[Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 11:32:15 PDT 2010
The Alberta tar sands project is not "domestic" if that means inside the
borders of the US; but it of course is nearby and on the territory of a US
ally. The oil shale deposits in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming of course are
domestic, and given your statements, it seems this is the oil development
you might promote, especially given this is the largest domestic oil
deposit, which is why I asked if you promoted development of US domestic oil
shale.
Yes, oil shale is expensive to develop. The Alberta tar sands were once
considered too expensive and/or difficult to develop, also. It is only a
matter of time before oil prices climb, and easy to extract oil becomes less
abundant. Also, developing the US oil shale can be argued is a national
security issue, for which part of the cost of development would be
government supported. Limited development of the US oil shale might be wise
as insurance against a severe oil crisis. If a severe oil crisis struck,
the infrastructure for oil shale development would be in place to supply
necessary oil.
I know enough already about the impacts of the technology employed to
extract and process Alberta tar sands oil, to know that it is both
immediately environmentally very destructive, and also emits huge amounts of
CO2, more than other forms of oil resource development. For these reasons I
do not think the massive Alberta tar sands development is wise. I can
understand limited development, while a all hands on deck approach to large
reductions in per capita US oil consumption is underway. But this is not
the reality of what is happening.
I assure you there is no "win" that I can claim on the issue of fossil fuel
dependence and anthropogenic climate warming. Both are massive problems
that are not being solved. Promoting even more environmentally destructive
massive and expanding oil developments, like the Alberta tar sands project,
while limited progress is made on reducing per capita oil consumption and
reducing CO2 emissions, then talking out the other side of the mouth about
promoting alternative energy and reducing US oil dependence, is, to put
it simply and bluntly, like f**king to promote chastity.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 6/9/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Just what is it that you're dying to know?
> I'm not an expert on the science and engineering involved in extracting oil
> from tar sands, nor am I an expert on the history or potential of the
> Alberta Tar Sands project in general. That's the homework I was referring
> to.
> I made an off-the-cuff remark about how expanding our domestic oil
> production might be considered "realistic" rather than "short-sighted". You
> responded a couple of times with posts I regret that I have not had the time
> to delve into in detail. I simply threw my opinion out there, and moved on.
> May it bless all that happen upon it. I did not realize that you were
> awaiting with baited breath my in-depth and timely responses to your posts.
> Couple that with just having arrived home after six hours of driving while
> not feeling well with a pounding headache, and you get my honest but
> admittedly rude response that included profanity, and, depending upon your
> particular religious leanings, blasphemy. I apologize for that.
>
> My impression from your "unanswered questions" post was that you were
> awaiting my answers and hearing no immediate response were concluding that I
> in fact had no worthwhile reply and you could thus mark this one off on your
> side of the "win" column since I'd taken a few days to reply. I normally
> don't care much about that, but as I say you caught me at a particularly bad
> time.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> You responded to my claim that the development of the Alberta tar sands
>> was "short sighted" by disagreeing that it was short sighted, calling it
>> "realistic," earlier in the recent "Alberta Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness
>> Gateway" thread regarding Nick Gier's article, that appeared under the title
>> of that subject heading, as an op-ed in today's Wednesday Moscow/Pullman
>> Daily News. Your last response on this issue stated you "...haven't done my
>> homework on it."
>> If you choose to not answer questions, that's your choice. Why you
>> responded angrily (if your profanity is a sign of anger) as though posting
>> here is some sort of dire obligation, I do not know. Vision2020 of course
>> is completely voluntary and no one has to respond to anyone if they do not
>> want to... Many questions go unanswered, which is why I posted that
>> sometimes the theme music for Vision2020 should be Charles Ives' "The
>> Unanswered Question"
>> Below is the previous post I am referring to, specifically on the Alberta
>> tar sands development, as the subject heading states, where you stated you
>> thought it was "realistic:"
>> [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070385.html
>> --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com <
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020>> wrote:
>> Some argue that it is a matter of national security and economic necessity
>> to develop and gain access to this huge oil resource that can reduce oil
>> dependence on other foreign oil sources, while we work on alternative energy
>> sources. But this is short sighted, given that climate change is a national
>> security and planetary wide risk that is increased with continued greenhouse
>> gas emissions, while time is running out to prevent climate change tipping
>> points that will be difficult to stop.
>> I wouldn't call it "short sighted", I'd call it "realistic".
>>
>> Here's how my logic goes:
>>
>> 1. We need power. We need it for a lot of things. Transportation of
>> goods, heating and cooling, powering factories, running our financial
>> systems, gathering resources, military defense, etc.
