EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY: President Obama will regulate carbon dioxide emissions from industrial facilities unless Congress acts soon to do so.
Image: Flickr/whatatravisty
President Obama warned Congress that it must tackle "dangerous carbon pollution" in a pointed State of the Union address describing Superstorm Sandy and other natural disasters as no "freak coincidence."
The speech establishes a clear turning point for a president who treated climate change tentatively during a re-election campaign that featured a rare autumn hurricane with record storm surges and a blistering drought -- all coming during the nation's warmest year. It also accelerates the momentum on the issue that Obama began three weeks ago in his inaugural address, according to observers.
"But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change," Obama said last night. "It's true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods -- all are now more frequent and intense.
"We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence," he added. "Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science -- and act before it's too late."
Obama openly waved the threat of using his executive authority to regulate the release of carbon dioxide from industry sources if lawmakers fail to "act soon." He suggested that Congress reconsider legislation similar to the cap-and-trade bill pursued in the past by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and retired Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a program that continues to be reviled among many Republicans.
"But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will," Obama said. "I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."
The speech failed to satisfy some environmentalists, but Obama's commitment to reviving a political issue that lay largely dormant for two years, combined with his references to the current impacts of warming, won him widespread applause from those concerned about climate change.
"It's probably the best speech that a sitting American president has ever given on the subject," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
Carol Browner, Obama's former climate adviser and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, described the speech in a statement as "a big win for those who want action on climate change and believe now is the time to act."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Obama's words "were very welcome" but added that "we need to see them backed up by action."
"Between this and the inaugural [address], I think he's set a bar that is very promising," said Whitehouse, who is urging Obama to bypass Congress by instructing U.S. EPA to launch carbon dioxide standards for existing power plants.
'Off oil for good'
Still, it fell short of the specific policies that some advocates had hoped to hear, amounting to "not nearly enough," said Daniel Souweine, a campaign manager for Forecast the Facts.
"President Obama set the lowest possible bar for action -- he did not pledge to stop the carbon-spewing Keystone XL pipeline nor promise carbon regulations on existing power plants. In fact, he pledged no specific actions at all," Souweine said in a statement.
The president did offer some details on proposals to double today's level of renewable energy by 2020, to use oil and gas revenue to fund research in carbon-free transportation technologies, and to erect an award program for states that enact aggressive efficiency measures to help the nation cut its energy use in half by 2030.
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add Comment"As long as China is going all-in on clean energy, so must we." What a whopper! I suggest readers look up "Coal in China" on Wikipedia and read just the first sentence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally a politician that actually listens to science! Now lets see if words actually turn into solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis action on the Keystone pipeline decision will reveal whether he is sincere in taking real action on the climate crisis and its causes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the keystone pipeline is approved the crude will be refined in the U.S. and shipped overseas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the pipeline is turned down the crude will be shipped to China and refined there with a lot less environmental protections but with jobs that would have been done by Americans.
The pipeline from the Tar Sands to the Pacific Coast is having its own problems getting approved. People all along the proposed route are putting up a lot of resistance. They don't want to put their land and their drinking water at risk, or be a part of the irresponsible loading of carbon into the atmosphere any more than the people opposed to the Keystone XL route.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are different ways to move the oil sands product to export facilities. West (which won't happen), Northwest (which will probably happen in the future), Northeast (which might happen), and directly to the East coast by reversing existing pipelines (which will certainly happen in the near future, immediately if Keystone is turned down). And of course, to the south through the Keystone pipeline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many in Canada who would like to see Obama turn down Keystone as that will have the effect of keeping the benefits of refining, marketing and exporting Oil Sands product in Canada rather than allowing them to be captured by the U.S.
They would actually have to go SOUTHWEST to get around Alaska or TRIPLE the length of the pipeline to get to the Arctic Ocean. However, they would only be able to ship out of that port for 6 months out of the year at most, even if the disintegration of the Arctic Ice pack continues like it has. When you say the pipeline might go Northeast, would it go to the Hudson Bay? Shipping out of this port would be almost as hard as a hypothetical Arctic Ocean export terminal in Northwestern Canada. Straight East, or Southeast actually, would bring the end of the pipeline to somewhere in the Great Lakes. This route would follow the original Keystone XL route until it is close to the border and then make a sharp left turn to the east, possibly swinging by Winnepeg. However, this route takes it over hundreds of pristine lakes and through some Provincial Parks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, any eastward direction for the pipeline would bring the oil AWAY from the intended export markets in Asia. It's not as simple as you think.
