Thursday, January 19, 2012

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling!

Obama says, NO, but maybe later. It reminded me of this:

Obama is the Keystone Cops, going over a cliff and still never getting his "man".

Poor old "heavy crude" sometimes called "bitumen", it's not as fast flowing as "light, sweet crude", so it's called "dirty". Alberta oil sands have been a huge target of foreign funded attacks by our stupid, greedy "greens".

Interesting to know, Alberta is not the only producer of "heavy crude", even though you wouldn't know it from our far left media/environmentalists.

 Increasing U.S. Dependency on Foreign Crude Oil
Over the past five years, studies of global oil production have consistently predicted that diminishing discoveries of conventional crude oil will cause worldwide oil production to peak and irreversibly decline by the end of the present decade.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] But
heavy hydrocarbons still remain as a largely untapped petroleum resource — heavy crude oil and natural bitumen (also called “tar sands” or “oil sands”) exist in abundance.
Shocking! Conventional oil (1.02 trillion) is ruled by the middle east, and heavy oil (5.6 trillion) is ruled by Canada. Still Obama rejected Canadian oil in favour of middle east oil and even the Venezuela heavy oil. A well hidden fact is that California oil is 51% "heavy crude", but don't expect environmentalists to tell you about that, or to ever protest in the US.

Heavy oil was discovered in California before the turn of the previous century and currently comprises about half of the state’s crude oil production. With this production spread among more than 200 reservoirs, significant infrastructure to access heavy oil is already in place.

Foreign interests are sponsoring Canadian environmental groups to stop the Gateway pipeline. WHY? What's in it for them, except control of our oil without investment in it?

Even the middle east realizes that "heavy crude" has to be looked at.

Middle East oil countries should increase production of heavy oil as oil prices remain higher and improved technology makes it easier, those attending an industry conference in Bahrain were told.

Production and refining of heavy crude costs more than recovering and processing light crude. Production of heavy oil from oil sands in Canada’s Alberta province has an estimated break-even point of $35 a barrel, Mirza noted. But Bahrain’s heavy oil could be recovered at a cost of between $8 and $9 a barrel, he said.
Oil prices in recent weeks have fluctuated in a range of $70 to $80 a barrel, which OPEC officials have declared an ideal range.
“Heavy oil will be a savior to the ever-increasing demand for fossil fuels from the developing nations,” Mirza was quoted as saying.
Hello environmentalists, the gig is up. You should go to the middle east and tell them that they need the same environmental controls as Canada has had imposed on them. But they won't because environmentalists are chicken little's, running around in circles, wearing polar bear suits, yelling that the sky is falling, the sky is falling!


Anonymous said...

Obama is only pandering to his base of whacky tree hugging eco-freaks. For the Marxist-leftist, party politics will always trump common sense and that's why he's willing to cut off the US's nose to spite its face vis a vis the Keystone XL pipeline.

wilson said...

Canada has environuts sitting in Parliament as the Official Opposition.

Our First Nations are concerned about pollution of our land and waters, as is every single Canadian, including industry leaders.

But the Dippers are taking a radical stand against our oilsands.
They don't even pretend otherwise now that Jack is gone.

Southern Quebec said...

The environuts may be sitting in opposition, but the real nuts are in power

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Limp dicked drive by smear, SQ. I'd like to say I expect more from you, but I don't. Witnessing your Perpetual exploding head, now that the Harper government has a majority is a pretty sweet consolation I must admit!

cantuc said...

Prime Minister Harper should just keep announcing a possible new route for the pipeline every month . Sooner or later they'll get tired of throwing money into opposing it and in the meantime , the reserves and small communities can just keep collecting the cash to put up a few " say no to pipeline " signs up . Pretty much what's happening now anyway .

cantuc said...

A proposed 48 inch line to deliver " tar " from Ft Mac to Churchill ought to scare them into a few million

liberal supporter said...

Keystone was stopped only because of a new artificial deadline imposed by Congress. If they expected the State department to be able to make a decision in two months, I'm sure TC can submit a revised plan that avoids the Sand Hills which was the reason for all the protests. Despite your sniggering that seepage from the oil sands into the Athabaska is good for it, the potential dumping of a half million barrels of bitumen mixed with conflict oil to make it flow into the aquifer under the Sand Hills (which supplies the water for the breadbasket of America) is not quite the same. TC tried to bluff their way through to avoid building some extra pipe and a pumping station, and lost. They'll resubmit with the revised route and they'll get their approval.

Meanwhile Northern Gateway has the same problem, trying to bludgeon their way into a route that terminates in Kitimat, where the narrow channels and high winds almost guarantee a spill, instead of going further to terminate in Prince Rupert which is much closer to the ocean.

With guys like Captain Schettino driving the tankers, I'd rather they depart from Prince Rupert than showboating up the Douglas Channel.

In both cases, we see pipeline companies trying to make the maximum profit deciding that concern over greater risks is the unimportant whining of "environuts".

Somehow, avoiding easily avoidable risks is not "common sense" when it might cost them some money.