiness in our population as exists today.

Yes, I have no problem with progress. In fact, I embrace it.

Environmentalists also desire a lively, engaged, and creative lifestyle for all people.

Depends on which kind.

You are hung up on the specifics of our current technology which is a lot too crude to have much of a future.

I agree. But it does have a present. And new technologies will not have much of a future if we do not use technologies that we have in the present.

Recipricating engines are on their way out.

Reciprocating engines are on the way out, but not as fast as you may like or believe.

So are coal fired power plants, oil fired power plants, giant monoculture farms, strip mines, etc.

Oil power plants are rare anyway, but coal plants will not be done away with that quick. Giant monoculture farms are probably not going to go away and neither will strip mines.

I have lived long enough to see major C changes in our society at large and can see more coming. I would not presume to draw a picture of the future 30 years from now. 30 years ago, we could not even have THIS CONVERSATION.

Probably not given my age. But the world wasn't that fundamentally different. Most people didn't have access to it but Internet existed and so did cell phones and personal computers. Cars ran mostly on reciprocating engines (as they did for a century before then) although they were technologically much more primitive, still mostly carbureted even.
How the world will look in 30 years? Don't know for sure but I think most new cars will be electric by then. That doesn't mean we will not need to use significant amount of oil to get there - and even then we will use some oil.

You demonstrate little faith in the progressive nature of the advance of human knowledge and seem set on just carrying on with zombie technologies and zombie social systems.

Quite the contrary! I have a great deal of faith in it. But I realize that this future will not be possible unless we use present technologies in the present.

Things will be changing. Even if the Keystone Pipeline is allowed to go through, it will not have a long enough lifetime to justify the damage it does to the environment.

Oil sands will be a viable source for at least two or three decades. Definitely long enough to be worthwhile.

Even in the U.S. with its brutal banking system and backwards attitude toward humanity in general, progress is being made to revolutionize our energy system, our education system, our medical system, etc. The language you use over and over again is one of fear of the future and expresses a desire for us to remain in static social and physical systems that are becoming outmoded in the developed world. You are not looking forward far enough to even allow for the world to change as it will and MUST.

Change we much .. we must .. and will much .. and about that be committed.
Seriously though, you have created a strawman that you evidently take great pleasure at taking down. I have never expressed any desire for a static world or one where there is no technological progress.

 

[Derec]

Idiotically, but not surprisingly Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill. Gotta pay the piper (Tom Steyer) I guess ...

View attachment 2361View attachment 2362

WHO WOULD BRAG THEY ACCOMPLISHED THIS?

My, you do like the pretty pictures.

I do not see what you mean to accomplish with that infographic. We already know that it is a massive and complex industrial process. In the other post you harped about progress but being able to economically produce marginal sources of oil is also progress.
And you seem to be laboring under the misconception that getting oil elsewhere is easy, just a matter of drilling a hole and watching that oil gush out. But that is far from truth. Oil production facilities even in relatively easy places like Saudi Arabia are complex beasts that yes, cause pollution. And their oil, yes, contains heavy metals, polycyclic aromatics and other assorted pollutants - that is not a unique property of Athabasca sands.
I mean it's not like acid is not used to produce oil in Saudi Arabia. It's not like Venezuela doesn't have to dillute their ultraheavy stuff (they used to use naphta like in your infographic but they are broke so they resort to Algerian light crude).

So let me ask you again - why this singular fixation on Canadian oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline?

 

[arkirk]

It may be futile to try to convince you of anything...that is your problem.

Which witty saying should I use here? Pot meet kettle...first take the plank from your own eye...my irony meter just broke...

Unfortunately, it appears you believe the only way to keep planks out of your eye is to keep them closed. In regard to petrochemical pollution of our environment, we MUST CHANGE OUR COURSE. I am not telling everybody to take a hammer to their car, just wise up that we are on a dead end path with things like Keystone and deep water drilling and strip mining for oil. The human race has technology in its hands to destroy its own environment. I only have a few years left to live and can probably do reasonably well for the rest of my life, but if you realize there are kids being born today, this shit should make no sense to them. We are accruing monstrous opportunity costs by continuing with zombie technologies. These kids will pay...probably I won't. I really don't understand what you are saying here. What is ironic about not wanting to see unnecessary suffering or perhaps extinction?

Mother nature does not ask us to vote on what IT WILL DO. We are given warnings by nature and when we fail to understand them, there have been in our past terrible consequences. We are much larger a force on the planet with every passing day and our mistakes carry with them greater consequences. So go figure. How can we continue to sacrifice large swaths of our environment for something as simple as getting around or boiling water? I was surprised to get this comment from you.

 

[arkirk]

View attachment 2361View attachment 2362

WHO WOULD BRAG THEY ACCOMPLISHED THIS?

My, you do like the pretty pictures.