Climatewire and SA continues cut comments out that are contrary to their propaganda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US alone cannot reduced co2 emissions. The developing nations require energy and this has to come from fossil fuel. Even the US, in its bid for self sufficiency, is relying on natural gas and oil using 'fraking' techniques. We can't expect the developing nations to cease developing therefore the only way to maintain the co2 at a constant level is share the task. The developed countries must cut back on growth to allow the undeveloped countries to continue growth. The US and Europe produce far more junk than we need. This takes fuel to produce and is a waste of resources. Some how we need to find a way to survive with negative growth in some countries or else the increase in co2 content will never be restrained. At the moment the development of renewable sources of energy isn't even keeping up with the growth of energy requirement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActions will speak loudly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a wild card which might help. We are in a Solar Maximum year and a strong solar storm is surprisingly possible. It could bring down power grids worldwide for months. That can cause "Hundreds of Fukushimas".
Preventing the worst has two branches. The first is to install new technology that can protect the vulnerable transformers.
The second is to decentralize electric power production as fast as possible. Since natural gas might quit flowing when power fails, 100 million more solar roofs with energy storage would be a good start.
There are Black Swans - highly improbable innovations -in the birth canal. See Cheap Green and Moving Beyond Oil on the Aesop Institute website for some of them. With a bit more support from Angels wise enough to evaluate risk and entrepreneurs, a few might be in production fast enough to speed the superseding of fossil fuels.
Some are likely to transform the energy and economic landscape faster than might be readily imagined.
"...It could bring down power grids worldwide for months. That can cause "Hundreds of Fukushimas"..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a fallacy. It is really pretty simple minded to maintain cooling to Nuclear Power plants, with total Grid Failure.
And, assuming the impossible, and we actually did have hundreds of Fukushimas, that would be so trivial compared to the mayhem, death, rape, roving gangs of murderous bandits, draconian police action, starvation, and anarchy that would exist if we had total grid failure for a week or more.
And your Solar power w Storage would cause all of the above catastophe's since it would bankrupt every nation on Earth, economically impossible. On top of that, the much more probable Tambora & Krakatoa(1800's) type volcanic eruption would wipe out your Solar worse than total Grid collapse.
"The developed countries must cut back on growth to allow the undeveloped countries to continue growth. ...Some how we need to find a way to survive with negative growth in some countries or else the increase in co2 content will never be restrained."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry to be so blunt here but do you realize what such a plan would do to the employment in this country and what it would do to the poor and middle class?
I understand that you must be very concerned about co2 but to follow such a course would be national suicide in a matter of a year or less. We are at a real (U2) unemployment of nearly 15% now. To drop our co2 levels to make up for the increase in developing countries would move that to over 50% (a guess on my part, I admit but a swag on the -15% GDP it would, at least, take to balance the world's co2 output increase).
What would you suggest for those people? Suck it up for the sake of Chinese development? Good luck on that vote - or would you suggest that the Executive Branch just decree it to avoid such a messy process?
We need to come up with viable solutions which consider the whole and complex ecology of our society if they are to have a chance.
America needs to keep moving: 33Twh per day, to 5% efficiency, if we include the brakes. This requires 24 Keystone pipelane, or jeopardize worldwide, by increasing 1500% their nuclear facilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead I suggest, keep that nuclear fuel, and further develop such technology for the future, when we need to save our planet from possible contingencies of extinction.
The solution would also be natural gas, but expensive: even if get for free, to transport it, have to liquefy it; chained at least in propane. For this, it is driving the price increase. Although the OCEANOGENIC POWER also can produce methane and propane, 300 times cheaper, and in a manner 1000 times cleanest, that otherwise.
The cheapest solution is OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama, that you can start with 33Twh per day (for those who are afraid, also 3 Twh, the same as those the Keystone pipeline) and escalate to 500twh per day, and for the whole world in 500 years.
Improving efficiency by 1000,....maybe, with the electric drive and regenerative braking..... USA would need, 77Gwh; then, the wind would be solution.
But if this is done, the 33Twh of OCEANOGENIC POWER, would be enough for the whole world.
The sun is a solution for the future, when improves the efficiency of solar panels.
