#21 Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil
A Reference Library
Capsule: #21 Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil is a decisive defense of oil – more precisely, Alberta oilsands petroleum products. If America has to import oil – and it does – when all of the evidence is examined, synthetic crude from Alberta’s oilsands is by far the most ethical and logical choice.
In Reality You Can’t get Cleaner than Oilsands Oil
Focus: In primitive times superstition had it that draining a patient’s blood would help cure him. Why would liberals think draining the world economy of its lifeblood of oil is some sort of cure-all solution?
Details: #21 Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil illustrates the capacity of liberals to mess up America’s priorities. Contrary to liberalism’s paranoid hysteria, when compared to other sources of petroleum, synthetic crude from Alberta’s oilsands is from a reliable source, ethical neighbor and friend that is environmentally safe in its extraction and delivery, and a great investment for pension funds. Nowhere else in the world can oil be had for America’s consumers that meets all of these criteria. ‘Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil’ slays all of liberalism’s scary monsters that are imagined about the Alberta oilsands, from CO2 emissions, to water usage, to forest depletion, to pipeline fears. America’s energy security is right in your backyard – Alberta.
Excerpt: ~If liberals were really concerned about the environment and a reliable and secure economy not susceptible to the petro-politics of the Middle East, they would embrace the Alberta oilsands as the ticket to American energy independence. But of course this is supposedly “dirty oil”. However, this fallaciously labeled “dirty oil” means that the U.S. is less dependent on “drug cartel/mass murder oil” from Mexico, and “exporting extreme Sunni Wahhabism oil” from Saudi Arabia, and “socialist takeover oil” from Venezuela, and “forced female genital mutilation oil” from Nigeria, “Gulf of Mexico blowouts oil”, and “Exxon Valdez tanker spill oil” that pollutes American coastlines. And let’s not forget sources for other oil importing countries of the world like “funding Islamic terrorism oil” from Iran, and “aspiring a return to Soviet imperialism oil” from Russia, and “religious restriction and virtually no democracy oil” from most Arab oil producing nations. Of course, silly me, none of these issues are in any way as important as phantom “carbon footprints”. [/sarcasm]~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
There is one last global warming fraud that hits very close to home for me, American neighbor (just over 200 miles). Unfortunately, to completely debunk this fraud (and some other arguments later in this essay) I must inadvertently lend some credibility to the assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide production contributes to global warming, but, in fact, I concede no ground to this. I will simply be illustrating here the absurdities of envirotheist claims further down the argument chain.
• Alberta oilsands petroleum is so-called ‘dirty oil’
The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen made the Alberta oilsands project at Fort McMurray the number one target in the world, declaring it “dirty oil”. For the third year in a row Canada was accorded the Fossil of the Year award from envirotheist groups “for countries that do the most to delay and disrupt negotiations toward a global agreement on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.” [2dumfb8] The sense of disproportion is stunning, to say the least:
~Canada accounts for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the oilsands for 0.1%, or one-one thousandth of global emissions. … Meanwhile, China, the U.S. and India, the world’s top three emitters, are responsible for 42% of global emissions, mainly due to their heavy reliance on coal to produce electricity.~ [*o3652tb]
I hope the prime minister wore these ‘awards’ as badges of honor for overachievement while he was there. I know I would have. Mind you I wouldn’t have been there except in the role of protesting the entire summit as one gigantic fraud! But green crusaders want a boycott of oilsands petroleum products and some American politicians have been convinced by this “green” idiocy without knowing all of the facts. So allow me to lay out these missing facts, American neighbor.
So what is dirty oil? Supposedly it is “unconventional” oil production that produces a larger “carbon footprint” than does the production of conventional drill and pump oil. The oilsands are a combination of oil bitumen mixed in clay and sand. In fact, the groundwater aquifers, river systems and muskeg of the open pit production areas are often naturally contaminated with heavy metals and hydrocarbons because these oilsands are surface and near-surface deposits.
In effect, this makes the oilsands mines the largest natural pollution cleanup project in the world. Of note is that the surface mining area equals only 2% of the total oilsands deposits and only 0.01% of the boreal forest region in Canada. Don’t let the photos of the surface production areas deceive you, American neighbor. By law they all must be reclaimed to forested wilderness in an ongoing process. Once the bitumen is removed and the land is reclaimed it will actually be less contaminated than before the mining, because the naturally polluting bitumen will have been removed. If environmentalists really cared about the environment they would be giving Canada awards for cleaning up mother nature’s little potty poop.ac
300-word pages of text = 44
Reference citation links = 56
Recommended-reading links = 31
Profound insights = 38
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-16 XX-92 BRAVO
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• Alberta oilsands petroleum is actually very clean oil
To separate the oil from the conglomerate it is mined and heated using natural gas, or steam is injected into the formation to liquefy the bitumen and then it is pumped out. Either heating process supposedly produces an increased carbon footprint per barrel of oil because of the natural gas use. Greenpeace claims that, “Some projects are now 10 times dirtier than production of oil in the North Sea.” [9s5pluj] Of course, we saw in SOPHISTRY #67 in #20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn), that Greenpeace is not beyond expelling some massively exaggerated and stinky carbon cow pies of their own when making such claims. In fact, the idea that oilsands production is “10 times dirtier than production of oil in the North Sea” is pure unadulterated bull bleep emissions. See the the chart below, American neighbor: [*25y5mdl] Never mentioned with regular drill and pump oil production is that natural gas is often an unusable byproduct which is simply flared off (burnt) at the well site, but this does not happen with oilsands production. Any gas that is siphoned off is used to generate electricity and steam for production. This and any additional natural gas use is also put through cogeneration to offset energy waste, where the steam that is produced for oilsands production is first used to generate electricity which is added to the Alberta grid. [34qu2y2] A full 98% of the oilsands production uses cogeneration, contributing to 18% of Alberta’s electricity consumption, and of course significantly reducing the supposed carbon footprint of oilsands production, and new technology from Israel will allow the burning of waste from oilsands processing, negating the use of natural gas.ad
• You want ‘dirty’? Try coal
If you think oilsands production is “dirty” you should check out coal-fired power plants! The Alberta oils sands are a pittance in comparison:
~Take the Miller coal-fired power station in Quinton, Ala. That one power plant emits more than 20 Mt [megatons] of carbon dioxide a year. One plant. The Scherer coal-fired power plant in Juliette, Georgia is even bigger. It emits more than 25 Mt a year. But those plants are just babies compared to what China is doing. China has plenty of power plants bigger than Scherer. There’s one in Tuen Mun at a whopping 35.8 Mt. And Taiwan has one that tops 41 Mt. The oilsands — all of them combined? Barely 30 Mt. Individual Chinese power plants have higher carbon emissions than Canada’s 100 different oilsands companies put together.~ [27kmoak]
A commenter objected to the author comparing oilsands petroleum production of CO2 to the energy production CO2 from coal plants. In fact, as mentioned above, the steam produced to use in the oilsands production first produces electricity for the Alberta grid. Additionally, the energy production of oil products would not be reduced by boycotting oilsands petroleum. It would just be replaced with petroleum from other sources. So the commenter’s objection is irrelevant. In fact, the oilsand’s electricity generation is an offset that the author of the above article didn’t take into account, so in effect, the numbers are much better in favor of the oilsands than even the author illustrates. And it turns out that India is entering the multiple megatonage game as well. [287mpcp] In fact, the combined megatonage for proposed new coal-fired power plants in just India, China and the USA equals an incredible 2700 megatons! [3k8gz]
Update: As of 2014 India plans to construct 455 coal-fired power plants. [p8v2vva]
Now compare this with the 30 megatons of the oilsands and you will see, American neighbor, the immense disproportion of environmentalist concern over oilsands CO2 production. In fact, the Indonesian peat fires in 1997-98 emitted up to 2600 megatons alone – and they continued to fluctuate in their rate of burning up until 2004, adding possibly thousands of more megatons. Again, compare this to the 30 megatons of the oilsands, then read this quote and have a chuckle:
~If Canada stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow — if all economic activity in Canada were to cease — the growth of Chinese emissions would make up the difference in 18 months.~ [2623cmm]ae
• You want ‘dirty’? Try dirtier oil
The fact of the matter is that if that same North Sea crude that Greenpeace brags about was shipped to the Canadian and the U.S. markets that the oilsands supply, its total carbon footprint would be greater than fuel from the oilsands. After all, supertankers don’t run on rubber bands. They burn vast quantities of bunker or diesel fuel, and these supertankers take tremendous resources to manufacture, including hundreds of iron ore mines, coal mines, steel mills, coal fired power plants and shipyards polluting and tearing up the landscape around the world every bit as much and more than the oilsands. They pollute the oceans with their discharges and oil spills (thousands of tons EVERY year). [3a3lxqp] Ditto for the manufacture of the huge floating oil rigs necessary to develop the Greenpeace’s touted North Sea field. Ever heard of iron ore mines, coal mines, steel mills, coal fired power plants or shipyards being reclaimed to nature after they have been used up, American neighbor? Neither have I. And at least the oilsands are remote. The steel mills, power plants and shipyards are often right in cities, affecting the health of hundreds of millions of people with their air pollution and discharges into rivers, lakes and oceans. And then there are the toxic hazards of disassembling these floating behemoths at the end of their life spans. Whereas the oil from the oilsands is transported by pipeline, a virtually carbon free and pollution free process by comparison. (Of course the North Sea crude would also have to be distributed around North America, so pipe line construction is a saw off.)
