Canada must refine its own oil.

[astrocat]

The Alberta Pipeline disaster is just one of a litany of leaky pipelenes. And what terrible damage they do when they leak. They are an invitation to terrorists - if you bomb their pipeline you can do serious ecological damage. They don't want them in Nebraska and I can understand perfectly.

By shipping oil to the States for refining (then they can sell it back to us at 18 times the price) we are risking the environment - unnecessarily. A refinery right there at the Oil Sands is what we need - what we must have. That way we don't have to pay excessive amounts for our oil.

So come on, Canada. Get with the program. Can't we build our own refinery?

[mtbturtle]

hi astrocat,

The source for the quoted material?

[astrocat]

hi astrocat,

The source for the quoted material?

The newspapers I read - they're my source. I read '24 Hours' as well as 'Metro,' they're both freebies, but I also read the Toronto Globe and Mail - a very respected paper.

What part are you unclear on - that Nebraska doesn't want our pipeline? I might even have seen it on the news...

President Obama got a pipeline built - mostly built - but it's my understanding he couldn't persuade Nebraska. Nebraska must certainly be the bread-basket of the USA. Have you ever been to Nebraska? The soil there is black - that's how rich it is.

How would it go down - 'Oil Spill In Nebraska - hundreds of barrels leaks into the river!' Well as I remember, that's what happened in Alberta. I read there were a third of a million litres lost. Lost into the environment. How much of that oil will they recover?

No, I'll stand by what I say - that these oil spills must cease. If Canada would refine its own oil, right there at the tar-sands, then all the pollution would be kept in one place. Of course, there would be financial benefits, but they're secondary in this argument. This argument is about the environment - the ecology I like to call it. The place where we live. You have to see that?

[mtbturtle]

hi astrocat,

The source for the quoted material?

The newspapers I read - they're my source. I read '24 Hours' as well as 'Metro,' they're both freebies, but I also read the Toronto Globe and Mail - a very respected paper.

Are you quoting one of those papers directly in the above quote? or is that your own summary of the situation? Your own summary is fine but it is unclear if it is.

[astrocat]

hi astrocat,

The source for the quoted material?

The newspapers I read - they're my source. I read '24 Hours' as well as 'Metro,' they're both freebies, but I also read the Toronto Globe and Mail - a very respected paper.

Are you quoting one of those papers directly in the above quote? or is that your own summary of the situation? Your own summary is fine but it is unclear if it is.

I'm trying to remember, but about the oil spill in Alberta losing a third of a million litres to the environment, that part is a direct quote.

It's only my idea that Canada should refine its own oil. I never heard anyone say that before. The rest is my interpretations of my memories on the subject of oil-spills. More refineries means fewer pipelines, to me. These pipelines are an ecological land-mine, just waiting to go off.

I'd like to try my idea out in front of the world. I'd love to know what other people think of my idea.

[Forest_Dump]

Well, as unsupporteted as it is, I do agree with Astrocat's opinion here. Canada does have refineries already and could build more. That would indeed keep jobs and money in Canada. Although even the refined oil would still need to be transported from the refineries to the consumers, it does make sense that it would save money in the end. But building pipelines is not really a purely economic decision, it is more political in that the oilsands were developed using foreign money and shipping the oil to Texas for refining is being done to placate the Americans down there.

[ronjanec]

This is a very interesting question. I understand that there is a big shortage of oil refineries worldwide: So why doesn't Exxon, BP, Shell, or any other oil company build a new one? I think the last one built was many years ago.

Yes, they cost multiple billions to build, and can take up to 10 years to finish, but it still sounds like a great investment at least to me because of the again worldwide shortage of the same: Buffet, Gates, and others all have plenty of money to invest in something that could last for a hundred years, and that there is again a great demand for: So why is no one doing this?(including Canada, the US, and Iran)

Maybe everyone is afraid the world will run out of oil after 'peak oil', and a new oil refinery would not be needed by the time any new refinery was finished?

[astrocat]

Well, as unsupporteted as it is, I do agree with Astrocat's opinion here. Canada does have refineries already and could build more. That would indeed keep jobs and money in Canada. Although even the refined oil would still need to be transported from the refineries to the consumers, it does make sense that it would save money in the end. But building pipelines is not really a purely economic decision, it is more political in that the oilsands were developed using foreign money and shipping the oil to Texas for refining is being done to placate the Americans down there.

So you say its political - well you're probably right. But in terms of the environment, shipping the refined oil is usually done by rail or highway. Even that seems safer to me than a pipeline.

It's these pipelines that bother me. We just lost a third of a million litres in Alberta and I just feel that we should refine the oil wherever it is found, politicians aside.

[astrocat]

This is a very interesting question. I understand that there is a big shortage of oil refineries worldwide: So why doesn't Exxon, BP, Shell, or any other oil company build a new one? I think the last one built was many years ago.

Yes, they cost multiple billions to build, and can take up to 10 years to finish, but it still sounds like a great investment at least to me because of the again worldwide shortage of the same: Buffet, Gates, and others all have plenty of money to invest in something that could last for a hundred years, and that there is again a great demand for: So why is no one doing this?(including Canada, the US, and Iran)

Maybe everyone is afraid the world will run out of oil after 'peak oil', and a new oil refinery would not be needed by the time any new refinery was finished?

I don't think that's the reason they're not building refineries - here or anywhere else - it's because of politics.

But we do need a refinery at the tar-sands. I think that goes without saying. We're going to ship it south? Whose land will this pipeline traverse in Canada? Will it harm migration routes etc? Will it upset the First Nation people? And then it has to go through Nebraska! That's gotta be an environmental risk. There is so much to consider. And it all has to be considered.

