NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

GW Johnson · 2016-12-13 11:00:20

And just keep repeating the process all over, until there is no unspoiled land left for the farmer to buy. Then, just how are you going to eat?

Honestly, Tom, the reason you so often cannot see the real truth, is that your vision is clouded by completely-opaque politics.

Besides, there are only 42 barrels of crude in a standard 55-gal drum. They must leave considerable expansion space inside the sealed drum, because they are so lightly built and suffer so much abuse. If you knew anything at all about the oil business, really, you would have known that.

The truth here is that every pipeline ever built leaks, sooner or later. The sooner or later part depends upon how much quality and maintenance get done. Yet, pipelines cause less leak damage than trucks, trains, and ships. But it is not zero damage, never has been, and never will be zero.

The point of my saying that is this: if you route one through an otherwise sensitive area, like a water supply, then you are obligated to take the extra care to add features to contain the inevitable leaks better, and to do the extra quality and maintenance to make the incident interval later rather than sooner. That eats into profit, and the operators resist doing that.

Individuals see the ethical obligation. Companies generally do not; that's why we have to have laws and regulations, to force them to behave responsibly. It is partly a human nature thing: in the anonymity of a large organization, people will do evil they would never do individually. It is also partly a failing of business education: ethics classes are considered a joke. Only making the most money, unfettered by ethical constraints, is taught as the proper objective of business. I have seen this with my own eyes.

Greed by itself is not good, it is evil. Greed constrained by rules is good. Open markets are the most powerful engine of creation ever devised by man. But they are NOT self-governing. We have 10 millennia of recorded history proving that last statement.

The argument over the Dakota Access pipeline is really about threatening a water supply with the cheapest constructions that lack the needed safeguards. It's about cost. Greed unfettered. Nothing more than that.

Nothing less, either.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-13 11:03:55)

Void · 2016-12-13 19:18:24

GW, I think you have it right.

Granted, I would like to see the USA / North America & CO. have a very long term energy independence from those locations on the planet which have proven to be our cultural predators.

However, I can see that water and food are important, even if the USA is one of the most fortunate for farm land.

I would be willing to live with some energy importation if that is necessary, but would rather get any such imports from culturally friendly societies, that don't have sinister intentions.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-13 19:56:21

The energy use and from what types means that while I am searching for those same useful resource for mars an elsewhere I am also looking to learn what I can do what I can to improve my own situation when doing research for what it will take. There are so many forms of these that some can be made for next to nothing from a better than average do it yourselfer with the right tools and materials. While others are just beyond the ability without a far better selection of tools and materials.

The comes food to which the average american has lost there green thumbs and no very little of how to make things grow let alone husbandry of the many farm animals to make a meal from. These too I am learning as I post about them.....

Then comes shelter which unlike mars we have so many varieties to make as well as materials to chose from but these are also attached to the income of the wallet that wants to have it made. Unlike mars we have a ready made insitu resource to draw from which cost very little by comparison to that of what we are starting with on mars.

Void · 2016-12-13 20:02:25

Certainly true Spacenut.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-17 21:14:27

The enrgy connection is the one that binds the north american continent, where it knows no borders exist....
One industry will keep holding North America together, no matter what happens to NAFTA

Texas-refined gasoline fuels Mexican cars; natural gas from Canada helps heat the Midwest and cool California; electricity flows over the northern and southern U.S. borders in both directions. Perhaps one of the most surprising recent developments is the boom in U.S. natural gas that's flowing across the southern border, and the ambitious plans by the Mexican government to build more pipelines to take U.S. natural gas throughout Mexico and as far as Mexico City.

Here's you pipeline....
AAlvTur.img?h=327&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1353&y=495

And this is where its heading
AAlEMQq.img?h=420&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

With the only difference to making it work is we are on Earth and not mars....

Void · 2016-12-17 23:04:14

Here is a different pipeline.
Pipeline by the Chantays. It can be looked up. I removed it because one scene was possibly going to raise hackles.
Off topic I suppose, but when you think about a human trying to ride a wave through space time, it actually represents a really fine human mental accomplishment. And of course light in part is waves.

Back on topic, Peter Zeihan has a lot to say about fracking, natural gas, and Mexico.
And he also thinks that Mexico s going to be very prosperous, now having lower cost labor than China, and also better skilled labor, and being proximate to the USA.

Antius provide this, in a life support topic "Salt Ponds (Solar)".
Timbrel vaulting.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/11/ … aults.html
Multiple layers of tiles glued together, are immensely strong.