In regard to pollution, compare the amount produced by the entire oilsands to just the one BP Gulf of Mexico well that blew up in April 2010. Or what about one oil tanker grounding – the Exxon Valdez? Or the fact that more oil is spilled on the Nigerian coast EVERY year than was emitted by the entire BP Gulf of Mexico blowout. And it turns out that Greenpeace’s vaunted North Sea oil field suffers from “serious spills of oil and gas” every single week! [3a3by6m, 6l8hmv8] There is no comparison.af
• Bird kills
Here in Alberta the big pollution issue is about 1606 ducks that died in a tailings pond. Sheesh! Tens of thousands of geese and other birds are culled by airports and parks departments around North America every year. Try a search for >airport bird kill<. Then millions more geese and ducks are legally hunted each year (125,000 in Alberta alone according to Ducks Unlimited [8alka4w]). Up to one million ducks, geese and shorebirds die in southern Alberta lakes each year from naturally occurring avian botulism. [336f6r8] 440,000 birds and bats are killed by American wind farms every year! (Update: This number of 440,000 has now been revised up to as many as 39 million! This includes untold numbers of eagles, which are supposed to be protected, but the Obama administration looks the other way. [dxagmzo, br8y943]) Tens of millions of birds are killed by cars and skyscrapers! Up to 500 million birds are killed each year by cats! [2bcn2us, 4acx765] And here we are making a giant fuss over 1606 ducks, for heaven’s sake! Some envirotheist whacko who ended up as the sitting judge on this case fined Syncrude $3M in total – $1868 per duck!?! (Parking lot owners in Alberta beware: [*7e6b6w4]) Blackshirt environmentalists go on and on about wind power, but do the media and envirotheists go crazy over the multitude of birds of all kinds killed by these deathmills every single damned day? Will they be fined $1868 per bird killed? No. (Update: It turns out that solar farms also kills multitudes of birds. [mpjh6du]) What about “Wind Turbine Syndrome”? [322lws4, laexzm] Try an internet search for >wind farm diseases< [2crchmq] or >wind turbine syndrome< [2g4bok9]. And try selling a home situated close to a wind turbine. Are envirotheists willing to make up the difference when housing prices plummet next to wind farms? Don’t make me laugh, American neighbor. Are they demanding studies into the multitude of health conditions attributed to the constant noise and air pressure fluctuations from wind farms on local communities? Of course not – only when it is evil “dirty oil”! Predictably, I recently heard an environmentalist on the radio demanding that the oilsands tailings ponds be outlawed and removed. Will they also be demanding that office towers around the world be demolished? What about wind farms? Shouldn’t environmentalists be demanding that all wind farms be dismantled to save the birds they kill EVERY day? And will we now outlaw cats? This sort of liberal disproportionality is beyond irrational.
Update: Now cats are estimated to kill 3 billion birds per year in the U.S. [lhmc4lb]ag
• Oilsands mining area will be returned to wilderness
A newer scare tactic is to claim that the caribou population in Canada is threatened by oilsands development. You can see on this map that less than 0.1% of the Woodland Caribou’s range is affected by the oilsands. As with the ducks, this caribou claim is beyond preposterous. [*7snpa6p]
As mentioned above, eventually all of the oilsands lands must be reclaimed to wilderness. I just read in today’s local paper about a promising new extraction method being developed at Penn State University that does not require tailings ponds. It promises to be cheaper with higher recovery rates. But do you think envirotheists will applaud this? No, American neighbor. They will be upset, because this may remove a soft spot for them to target. They don’t just want the oilsands to be less of an environmental impact. They simply want them shut down. [8mnhs52]
When all of the tailings ponds are returned to wilderness and long forgotten, southern Alberta lakes with avian botulism will still be killing millions more ducks, geese and shorebirds, and those wind farms will still be swatting millions of songbirds, raptors, bats and eagles out of the sky. Cats, cars and buildings will still be killing hundreds of millions of birds of all kinds, and wind farms will still be making people sick around the globe. But there will never be a threat from the oilsands production destined for American markets polluting surrounding commercial fishing industries, sensitive coastal marine wildlife preserves, coral reefs or tourist resorts hundreds of miles away. Just based on these considerations alone the oilsands make much more sense to develop than any ocean oil deposits, or any oil deposits that require ocean transportation, or wind farms. (Read this list of everything that is wrong with wind farms: [*6z9geol])ah
• Safe working environment
And let’s not forget the safety factor. Over the decades you can count the fatal casualties from oilsands development on two hands. This is hardly the case for ocean drilling. In 1980 123 men died in just one incident in waters off of Norway. In 1988 Greenpeace’s vaunted North Sea oil field hit the news with 167 deaths in a platform explosion and fire. Just in the last few years a rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico with many fatalities, and a helicopter dropped into the ocean transporting rig workers off the Newfoundland coast with even more fatalities. And land drilling is no walk in the park either – it is one of the most dangerous jobs with very high casualty rates compared to other industries. By comparison with offshore drilling and conventional drill and pump oil production, the surface production oilsands are a much safer source for delivering petroleum products to the market.ai
• No terrorism threat
What about terrorism? Many of the significant oil producing countries in the world are hotbeds for Islamic extremism with ongoing threats to their petroleum production which produces insecurities in the market and pushes up oil prices. And let’s not forget that much of the funding for these terrorism groups is directly or indirectly from Islamic petrodollars. This will never be the case in Canada. In fact, tax revenues from the sales of oilsands production help fund the Canadian military and security agencies that are helping to fight global terrorism. Then there are the threats from Iran on the oil production from the Gulf area states. Somali pirates are not above hijacking massive oil tankers for ransom. Russian oil production is constantly under threat from their own domestic terrorists. Nigerian pipe lines are constantly being blown up. Even Great Britain and its North Sea oilfield is at much more of a risk to terrorism than are the oilsands production of northern Alberta.aj
• Employment, pension funds & NAFTA
The Alberta oilsands directly and indirectly employ tens of thousands of skilled and professional workers from around the world, but especially from Canada and America. How many American jobs do the Saudi or Kuwaiti oil fields produce? Very few by comparison. Where does Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil production income go? Into the pockets of Arab “princes” who are nothing more than despots. Where do you think Osama bin Laden got all of his money from? What about “mad dog” Moammar Gadhafi and all of his terrorism exploits? Certainly not from the Alberta oilsands. Arab oil profits do not provide stable and profitable investments for American pension funds, 401(k)s, mutual funds and stock investments the way oilsands companies do, and the Alberta oilsands companies don’t manipulate production supply to intentionally drive up the world price of crude oil. America has no more reliable supplier. Hell, Canada even allowed a guarantee of free market delivery to be included in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Think you’ll get that from Hugo Chavez, American neighbor?ak
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with North Sea oil