[mtbturtle]

Nebraska? what about all the other states?

[Gregorygregg1]

Oil should be dead.  Today we are learning what should have been obvious from the beginning: wide scale reliance on any non renewable resource is a recipe for economic disaster.  I have been following the energy problem for some time now.  I even invested in Hydrogen technology and, of course, lost my shirt.  Exxon alone made over 40 billion dollars last year.  They have a big voice in the halls of power.  It is very much in their interest to keep us hooked on oil.  Oil companies are run by people who do not worry about little things like the environment, however much they protest that they do.  There is no amount of money that can fix the damage to the environment by Deepwater Horizon alone.  If the governments of the world put one tenth the investment in a renewable energy infrastructure as they do in killing people over oil, we would be free of the dependence that is crippling every nation both economically and environmentally.

[astrocat]

Nebraska? what about all the other states?

Good question, but Nebraska (by my reading of the situation) is the one telling your president Obama (God bless him) that they don't want any pipeline. Have you actually been to Nebraska? I think I asked you before.

[astrocat]

Oil should be dead.  Today we are learning what should have been obvious from the beginning: wide scale reliance on any non renewable resource is a recipe for economic disaster.  I have been following the energy problem for some time now.  I even invested in Hydrogen technology and, of course, lost my shirt.  Exxon alone made over 40 billion dollars last year.  They have a big voice in the halls of power.  It is very much in their interest to keep us hooked on oil.  Oil companies are run by people who do not worry about little things like the environment, however much they protest that they do.  There is no amount of money that can fix the damage to the environment by Deepwater Horizon alone.  If the governments of the world put one tenth the investment in a renewable energy infrastructure as they do in killing people over oil, we would be free of the dependence that is crippling every nation both economically and environmentally.

Well said! It's pretty hard to disagree with anything you said.

Oil should be dead, but it ain't - not yet. In the meantime it has the ability to do untold damage to the environment (Deepwater Horizon) as well as interrupt migration routes.

It's these pipelines that I'm objecting to. They're dangerous (ecologically) and an obvious terrorist target.
How do you feel about pipelines?

Don't you think they're dangerous?

[Gregorygregg1]

Yes pipelines are dangerous. Whether they are terrorist targets or not. Leaks get big quickly, and because we try to keep them out of sight, we tend to place them in environmentally sensitive places. Sentiment these days seems to be "Drill Baby Drill" on both sides of the isle. The technology I was investing in was on-site Hydrogen power generation because the way we provide power today makes electric power grids especially tempting targets. Our power sources are dreadfully poor choices from a national security standpoint. They only make sense if you're a wealthy capitalist who makes big bucks by maintaining the status quo.
Sorry if I sound a bit heated on this topic.

[mtbturtle]

Have you actually been to Nebraska? I think I asked you before.

astrocat,

yes I've been to Nebraska several times. Mostly driving across it. It takes forever! to get across.

[astrocat]

Yes pipelines are dangerous. Whether they are terrorist targets or not. Leaks get big quickly, and because we try to keep them out of sight, we tend to place them in environmentally sensitive places. Sentiment these days seems to be "Drill Baby Drill" on both sides of the isle. The technology I was investing in was on-site Hydrogen power generation because the way we provide power today makes electric power grids especially tempting targets. Our power sources are dreadfully poor choices from a national security standpoint. They only make sense if you're a wealthy capitalist who makes big bucks by maintaining the status quo.
Sorry if I sound a bit heated on this topic.

That's okay to feel heated on this subject. I don't like pipelines either - the fewer the better. You're right about our power sources.
But I'm trying to build a refinery right at the Tar-Sands. How do you feel about that? With all the pollution in one area, instead of all over the ecology. I feel kinda heated on this subject anyway. You make a lot of sense.

[astrocat]

Have you actually been to Nebraska? I think I asked you before.

astrocat,

yes I've been to Nebraska several times. Mostly driving across it. It takes forever! to get across.

Well that helps me, knowing you've been to Nebraska. Myself, I was struck by the wealth of the soil there. Did you notice it? It's black, if I'm not mistaken. It must be an important part of the US food chain.

My reading tells me that President Obama's pipeline will not be allowed to go through there. How do you see the situation?

I liked Omaha. I liked everything about Nebraska when I was there. Do we share any sentiments about Nebraska?

[mtbturtle]

My reading tells me that President Obama's pipeline will not be allowed to go through there. How do you see the situation?

dunno if the opposition in Nebraska is enough to halt the projects. I doubt it. I asked mostly because I wondered if there was something peculiar, special going on in Nebraska. If they had some unique concerns regarding the project and if that is why you mentioned Nebraska specifically.

edit: I was also wondering why you are referring to it as President Obama's pipeline? He ended up opposing the other proposal, didn't he? Is he supporting this one or something?

[astrocat]

My reading tells me that President Obama's pipeline will not be allowed to go through there. How do you see the situation?

dunno if the opposition in Nebraska is enough to halt the projects. I doubt it. I asked mostly because I wondered if there was something peculiar, special going on in Nebraska. If they had some unique concerns regarding the project and if that is why you mentioned Nebraska specifically.

edit: I was also wondering why you are referring to it as President Obama's pipeline? He ended up opposing the other proposal, didn't he? Is he supporting this one or something?

It's my understanding that tells me Obama, having completed most of the 'Keystone' pipeline - got stuck at Nebraska. This part he ouldn't do.

To my mind, they don't want the pipeline in Nebraska. Why would they want it in Canada? I kinow there is much opposition.

I think it would be much better for everyone if a refinery was built rigt there - at the Tar-Sands. This would keep all the pollution in one place (are refineries polluters?) I understand there have been 3 pipeline breaks in Alberta. We don't need them.