Feeding the grid with enough clean energy, makes it unnecessary, fuel transportation, and pipelines; superconducting lines would be used to carry the electricity, and fuel, would be electrolyzed at home or in the office, or wherever there is water, dirty or clean.
Of course, electrolysis has to be, at least at 200 bar, for hydrogen to cost $ 1 per gge.
This serves to keep all current jobs, even of those who selling and hauling oil, have already won enough.
I wish SciAm would stick to real science and not political punditry. Its become a mouthpiece of the Global Warming crowd and the IPCC. C02 production in the US has dropped significantly..."Carbon dioxide emissions from all sources in the U.S. peaked in 2007 at 6.02 gigatonnes and "have since fallen by an estimated 13% and in 2012 were likely at their lowest since 1994,". However, China put out 7.7 gigatonnes, up 13.3%. In other words, if Obama gets his way, the stagnant US economy will become weaker with higher taxes and penalties for US businesses. China will get stronger as their manufacturing sector becomes stronger with no hindrance from theirs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts estimated that the world produces 30.4 billion tonnes of C02 in 2011, and it goes into an atmosphere that already has 3,600 billion tons of C02. (30.4/3,600)x100= 0.84%. Man puts out 0.84% of all C02. And the US puts out roughly one fourth of that 0.84%, or 0.21%...hmmmm...
Reading these comments brings something to mind:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, ochar, do you just copy and paste the same comment from article to article? It reads the that way.
Sault, the same pretty much goes for you too, but don't get me wrong here, the same also goes for several of the guys on the skeptic side. I enjoy the fervent energy and passion everyone puts into their comments, but it just gets boring on most of the climate posts. (on both sides)
Does anyone here have anything new to add? Seriously? Not the same tired he said, she said, but some new discovery that might change one mind? I keep reading the articles (which are mostly retreads too) and I read the comments (well I skim sault's) looking for that hint of newness and am continuously underwhelmed.
I almost feel that I know some of y'all, at least which way you lean, a lot of your quirks, and what sets you off, and we all seem to enjoy the discussion, but can't we try to contribute something fresh?
I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes (sorry sault), just trying to keep it sane.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this7. sault
in reply to northernguy
12:24 PM 2/14/13 writes that for practical purposes it is impossible to route the Oil Sands product in any direction but a southern destination which is the intended purpose of the Xl pipeline.
He dismisses the Northwest route because it would have to go around Alaska. Actually it would go through Alaska by means of a short rail line to join up with the existing Alaskan Whitepass and Yukon railway to connect Alaska to the North American rail system and carry the crude to the existing export facilities at Valdez. An extension would be built to take additional oil through the Mackenzie River Valley to a new export terminal on the Beaufort Sea. Such a Beaufort facility would facilitate the development of the stranded oil and gas fields there. Ice breakers would extend the shipping season along the Northwest passage.
Sault dismisses transport to the Northeast out of hand saying simply that it is not feasible. Of course, there already is the Port of Churchill which is an export shipping point on the Hudson Bay and is serviced by rail from southern Ontario. It would be as simple matter to increase traffic on the existing interconnected rail lines to enable seasonal export of crude.
As for shipping Oil Sands straight to the east coast for shipment Sault is at his most dismissive and most uninformed.
The pipelines to ship to the east already exist and are used to take Alberta (and Saskatchewan)oil to the Ontario/Quebec border. Pipelines from the east coast already exist and are used to take more expensive Saudi oil to Quebec/Ontario border. It will take roughly a hundred million dollars and about ten months to reverse the Saudi flow, have the Oils Sands product refined in Ontario and Quebec and shipped from the Ontario/Quebec border to the east coast. From there the refined products will be shipped to wherever the Southern U.S. refineries intend to ship the Xl pipeline oil derivatives. There are no _pristine lakes_ etc. involved. The pipelines already exist and are already in use, albeit in a counterproductive manner.
I have omitted the existing pipeline from Alberta to West Coast which terminates in Vancouver. It currently exports four hundred thousand barrels and is about to be expanded to eight hundred thousand barrels a day.
If the Americans don't want to process and export Oil Sands material I'm pretty sure that the Canadians will find something to with the second largest oil reserves in the world.
