1) Pipeline won't increase oil consumption therefore peak oil has nothing to do with this. 2) Canada exports more oil than any other country to the U.S at over 18%, followed by Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela who hover around 11%. 4) What does evaporation have to do with this? And the water cycle? Evaporation from tailing ponds is still clean water evaporating. Arsenic has a boiling point of 600+ degrees so it does not evaporate with the water. That, PAH's, and other cont stay in the ponds
So why not refine the oil where it is mined instead of piping it all the way to Texas? Maybe because the rails and trucks would lose business transporting the product back where it came from. How dumb are we?
Everyone's comments seem to be that they feel defeated....We need to keep up lifting people so that we continue to fight big corporate America. Love the video. Let us keep trying to do what we can by spreading the word, signing petitions,anything that we can do to keep up the fight to move beyond oil.
Some alternative thoughts. I don't use laser focus on a subject like this. I can think of both sides, and opinions maybe not considered before. That is a befit of having ADD. Yes, look it up. OK, now what was I talking about... Oh yeah.. Pro issues: - It will create more jobs with all of the labor needed and materials and supplies needed to make it. - It must surely be better than getting oil from the Middle East or some wacko in Venezuela. Anti-pipeline issues (other than the super-obvious): - I'd be pissed to be a landowner forced to have to let a pipeline go through my land. -Any oil spills would definitely be a bad thing, and piss off many people. Other thoughts: - Energy cannot be made or destroyed. Do you remember that from school? I was probably daydreaming in class during that lesson, but I do know that law. Whatever way you power your car or house will come from something dirty, or some filth will be created to make the solar panels or whatever else you will use. The Earth's population will increase, especially with China relaxing the one child law, and will all the new technologies that need power, more energy will be needed. You can use the energy from the tar sands now, or later, and cross our fingers that something new will be invented to satisfy our energy demands more cleanly. - Look at the many third-world countries that barely have any electrical power, and places that do have daily power outages. I have been to 65+ countries and I have been victim of several daily power outages. In many countries the bigger cities have power just fine, but when you get away from the big cities the other places have crappy power reliability. Thailand and the Philippines showed me this. Myanmar will start to have a big business boom because their government stopped being run so strict by a military junta. Right now even their capital has very poor power reliability, and have rare and slow, crappy internet access. This place will grow and many investors are already jumping in to get a piece of the pie, but they will need a lot more power. All of the poor African countries will 'hopefully' develop and grow. That will cause a major increase in energy supply. More and more power will be needed. And don't go thinking your electric cars get some sort of free clean energy. Power wasn't created, only converted, and very far from 100% efficiency. - Canada isn't going to just give up and let the tar sands do nothing. They will sell it to someone, or process it themselves. - What the hell is up with the Canucks? Why don't they get off of their frigid asses and process it themselves? Maybe they can improve their economy and keep the Canadian Dollar from losing so much against just about every other currency. Do they peg their dollar to the Argentinian Peso? -If most of that oil is going to be sent outside of the U.S., then the frigid Canucks should process the tar sands, and use their own ports to export the oil elsewhere. They just need to be a Belieber(Justin Bieber) - So the video says only the oil companies will get rich. Well don't be a dumbass, buy stocks in those companies. Duh! - Humans are like termites, and the Earth is like a big tree. With no natural cosmic disaster or colonization off of Earth, Earth will definitely be eroded and destroyed, or it will self-heal itself by wiping out all life and create a new genesis. All opinions are of my own, and unfortunately nobody pays or endorses me, and I don't blame them.
The comment I am responding to, made by Ole Fella, is NOT spam. He made a legitimate point and people are flagging the comment to censor it from being viewed. Please de-flag and rate up. @ Ole Fella: Thanks for your comment. It is appreciated.
Not all Canadians want to sell either. Problem is we have a majority party government who support these pipelines. Although next election doesn't look too good for them so we'll see.
here are currently many existing pipelines pumping tar sand oil to the States, Keystone XL is only supposed to be safer and more efficient. it's dirty and environmentally toxic and all, true! but what makes you think transporting a massive volume of crude oil across the border via trains and truck are a much safer way?! I personally support the construction of this pipeline as long as it replaces the existing ones for good!