The only reason the oilsands have become a target is their singular location and immense size. Think about this, American neighbor. Let’s suppose the oilsands were actually a hundred small projects scattered all around Canada. And then take the hundreds of iron ore mines, coal mines, steel mills, power plants and shipyards producing supertankers and floating oil rigs that would be necessary to replace the Alberta oilsands supply of petroleum products to America, and make them into one large industrial complex (it would easily be as large as the oilsands project is now). Both would still produce exactly the same amount of carbon dioxide and pollution as they do now, but because the oilsands would be a hundred small and by themselves insignificant projects, no one would care about them as a news item. So let’s locate our supertanker and floating oil rig industrial complex in Scotland, right by Greenpeace’s vaunted North Sea oil field. All of the pollution from the mining of the iron ore and coal, and the manufacturing of those behemoth super tankers and drilling rigs would spill directly into the ocean and contaminate the atmosphere so that everyone in Europe could share in it everyday. And just for fun let’s add the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill into the North Sea, American neighbor. Virtually the whole coast of Europe would be contaminated. Then which do you think would be the target of environmentalists? Who then would be winning Fossil of the Year awards? Of course, the large supertanker/oil rig industrial complex and North Sea oilfield would be the new target and award winner. Europeans especially would be going blitzoid! But in our scenario, Canada’s 100 small oilsands projects would be ignored. So what can we conclude? That selecting the oilsands as a target is based purely on the emotions produced from the thought of a single large project and has nothing to do with the actual overall pollution or supposed carbon output of the respective industries as a whole.al
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with the Three Gorges Dam
We have already seen that the oilsands project is but a drop of water compared to an ocean of light oil and coal industry related projects around the world that are much more polluting, affecting millions of people’s lives. But Blackshirt envirotheists like to claim that the Alberta oilsands development is the single largest and most destructive industrial project on earth. This claim is hilariously absurd! Ever heard of the Three Gorges Dam in China, American neighbor? This is supposed to be something etheists laud as a panacea for mankind – renewable hydro energy. Well let’s look at how destructive their acclaimed renewable energy can be: First the dam displaced 1.3 million people with another 4 million still expected to move. 1,300 valuable archeological and cultural sites were lost. Landslides along the river are now a constant threat with 80% of the adjacent land experiencing severe erosion. But the silt that normally replenished the downstream coastal areas is now held back by the dam, so coastal erosion and sinking are a real threat, along with increased flooding in those areas. The dam contributed to the extinction of the Yangtze river dolphin. The dam threatens to cause the extinction of the only remaining 3,000 to 4,000 Siberian Cranes. The land flooded was also very productive agriculturally and is now permanently lost and must be replaced by the clearing of more forest areas elsewhere. During the construction there were many news stories of corruption and cutting corners, so the dam’s long-term integrity could be questionable, and it turns out that the dam was built directly over a seismic fault! What if the dam is ruptured by an earthquake? [dkl7p, *ltdy7u3]am
• Not a vulnerable “rainforest” – useless northern swampland
Not one of these problems can be attributed to the Alberta oilsands projects. Although the land area of the oilsands is technically listed as boreal forest, which sounds lush and nature-rich, much of it is what is known as muskeg (I read a Daily Kos diary by a Greenpeace propagandist that claimed that the oilsands were “ripping up some of the world’s last, most intact rainforests and wildlife habitat” – LOL!). The second link provides photos (look for stunted or treeless swamp): [ylp84jg, *4g7so8t, 6asmden] If you really need proof of this claim, an interactive cover map at the third link will illustrate the extent of muskeg in northern Alberta and specifically in the oilsands mining area (see image at right). Check the Canada Landsat Mosaic Image in the Legend and zoom in on the Alberta side of the Saskatchewan border 2/3s up from the American border. Notice the abundance of Herb, Wetland – Treed, Wetland – Shrub, Wetland – Herb, Coniferous – Sparse, and Broadleaf – Sparse. Notice the minimal amount of Coniferous – Dense or Broadleaf – Dense. These are not the rich forest lands pictured by envirotheists, American neighbor. There are not hundreds of varieties of orchids, dozens of unique songbirds, or dense and varied zoological populations being bulldozed into extinction. It is mostly very acidic bogland with stunted or no trees, unproductive for logging or clearing for agriculture due to its infertility and poor drainage. It supports relatively little wildlife (except gazillions of mosquitoes). Year-round, permanent roads are very expensive to build over muskeg since it can reach 100 feet in depth. There are few flatland, non-arctic land types less hospitable or productive than muskeg. And it is not like it is rare. Northern Alberta, including much of the oilsands development area is blanketed with tens of thousands of square miles of this useless muskeg. So when etheists complain about the destruction of virgin boreal forest cover (or “rainforests” – LOL!), it is nonsense to think that valuable, variety-rich, pristine wilderness is being destroyed – it’s mostly dreary swampland that goes on for hundreds of miles.an
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with the Aral Sea
Now back to our hilarity of the oilsands supposedly being the single worst environmental destruction in the world. How about the Aral Sea in Russia, American neighbor? Prior to 1960 it was one of the four largest lakes in the world. It is now mostly a desert after having its water sources diverted for irrigation. The once prosperous fishing industry is virtually nonexistent. The 10% of the original sea that is left is severely polluted with the surrounding climate changed to hotter and dryer summers and colder and longer winters. The south Aral Sea, a small fraction of the original, has been called “one of the planet’s worst environmental disasters”. The receding sea has left a huge toxic area of salty sand poisoned with chemical weapons testing, industrial projects, and pesticide and fertilizer runoff. The wind then picks up this toxic dust and distributes it far beyond the edges of the former sea. Cancers, lung diseases, and digestive ailments are chronic among the surrounding populations. The oilsands projects of northern Alberta are like a tropical getaway in comparison to that environmental disaster, American neighbor. [nhkem]ao
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with the Hanford Site
Then there is the Hanford Site in the state of Washington, a huge fenced off area used for the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War era that regularly released toxic radioactive gases and water over its lifespan. Radioactive releases into the environment is hardly a problem for oilsands development. [r5kdw, 3xq2sga]ap
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with mining for the green industry
Here’s another pollution problem in China that is directly related to “green technology”. China is the chief supplier of rare earth metals to the world, which are essential for wind turbine generators, and hybrid and electric cars, but processing these metals is a very pollution intensive process, in one area creating an extremely toxic, radioactive tailings dump that is six miles in diameter, one hundred feet thick, and growing in height at a rate of three feet per year, that has poisoned the surrounding farmland for miles, causing severe illness in the population, and has killed the fish in a major river system. And don’t think there is any plan to reclaim this to its natural condition after the mines are exhausted, American neighbor – after all, we are talking China here, not Alberta. [3ng236w]
~According to an article published by the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, “Every ton of rare earth produced generates approximately 8.5 kilograms (18.7 lbs) of fluorine and 13 kilograms (28.7 lbs) of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater plus about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).” Furthermore, according to statistics conducted within Baotou, where China’s primary rare earth production occurs, “all the rare earth enterprises in the Baotou region produce approximately ten million tons of all varieties of wastewater every year” and most of that waste water is “discharged without being effectively treated, which not only contaminates potable water for daily living, but also contaminates the surrounding water environment and irrigated farmlands.”~
~Under traditional technology means, refining REEs requires such chemicals as ammonium bicarbonate and oxalic acid. The potential health hazards of ammonium bicarbonate include: irritation to the respiratory tract if inhaled, irritation to the gastrointestinal tract if ingested, redness and pain if it comes in contact with the eyes, and redness, itching, and pain if it comes in contact with the skin. Oxalic acid is poisonous and potentially fatal if swallowed. It is also corrosive and causes severe irritation and burns to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, is harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and can cause kidney damage. These and other chemicals often find their way into the Yellow River.~