"I wish SciAm would stick to real science and not political punditry. Its become a mouthpiece of the Global Warming crowd and the IPCC."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut they DO think they are sticking to "real science". Just like the radical Islamists and the Far Right Republicans, these people have a cause with which they have identified and which has the noble goal of saving the world (as they see it should be).
The realities of trying to change a $14 trillion dollar / yr economy's fundamental underpinnings based on a belief which cannot be proven in a scientific manner will not change that.
But, face it, if you truly believed that you had The Secret to saving the world would you be swayed by mere logical arguments?
Postman1 in #15 has it right. We just go back and forth here with the same points of view, becoming more polarized with each interchange, wondering why the other side does not see the light. The Science becoming secondary to the Belief.
In it's move to become "Popular Scientific American" (to try to save it's world as a viable publication) the editorial staff believes this is the way. In their context, maybe they are right as I never saw such passion over a Martian Gardner puzzle solution.
So it seems to go in SA's brave new world.
denver, the article has no science to present, just political rhetoric that which Obama and SciAM is so eloquent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSlight correction, the U3 is at 7.8% and the U6 is 14.7%. Yesterday, the unemployment came in at a better 341,000 and today, consumer sentiment came in at a higher 76.3 but the markets just yawned as it knows that the underlying economic fundamentals are very weak and stagnant.
Thanks for the correction. I did mean U6.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, as far as the lack science in the article is concerned that was the reason I was saying that the Science is becoming secondary to the Belief here in this section of SA. Too bad, as Belief over Science has gotten humanity in a whole lot of trouble over the years...
... and Belief wearing the pseudo-cloak of Science has been, IMHO, ever more dangerous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso wishing the best, yesterday and always, for your friendship and all the other participants. I inform you that what you say is true, which is why am guided a bit what I've written elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut before you disparage this, you have to recognize that if it is written in the main article, the same as in those other places, obviously, the comment must be the same.
denver, now I understand. Thats why I've always questioned anthropogenic C02 as a major contributor to global warming. The numbers just don't make sense. In the rainforest where I live, plants grow fast. The sheer biomass regeneration is incredible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo wonder you deniers are so easily misled...You do know that we add 0.84% of the CO2 in the atmosphere ANNUALLY and our emissions are INCREASING...again, ANNUALLY, right? You do know about math and that 0.84% + 0.84%... ends up DOUBLING the CO2 in the air in 120 years, right? Are you even aware that the USA is responsible for most of the cumulative CO2 emissions still floating around in the air after a century of rapid growth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, why don't you publish a climate science paper where you can get the numbers to "make sense". Maybe you can stave off climate change by planting more rainforest all over the place too. Better get crackin'; we mow down a Delaware-sized chunk of rainforest every year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've been trying and trying to find SOMETHING that might change your mind. Is it even possible? What evidence are you waiting for that could convince you that climate change is a problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll tell you right now that if somebody found out that the radiative properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were very different from what established science has shown them to be, I'd join the skeptic camp along with you. The same goes for finding major errors in the steadily increasing measurements of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The same goes for determining that the Earth's climate sensitivity is a lot lower than 2C (the 2C to 4.5C sensitivity range has been compiled using computer models AND observations that all roughly back each other up, so this would be difficult to do).
But as long as EVERY scientific or technical body of national or international standing agrees with the consensus positions on the 3 areas mentioned above, it'll require extraordinary evidence to adequately back up any extraordinary skeptic claims.
The whole point of having to reroute the tar sands oil away from the Keystone XL route is because the US federal government won't approve the pipeline to cross the border. Now you want to try crossing the Alaska border with the stuff, a more ecologically sensitive area than the southern Canadian border with the US mind you. And you want to either construct an export terminal FROM SCRATCH near Prudhoe Bay (something that didn't happen before even though millions of barrels of oil were produced in the area for decades!) or ship it to Valdez??? People still remember the NASTY oil spill that happened around there...and you thought the pushback against Keystone XL was bad...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for Churchhill being an option, I don't think that's very likely:
"The port is iced in for much of the year and is accessible only between late July and early November.[1] Shallow waters also restrict its development as an ocean port...The port is almost entirely reliant on grain from the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) for its viability. Wheat accounts for 90 per cent of all traffic through the port."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
If the Canucks can work all that magic you're talking about with reversing their pipelines (that were optimized for a certain grade / makeup / flowrate of crude oil that will CERTAINLY NOT match that of the Tar Sands) and manage to obviate the Keystone XL route, more power to them.