I am wondering about tiles glued into a pipe. The glue I am thinking of is tar.
I would hope to get the tar from organic waste.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
Feedstocks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_d … merization

So if tiles can be made by robots, using concentrated sunlight, and perhaps dirt or dune materials.
I am thinking tiles glued into a pipe per the trimble method, and perhaps wraped with high tensile cord of come kind to add strength.

I would think a tar/glue would be very stable in the Martian subsurface temperature range. And if your pipeline broke perhaps just a torch and some replacement tiles would allow it to be mended.

Its not that I don't appreciate metals, I just think that a robotic system that makes tiles, could really put a lot of them out. Better than metal, cost and practicality wise? Time would tell. There is certainly a lot more materials to make tiles out of. Dirt is rather ubiquitous isn't it

Last edited by Void (2016-12-17 23:45:55)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-18 07:51:09

Void wrote:

GW, I think you have it right.
Granted, I would like to see the USA / North America & CO. have a very long term energy independence from those locations on the planet which have proven to be our cultural predators.
However, I can see that water and food are important, even if the USA is one of the most fortunate for farm land.
I would be willing to live with some energy importation if that is necessary, but would rather get any such imports from culturally friendly societies, that don't have sinister intentions.

The think is tanker ships leak and they sink. If oil spills on land, the result is better than if it spills at sea, and the oil we buy from the Persian Gulf sometimes funds terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons to be used in terrorism. Just because pipelines leak, doesn't mean we should buy from the Arabs or the Russians, just because they are more willing to risk polluting their lands than we are! The ground acts as a filter for spilt oil just as it does for everything else. One can also filter one's water as it comes out of the tap. The question is do we use the environment as an excuse not to drill for our own oil?

SpaceNut · 2016-12-18 10:00:27

The filter though is for wells in the localized area is not so good as before you know that the leak has seeped into the depths of the earth the people living in the are have higher risks of developing cancer, lukemia ect....this is fact for those that live near leaking gas tanks....to which the cities now pay the burden of supplying bottle water for life to evergowing area effected, and providing city water to usually a place not close to the city at a huge expense.

Natural gas only explodes it does not contaminate.

So the big question is how do we not pay those of the axis with a solution that does not pollute?

GW Johnson · 2016-12-18 10:06:13

It's not an either-or choice whether to build pipelines or import oil. Turning it into a either-or choice is just political bullshit. The real problem is just a technical and economic problem, and it is easily solved.

It's really about taking extra care when the pipeline is routed through a vulnerable area like a water supply. That includes aquifer recharge zones as well as lakes and streams. Could apply to a pipe routed through food-producing land, or an inhabited neighborhood, too.

The "extra care" is not something exotic and super-expensive like pipes lined with tiles (and I have doubts whether that would ever really work). It's nothing but a double-walled pipe, with some sensing or instruments to detect any oil or water between the walls. Oil leaking into the space means a weld cracked or had a defect, because the outer pipe protects the inner pipe from corrosion by Earth pH. Water leaking into the space means corrosion has breached the outer pipe. In either case it's time to replace that section. So you space joints fairly close for easy replacement.

What you also do is require by law a fast response when either problem is detected. And prosecute the ever-loving-hell out of any who fail to respond same-day. It means extra expense for the double wall pipe construction, extra expense for having replacement supplies in inventory, and some extra cost to have people available who can turn about and respond quickly.

Balance that against the costs of trying to clean up a major spill disaster, when none has ever been satisfactorily cleaned up after-the-fact. The history of these things demonstrates that they leave continuing damage and expense, just not to the owner of the thing spilling the oil. Big money has been talking far louder than common sense and fairness, but that is easily fixed, too.

A double wall pipe with sensors is only somewhat more expensive than a dumb single wall pipe, but it is one hell of a lot more reliable at stopping leaks to the environment. So also is same day response to detected leaks into the space between the walls. Vulnerable water supplies rate the extra care and expense. It really is that simple. It is also a well-known and long-proven technology.

This same technology is already required and well-proven for underground oil product storage tanks, because we have found letting oil contaminate dirt is a bad thing.

Where the pipeline crosses not-so-vulnerable territory, you can use the cheaper plain dumb single-wall pipe, but you need berms and an impermeable-to-oil surface underneath it when routed aboveground. You need impermeable rock underneath it when routed below ground. The idea is to contain the spilled oil in one controlled place until you can find it and deal with it. You do not want it spreading uncontrolled across the surface or sinking into permeable dirt.