~The most common disease in Baotou is pneumoconiosis, better known as black lung. There are 5,387
residents in Baotou who suffer from black lung, which makes up more than 50 percent of the
cases in the autonomous region.~ [krxk4wt]
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with the Kuwaiti oil fires
What about the Kuwaiti oil fires from the Gulf War? Retreating Iraqi soldiers ignited 700 oil wells that burned for almost a year. Six million barrels of oil burned each day, also forming about 300 oil lakes in the Kuwaiti desert, American neighbor. Nearly 5% of the country has been turned into a sort of unnatural concrete known as “tarcrete” from the oil and the soot mixing with the sand. Nothing like this will ever happen at the Alberta oilsands projects. A hundred years from now when they are done they will all be green again, and it will be much more productive land than the often naturally polluted muskeg that will have been removed during the production process. Eventually it could lead to old growth forest and maybe logging where before only bogland existed. [9cs9nf]ar
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with the Niger River delta
As mentioned above, let’s not forget the Niger River delta where according to official Nigerian government figures, there were 7,000 oil spills between 1970 and 2000. No word on how many since 2000, but it is likely additional thousands. By contrast, in Alberta, the relatively few major oil spills are big news and even in aggregate over the decades have never reached the amount released over one average year in Nigeria. Alberta laws are strictly enforced for cleanup and large fines are levied. [*3j5sojc, 3ye28re] And similar to Nigeria, Russia is polluting the Arctic Ocean with millions of tons of spilt oil every year. [*7b7t4c2]as
• Let’s compare the Alberta oilsands with other environmental disasters
I could go on with the environmental devastation of the two World Wars. How about the ocean being used every day as a dump for toxic chemicals that are difficult and expensive to legitimately dispose of? And what about the state-sized Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a vast area of floating garbage in the Pacific Ocean? Then there is the garbage that has collected on the ocean floors around all major port cities of the planet. There are over 100 areas of coal seam fire zones in northern China and an estimated 250,000 coal seam fires in Indonesia. And, of course, we can’t forget the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown that killed dozens and may affect the long-term health of many more. If you are looking for the worst environmental disasters on earth, save yourself from a long trip up to the Alberta oilsands, American neighbor. There are plenty of legitimate man-made and natural disasters to be found elsewhere around the globe.at
• Water availability & usage at the Alberta oilsands
One last envirotheist concern is water usage for oilsands production. This is another issue like the dead ducks and supposed boreal forest destruction that has been blown out of proportion by environmentalists. If you have been led to believe that water availability in northern Alberta is a problem have a look at this map: [*cnosa7y]  No, water supply is hardly a problem for the oilsands development and surrounding area. First, human population in most of the area is almost nonexistent – water is deprived from no one. As mentioned above, there is natural contamination of the ground water due to the surface and near surface nature of much of the oilsands, and these contaminated aquifiers are a major source for the oilsands processing. As far as utilization of the Athabasca River, it is minuscule. Total oilsands water allocation amounts to a few percent of the total natural supply. This compares to 40% allocated from the North Saskatchewan River for population use and 60% allocated from the South Saskatchewan River for agriculture – the other two major river basins in Alberta (and the Athabasca is much larger in volume than either the North or South Saskatchewan river systems). Production technology is moving away from steam to recyclable solvents anyway. Water usage is simply not an issue in regard to the oilsands. (A chart illustrates these allocations in a later link.)au
• Safe, secure & reliable oil supply
Thanks to the Alberta oilsands, Canada now has the safest, most secure, most reliable and second largest (and soon to be largest), accessible oil reserves in the world, and is the leading supplier of crude oil to the United States. Currently recoverable oilsands reserves are listed at 175 billion barrels, but this up from zero only forty years ago. New technological advances have made previously unavailable reserves economically profitable, and new technology in the future promises to dramatically increase the available reserve. Think about this, American neighbor. There are 1.7 trillion barrels of synthetic oil in Alberta’s oilsands. That’s more than six times the amount of available reserves in Saudi Arabia, the largest current reserve in the world. This does not include the Duvernay shale formation that undergurds almost two thirds of the area of Alberta (dwarfing the oilsands area by comparison). As fracking drilling techniques are developed and improved it is currently unknown how much oil may be recoverable from the immense Duvernay. Expect Canada’s available reserves to multiply over the coming decades as new methods of extraction are developed. Eventually Canada could become the sole external supplier of oil needed by America, ensuring supply and security of that supply virtually indefinitely.av
• Ethical oil versus unethical oil
If liberals were really concerned about the environment and a reliable and secure economy not susceptible to the petro-politics of the Middle East, they would embrace the Alberta oilsands as the ticket to American energy independence. But of course this is supposedly “dirty oil”. However, this fallaciously labeled “dirty oil” means that the U.S. is less dependent on “drug cartel/mass murder oil” from Mexico, and “exporting extreme Sunni Wahhabism oil” from Saudi Arabia, and “socialist takeover oil” from Venezuela, and “forced female genital mutilation oil” from Nigeria, “Gulf of Mexico blowouts oil”, and “Exxon Valdez tanker spill oil” that pollutes American coastlines. And let’s not forget sources for other oil importing countries of the world like “funding Islamic terrorism oil” from Iran, and “aspiring a return to Soviet imperialism oil” from Russia, and “religious restriction and virtually no democracy oil” from most Arab oil producing nations. Of course, silly me, none of these issues are in any way as important as phantom “carbon footprints”. [/sarcasm]
A leading Alberta conservative, Ezra Levant, and author of the book, Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oilsands, has suggested that a “country of origin” label be placed on gas pumps so consumers can decide for themselves whose fuel they wish to purchase. After all, don’t liberals love warning labels? So imagine pulling up to a gas pump and the sign says, “This gasoline is a product of Saudi Arabia – a tyrannical Middle East country whose second most popular export is Islamic extremism.” Or the sign might say, “This gasoline is a product of Mexico – whose other major exports to America include illegal immigrants and illicit drugs.” Or, “This gasoline is a product of Nigeria – blood oil with almost as much oil spilled into the Atlantic Ocean as it exports to America.” Then the oilsands produced fuel would say, “This gasoline is a product of Canada – ethical oil from an American ally and friend courteous enough to guarantee delivery without reciprocity in the North American Free Trade Agreement.” So which gasoline do you think consumers would prefer, American neighbor? Here’s a poll that provides a clue even without the pump labels: [*75bk27e]
Really, American neighbor. If American liberals weren’t so predominantly concerned with leftwing politics and instead actually focused on the environment, worker safety, security of supply, American jobs, keeping oil profits close to home and minimizing world oil price manipulation, they would be demanding that America maximize its oil imports from Alberta’s oilsands. This would cut imports from overseas which finance despotic regimes that keep their own citizens under tyranny, causing infinitely more pollution, minimizing American job opportunities and investment returns, making world oil prices susceptible to manipulation, and instead often funding Islamic terrorism where profits from American consumption are turned around and used to kill Americans. Alberta oil by contrast is ethical oil. Time to wake up, American neighbor. Safe, reliable energy independence and security is right in your back yard – Alberta.