>>
>> 2. It would be better, for a lot of reasons, if we weren't dependent upon
>> fossil fuel use.
>>
>> 3. There are no alternative energy solutions of sufficient size that we
>> could turn to today to completely remove our dependence upon fossil fuels,
>> except nuclear (which the same people that are telling us to get off of
>> fossil fuels are throwing bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of).
>>
>> 4. There is no way that we could nix fossil fuel use within 20 years,
>> maybe even 50, even if we had the will to do it.
>>
>> 5. Using fossil fuels produced in politically insane countries that are
>> politically our enemies is unwise.
>>
>> 6. Given all the above, it would be better (in my opinion) to switch our
>> fuel usage as much as possible to local fuels or fuels from politically sane
>> countries in the short term, build up a network of nuclear power plants to
>> handle our minimum energy needs, switch over to electric cars, implement a
>> "smart" electric grid, and supplement with alternative energy as needed and
>> as they are developed.
>>
>> If the right incentives were given at the right times, it might be the
>> quickest way to remove our fossil fuel dependence. Taxing everything that
>> uses fuel, which is everything of any use to anybody pretty much, is
>> economic suicide. I'd rather that the government implement a
>> Manhattan-style project to bring up nuclear power, preferably using breeder
>> reactors and the latest technologies, and quit naively hoping that if we tax
>> the hell out of everybody they will magically find a better alternative
>> instead of just doing without and reverting to an agrarian society.
>> Meanwhile, China and India will continue to burn fossil fuels and (assuming
>> anthropogenic global warming is as dire as they say it is) we won't have the
>> resources or ability to handle the disasters as they happen.
>>
>> Anyway, that's my take on it.
>>
>> Paul
>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com<mailto:
>> godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jesus Christ, I've been gone all fucking weekend visiting family.
>> I wasn't aware there were time pressures involved here.
>>
>> If developing US oil shale would make us less dependent upon the
>> vagaries of Middle Eastern politics, then yes, I think it should
>> be developed. Having said that, I'm not trying to push the idea
>> of just developing everything we've got in some sort of global
>> mass-ignition of all oil-stock everywhere. I would prefer that if
>> we are going to use oil that we use our own or at least use that
>> of countries that are nominally our friends instead of our
>> enemies. Even if we have to put up with the downsides of such
>> production locally.
>>
>> I have no idea if oil from shale can compete with oil from Saudi
>> Arabia on price, though.
>>
>> I'll have to beg for an extension on your Alberta Tar Sands
>> production question, since I haven't done my homework on it. I
>> would like to say generally that people seem to want the best of
>> both worlds all the time. They want alternative energy, but don't
>> want unsightly windmills to clutter up their view. They want to
>> get us off of coal for energy production, but block nuclear power
>> with bureaucratic bullshit. They want us not to be involved in
>> Middle Eastern wars with oil being the elephant in the room, but
>> they don't want to deal with the downsides that domestic
>> production would bring with it. There is no perfect solution.
>> Just give up on that particular pipe dream. Welcome to the real
>> world.
>>
>> Am I free to go, or do you need anything else from me?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes the theme music for Vision2020 should be Charles
>> Ives' "The Unanswered Question."
>> http://www.charlesives.org/ives_essay/index.htm
>>
>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6co3j_charles-ives-the-unanswered-questio_music
>> Unanswered question from previous post below:
>>
>> Do you approve of development of US oil shale?
>>
>> On 6/3/10, *Ted Moffett* <starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> I went along with what I understood to be your basic
>> argument when
>> I asked why large scale development of the oil shale in Utah,
>> Colorado and Wyoming is not being proposed on Vision2020, to
>> expand domestic oil reserves and potential supply, given
>> realistically our economy is going to be oil dependent for
>> decades, and questionable international sources of oil.
>> This is a
>> oil resource multiple times the size of Saudi Arabia's
>> reserves. Do you approve of development of US oil shale?
>> Though oil from oil shale is expensive, it is only a
>> matter of
>> time before oil becomes more scarce and much more costly,
>> and then
>> oil shale may be economically profitable. Also, developing the
>> oil shale now could be viewed as a matter of national security
>> (
>>
>> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
>> ). I received an "Off List" response from an Idaho legislator
>> about my suggestion, and they agreed that the huge amounts of
>> water required for shale development are one of the
>> problems, with
>> environmental contamination also. They said the water laws
>> of the
>> west would need to be rewritten for oil shale development.
>> Of course, Alberta tar sands production is also an
>> environmental
>> problem. I thought you were defending the Alberta tar
>> sands production,
>> even with its negatives, given the necessity for access to oil
>> from friendly allies, and the reality of our oil dependence
>> continuing for decades.
