Pipelines - Yay or Nay?

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps not. I was recently reading a PLOS1 article in which it was proposed that "fossil fuels" may actually be a misnomer. It's actually more properly referred to as hydrocarbons. The interesting thing in the article was the proposition that these hydrocarbons may not all have been formed by organic deposits. (Although some may certainly have been.) But rather that the process of forming hydrocarbon particles was actually a natural process of geological function that is still ongoing. In other words, the earth may very well renew its own oil reserves over time.

That may sound like an astounding claim, but consider that the more space exploration we do, the more hydrocarbons we find. All the planets in our solar system have varying degrees of hydrocarbons. They are present in asteroids, the occasional meteor, comets, and according to the Hubble telescope, even some nearby planets, and even wide open inter-planetary space. They are found in abundance in our universe. Although, perhaps not always in the black, liquid form we think of as "oil."

Almost all fossil fuels are a result of biologic activity. Very very little is from other sources. The concept of abiogenic petroleum is much ballyhooed and overblown by science deniers. There is a simple way to test petroleum to see if it is abiogenic or not. Life does not like C13 as much as it likes C12. As a result petroleum that is a fossil fuel has a slightly different concentration of C13 than is found in the atmosphere.

And all coal is from fossils. There are no abiogenic sources of that.

 

[UpperLimits]

Yes, but ancient temperature changes were not caused by man nor were anywhere near as fast. It is the speed of temperature change that is a threat.

Man is responsible for these changes, there is no doubt about that. Don't you think we should try to correct our errant behavior?

Only if you consider it "errant." I'm just not of that mindset.

Nature itself can cause some pretty dramatic changes - and pretty fast too. Consider a volcano. On April 10, 1815, Mount Tambora on Sumbawa island, Indonesia erupted with such a great force that the resulting plume plunged the planet into "nuclear winter for a couple years." I'd say that's pretty fast.

 

[UpperLimits]

Almost all fossil fuels are a result of biologic activity. Very very little is from other sources. The concept of abiogenic petroleum is much ballyhooed and overblown by science deniers. There is a simple way to test petroleum to see if it is abiogenic or not. Life does not like C13 as much as it likes C12. As a result petroleum that is a fossil fuel has a slightly different concentration of C13 than is found in the atmosphere.

And all coal is from fossils. There are no abiogenic sources of that.

Biogenic. Abiogenic. Ya know, I really don't care as long as it runs my furnace!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you consider it "errant." I'm just not of that mindset.

Nature itself can cause some pretty dramatic changes - and pretty fast too. Consider a volcano. On April 10, 1815, Mount Tambora on Sumbawa island, Indonesia erupted with such a great force that the resulting plume plunged the planet into "nuclear winter for a couple years." I'd say that's pretty fast.

Sorry, that is just wrong on your part. No one in the sciences considers past temperatures "errant". Try again. And please no red herrings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biogenic. Abiogenic. Ya know, I really don't care as long as it runs my furnace!

Then why bring up the bogus claim? Grasping at straws so early is not a good sign.

 

[UpperLimits]

Then why bring up the bogus claim? Grasping at straws so early is not a good sign.

PLOS1 publishes bogus claims? Who knew? I always thought they were a respected scientific journal. Guess I'll just have start relying on the Inquirer instead.

 

[UpperLimits]

Sorry, that is just wrong on your part. No one in the sciences considers past temperatures "errant". Try again. And please no red herrings.

Talk about red herrings. You need to learn to read context. Yeesh!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Talk about red herrings. You need to learn to read context. Yeesh!!

I read the context. At best you are grasping at straws.

Scientists know that the temperature of the Earth varied in the past. And climate scientists know the role that carbon dioxide played. Right now the amount of carbon dioxide is rising faster than at any other time in the recent history of the Earth. It probably occurred at this rate during the Permian extinction from natural causes. That resulted in one of the largest extinctions ever in the history of the Earth. It is called "The Great Dying":


Permian–Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia

One of the top most likely causes was massive CO2 from the Siberian Traps. One of the largest volcanic eruptions in the history of the Earth. Anything that you can think of in the modern age is orders of magnitude smaller.