However, The USA will not be party to having all that heavy crude coursing over its main watershed and prime agricultural land just to enable oil companies to increase their exports to BRIC countries. And the USA will not be a party to the moonscapes and heavy CO2 pollution caused by the Tar Sands extraction process either. So yes, this is one of the strongest and most effective statements President Obama can make concerning climate change.
It's because the science on climate change is already settled. Basic physics, observations and past climate data show that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate. No scientific or technical organization of national or international standing disagrees. Sorry that you didn't get the memo...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's as if you're going around saying that the sky isn't blue. You're blaming all the confused stares and frustration people have trying to explain that, yes, the sky IS blue on some sort of "belief" you are sure everybody else shares. In the face of all the overwhelming evidence, it is YOU who are misled by your beliefs.
"It's because the science on climate change is already settled. Basic physics, observations and past climate data show that our CO2 emissions are changing the climate. No scientific or technical organization of national or international standing disagrees. Sorry that you didn't get the memo..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1500 years ago the scientific consensus was settled that the earth was flat. Before Galileo, the consensus was that the Earth was the center of the universe and, up to the late 1800's the consensus was that our Milky Way was at the center. Early in the 20th century, the idea of the Quantum world was not the consensus. Etc, etc, etc.
Scientific consensus, in and of itself is not scientific proof. I am willing to listen to many arguments but that one is so un-scientific. I wish you folks would stop using it as if it were a trump card. Consensus proves nothing other than consensus.
And the science is not settled that the increase in CO2 will inevitably lead to the dire outcomes predicted.
Yes, the majority of the models show this but these only reflect our current understanding of how things work. Remember back a few years when the models were predicting an ice age? Then they missed the plateau of rising temps which may have started a decade ago.
Oh, but - we hear now and you support - that was back when we didn't fully understand... but now we do with a certainty.
No sane person thinks we can continue to do to the environment as we have and not have some consequences but to suggest, as many of the Believers (some in this thread) do, that we should take action which would do untold harm to the economic structure of our society and put the poor and middle class out of work based on these uncertain models alone - I cannot accept.
Ancient Greek scientists calculated the circumference of the Earth in around 200 BCE by noticing the angle of shadows falling in wells on the same longitude. Only the ignorant and anti-scientific folks in ages since believed the Earth was flat. We've debunked this and all the other fallacies you bring up through the Scientific Method and the consensus of experts in the various applicable fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, these fields are so complex that if we can't trust the conclusions of the experts, then we'll get nowhere. Given that the world's ENTIRE scientific establishment agrees that our GHG emissions are jacking with the climate and it'll get worse the longer we delay action, I'm inclined to believe them over whatever misinformation the fossil fuel companies are putting out there. For example, their propaganda contains the canard that "scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70's". Turns out it was a bunch of sensationalism at Newsweek concerning the impact of our aerosol emissions. You've got to look harder into things to be taken seriously and don't just accept fossil fuel propaganda at face value.
And sure, the models don't agree, but the projections go from bad to absolutely catastrophic. Combine this with the $100B - $500B in YEARLY negative externalities that coal pollution causes ALONE and we stand to save TRILLION$$$ switching to clean energy and making our economy more energy efficient:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/abstract
29. sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to denverjims
06:14 PM 2/16/13 writes..
...Now you want to try crossing the Alaska border with the stuff, a more ecologically sensitive area than the southern Canadian border with the US mind you. And you want to either construct an export terminal FROM SCRATCH near Prudhoe Bay (something that didn't happen before even though millions of barrels of oil were produced in the area for decades!) or ship it to Valdez??? People still remember the NASTY oil spill that happened around there...and you thought the pushback against Keystone XL was bad...
I gather that this will come as surprise to you but Oil Sands product already crosses the U.S./Canadian border and does so on steady basis. It does so by rail and pipeline. There is no reason to believe that shipping oil into Alaska on existing rail routes would be any different.
W.R.T. Valdez you write as if it was no longer an oil shipping port or that it is largely inactive. This is not true at all and I don't know why you would think that it is. Since the Alaska oil fields are starting to decline Canadian oil would be welcomed to fill in the gap.
You mention Prudhoe Bay. I was referring to the mouth of the Mackenzie River which, while not too distant from Prudhoe is in Canadian territory and thus is not subject to Obama's purview. You are correct, Prudhoe, with its millions of barrels of oil was uneconomical to develop as an export terminal.
