Keystone Pipeline

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's not true. It too can be refined into gasoline, heating oil, etc., though the process is certainly more complex and expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_san...n_and_refining

I followed the cases of cities vs Chevron and how they spun misinformation. Upon learning the truth the judges denied the permits to modify both refineries.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/op...ate.html?_r=1&


Carl

[CarlV]

Here is an 18 page Sierra Club article. I c+p page 16

http://www.sierraclub.org/dirtyfuels...s/TarSands.pdf

Ed Cable lives three miles from the footprint slated for
Hyperion’s tar sands oil refinery. When he and his neighbors
first heard about the development, all they were told was that it
was for an “undisclosed purpose.” That got him worried.
“If they won’t tell you what it is, it’s probably something you
won’t like,” Cable says.
Once Cable learned that the development would be a refinery
designed to process the dirtiest oil in the world, he sprang into
action, holding community meetings and organizing a community
group, “Save Union County,” to fight the project.
He’s lived in the area since 1969, and the last thing he wants to
see is the rolling hills of his farming community transformed into
an industrial sacrifice zone.
“Hyperion’s tar sands will destroy some of the best farmland in
South Dakota,” Cable says. “It will destroy hundreds of years of
quality air and water.”
Cable looked into emissions from similar refineries in Texas, and
he believes the toxic emissions estimated by Hyperion in their
permit application are understated by nearly a factor of ten.
According to their permit application, Hyperion plans to spew
a combined 3,000 tons of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide
“responsible for smog and ground-level ozone”, nearly 300 tons of
ammonia, over 800 tons of sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain),
nearly 500 tons of highly carcinogenic volatile organic compounds,
over 3,000 tons of asthma-inducing particulate matter, and more
than 19 million tons of carbon dioxide.
26
The emissions from this single source will all but guarantee South
Dakota’s failure to meet the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality
standards. The microscopic soot particles that will be released by
the ton from Hyperion are the most dangerous form of particulate
matter, capable of penetrating deep into the lungs, causing
respiratory disease and increasing risks of heart attacks.
Hyperion also intends to withdraw ten million gallons of water a
day from the Missouri River, but the company hasn’t yet released
a plan for what they will do with the wastewater once it has been
used to process the toxic tar sands oil.
Save Union County’s fight against the tar sands giant recently
made enormous progress. Based on a legal challenge that Cable
and his neighbors filed against Hyperion, the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural Resources declared
Hyperion’s permit application incomplete and denied Hyperion’s
initial application to pollute Union County’s air.

Carl

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by epifanatic

I've been against it from the beginning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

I'm with you. This crap oil source is beyond a bad idea. Sour crude indeed.

[bobabode]

Thanks Carl. It isn't worth the carbon that it will put into the air.

[merrylander]

So then can I assume that all you folks who are against the pipeline are going to join me in a lawsuit against all those coal fired power plants in Ohio that make our well water fo fucking acid that we had to install a $1300 acid neutralizer?

Or are equally against the fracking for gas that pollutes the groundwater?

It is all the same people behaind it all.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by merrylander

So then can I assume that all you folks who are against the pipeline are going to join me in a lawsuit against all those coal fired power plants in Ohio that make our well water fo fucking acid that we had to install a $1300 acid neutralizer?

Or are equally against the fracking for gas that pollutes the groundwater?

It is all the same people behaind it all.

Yes! But being West of you I will have a hard time showing damages. Truth be told with the prevailing winds our power plants send you acid rain.

From what I been readin the citizens of WVa are getting pretty upset at the coal industry over that spill. There is talk of ...the ...need ...for "Regulation"!


Face it our life style is dirty and unsustainable.


Barney