(Check out this interesting link of graphics and charts to learn more about Alberta’s oilsands, American neighbor: [*29zmud6] Especially note pages 1, 11, 12, 18, 23, 24, 29 and 31. And also check out this website: [*3ss6d9e])aw
The weakness of Barack Obama’s presidency has led him to insert partisan politics into indefinitely delaying or maybe killing the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Nebraska in order to pacify his Blackshirts radical envirotheist base, even after the State Department had originally given its approval on all environmental considerations after a two and a half year process. [42pylmk] Because etheists (especially the Hollywood ones) threatened to withhold their votes and financial contributions to Obama’s 2012 campaign, Obama glommed onto their fallacious environmental nonsense to placate them. As mentioned above, Canada, out of pure generosity had allowed for a guarantee in the North American Free Trade Agreement that restricts the Canadian government from ever impeding the free marketing of oil across the border. It was thought that in the case of a shortage the Canadian government might divert Canadian oil for Canadian use, and leave America high and dry. I guess the NAFTA negotiators never expected a President would ever be so politically desperate that he would essentially close a portion of the American market to Canadian oil [palm meet forehead], so no reciprocity was asked of America in NAFTA.
Actually, I believe he is delaying the decision on the pipeline in a sense of demented fun. To him it is like when a child pulls a dogs tail – he enjoys watching an industry and its supporters, that he sees as evil, yelp and squirm (and don’t forget that the hated Conservative Party governs Canada). Diplomatically, Canadian politicians are too polite to call this for what it is. But I am not a politician, so I am not restricted to such diplomatic protocols. Barack Obama has just given America’s closest neighbor, friend, ally, trading partner and the most pro-American government in a generation the back of his hand – all for the sake of his re-election (and, because in a perverted way he is very much enjoying this). Typical liberal. Selfish, small-minded, meddling, disrespectful – and those are the nice things about him!
Out of curiosity, American neighbor, can you take a moment and list all of the environmental catastrophes that have resulted from the first three phases of the Keystone pipelines which have been operating for years? (See the above map.) I can’t think of even one, can you? So what’s the big deal about the fourth XL phase? Why would it be any more of a “game-changer” than the other phases that already carry oilsands petroleum?
Update January, 2015: Forty years ago etheists predicted gloom and doom for the about to be built Alaska Pipeline. The pipeline has since proven to be a great success, while none of the dire predictions came true. [*oacg3zj]ax
• Keystone XL pipeline & the Ogallala aquifier
The excuse (not reason – big difference!) for the “delay” is that the line would supposedly threaten the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska. This is just more liberal paranoia and sophistry on display. Included in this document is a map of the existing oil wells drilled through the aquifer, and another map of the existing pipelines that already cross the aquifer: [7lzo2uq]
~There are currently 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, including 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. Many of these pipelines coexist within the Ogallala aquifer. Six thousand barrels of oil are produced daily in Nebraska and hundreds of thousands of barrels are produced in adjacent states through the Ogallala aquifer. In Nebraska, 17 of 18 oil producing counties sit atop the aquifer. … “I have spent my career drilling holes into and through the Ogallala formation,” Goeke says. “There is a misconception that if the aquifer is contaminated the entire water supply of Nebraska is going to be in danger — that is absolutely false.” … Goeke, one of the leading hydrogeologists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has agreed to speak as an independent expert in TransCanada’s new ad campaign, launched Sept. 26. Company officials say Goeke received no compensation from TransCanada.~ [9aepqqr]
~There are currently almost 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, which transport nearly every gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel in the state. Many of these pipelines and numerous oil wells in Western Nebraska are near the Ogallala Aquifer, where they have existed for decades without harmful impact. The advanced technology used by Keystone XL Pipeline will operate at an even higher level of environmental performance.~ [k4mru8p]
I live in Edmonton Alberta, Canada. Edmonton means oil – lots of oil. There are multiple oil refineries and chemical plants within miles of my home. Pipelines are everywhere around Edmonton (they are identified by signs wherever they cross beneath roads). There have been no problems with them. Nobody in Edmonton or the surrounding communities give them a second thought. This hysteria over the Keystone XL pipeline is just more liberal paranoia.ay
• Keystone XL pipeline job creation
TransCanada has claimed that 20,000 person years of employment, contributing 42,100 jobs (a State Department claim [pnxoj4d]) to the economy would be directly created in the manufacture and construction of the final 875 mile long segment of the pipeline. President Obama has been running around contradicting his own State Department study by claiming that only a couple of thousand jobs will be created. Whose right? Well, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was about the same length at 800 miles long, and at the peak of construction 28,000 workers were employed. [7j9jza2] And that was through wilderness, not like the Keystone XL which will be crossing hundreds of roads, highways, other petroleum pipelines, water pipelines, sewer lines, buried power lines, rail lines and developed land, all multiplying the manpower necessary for construction. The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline will also be about 800 miles long and will employ up to 7,000 workers just in the first year of construction alone, again through wilderness. [72chzp3] The Alaska Highway Pipeline is a 1,700 mile pipeline with an estimated direct construction employment of 60,000, again, mostly through wilderness. [74vchjq] In comparison to other pipelines, TransCanada’s projection seems reasonable, if not conservative, and President Obama’s numbers seem to be about as reliable as his promise, “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan”. (Hey Barack – care to place a little wager?)az
• Foreign NGOs are actively undermining Canada’s economy
Imagine if Chinese organizations were pumping billions of dollars into American and international organizations whose only goal was to shut down American industry. How outraged would you be, American neighbor? It would practically warrant a declaration of war, wouldn’t it? The oilsands is by far the largest industry in Canada, and American NGOs are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Canadian, American and international envirotheist groups (I said billions in the China/American example because the American economy is ten times the size of Canada’s) attempting to shut down the oilsands and other industries, thus crippling the Canadian economy. Where is your outrage, American neighbor? (Be sure to watch the video in the second link.) [*76qzbuq, *7kcdwyn]ba
• Myths about Alberta oil
Then there is the myth of supposedly large carbon dioxide emissions that would supposedly be produced as a result of the Keystone XL pipeline. Of course, we have already seen that with co-generation there are essentially no additional emissions, but even if that is not taken into consideration, the amount would be infinitesimally small in the big scheme of things: [*c6df5r9]