Now we probably won't get near that event, but that event was not avoidable. Our putting endless CO2 into the atmosphere is endable. The real suffering will not be for you or even for your children, though they will feel a pinch or two. It is your grandchildren and beyond that will suffer.

And the technology to end consumption of fossil fuels is pretty much here. Everywhere but the U.S. in the developed world is leaps and bounds beyond us in both solar and wind energy. And electric cars are already outperforming their gasoline competition. With more production the only remaining barrier, price will fall.

 

[Subduction Zone]

PLOS1 publishes bogus claims? Who knew? I always thought they were a respected scientific journal. Guess I'll just have start relying on the Inquirer instead.

Not what I said. When you misinterpret an article your claims are bogus. Try again.

You did not even link the article. The most likely explanation is that you misunderstood it. Here let me help:

http://richardheinberg.com/richard-heinberg-on-abiotic-oil

The long and short of it is that abotic oil is refuted by economics. Oil companies that use the abiotic oil theory go out of business. Those that use the biotic theory, not so much. One bit of very strong evidence for the biotic origin of oil is that some ages appear to produce much more oil than others. If the origin was abiotic it should not matter that much if the strata was Cambrian or Carboniferous. The best era for oil production was the Mesozoic. Roughly 70% of oil comes from that time:

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g3/16.pdf

There could be some oil from abiotic sources, but it is very obvious that most "fossil fuels" are fossil fuels.

 

[UpperLimits]

Not what I said. When you misinterpret an article your claims are bogus. Try again.

You did not even link the article. The most likely explanation is that you misunderstood it. Here let me help:

http://richardheinberg.com/richard-heinberg-on-abiotic-oil

The long and short of it is that abotic oil is refuted by economics. Oil companies that use the abiotic oil theory go out of business. Those that use the biotic theory, not so much. One bit of very strong evidence for the biotic origin of oil is that some ages appear to produce much more oil than others. If the origin was abiotic it should not matter that much if the strata was Cambrian or Carboniferous. The best era for oil production was the Mesozoic. Roughly 70% of oil comes from that time:

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g3/16.pdf

There could be some oil from abiotic sources, but it is very obvious that most "fossil fuels" are fossil fuels.

I don't know that this entirely refutes things. We can make assumptions based on reasonable parameters. For example, we know that one basic process for making oil is to apply heat and pressure to biomass. That by itself could explain the differential in production ratios. There was obviously a lot of biomass in that era.

That however doesn't explain though why compounds we generally associate with biological origins are also commonly found in other places, specifically those outside of what we normally consider to be the biological domain. Obviously there must be (an)other way(s) of forming these same compounds. Keep in mind that there is no actual way to tell whether an a specific sample of a compound is biotic or abiotic in origin. (After all, chemical compounds don't exactly have little stamps saying, "Made by T-Rex & Co." on them.) What we are using could very well be a mix.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know that this entirely refutes things. We can make assumptions based on reasonable parameters. For example, we know that one basic process for making oil is to apply heat and pressure to biomass. That by itself could explain the differential in production ratios. There was obviously a lot of biomass in that era.

That however doesn't explain though why compounds we generally associate with biological origins are also commonly found in other places, specifically those outside of what we normally consider to be the biological domain. Obviously there must be (an)other way(s) of forming these same compounds. Keep in mind that there is no actual way to tell whether an a specific sample of a compound is biotic or abiotic in origin. (After all, chemical compounds don't exactly have little stamps saying, "Made by T-Rex & Co." on them.) What we are using could very well be a mix.

Do you have anything besides handwaving? I am unaware of any significant oil sources that are not of biotic origin. I could be wrong. But once again there is a reason that petroleum geologists pull in the big bucks. Knowing where to drill saves oil companies fortunes.

 

[UpperLimits]

I read the context. At best you are grasping at straws.