I really dont know what the answer is. All I can say is that preserving nature and keeping the earth healthy is much more important than we think. I don't even know what we could do to make a dent in this problem. Should we start trying to switch to hybrid cars? I feel like all electric cars won't be able to suffice cuz I heard they really dont last that long
The Keystone XL pipeline has the ability to benefit America. Some American's argue building this pipeline does not create permanent jobs. But do home builders have permanent jobs? No! They build a home and go some where else to build another home, this is the same characteristic for pipeliners who have careers building pipelines.. It is also important to consider the jobs created by refining this oil. Refineries have already started building more units and tank farms for this oil. Every year there are shut downs to maintenance these processing units, creating thousands of jobs for welders, fitters, electricians, etc. There are many more economic benefits. TransCanada, like any pipeline company, will pay texas on the pipeline right-a-way. The oil will be refined in the US and therefore traded on the American stock market. If the oil is shipped overseas, there are export taxes or duties paid to the Federal gov't. When a cargo ship docks at a port. A shipping company pays thousands of dollars for every hour the ship is docked, this is a large source of revenue for cities, espeically on the Gulf Coast. It is no suprise the State Department ruled in favor of KXL. There are many economic benefits from top to bottom and only those in the know, truely understand the economic benefits from building this pipeline and refining, and possibly exporting this oil.. If you insist to claim this oil has the ability to seep into the Ogallala Aquifer. Then ask yourself does the chemicals farmers spray seep into the Ogallala Aquifer?
1) I did "take Economics." It is one of the side effects of dealing with corporate lobbyists like you. 2) Also note we were talking about oil delivery by PIPELINE. The U.S.A. still isn't getting a drop. 4) Acid rain occurs when water (H2O) bonds with sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NO) and becomes acidic, hence ACID rain. Arsenic compounds can react with water to form arsenic acid and arsenious acid which can be transported by the water cycle into oceans and smaller bodies of water.
I think the narrator is referring to two separate issues: 1) the U.S.A.'s use of fossil fuels, and 2) the pipeline being run through the U.S.A. to be shipped to customers overseas. I have heard the U.S.A.'s reliance on fossil fuels used as an excuse to run the pipeline through the country a lot by now, so I think the narrator is saying that if we get rid of our reliance on fossil fuels, there will be no more excuses for oil companies to run the pipeline through American soil.
It would take a lot longer to ship oil from British Columbia to India than it would to ship from the Gulf Coast to India. The less shipping that has to be done, the less risk of a spill in the ocean. Though the fact that they still want to ship, when American companies have been saying that getting oil from Canada would be better than getting it from Saudi Arabia due to the fact that you WOULDN'T need to ship it, says a lot about what their real priorities are.
Funny thing is, the same people who lobby against the Keystone pipelines, are the same people who have invested in railroad companies that transport oil from Canada to the United States. So the question isn't whether oil goes through America or not, it's whether a pipeline is cleaner than a diesel emitting train. And frankly, it is. Pipelines are infinitely more cleaner than massive trains because they can transport more oil, faster, and have zero emissions. Pointing to an oil spill in a pipeline is akin to pointing to a freak car accident and saying we should never drive cars because look at all the death and destruction it causes. Whatever your choice is, pipelines are more technologically advanced and cleaner than trains. Unless you want to destroy the oil industry all together, the choice is very clear....
When ever they talk about how the oil is produced there is mention of "chemicals" that are used to force the tar sands through the pipes. Do we know who is the manufacturer of those chemicals? Anyone? Someone like Monsanto? Just wondering.
Also, while the CFC compounds themselves (ClFC) are unreactive by themselves, the increase in ultraviolet activity in the upper atmosphere breaks the elements apart and they react with the O3 molecules in the Ozone. Then you get Ozone depletion.
6) Americans ARE taking most of the risks. The rest are taken by local communities in Canada. All you need to do is look up pipeline spills in the U.S.A. Atleast three states - Arkansas, Wisconsin and Montana - have already had pipeline oil spills. If the Keystone XL pipeline is approved, more will come. The only difference is that its approval will make oil spills from the Keystone XL pipeline easier to cover up.
It takes 2 full time running coal power plants in the US just to refine the uranium for our nuclear plants. Radiation levels at the typical coal plant are actually 100 times that of a nuclear plant. Nuclear is just so expensive, it's not a good alternative to wind. U of Delaware did a study a while back that said if we max our grid out with wind, we would only need a little storage and a little gas back-up (
5) There is a lot of scholerly material on the anthropogenic increase of toxic chemicals in the Tar Sands and surrounding region, from both Environment Canada and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in the U.S.A., as well as from independent scientific publications.
3) Even if the pipeline were approved, the U.S.A. is not getting a drop. It will all be shipped elsewhere and the U.S.A. will instead be paying for natural gas that will be exported by train, like it is in Canada. Many - if not most - of the companies working in the Tar Sands are American companies that only tell you that the rest of the U.S.A. will benefit so that they can continue making money.