Think about this, American neighbor. Oilsands oil is going to go somewhere. The least emissions (and pollution) intensive method of moving that oil to the refineries is by pipeline. Refusing the Keystone XL just means that the oil will be transported by truck, rail and by sea. The Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic was devastated when a train of oil cars derailed and exploded in the center of town. Dozens of people died. [*q5qcqhx, *nsuwue7] This will never happen with a pipeline. Pipelines are 30 times safer than rail transport. [ker47ok] So environmentalists, by blocking the Keystone XL pipeline are not protecting people, but exposing them to greater threat. And blocking the Keystone XL pipeline won’t reduce global emissions or pollution levels, but are instead increasing them. D’oh! And the increased costs are also passed on to consumers. On top of this, a State Department study (that’s Obama’s own State Department) released in February, 2014 has estimated that not building the XL pipeline will actually increase carbon dioxide emissions by 42%, with an average of 6 more deaths from industry related accidents each year! Oops… [pnxoj4d]
Update: Now in June of 2014 a new State Department study has found that without the pipeline 2,947 injuries and 434 deaths can be expected from rail accidents. [q3jkko2] Read this excellent article about oil trains: [*o3d4gvn]
Additionally, Canadian oil is actually sold to America at a discount to world price because of NAFTA. America needs access to foreign oil (there is no question about this). Right now it depends heavily on oil-supplying countries that do not particularly like America and who may some day be led by regimes unwilling to sell oil to America? Please tell me how it makes sense to reject oil from a reliable source like Canada, and continue dependence on oil from countries who are just one coup or leadership tantrum away from turning off the supply spigot for America. And what if the Iran situation explodes? [*77795y4] Betcha when you’re lining up for skyrocketing priced gas on your “designated day” to fill up your quota-limited amount, you’ll be wishing that the Keystone XL pipeline had been built after all…
Update: A map of all petroleum products pipelines in America and western Canada. How has America managed to survive with all of these existing pipelines, while liberals presume that one more will be the destruction of the country (and the planet). [*capwmrn]
Update 2: Debunking some of the 2014 propaganda from so-called “climate scientists”. [qb5f2of]bb
• Peak oil
There is a ridiculous and paranoid view that says Americans are addicted to oil as if oil is some evil substance like crack cocaine:
~ “Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face.”~ – Presidential candidate Barack Obama, August, 2008 [lwt48b5]
This is like saying Americans are addicted to water. Oil is as necessary to American society as is water. There are no substitutes for either. Oil produces more derivative byproducts than any other natural resource on earth. Take away oil and society would disintegrate as surely as if one were to take away its water. But, based on this myth of addiction another is propagated called peak oil:
~ “We know that we cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing.”~ – Presidential candidate Barack Obama, August, 2008 [lwt48b5]
Peak oil is a liberal scare tactic that claims that total daily oil production on a worldwide scale will peak and can only decline once the peak has been reached, causing demand shortages. Anthropogenic global warming theorists like to use peak oil as an additional demagogic bludgeon to panic the public into directing tax dollars into wasteful alternative energy development. Envirotheists then add to this pressure through attempting to move their imaginary peak oil date forward by lobbying to have oil fields made unavailable for development through attempted boycotts as with the Alberta oilsands, through increases in petroleum taxes, massive regulatory restrictions and shutting down pipeline development. (If anything, we should be looking for and demanding peak regulation and taxation. It is regulations and taxes that drive up gasoline prices to unbearable levels.) When this imaginary peak oil will be reached is a matter of great debate among paranoid liberals of this concern, but they have no doubt it will happen. However, like all liberal doomsday theories, peak oil is utter nonsense. This is because liberals do not understand, or play stupid about oil production methods and how the energy marketplace works.bc
• Pricing oil
Oil price is directly related to its production. To understand oil’s price one must understand its market. There are a number of benchmark prices in the world but the one that affects the American marketplace is West Texas Intermediate (WTI), also known as Texas light sweet crude. WTI is a lighter crude than the benchmark of Brent crude and currently lags the Brent price by a few dollars per barrel. The price of a barrel of Texas sweet light crude is determined in what are called futures pits (commodity trading floors in major cities around the world). By far the most important and influential for American related petroleum commodities, including oil, are the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Prices are set by floor traders and electronic trading systems using futures lots that mature in designated months. On behalf of their clients they are purchasing and selling oil outright for use, or trading for profit on the commodity price (however, oil is also often bought and sold in private contracts, irrespective of official world prices). Trading the futures for profit is not too much different from trading stocks. Like the stock market many things influence price, including seasonal fluctuations, inflation numbers, consumption numbers, inventory numbers, trade numbers, major news events, major announcements from OPEC or other major world oil players including oil companies, environmental policies, elections, coups, wars, etc. Even hurricanes affect price because if refineries must be slowed or shut down this drives up gasoline futures, and oil futures generally follow on the emotion even though the immediate demand for oil by the refiners has dropped. But the price of oil is partly inflated because it is also traded as an investment vehicle besides as a usable commodity. This is where investors who will never take delivery of a single barrel of oil, buy and sell oil futures like a stock, purely speculating on its price. If the price of oil was solely determined based on its production availability and consumer demand it could be less than what it is currently. Again however, private sales muddy the waters considerably, so while the information in these next two links is intriguing, the conclusions may not be as certain as portrayed. At the very least politics and an inevitable reduction in supply at lower prices would also play a huge roll in keeping the price higher than implied. [*3727smh, *4zrofdv]
Lower trading volume would also make the price more volatile, subject to even greater swings than it is now (which is already large). So if the price of crude ever reaches a point where the market says, “Too much!” oil can be restricted to commodity trading where delivery of the product becomes mandatory (or where only day trading and limited swing trading is allowed beyond trades for delivery – to keep trading volume up and volatility down), and the price may drop significantly as longer term investors are forced out. This of course includes most pension funds, so don’t think we are just talking about demonized “speculators”. Everybody that has investments that include petroleum products or companies are betting and desiring that the price goes up so their portfolio is worth more. Of course, this may be offset with higher prices for fuel and other derivative products. So there is no easy answer, and for the time being (February, 2012 – $100 per barrel) the partly inflated price of oil due to “speculation” (actually investing, including aspects of your 401K, American neighbor) is actually good for providing much needed investment money to develop new fields and production technologies, and for limiting price volatility. Plus, if you think that it is the big oil companies that are gouging consumers consider this – they own only 5% of the world’s petroleum resources. If you are looking for monopolies to blame take a look at the other 95% that is under state ownership, mostly in the Middle East. The big oil companies actually represent diversity and competition, American neighbor. [62kbuq7]  But the most significant reason for expensive oil and other commodities is the devaluation of the American dollar. This too, is an example of the unintended consequences of liberalism where monetary manipulation of the marketplace through printing money devalues the dollar and inflates the prices of all commodities, so if we want a reasonable oil price we need a strong American dollar monetary policy. For that we need conservative principles.bd
• Oil industry profits