Steel WILL eventually corrode buried in dirt. Lifetime varies, but is measured in a small single-digit number of decades. The way to prevent leaks is to assess that lifetime and replace before corrosion causes a leak. Few outfits do this, because they are not compelled to by law. Most of the natural gas explosion disasters trace to corroded pipes left in the ground too long. Killing people-for-profit, is what that really is.

There are easy answers to all these problems, some technological, some legal. Institute them, and most of the problems go away. They are still un-instituted because of political ideology (which is all bullshit from both sides) interacting with uncontrolled greed in powerful organizations. It's that simple.

Why are we still arguing about this?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-18 10:13:32)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-18 20:15:16

This is just one example of why we can not trust those that build or run the pipelines...
Massive 2013 oil spill in North Dakota still not cleaned up

Crews have had to dig as deep as 50 feet to remove hundreds of thousands of tons of oil-tainted soil, Suess said. The company has now switched to special equipment that cooks hydrocarbons from crude-soaked soil in a process called thermal desorption before putting it back in place.

This Oct. 11, 2013 file photo shows cleanup at the site of a Tesoro Corp. pipeline break that spilled more than 20,000 barrels of oil into a Tioga, N.D., wheat field. The massive oil spill still isn't fully cleaned up three years and three months after it happened.

Which means that the weather can cause the area to need to be re-dugged as it seeps in even deeper from the summers heat and rain causing it to contaminate new areas....

But I do agree with GW that with the right piping design we can limit the chances so long as its maintained, monitored and repaired in a timely manner.

So in the topic we have identified protection of natural resources are a must as well as the water. The need for energy sources that are non polluting, managed, designed to meet the need to protect nature and affordable to make any economy stable and growing.

I would also say we need housing for elderly, homeless plus for other reasons, with some sort of community care and a means to make them productive. I an sure I stuck my foot in this one.....

Void · 2016-12-18 21:32:57

I don't like environmental fetishism. That is we cannot both support human life with a high standard of living, and also expect no alterations of nature. Don't misunderstand me I estimate that my attitude is very similar to GW Johnsons.

But here is something to consider:
http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural … s-sea.html

And I believe that this is a "Natural" oil spill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca … ly_history
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum … 4/stanton/

I am not justifying extraction caused oil spills as good. Certainly we want to keep clean water and good farm land, and other useful resources, and do not want to encourage the extinction of life forms.
I Quoted you Spacenut but numerated sections:

1)But I do agree with GW that with the right piping design we can limit the chances so long as its maintained, monitored and repaired in a timely manner.
2)So in the topic we have identified protection of natural resources are a must as well as the water. The need for energy sources that are non polluting, managed, designed to meet the need to protect nature and affordable to make any economy stable and growing.
3)I would also say we need housing for elderly, homeless plus for other reasons, with some sort of community care and a means to make them productive. I an sure I stuck my foot in this one.....

#1 I can also agree with #1.
#2 is all relative. Wind and Solar are not non-polluting. Any energy source will require management and tradeoffs to protect the investor, but also hold them accountable to limits of behavior.
#3 we certainly will not be able to afford #3, even if we did increase the amount of socialism, if we do not find and use resources.

You cannot redistribute wealth which is not created.
Wealth is created by the manipulation/amplification of human efforts in such a way as to tap nature.
You cannot tap nature without altering it.

Now if we could just kill all the people, problem solved. But we are rather fond of not being killed aren't we?

Sadly many non-American and also Socialist peoples around the world simply can't believe that if some other people are rich, they did not steal it. Very bad attitude. One that should not be rewarded. The Verbal and Violent should not be allowed to procure money from the productive using this excuse. It is bad for the whole human race. It is unfair to the productive, and it is a bad teaching for those who receive it as their schema of reality.

So, perhaps a question of social justice can be asked and analyzed/considered,

But really what we are talking about is showing mercy. Mercy can be offered to those who understand that they are unfortunate, and are getting a favor. Not to those who try to scam the system, and take other peoples lunch money.

But here in America/North America, we are extremely fortunate/competent.

We have hydrocarbon resources which are now competitive with all other oil and gas sources except the Persian Gulf. It is possible that eventually our oil will be competitive with Persian Gulf oil.

The USA has better demographics than almost any other nations in the world. Only SE Asia and perhaps Mexico look better.