I do not see what you mean to accomplish with that infographic. We already know that it is a massive and complex industrial process. In the other post you harped about progress but being able to economically produce marginal sources of oil is also progress.
And you seem to be laboring under the misconception that getting oil elsewhere is easy, just a matter of drilling a hole and watching that oil gush out. But that is far from truth. Oil production facilities even in relatively easy places like Saudi Arabia are complex beasts that yes, cause pollution. And their oil, yes, contains heavy metals, polycyclic aromatics and other assorted pollutants - that is not a unique property of Athabasca sands.
I mean it's not like acid is not used to produce oil in Saudi Arabia. It's not like Venezuela doesn't have to dillute their ultraheavy stuff (they used to use naphta like in your infographic but they are broke so they resort to Algerian light crude).

So let me ask you again - why this singular fixation on Canadian oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline?

The quantities of pollution and CO2 produced by strip mining for oil are greater by an order of magnitude...just in the production of the oil. Then we have to add in the CO2 produced when it reaches the end user. Can't you see this project as a desperate measure to get ever harder to obtain petroleum when in fact we should instead move away from petroleum earlier.

South American countries have huge oil pollutions. So what? That is something that was done mainly by foreign oil companies raping these countries for their oil and paying off dictators. I worked in water pollution control for 25 years and can tell you that we cannot continue as we have in many aspects of our economy using the same practices without further sacrifices of our environment. It is time we clean up our act. Keystone may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Most of our current policies regarding our chemical and nuclear waste so far simply involve containing it and attempting to keep it from mobilizing through the water environment. As a result, we have huge toxic waste containments all over the world just waiting for our makeshift containment structures to fail. We also have increasingly harsh weather events which can trigger the release of these wastes. Society is progressively walling itself into smaller and smaller habitable spaces as its population grows at the same time. Before you sling any more mud at me, perhaps you ought to check out that mud and make sure it doesn't have anything in it that might hurt me. You wouldn't want to do that now, would you?

FYI Many communities have difficulty finding sufficient solid waste storage (landfills) even to dispose of their human waste. The thing about releasing pollutants to the environment is that they SPREAD. That is apparently a fact that has not crossed your mind. Take lead for example. We are able to control it by limiting ourselves to processes that do not spread it and we have made some headway there. So far this is not the case with mercury or CO2. These are harder nuts to crack. You just refuse to admit these nuts need to be cracked and go around with pots and kettles and slurs against people who concern themselves with real problems. You really ought to stop doing that.

 

[bilby]

My, you do like the pretty pictures.

I do not see what you mean to accomplish with that infographic. We already know that it is a massive and complex industrial process. In the other post you harped about progress but being able to economically produce marginal sources of oil is also progress.
And you seem to be laboring under the misconception that getting oil elsewhere is easy, just a matter of drilling a hole and watching that oil gush out. But that is far from truth. Oil production facilities even in relatively easy places like Saudi Arabia are complex beasts that yes, cause pollution. And their oil, yes, contains heavy metals, polycyclic aromatics and other assorted pollutants - that is not a unique property of Athabasca sands.
I mean it's not like acid is not used to produce oil in Saudi Arabia. It's not like Venezuela doesn't have to dillute their ultraheavy stuff (they used to use naphta like in your infographic but they are broke so they resort to Algerian light crude).

So let me ask you again - why this singular fixation on Canadian oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline?

The quantities of pollution and CO2 produced by strip mining for oil are greater by an order of magnitude...just in the production of the oil. Then we have to add in the CO2 produced when it reaches the end user. Can't you see this project as a desperate measure to get ever harder to obtain petroleum when in fact we should instead move away from petroleum earlier.

South American countries have huge oil pollutions. So what? That is something that was done mainly by foreign oil companies raping these countries for their oil and paying off dictators. I worked in water pollution control for 25 years and can tell you that we cannot continue as we have in many aspects of our economy using the same practices without further sacrifices of our environment. It is time we clean up our act. Keystone may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Most of our current policies regarding our chemical and nuclear waste so far simply involve containing it and attempting to keep it from mobilizing through the water environment. As a result, we have huge toxic waste containments all over the world just waiting for our makeshift containment structures to fail. We also have increasingly harsh weather events which can trigger the release of these wastes. Society is progressively walling itself into smaller and smaller habitable spaces as its population grows at the same time. Before you sling any more mud at me, perhaps you ought to check out that mud and make sure it doesn't have anything in it that might hurt me. You wouldn't want to do that now, would you?

FYI Many communities have difficulty finding sufficient solid waste storage (landfills) even to dispose of their human waste. The thing about releasing pollutants to the environment is that they SPREAD. That is apparently a fact that has not crossed your mind. Take lead for example. We are able to control it by limiting ourselves to processes that do not spread it and we have made some headway there. So far this is not the case with mercury or CO2. These are harder nuts to crack. You just refuse to admit these nuts need to be cracked and go around with pots and kettles and slurs against people who concern themselves with real problems. You really ought to stop doing that.