But a terminal on the Canadian Beaufort would have billions of barrels of Oil Sands product. What's more it would be going to Asia not the U.S. With a American destination, starting from Prudhoe Bay would add thousands of miles by sea(going around the Alaskan pan handle) that were easily eliminated by the pipeline to Valdez. A terminal in the general vicinity of Inuvik, rather than being an unreasonably long voyage, would actually be the shortest route for Canadian oil intended for the Asian market. As I mentioned in my previous post such a terminal would open the stranded, undeveloped oil fields in the Canadian Beaufort which are an extension of the Alaskan oilfields. But the biggest consequence would the economic impetus to finally build a rail/highway transportation corridor to Inuvik. That would fulfill the Canadian dream of a major shipping route for Asian goods to flow down the Mackenzie river valley to the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this26. sault
in reply to northernguy
04:42 PM 2/15/13 in writing about Oil Sands export options...
...As for Churchhill being an option, I don't think that's very likely:
"The port is iced in for much of the year and is accessible only between late July and early November.[1] Shallow waters also restrict its development as an ocean port...The port is almost entirely reliant on grain from the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) for its viability. Wheat accounts for 90 per cent of all traffic through the port."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill....
You will note that the article quoted points out that Churchill already is a port and, in fact, laments that currently all that passes through it is wheat. In my post I said that it _might_ be used as an Oil Sands liquids export location. The rail connection already exists but to be useful the harbor would have to be dredged and ice breakers used to be able to keep the port open six months out of the year on a steady basis. Not trivial and not cheap but then neither is the XL pipeline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this26. sault
in reply to northernguy
04:42 PM 2/15/13 in writing about Oil Sands export locations said......
....If the Canucks can work all that magic you're talking about with reversing their pipelines (that were optimized for a certain grade / makeup / flowrate of crude oil that will CERTAINLY NOT match that of the Tar Sands) and manage to obviate the Keystone XL route, more power to them. ....
You must have skipped the part of my post where I mentioned that pipelines to the east already exist and are used to take Oil Sands product to Ontario and across the border and down to Tulsa. Originally the pipeline carried to Chicago for years. All that Canadian crude was flooding the Chicago market so one of the Canadian companies (Enbridge, I believe) reversed the flow of the pipeline that was bringing oil products up from Tulsa. This enabled Canadian crude to get to Tulsa which itself became overloaded. So some of the existing pipelines to the gulf were reversed and a new one built.
Oil Sands crude is already flowing throughout large parts of the U.S. It is already being refined and marketed within the U.S.
Reversing the flow of pipelines is not _magic_ at all. It has already been done to accommodate the Oil Sands. It is being done even as we speak. Saudi crude is similar Oil Sands crude with regard to pipelines and therefore such issues are not much of a concern.
The XL controversy has caused the Canadian government to focus on the problem of importing more expensive Saudi oil to the exclusion of cheaper Canadian oil in large parts of Canada simply because of pipeline configuration. That will be rectified in Canada's favor even if XL goes ahead.
You may not know this but Canadian crude flooding into and through the U.S. is causing a $40 a barrel discount to international prices. That means that if Canada can capture the premium from the international market then a million barrel a day export system is producing a $40 million dollar a day profit over the existing profit margin.
Do the math on that profit day in and day out for decades and tell me if you think that no one figure out how to get it.
26. sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to northernguy
04:42 PM 2/15/13 in writing about the Oil Sands, the XL pipeline and alternatives....
....However, The USA will not be party to having all that heavy crude coursing over its main watershed and prime agricultural land just to enable oil companies to increase their exports to BRIC countries. And the USA will not be a party to the moonscapes and heavy CO2 pollution caused by the Tar Sands extraction process either. So yes, this is one of the strongest and most effective statements President Obama can make concerning climate change.....
Basically, the issue is whether one should rely on Daryl Hannah for information on pipelines and oil products no matter how good looking she is If you believe her the Oil Sands are some kind of hither to unknown material that has strange and unknowable properties. Not the least of its magical properties is its ability to create hurricanes.
There are already pipelines carrying heavy crude all over the U.S. There are already existing facilities that are used primarily for export purposes. The crude currently used in those facilities is not much different than that which will be carried in the XL.