>> Are you defending the environmentally destructive
>> Alberta tar
>> sands production, or did I misunderstand? I also
>> sourced "Plan B" from the Earth Policy Institute
>> ( /http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf/
>> ), though even if it is possible to some extent, I do not
>> think
>> it is politically likely. Too many very powerful entrenched
>> economic interests are making a killing on the global
>> fossil fuel
>> economy. And many people simply do not want to change how they
>> live, or even believe there is any substantial reason why they
>> should. Anthropogenic climate warming is a hoax!
>> I agree that next generation nuclear power should be
>> greatly
>> expanded, but again, this does not appear to be promoted to the
>> extent required to largely replace coal as the US number one
>> electrical power source.
>> I don't realistically think these problems will be
>> addressed in a
>> timely fashion, and that as climate change, oil depletion,
>> overpopulation, environmental degradation, etc. come
>> together in a
>> perfect storm during the later decades of this century, with
>> numerous nations armed to the teeth... But for anyone who cares
>> about the next generation etc., there is no time to waste
>> to move
>> civilization off fossil fuels, to a sustainable way of
>> life, with
>> all that implies. There is no other sane choice but to promote
>> these goals, even if the odds of success this century are
>> meager.
>> And I don't mean a return to ox driven agriculture and
>> horse drawn
>> buggies. One critical reason we should reduce our
>> dependence on
>> fossil fuel oil is to save them for energy needs difficult to
>> replace by alternative energy, along with all the other
>> products
>> from oil. Powering a combine with fossil fuel oil might be
>> one of
>> those necessities, rather than wasting fossil fuel oil on a
>> horsepower fiend race car to impress the co-workers in the
>> commute
>> to work.
>> I do not agree that addressing climate change now is
>> so costly it
>> is not in the long term economically reasonable. The long term
>> costs of allowing climate change to accelerate by not now
>> addressing it, are greater that the costs of taking action
>> now. Arguing that China and India won't cooperate,
>> therefore let's
>> continue contributing to a problem that is inevitable
>> anyway, is a
>> fatalistic and irresponsible approach. If the US makes
>> substantial progress to address climate change, China and
>> India,
>> who both face dire consequences from climate change, will be
>> encouraged to also address the problem. It is in their
>> long term
>> interest also.
>> Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman addresses how we
>> can afford
>> to address climate change in this analysis at the website
>> below:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html
>> -----------------------
>> The Stern Report on the economics of climate change is one
>> of the
>> most often referenced reports arguing that taking action now is
>> less costly than allowing climate change to accelerate.
>> Below is
>> a reference to the Stern Report, followed by a critical
>> academic
>> analysis that finds merit and fault:
>>
>> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
>>
>> http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/JELSternReport.pdf
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 6/2/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com
>>
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You don't like my plan. *sniff*
>>
>> Well then, what would you suggest?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>> I suppose the analysis, "Plan B," at the website below,
>> from the Earth Policy Institute, is not worth reading,
>> compared to the "critique" you praise, given that you
>> "don't think anyone has said it better?"
>>
>> http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf
>> To more fully flesh out the tax issue regarding fossil
>> fuels: "Taxing everything that uses fuel... is
>> economic
>> suicide" the no one has said it better critique states.
>> */Yet the Earth Policy Institute analysis I reference
>> advocates what is regarded by prominent economists as a
>> reasonable economic policy to assist the transition
>> away
>> from fossil fuels to other energy sources, "tax
>> shifting./*" Income taxes, for example, are
>> lowered, to
>> offset taxes on fossil fuel emissions. The tax
>> burden on
>> the consumer and the tax revenues to the government can
>> remain stable. The full economic implications
>> require a
>> professional economic analysis, beyond the scope of
>> this post.
>> But to make broad and hyperbolic statements about
>> "economic suicide" from taxing fossil fuels is to not
>> address the complexities of some of the proposals
>> on this
>> issue from professional economists. There are several
>> other oversimplifications, misrepresentations and
>> logical
>> errors that should be addressed. But this thread once
>> again so far is just restating from the same
>> participants
>> the same positions in general terms that have been
>> parsed
>> over and over on Vision2020. I'll offer a proposal for
>> fossil fuel oil domestic security that I do not recall
>> being advocated often, if ever, on Vision2020.
>> The argument is that we cannot "realistically"
>> lessen our
>> dependence on fossil fuel oil soon enough to avoid
>> these
>> more environmentally damaging developments, such as the
>> Alberta tar sands.
>> */Therefore, given this logic, why not open the
>> oil shale
>> in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming to full scale
>> development?