Pollutants are only a problem for biosphere health when they are sufficiently concentrated. If they spread a little, that can be a bad thing. If they spread a lot, then that is the end of the problem.

The dose makes the poison; a few parts per trillion of heavy metals is not pollution, it is normality. The only exceptions I can think of to the general rule that the solution to pollution is dilution are halogenated fluorocarbons, and greenhouse gasses, both of which are harmful in small quantities due to their mode of action. The former group of chemicals have now been banned; reducing emissions of the latter to sustainable levels is more intractable. Certainly forcing the shale-oil producers to use trains to transport their product rather than pipelines is not helping with that problem - in fact, it is making it worse. A classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I agree that the coal and oil that is currently in the ground should mostly stay in the ground. But to achieve this would require a ban on extracting the stuff. Banning some modes of transport for it once it is already out of the ground simply makes producers fall back on less efficient options, with the result that the damage done is worse than it would otherwise be. Are your really sure you want to campaign for higher CO₂ emissions from the oil industry? Because that is what opposing pipelines is doing - rail transport is worse in almost every possible way.

 

[arkirk]

The quantities of pollution and CO2 produced by strip mining for oil are greater by an order of magnitude...just in the production of the oil. Then we have to add in the CO2 produced when it reaches the end user. Can't you see this project as a desperate measure to get ever harder to obtain petroleum when in fact we should instead move away from petroleum earlier.

South American countries have huge oil pollutions. So what? That is something that was done mainly by foreign oil companies raping these countries for their oil and paying off dictators. I worked in water pollution control for 25 years and can tell you that we cannot continue as we have in many aspects of our economy using the same practices without further sacrifices of our environment. It is time we clean up our act. Keystone may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Most of our current policies regarding our chemical and nuclear waste so far simply involve containing it and attempting to keep it from mobilizing through the water environment. As a result, we have huge toxic waste containments all over the world just waiting for our makeshift containment structures to fail. We also have increasingly harsh weather events which can trigger the release of these wastes. Society is progressively walling itself into smaller and smaller habitable spaces as its population grows at the same time. Before you sling any more mud at me, perhaps you ought to check out that mud and make sure it doesn't have anything in it that might hurt me. You wouldn't want to do that now, would you?

FYI Many communities have difficulty finding sufficient solid waste storage (landfills) even to dispose of their human waste. The thing about releasing pollutants to the environment is that they SPREAD. That is apparently a fact that has not crossed your mind. Take lead for example. We are able to control it by limiting ourselves to processes that do not spread it and we have made some headway there. So far this is not the case with mercury or CO2. These are harder nuts to crack. You just refuse to admit these nuts need to be cracked and go around with pots and kettles and slurs against people who concern themselves with real problems. You really ought to stop doing that.

Pollutants are only a problem for biosphere health when they are sufficiently concentrated. If they spread a little, that can be a bad thing. If they spread a lot, then that is the end of the problem.

The dose makes the poison; a few parts per trillion of heavy metals is not pollution, it is normality. The only exceptions I can think of to the general rule that the solution to pollution is dilution are halogenated fluorocarbons, and greenhouse gasses, both of which are harmful in small quantities due to their mode of action. The former group of chemicals have now been banned; reducing emissions of the latter to sustainable levels is more intractable. Certainly forcing the shale-oil producers to use trains to transport their product rather than pipelines is not helping with that problem - in fact, it is making it worse. A classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I agree that the coal and oil that is currently in the ground should mostly stay in the ground. But to achieve this would require a ban on extracting the stuff. Banning some modes of transport for it once it is already out of the ground simply makes producers fall back on less efficient options, with the result that the damage done is worse than it would otherwise be. Are your really sure you want to campaign for higher CO₂ emissions from the oil industry? Because that is what opposing pipelines is doing - rail transport is worse in almost every possible way.

That was an idiotic thing to say and you know it. The tar sands projects are virtually wringing trapped oil out of the ground with a grinder a separator and then a 900 C reactor and piles of chemical additives to produce an end product that is filthy with heavy metals. You need to look at state and federal drinking water standards. Some of the heavy metals have limitations of allowable concentrations in the parts per billion.
We ought to be prohibiting importation of Tar Sands "Crude" (probably should be called CRUDEST) into the U.S. in any manner whatever. The pollutants in that oil still need to be separated from it and disposed of somewhere in our country if it is processed here...and then protected from spreading. You truly do not understand the meaning of or how pollution occurs. Everything about this project smacks of increased risks and expenses to the American people. I am in agreement with you about the trains hauling this stuff...you see we agree...just not completely.