New gasoline cars in the US are now designed for universal flex (gas, ethanol, methanol, butanol, and some other liquid fuels) due to the Brazilian mandate. The car companies switch it off in the fuel injection system firmware and change the gaskets & fuel lines from ones resistant to these fuels to instead more expensive ones that are not resistant so you'll have to buy gasoline. Why? These car companies are either in joint ventures with oil companies or are major stakeholders in them.
It's the consumers fault not oil companies fault. I wish our transportation didn't run on gas and diesel. Once that changes there won't be such a demand for dirty oil.
Oil is critical to our food supply by powering the machinery that mines fertilizer, and powers farm machinery to plant, grow, and harvest food. Prior to oil powered machinery, people often went hungry between June and September; and sometimes starved. Without oil, people would starve by the billions. The alternatives shown here are not going to be able to take the place of oil. How many people can ride a bike to work? Battery powered cars have limited range, running accessories reduces the range even further. Also, when the gas tank gets low, it takes minutes to fill the tank with gasoline. An electric car would take hours to charge.
4) But there are leaks in retention ponds, and a lot of them probably aren't even reported. As long as oil-contaminated water can enter the water table through the soil, it can enter outside water systems. And you don't even account for evaporation and precipitation, which is an important way for water from one water body (e.g. retention ponds) to enter other bodies of water. See: Water Cycle.
4) and yes there are leaks but the watershed from the tar sands before mining increased PAH and Arsenic levels so it is hard to determine the root cause. 5) Get your information from university journals and researchers, not news outlets like the globe and mail. 6) Canada is taking more of a risk. Its where the oil sands are. The U.S. benefits from this by boosting their refineries and economy. Also, pipelines leak a lot, all the time, it does suck but oil runs the world
NO to this pipe line. First, look at history of oil companies about safety. Second, why they still collecting subsidise. Country is heading in wrong direction slowly but surely. Just look at voting suppression laws across the country and no restrictions on money spending on elections AD's. Rich people like Koch brothers are buying politicians and government. One should vote for republican the day they are rich otherwise stay home if don't like to vote for democrats.
"Tar Sands Oil;" As expensive as it is dirty. Please OPEC keep reducing the price of oil until technology provides cleaner ways to extract, transport and use energy.
The funny thing is all of these alternative green energy/technology pushes WOULD promote jobs. Outdated current industries will have to fold eventually and those people will HAVE to find work elsewhere. The rewards of money and jobs don't outweigh the risks and costs.
Yes, I have. I think the real issue here is that in order for individual households to be carbon neutral is one thing. For an entire society to convert away from a petroleum based one is very complex. Say goodbye to plastics, batteries, asprin, gasoline, nylon, antfreeze, detergents...etc. Not to mention all products that are the result of things that run on oil and gas. The energy crisis is sadly not solved by hooking up a single PV cell on everyone's roof (how are those manufactured again?)
Greed is destroying this planet, and us with it. Is there any part of this earth that man hasn't defiled, or ruined? If there is, it won't remain that way for long. Makes me sick!
Pipelines = most efficient, safest, most economical way of transporting any product. Trains and trucks spill more than pipelines (but we don't add it up) and bog down infrastructure creating a lot of pollution. Canada has a choice on who they want to sell oil too. Canada rejected China from purchasing large amounts of oilsand companies because they want to do business with us (U.S.A.) We import oil from politically sensitive Countries.
A well done project for someone. Unfortunately, the facts are wrong. Pipelines are in fact the safest mode(to date) of transporting oil. If the standards for building and maintaining these lines meet or exceed Canadian regulations, you'll find stats would prove pretty impressive. It doesnt take much research to determine that this is the best way to address our enviromental concerns as a continent. A big push for this is to move USA destined oil easier, safer, friendlier...and it creates jobs.
6) The only way the U.S.A. is benefitting from the Tar Sands is by leeching oil from Canada. The companies and refineries can then sell the oil to their own country where the American population then loses money by buying an expensive source of fuel. Or the oil companies can avoid selling to Americans completely and gain an international profit, which supports the idea that none of the oil actually reaches American homes. Either way, only the oil companies are getting anything from this.
Hey, I'm all for alternative transportation fuel sources. Within the transportation sector, (~20MMBOE) demend is projected to stay pretty flat in the next 30 years, and actually decrease in OECD countries. This accounts for hybrids becoming mainstream. The global fleet is projected to double to 1.6 billion vehicles. The main demand increase will be in commercial demand (trucks, planes, boats) is projected to hit 45 MMOEB per day. This is why the issue is COMPLEX (not insolvable).