>> This is the largest fossil fuel oil deposit in the
>> US, by
>> far. Why is there no advocacy for this from those
>> arguing
>> on Vision2020 for the saneness of the Alberta tar sands
>> development? Would they rather Canada shoulder the
>> environmental damage, rather than the US, if we
>> developed
>> our domestic oil shale?/* I understand from my reading
>> that one of the problems with shale development is the
>> huge amount of water required. But for those who are
>> "realistic" about our needs for fossil fuel oil, they
>> won't object to Idaho's water resources being
>> diverted to
>> Wyoming for shale development, assuming this is
>> feasible,
>> correct? The most "commercially attractive" oil
>> shale are
>> mostly on federal land (read "Oil Shale and Tar Sands
>> Program EIS" info at website below). But if we can
>> stop
>> those big government regulators and bureaucrats and
>> environmentalists, who might block development, the
>> free
>> market can work it's magic for domestic oil security.
>> Info on the immense US oil shale at websites
>> below, with
>> arguments that this resource can be "realistically"
>> developed:
>> From "Oil and Gas Journal":
>>
>> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
>> From "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS":
>>
>> http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
>> Domestic fossil fuel oil, more than Saudi Arabia!
>> After
>> all, let's be "realistic."
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> On 6/2/10, *lfalen* <lfalen at turbonet.com
>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>
>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com
>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com
>>
>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>
>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com
>> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>>>> wrote:
>>
>> Paul
>> An excellent critique. I don't think anyone has
>> said it
>> better.
>> Roger
>> -----Original message-----
>> From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>>
>> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:34:48 -0700
>> To: "nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>>
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>>>"
>> nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>>
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>
>>
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>>>, Ted
>> Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>>
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>>>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands
>> and Idaho's
>> Wilderness Gateway
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett
>> <starbliss at gmail.com <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>>
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>>
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>> > Some argue that it is a matter of national
>> security
>> and economic
>> necessity to develop and gain access to this
>> huge oil
>> resource
>> that can reduce oil dependence on other foreign oil
>> sources, while
>> we work on alternative energy sources. But this is
>> short sighted,
>> given that climate change is a national security and
>> planetary
>> wide risk that is increased with continued
>> greenhouse gas
>> emissions, while time is running out to prevent
>> climate
>> change
>> tipping points that will be difficult to stop.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't call it "short sighted", I'd call it
>> "realistic".
>> >
>> > Here's how my logic goes:
>> >
>> > 1. We need power. We need it for a lot of
>> things. Transportation of goods, heating and
>> cooling,
>> powering
>> factories, running our financial systems, gathering
>> resources,
>> military defense, etc.
>> >
>> > 2. It would be better, for a lot of reasons,
>> if we
>> weren't
>> dependent upon fossil fuel use.
>> >
>> > 3. There are no alternative energy solutions of
>> sufficient size
>> that we could turn to today to completely remove our
>> dependence
>> upon fossil fuels, except nuclear (which the same
>> people that are
>> telling us to get off of fossil fuels are throwing
>> bureaucratic
>> roadblocks in the way of).
>> >
>> > 4. There is no way that we could nix fossil
>> fuel use
>> within 20
>> years, maybe even 50, even if we had the will to
>> do it.
>> >
>> > 5. Using fossil fuels produced in politically
>> insane
>> countries
>> that are politically our enemies is unwise.
>> >
>> > 6. Given all the above, it would be better (in my
>> opinion) to
>> switch our fuel usage as much as possible to local
>> fuels or fuels
>> from politically sane countries in the short term,
>> build up a
>> network of nuclear power plants to handle our
>> minimum
>> energy
>> needs, switch over to electric cars, implement a
>> "smart" electric
>> grid, and supplement with alternative energy as
>> needed
>> and as they
>> are developed.
>> >
>> > If the right incentives were given at the right
>> times, it might
>> be the quickest way to remove our fossil fuel
>> dependence. Taxing
>> everything that uses fuel, which is everything
>> of any
>> use to
>> anybody pretty much, is economic suicide. I'd
>> rather
>> that the
>> government implement a Manhattan-style project
>> to bring
>> up nuclear
>> power, preferably using breeder reactors and the
>> latest
>> technologies, and quit naively hoping that if we tax
>> the hell out
>> of everybody they will magically find a better
>> alternative instead
>> of just doing without and reverting to an agrarian
>> society. Meanwhile, China and India will
>> continue to
>> burn fossil
>> fuels and (assuming anthropogenic global warming
>> is as
>> dire as
>> they say it is) we won't have the resources or
>> ability
>> to handle
>> the disasters as they happen.
>> >
>> > Anyway, that's my take on it.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100611/3fc6109b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list