Remember how we discovered in #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel, that contrary to liberal assertions, the healthcare insurance industry was not making out like a bandit. Same story with oil. Yeah, the petroleum industry makes a healthy profit, but neither are they robbing the country blind. They make 6.7% profits while the manufacturing industry makes 9.2% profit, and don’t forget, trial lawyers make a whopping 14% profit margin per year. [7ttjhj2] What is it exactly that lawyers contribute to the economy that is so valuable anyway? Do they run your cars? Do they manufacture iPhones? Do they do heart surgeries? When are liberals going to start demanding an excess-profits tax on “big legal”? Liberals also like to rant about “billions in subsidies to big oil”. First, there are no subsidies for big oil. There are $4B in tax credits – big difference – there are no taxpayer dollars on the line ($4B is a pittance in the big scheme of things). Those tax breaks allow for small companies to compete and big players to drill in harder to reach places, with the result being more jobs, more oil, and more government revenue down the line. Second, the green energy industry, which produces virtually nothing in terms of economic growth compared to the petroleum industry, gets almost $30B in real taxpayer subsidies, much of which is lost to companies like Solyndra and Solar Trust going bankrupt a year later. D’oh! [cr4cbr4]be
There are new finds of oil around the globe every year. Just in last few years two new, huge fields were confirmed off the coast of Brazil. The shale oil in North America is one of the largest fields in the world and has barely been touched. Read this link to see how American production increases are way ahead of earlier projections. [*74p8pf8] Ditto the near offshore of continental North America. China has undeveloped shale oil. Russia has vast tracks of land and offshore that has not yet been explored. Ditto Africa. Europe has untouched shale reserves. Both the Arctic and Antarctic are still virtually virgin. The development of the Alberta oilsands is in its infancy. The Alberta Duvernay shale deposit has barely been touched. Venezuela is finding new oil. Madagascar is in the beginning stages of developing its own oilsands. Saudi Arabia is still finding new oil. Iran is still finding new oil. Iraq is almost undeveloped and contains vast easy-access fields of oil. Israel has discovered huge shale reserves that may rival Saudi Arabia in size. Australia has also found shale reserves of Israel’s volume, perhaps larger. Cyprus, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon also have vast shale oil reserves that are just now being documented. Much of the Middle East is still untouched. Deep ocean drilling is still in its infancy and there is much more ocean area to drill than land area. Even tiny Trinidad and Tobago is looking at developing their oilsands deposits. And here is an update from May, 2012. The Green River shale oil formation in the central USA has just been confirmed as the largest recoverable reserve in the world, equaling the rest of the world’s proven reserves put together! [bmehnql] Did you get that, American neighbor? The world’s proven reserves of oil have just doubled overnight! (And that doesn’t include Israel, Australia or the Duvernay, mentioned above.)bf
• New oilfield technologies
Almost all oil fields end up providing more output than the original projections as better information about the fields are accumulated. And recovery technology is always improving. Most promising are the drilling technologies that are revolutionizing oil production like the digital oil field. Conventional oil fields with traditional methods only recover about 35% to 40% of the in-ground reservoir. Horizontal drilling along with fracking and steam assist, and new chemical methods for rejuvenating previously watered-out oil wells are allowing production from previously unproductive fields like shale oil, and allowing for re-opening of light crude fields previously closed after being depleted of their then removable oil. Here in Alberta conventional light oil had been in serious decline, but with new horizontal drill techniques and fracking, and digital management, I hear that conventional oil production could once again climb, even chasing oilsands production levels. If they can do that here they can do that in almost any conventional oil field around the world. And who knows where nanotechnology will lead in the oilfield? Virtually all oil in a field may become recoverable someday.bg
• Alternate petroleum technologies
Guess how South Africa during its sanction years and Hitler during World War II overcame their inabilities to import crude oil? They synthesized it from coal. That’s right. Two countries that had, in effect, gone way past their peak oil moment to their no-oil-at-all moment, got by through producing petroleum products from coal (and one of them almost took over the world with synthesized fuel!). And with the new underground gasification of coal, seams too deep to mine can produce a “clean” coal gas that produces 70% less CO2 than natural gas (there is already an operating pilot plant producing electricity right here in Alberta). Believe it, American neighbor, coal is not going anywhere soon. There are multiple amounts of coal in the world to the amount of oil – America is not called the Saudi Arabia of coal for nothing. So if it ever came to a point where there would not be enough oil production for the whole world you can bet that some countries would begin producing their own petroleum products from coal.
Then there is natural gas. There is just as much natural gas in the world as there is coal. No doubt, in the future natural gas will be developed to substitute for many current oil products, lessoning the demand for oil. Also in the near future, synthetic methanol and gasoline will be manufactured by combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide taken from water and air. [*mozgjx5]
Then there is the new organic method, where waste carbon dioxide is converted through photosynthesis into diesel, ethanol or kerosene fuels. [*3r34h3s, bpryodz] Even farm waste, wood waste, old tires, garbage and sewage can be cooked into petroleum products. [*2pxw8, 3w8n9jo] These process plants can be placed on eighteen wheelers and driven right to the sources, with tankers then transporting the synthetic oil and other products to refineries. And nano technology in the future will make it so that almost anything organic can be very cheaply synthesized into petroleum products, again with very small production, truck-mounted facilities. As well, you may not have heard yet, but it seems economical cold fusion (or something close to it) may be on the horizon. [*4vluzrt, 42zskj7] (Update 2015: [*ptm8rrc]) Even many plastics are being developed from organic sources such as corn. As these technologies are developed and expanded they will reduce demand for petroleum products in the future, or may even replace some petroleum fuels and plastics.bh
• Not peak oil – glut oil
There is more than enough oil in North America alone to supply North American needs for multiple centuries. The only reason this oil is not being fully accessed is because of the ideological opposition of liberals who shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, for example, and close down federal lands and offshore drilling. [6q88xvj, *7m9we2q, *7tax2mm, *7wrzvhu] No, there is no such thing as peak oil, American neighbor. Demand for natural petroleum energy products due to technological advances will decline way, way before we will run out of natural petroleum products to meet demand. Within ten years, instead of having peak oil, we could have a saturated market of glut oil, just as has already happened with natural gas. If this happens, expect the price of oil to plummet and stay there. So when you hear peak oil, American neighbor, think peak liberal hysteria… [*44eqmbt]bi
• Electric car mythology
Let’s go back to this idea that America is “addicted to oil” (debunked above). President George W. Bush foolishly pandered to liberal sentiments by saying in the 2006 State of the Union Address:
~Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources — and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.~
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on green energy since, and it has all been a colossal failure. There are no such things as “cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources” to fossil fuels. We are not even close to being “on the threshold of incredible advances”. This is just plain playing stupid.