Scientists know that the temperature of the Earth varied in the past. And climate scientists know the role that carbon dioxide played.(And they also know that there is no correlation in CO2 and temperature until about 2M years ago and after that any "temperature change" that happened followed by about a mere 800 years, so presumably there may be other significant factors in this equation they're not entirely sure about.) Right now the amount of carbon dioxide is rising faster than at any other time in the recent history of the Earth. (Yes, and it's made the planet greener. Visible on satellite photos in the past 60 years.) It probably occurred at this rate during the Permian extinction from natural causes. That resulted in one of the largest extinctions ever in the history of the Earth. It is called "The Great Dying":


Permian–Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia

One of the top most likely causes was massive CO2 from the Siberian Traps. One of the largest volcanic eruptions in the history of the Earth. Anything that you can think of in the modern age is orders of magnitude smaller. (Yes, I've heard of that one. Although it's not certain whether Co2 emissions rising were the cause, or the effect . It seems there's a couple of theories floating around about this event.)

Now we probably won't get near that event, but that event was not avoidable. Our putting endless CO2 into the atmosphere is endable. . (Just can't wrap my head around people who hate plants so much.... It's Plant Food man, Plant Food!!) The real suffering will not be for you or even for your children, though they will feel a pinch or two. It is your grandchildren and beyond that will suffer. . (Now there goes the eviro-blubbering... good grief.)

And the technology to end consumption of fossil fuels is pretty much here. (LOL. Just about bankrupted Spain.) Everywhere but the U.S. (Yeah, They're so backward there. ) in the developed world is leaps and bounds beyond us in both solar and wind energy. (Which are useless at night when there's no wind. That's why I'm in debt and still connected to the grid. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not at all against alternative energy. It's just not the bill of good they'd like to sell us. - Not yet anyways.) And electric cars are already outperforming their gasoline competition. (And typically charged by.... Oh Gee!! Fossil fuels. Hmm.) With more production the only remaining barrier, price will fall.(And government subsidies. Don't forget that!! LOTS of subsidies!! To the point that you can hardly afford the tax bill after buying into their solar panel and wind generator projects. ANYTHING will appear cheaper than oil after paying the subsidies supporting "alternative energies." Look. If it's such a good thing, then make it economically viable instead of giving people subsidies to buy a Tesla! Yet even with the subsidies, how many of these alternative energy companies have gone the way of the dodo in just the past 10 years?)

 

[UpperLimits]

Frankly, I've pretty much "had it" with environmentalists who show off their hypocrisy in public. Especially those who are against Alberta oil. Build that damn pipeline!

but do we really need to build these stupid straight lines over the land of people who don't want it?

The Kinder Morgan (former) pipeline was an EXPANSION PROJECT. There was ALREADY a pipeline currently in the ground. All the company wanted to do was set a second line beside the existing line. Right of ways were ALREADY in place. Oil was ALREADY being transported in the current line. Consultations were limited simply because there was NO NEW INCURSION into any of the claimed affected lands or people. The line simply would have ran beside the existing route which BTW, has been operating without any concern or interference since the 1950's.

What is happening in this situation is that there is considerable political interference into what should be, a relatively simple business transaction. The money trail has been extensively followed by media hounds and it is a well known fact that most of this interference is being led by environmentalist groups, most of them operating out of the USA, or Europe.

For example: One Indian band claiming to be affected by the pipeline has NO property whatsoever along the affected route. In fact, their land is over 100 km away from the route. Why are they protesting? They are being paid by the Tides Foundation. (And no, I'm not going to offer any "proof." It's my experience that when dealing with leftie enviro-nuts, no amount of proof is ever good enough anyways. If you really want proof, then go do your own homework. It's in the news and it's all available online!)

The Northern Gateway was purposefully cancelled by the Trudeau government. Despite many of the necessary approvals being in place for years before JT and Co. came along, they just made it impossible by changing the rules halfway through the game. Oh, and their new tanker ban? You know, the one that supposedly "protects the environment?" (Ever read the fine print on bill C69???) It only bans tankers carrying Alberta oil and Alberta oil products. It wont ban any of the tankers for the new 40B LNG project BC just announced last month! Apparently, those tankers aren't a concern.

This whole political sham has just been one act of hypocrisy following after another. All of it cheered on by a bunch of out of touch with reality environmentalists, and paid protesters.