The main source in the future will be Saudi, which will be processed in tidewater U.S.facilities which are in large part Saudi owned. To keep them in the game the Saudis have been given a sweet tax deal that makes it hard for new American facilities to compete. The future imported oil is from Saudi companies, transported on Saudi contracted ships, processed by Saudi owned facilities n the U.S. and sold by Saudi companies to Saudi customers. Previously the main source was Mexico and Venezuela but those countries production is in decline.
The purpose of the XL is to replace the Saudi oil with Canadian. Either way the same amount of oil will be extracted, processed and sold on the international market. The only question is who gets the benefits Americans and Canadians or O.P.E.C countries.
It is America's interest for the XL to happen.
All of you are talking about oil this or oil that when what you should be saying to your selves is lets get out of this economic hole we are in. why not develop all sources of energy and use them to bring our selves out of this hole we are in. Petolium produces all the plastic we use all the gas that takes us to and from this place and that. so why not reap some of the benefits from the home land thus the good ole United States of America and keep the money at home, while helping other countries that are at a lessor state than we are become a better country. doing this slowly though so as not to take the money from home land to quickly. we must rebuild, to redistribute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this34. luhng
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this03:39 AM 2/18/13 writes in part....
...so why not reap some of the benefits from the home land thus the good ole United States of America and keep the money at home, while helping other countries that are at a lessor state than we are become a better country. ......
There is a very large new oil field in North Dakota/Montana area. Oil extracted from this field is collected in Berthold N. Dakota and piped up to Canada where it is processed. Much of it remains in Canada while some ends up coming back down across the border much farther east.
The purpose of the XL pipeline is to bring oil from the oil sands, pick up the bakken play along the way and use the accumulated crude to replace foreign imports.
Why not reap some of the benefits for the U.S. is what the latter part of this thread has been all about.
Go Mr President. I hope you really can get the US moving towards fixing the damage and moving on to a sustainable energy future. I only hope you can convince the vested interests to finally accept reality and start acting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Luck.
The proposed alternative routes (To Northern Gateway) include the following: To Alaska and the port at Valdez (I don't buy it - if the US won't approve Keystone XL, why would they approve a route to Alaska?); expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline through BC to Vancouver (easier than Northern Gateway - the right-of-way already exists); a route to Churchill Manitoba and an easterly route tha involves conversion of existing, underutilized TCPL natural gas line running north of the Great Lakes to southern Ontario and reversal of existing oil pipelines after that point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce the oil reaches tidewater, it can be sold at world prices to any other market with tidewater access - including US gulf coast refineries.
37. gwmckenzie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to sault
05:59 PM 2/23/13 writes....
...(I don't buy it - if the US won't approve Keystone XL, why would they approve a route to Alaska?);.....
I think it would be very hard for Obama to deny access to the Alaskan system if economics warranted it.
First: In Alaska there is an existing rail route that crosses the border and is routinely used for all manner of goods. It does not require a U.S. state department permit because it has been in use for decades. The XL pipeline is a new crossing and as such requires a new permit.
Second: Despite what Daryl Hanna and Sault would have you believe all manner of petroleum products,in large volumes, some from the oil sands, cross the border going in both directions on a daily basis.
Third: Without the XL, the oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota will continue to be transported into Canada. That oil would be part of the material shipped into Alaska if that route is used. If Obama were to try and block shipping oil into Alaska from Canada he would be blocking American oil from being handled in Alaska and forced into alternative routes intended for delivery to China etc.
Fourth: And this is very important. Canada and the U.S. have an agreement that Canada can not withhold oil deliveries to the U.S. no matter what international market conditions exist. No matter what conditions exist in Canada or the world, Canada can not reduce U.S. bound oil flows below the existing proportion of Canadian production. If Canadian/American oil flow was twenty per cent of Canadian production in 2012, then in 2013 it cannot drop below that figure if there is market demand for it in the U.S. If Obama forces a decline in that figure then Canada is free to make long term commitments for that oil to anyone they choose and we know who is looking to tie up all of Canada's production if they can get it.
Finally, blocking the Alaska oil route, should it become feasible, would require Obama to say that this oil using this route is blocked even though identical oil using identical transport routes but to different destinations (Chicago, Tulsa) for no reason other than Daryl Hannah doesn't like it.
I don't think so.
Now the economics of it are a different thing entirely.