Looking at this map.... I see going across Canada would make more sense... They have water much closer to them than we do... They have water east and west of where they are removing it... Canada is much less populated... WHY across America????? Cause they don't want to dirty their land????
It must be cheaper to go through the States. With a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding sovereignty over non-treaty land in BC it will be harder and/or more expensive to build pipelines across First Nations territory.
Why do they show bulldozers removing trees? I remember driving through in 1972 and as far as you could see it was a massive tar pit before they started mining the bittimin and cleaning up the natural disaster
dont know if i agree with you 100% on that... The oil sands are far away from me, they wont affect my health... but the money the federal government gets from it will, it does help fund health care (which is the biggest expense inthis country and in most developed nations) As for how much i give to others, mining the oil wont really influence that. However i can agree that they methods they are currently using to extract the oil are a but too much
Don't get me wrong, these are not bad ideas! Currently, however, these renewables (wind, photovoltaic, hydroelectric etc.) only produced about 3.85 (2010) Quadrillion BTU per year, and as a country we consumed 98.16 (2010) quadrillion BTU. This means that currently, all renewables sum up to around 4% of all energy consumed in the U.S. The problem is that increasing all renewable production 25 fold is pretty much inconceivable in the near future (sadly). Far from simple. All data from EIA.gov.
John Sun, here is your citation on where it is going: Alberta Energy Minister Ken Hughes, “It’s absolutely critical that we have access to global markets,” Hughes said. “We’ve been well served by having the United States as our single market for pretty well all of our existence as a province. Now we’re at a stage where the United States is becoming increasingly self-sufficient, and we need to find other markets, and so we need to get to the ocean where we can sell our product at world price.” Citation: globalnews.ca/news/696639/alberta-government-commits-5-billion-for-pipeline-east/ Expert L. Ian MacDonald (Canada), "And with the International Energy Agency forecasting the U.S. achieving energy self-sufficiency by 2020, Keystone isn’t really about reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Not in the longer term. It’s about a route to Asia for Canadian oil, and diversifying our markets." Citation: www.montrealgazette.com/business/MacDonald+Energy+Canada+issue+2013/7766577/story.html#ixzz2GumHlYGV Alberta Premier Alison Redford, “My government made a commitment to the project as part of our efforts to build new markets and get a fairer price for the oil resources Albertans own,” Redford said. “This is truly a nation-building project that will diversify our economy and create new jobs here in Alberta and across the country.” Citation: o.canada.com/2013/08/01/transcanada-pipeline-energy-east/?fb_comment_id=fbc_182730895231721_431713_182825141888963
We cannot take it on at once, small steps can be a better solution....get fucking Amazon delivery to go green, electric, whatever...I'm sick and tired of them taking up all the gas pumps.
Informed Canadians also don't want a pipleline built. The amount of money spent by the govt and oil companies on TV ads is crazy. And seeing them makes me crazy. Trying to show the oilsands as environmentally sound, and will create jobs. So ridiculous. But Stephen Harper said he won't take "no" for an answer, and will push through. He doesn't care what Canadians want or need, he just wants to feed the greed.
people will stop complaining about the damage to their land, their water & food, when they are PAID enough to fix it or leave, their land isn't STOLEN for pipeline use (anti-capitalist eminent domain). We need food, water & land more than pipelines & this plan means ONE or more must be given up
Also, oil does not run the world. It doesn't need to. Thinking it does will only increase our reliance on it and close us off from the more reliable sources of renewable energy. For a good reference to alternative sources of energy, read "The NO-NONSENSE GUIDE to CLIMATE CHANGE: The Science, the Solutions, the Way Forward" by Danny Chivers.
So, in other words, you are an exceptionally loyal (yet typical) tarsands employee who will say and do anything for their company in order to keep their job. Yes, we've had lots of sheeple like you here before, but while your level of loyalty is admirable, I can't say I envy your critical thinking skills. Good luck with the rest of your life.
No one is talking about stopping the use of plastics, just oil as a fuel source(why is that so hard for you to understand).... Of course everything you mention is also obtainable from recycling...
Hmmm. 3 massive recent pipeline spills and today another pipeline explosion. But sure, let's let a foreign nation run a massive tar-sands oil pipeline across the US so that foreign nation can make money poisoning the environment so we can have 40 jobs. 40. My little company hired 40 new workers last year, which presented no danger to anyone and required no one to have their land taken from them by force.