Let me tell you exactly how informed some of these environmentalists are.... True story. Scouts honor!! You can look it up online for yourself!!.... Leonardo DeCaprio flew into Fort McMurray a couple years back. (Did I mention on a private jet? Low carbon footprint model, I suspect.) It was the middle of January and the temperature was around plus 10 degrees (For you guys in the States, that's about 50 in your scale) and the snow was melting. His conclusion? The reason the it was so warm and the snow was melting??? Climate Change!!! And THIS was the proof!!

Well, Mr DeCaprio.... Sorry to inform you: The sky is not falling and no - we really don't need you save the planet for us.

What was happening here was a weather phenomenon called a "Chinook." Basically, what happens is an Arctic high pressure zone moves off to the east, and it draws a stream of warm Pacific air from the south west, bringing warm temperatures to the region during the mid winter. This happens, on average, 4 - 6 times a season. It's a NORMAL weather pattern for the area. It's been happening for several millennia now. In fact, it's been happening for so long that even the Natives had a word to describe it before the white man came. It's called a "Chinook."

 

[Trackdayguy]

Frankly, I've pretty much "had it" with environmentalists who show off their hypocrisy in public. Especially those who are against Alberta oil. Build that damn pipeline!



The Kinder Morgan (former) pipeline was an EXPANSION PROJECT. There was ALREADY a pipeline currently in the ground. All the company wanted to do was set a second line beside the existing line. Right of ways were ALREADY in place. Oil was ALREADY being transported in the current line. Consultations were limited simply because there was NO NEW INCURSION into any of the claimed affected lands or people. The line simply would have ran beside the existing route which BTW, has been operating without any concern or interference since the 1950's.

What is happening in this situation is that there is considerable political interference into what should be, a relatively simple business transaction. The money trail has been extensively followed by media hounds and it is a well known fact that most of this interference is being led by environmentalist groups, most of them operating out of the USA, or Europe.

For example: One Indian band claiming to be affected by the pipeline has NO property whatsoever along the affected route. In fact, their land is over 100 km away from the route. Why are they protesting? They are being paid by the Tides Foundation. (And no, I'm not going to offer any "proof." It's my experience that when dealing with leftie enviro-nuts, no amount of proof is ever good enough anyways. If you really want proof, then go do your own homework. It's in the news and it's all available online!)

The Northern Gateway was purposefully cancelled by the Trudeau government. Despite many of the necessary approvals being in place for years before JT and Co. came along, they just made it impossible by changing the rules halfway through the game. Oh, and their new tanker ban? You know, the one that supposedly "protects the environment?" (Ever read the fine print on bill C69???) It only bans tankers carrying Alberta oil and Alberta oil products. It wont ban any of the tankers for the new 40B LNG project BC just announced last month! Apparently, those tankers aren't a concern.

This whole political sham has just been one act of hypocrisy following after another. All of it cheered on by a bunch of out of touch with reality environmentalists, and paid protesters.

Let me tell you exactly how informed some of these environmentalists are.... True story. Scouts honor!! You can look it up online for yourself!!.... Leonardo DeCaprio flew into Fort McMurray a couple years back. (Did I mention on a private jet? Low carbon footprint model, I suspect.) It was the middle of January and the temperature was around plus 10 degrees (For you guys in the States, that's about 50 in your scale) and the snow was melting. His conclusion? The reason the it was so warm and the snow was melting??? Climate Change!!! And THIS was the proof!!

Well, Mr DeCaprio.... Sorry to inform you: The sky is not falling and no - we really don't need you save the planet for us.

What was happening here was a weather phenomenon called a "Chinook." Basically, what happens is an Arctic high pressure zone moves off to the east, and it draws a stream of warm Pacific air from the south west, bringing warm temperatures to the region during the mid winter. This happens, on average, 4 - 6 times a season. It's a NORMAL weather pattern for the area. It's been happening for several millennia now. In fact, it's been happening for so long that even the Natives had a word to describe it before the white man came. It's called a "Chinook."



View attachment 26625

YES. 100% in agreement.