For instance, if you think electric cars are some sort of salvation, ask yourself where does the electricity come from – mostly from burning coal. Throw in the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing and disposal process, and electric cars produce much more carbon dioxide over their life span than do gasoline equivalent cars. D’oh! [62okz8g, qx7enfr] What happens at night when you have to use your headlights? Suddenly your maximum distance that you can travel drops by 20% or 30%. If you have to drive at high speeds you lose another 10% or 20%, and if you have to climb long hills another 30% to 50%. If you have three or four adults in the car you lose more mileage. Have to tow something? Forget it. If you live where it gets cold, batteries lose over half of their optimum delivery and charging ability, and if you have to use the in-car heater expect to be unable to go much further than to the local mall and back. All of this stress produces in owners of electric cars what is known as “range anxiety” – never being sure one has enough juice to make it home. Spontaneous fires while charging and the threat of fire and electrocution in a major accident add to the stress level of owning these cars. Electric cars are a pipedream, American neighbor. The BBC decided to illustrate how great electric cars are by having a reporter drive from London to Edinburgh. It took four days with nine recharging stops of ten hours each. By contrast, in 1830, it took only two days to make the same trip by stagecoach. Duh! [6zwawhd] Here is the plain unvarnished truth in numbers, American neighbor. Americans love big cars, SUVs and pickup trucks. [*6fxl265]bj
• Developing world energy demand
Until a revolutionary new battery is discovered, investing in electric cars is like pouring money down a toilet. And if you are thinking that changing your light bulbs, or recycling, or buying a hybrid is going to help ‘save the planet’, think again. China burns fully half of the 6 billion tons of coal used worldwide each year. [3xal4x9] They are currently in the process of building 2,200 coal fired power plants. Yup, 2,200! That’s two that start up every week! [8cfj3jt, 52qe79, 233685a, 29qvbr] India is following suit with maybe not as many, but as their society progresses, demand for more electricity will multiply. Ditto Indonesia and Malaysia, and a dozen other highly populated third world countries. And don’t forget Africa and South America. [9g6fejq] These things are going to happen whether America eviscerates itself or not. With third world progress will come increased demand for millions of new cars and increased availability of air travel.
The only way this development can be stopped is to totally destroy the world economy, but these countries want to live with the same conveniences and living standards as we do in the first world, and have every right to strive for them. They are not interested in bringing us down to their level. How does that benefit them? I thought it was liberals who supposedly REALLY, REALLY CARE for the disadvantaged and were for things like ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’. [yek89dw] Who are liberals to tell them that they must stay dirt poor to save the planet because a bunch of corrupt scientists in league with ideological envirotheists demand it?
• Other green mythologies
So you are probably thinking that biofuels are the answer, American neighbor. Wrong again. (See #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty, for more biofuel problems.) Biofuels produce just as much greenhouse gases, water pollution and habitat destruction as do fossil fuel sources and are much more expensive to produce. [39m729x, 683d2g, qwkfe5, yk3vz69] I also have an interesting anecdote from my neighbors who are snowbirds (Canadians who travel south during the winter) who travel around the U.S. by truck and recreation trailer. Their truck calculates the fuel mileage for each tank of fuel. They tell me that whenever they fill their truck with a diesel/biofuel mixture, whatever the percentage of biofuel is, is the percentage of fuel mileage that is lost for that tank of fuel. The biofuel, in effect, acts like it is just filler, expanding the volume of the fuel without actually contributing the energy lost by the diesel it displaces. Biofuel and ethanol actually drive up fuel prices. Want to pay less for gasoline? Get rid of ethanol. It is an extremely inefficient as a fuel, and costs much more to produce than petroleum fuels. Ethanol production also drives up the cost of corn, which inflates the prices of thousands of items on the market as well.
If you happen to think that public transportation is the answer – yep, think again. Turns out buses are fuel guzzling, carbon belching wastes of tax dollars (am I surprised – no). Per capita cars are much more efficient, fuel wise and tax wise. [*3sao76x] Here is another anecdote. In my own city we are embarking on this immense public transportation policy that will put the city into debt forever, with the main expenditure being a light rail system that almost nobody uses for ninety percent of the day. One of the local papers did a survey and found that only 15% of the city population uses the public transportation system. Less than one third of residents living close to a light rail station use it to get to work. We’re indebting the city forever for 15% of the population – classic liberalism in action. Especially in the winter where temperatures frequently reach below minus 25 degrees and down to minus 40, people don’t want to walk and wait at some bus stop or light rail station freezing their butts off. People in Edmonton want to drive their cars (or big honkin’ pickup trucks, to be more accurate). But our liberal betters who run city hall have decided that to be a ‘modern’ city we must ignore our road system and instead spend billions on a light rail system very few want or use. If they spent half the money they’re spending for light rail on the road system instead, we could pave the streets with gold. Instead, they virtually ignore the conditions of our streets so that in the spring of 2011 we had 400,000 pot holes, for heavens sake. That’s a pot hole for every two people in the city! The neighborhood where my mother-in-law lives (which is not the inner city, but in a very desirable area to live – my brother-in-law just priced a vacant lot at over $400,000) hasn’t seen new pavement in over thirty years – it is difficult to discern the original pavement from the patches on the patches. They let the roads go to pot and drive us into debt supposedly to save the environment – what a crock! That’s what liberals call utopia. [/airing of dirty laundry]bl
• Deprogramming lessons
Blackshirt liberals hate that America is not yet utopia, so they continually harp on how inadequate and inferior America is: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. They do this because they fear that without this negative attitude toward America as it is, Americans will not allow them to reach utopia: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. The petroleum industry and anything related to energy production and consumption are hotbeds of liberal myth and demagoguery: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking. Whereas: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. The list of double standards against oilsands petroleum and domestic drilling are staggering: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. And, of course, it is all society’s fault: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. Global warming is the grandest of all Blackshirt liberal apocalypse strategies yet designed: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Lastly, it is all about leading the world to liberal utopia: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.
Global warming theory has evolved into probably the most resilient zombie argument of all time. You may remember from #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments, that a zombie argument is an assertion that has been killed many times over, but is continually raised from the dead by its misguided but devoted adherents. Hopefully for you, American neighbor, I have finally put a stake through anthropogenic global warming’s heart for good. The slavery that liberals envision from it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the global economy and America itself. Whereas, energy independence is all about liberty, American neighbor. Oil is the lifeblood of liberty.
• Deprogramming exercise
Here is a comprehensive resource I only recently discovered that has links to many more articles regarding the fraudulent issues of global warming theory (scroll down for link list). If you still have questions or wish to research any of the above issues further, this exhaustive site provides dozens of well organized reference pages. [*2ebgu2q] And to keep up with the climate news of the day go here: [*crcvrg, *6qfdtj4] The second link is Marc Morano’s exhaustive presentation to the 2011 UN Climate Summit.bn
• Humor, sort-of
Our little end of essay humor is actually a bit of visualization – hope you enjoy it:
According to the Wikipedia page on carbon dioxide [23xvq9] for every 1,000,000 parts of atmosphere there are 390 parts of carbon dioxide which is rising by 1.9 parts per year through the addition from natural and manmade sources. Next, it claims that “this addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997” are attributable to human endeavors. A football field is 57,600 square feet. If we think of carbon dioxide as mirrors reflecting heat back to earth instead of letting it escape into space, there would be 22 square feet of mirrors for every football field size of sky – about the area of a single bed. Mankind’s contribution each year is equal to about 1/10 of a square foot – less than you would cover with one hand. So let’s say we reduced our production of carbon dioxide by a whopping 20% (meaning mankind would have to cut back 1/5 of all energy usage worldwide – an impossible task without completely devastating all civilizations of the earth). This would be equivalent to about the area covered by a couple of your fingers. Here is the point: Anthropogenic global warming alarmists claim that if we don’t remove, at great cost to the civilizations of earth, a mirror the size of two fingers for every football field sized area of sky, we are dooming the planet to a catastrophic meltdown. Yeah, right… [/incredulous sarcasm]