References? Sure: try using this really complex tool call google. Try searching on "pipeline spills" and then search on "state department XL Pipeline jobs" I know you are challenged to look up commonly available information like a person of standard intelligence, but give it a try.
***** So many silly little insults, but you can't seem to cite a single fact in favor of the pipeline or bothering to address the problems it presents. I assume that means you're a paid shill for the pipeline?
***** Funny that you can only reference the one pipeline that caused minimal damage. Billings Montana 36,000 gallons into the Yellowstone. North Dakota 3,000,000 gallons of concentrated saltwater and poisonous fuel product at Blacktail Creek. North Dakota 24,000 gallons of crude. Slave Lake 70,000 liters of oil. Los Angeles 10,000 gallons of oil spilled. And on and on. A quick search finds numerous pipeline failure in 2014 and 2015 already, but you act as a clown for oil interests and pretend in never happens. Do they at least pay you to be a corrupt puppet?
1) Take Economics. 2) Canada is the biggest supplier to the US, you said 7th in the world despite our previous comments being about supply to the US. 4) ACID RAIN - it's rain with a pH under 5.6. Caused by SO2 and NO. The fact that you don't know high school chemistry is sad. And ozone depletion in the ozone is due to CFC's being unactive when in temperatures below ~ -50 so they build up and when they thaw they react with O3 particles.
Sorry to have painted with such a wide brush about Canada...it was emotionally fueled. I know good and well there are many fair-minded Canadians (just not at Habs games). When you said fascist authoritarian douchebag, the words Stephen Harper bubbled up from some dark recess of my mind. He's infamous in environmentalist/ ecologist circles the world over. I can't wait to vote against the XL Keystone Pipeline! Take care, brother.
Well, obviously you've decided that the side telling you to use fossil fuel-based energy is telling the truth or else you would be a lot more reluctant on what to do about it. These sorts of issues are a yes/no deal: if one side is lying then the other side is telling the truth. The reason? What you actually DO about it determines whether going along with one side or the other is worth what you think they AREN'T telling you.
Should be closely monitored when there is that much volume in one area if climate recovers it should be dispersed for security of the enviroment so what is happening now doesn't happen later on a far grander scale.
this is the end of Mother Earth. Lets break this thing in the wrong or right. The truth is we are all screwed anyways so F it. Lets make sure the rich no longer become richer.
The Athabascan Oil Sands hold the same amount of oil as every other reserve on earth combined. They are also the largest supplier of oil to the US. Yes, you guys are getting lots of oil despite what the video says. Water is not just dumped into water systems, it is stored in retention ponds and only if there is a leak can these chemicals affect drinking water. Americans take on all the risk? Check your facts
pipelines are not the most efficient way to transport clumpy near-solid tar. Trains & trucks have paths usually away from rivers, farmland & lakes, whereas this pipeline was to be put THROUGH a clean drinking water aquifer. That would END the aquifer. That's a STUPID plan. Pipelines ALWAYS break from SHODDY WORKMANSHIP.
Its not that difficult in fact the market and those who care have been doing to it for years, even the public(them common folk) are happy to do it.... Recycling, energy star electronics, car that have better mileage, solar on every roof, its all a part of the solution.... Have you done anything but complain?
And, if the US is like Canada, the jobs are being outsourced. The govt changed the laws to allow companies to hire foreign workers at lower wages. The company just has to pretend to look for qualified Canadians, then not hire any Canadians, and only hire cheap foreign labour.
They heat the tar sands using American natural gas...We are going to use some ones oil,lets use NORTH American RESOURCES .....Lets send the money to North Dakota, Texas,and Canada..And grow the economy and jobs of North America... A win ,win....
At 1:18 "moving America beyond oil isn't that difficult." This is maddeningly ignorant. If it were easy (implied in the near future?) then it would have been done. It is in fact, very difficult, if not demonstrably impossible (in the near future). There are good discussions to have about maintaining quality of life, and energy usage, and climate change, but by implying that stopping some pipelines from being constructed will have meaningful impacts on any of these is simply wrong.
"Pollutants themselves do not need to boil in order to be carried up through evaporated water" Do not have words for this shit except go to school. I just don't even want to argue with you, please don't reply to this.
Oh look, Sierra Club is promoting bicycling! How long did it take you guys to get on board with that???? Think you'll ever get caught uttering the "B" word?
I thnik youre onto something. Im guilty. I can t do my own finances either. Maybe it was all that MTV. Is there something I can watch to reverse this problem?