And Mexico is becoming a wonderful workshop. Of course the name of that game is lower labor costs, which translate in the USA and Canada as lower consumer costs. Some see this as unfair. But in reality because of the USA, Mexico has a bright future, where as otherwise it should have developed into a failed state. The USA shares it's Market with Mexico, and in return Mexicans are involved in useful efforts.

I don't know to what degree NAFTA and free trade with Mexico will be challenged/altered, but it seems highly unlikely that we will not be trading with the Mexicans in some manner.

In other words our future is fantastically bright. And redistribution of wealth will be much less needed, because reshoring to the USA and Mexico are going to be very big going forward. We are about to recover the industrial society we had, and of course add to that high tech, including Wind and Solar, and Batteries will eventually make it competitive with Oil and Gas I believe.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-18 22:09:49)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-19 01:46:12

GW Johnson wrote:

It's not an either-or choice whether to build pipelines or import oil. Turning it into a either-or choice is just political bullshit. The real problem is just a technical and economic problem, and it is easily solved.

the real question is how expensive do you want your oil and gasoline. You can spend a lot of money with fail safes and for fail safes when the fail safes fail. You can get real paranoid about oil spill and pay $10 for a gallon of gasoline, just to make super secure pipelines within pipelines within pipelines, installing runner seals in case of earthquakes and posting sentries along the entire length of the pipeline in case of terrorist attack. How paranoid do you want to be and how much do you want to pay for that paranoia?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-12-19 02:00:21)

Antius · 2016-12-19 02:49:21

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
It's not an either-or choice whether to build pipelines or import oil. Turning it into a either-or choice is just political bullshit. The real problem is just a technical and economic problem, and it is easily solved.
the real question is how expensive do you want your oil and gasoline. You can spend a lot of money with fail safes and for fail safes when the fail safes fail. You can get real paranoid about oil spill and pay $10 for a gallon of gasoline, just to make super secure pipelines within pipelines within pipelines, installing runner seals in case of earthquakes and posting sentries along the entire length of the pipeline in case of terrorist attack. How paranoid do you want to be and how much do you want to pay for that paranoia?

There are methodologies available for making determinations on the tolerability of risk and the amount of money that should be spent reducing a known risk. Look into the ALARP principle (ALARA in the US). If risk is too high, it is unacceptable and must be reduced. Beneath a certain level, it falls within the ALARP region. In this region, you must justify that you have done enough (reasonably) to reduce it as low as reasonably practicable. This is the point at which the cost of further reductions would be disproportionate against the improvement gained. It is why suspension bridges are not made from diamond filaments even though it might save lives. You have to make a decision on where to stop when it comes to safety. At that point, we say that the risk is tolerable and we are prepared to live with it, though not necessarily acceptable, I.e. we continue to look for more improvements as new technologies come up. The US and UK have slightly different methodologies in arriving at ALARP/ALARA, but the guiding principle is the same.

Last edited by Antius (2016-12-19 02:53:07)

GW Johnson · 2016-12-19 13:18:33

My point, which Tom obviously did not understand, is that some risks are not worth taking, because the outcome is unacceptable, even if improbable. Where that's true, you take the precautions regardless. We already do that with underground storage tanks for oil products.

My other point is that the pipeline industry has yet to face up to the need for this same risk evaluation. The history of spills, fires and explosions proves that beyond any shadow of doubt. It's past time to use the double-walled pipe approach in sensitive areas.

It was past time to quit using single-bottomed tankers in rock-bottomed sounds at the time of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska. We already knew that because they already had serious spill problems on sand-bar beaches of the Gulf coast. But nobody stepped up to bar and did anything about it until the event in Alaska.

Extending this idea, it's past time for the railroads and oil companies to quite dodging the rules on a technicality with fracked light sweet crude. That material resembles diesel or kerosene in its volatility more than any crude we had experience with before.

It is time to quit shipping it in DOT 111 tank cars that are unqualified and illegal for the shipment of diesel and kerosene. People have already died because of this in Fon Du Lac, Quebec.

There are tougher pressure tankers used for volatiles like diesel, kerosene, even gasoline. It's past time to build some more of them to use for shipping fracked light sweet crude. Should be based on a volatility measure in the regulation, not just the use of the word "crude", as it is now.

My other point is that in big companies greed overwhelms ethics, unless compelled by law or regulations to behave. There's just something about the anonymity of a giant organization that allows people to do great evil, which they would not do face-to-face. It's a human nature thing. Nothing to do with money.

But that's EXACTLY WHY these issues have to be addressed as matters of public policy and law and regulation. The market IS NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN, self-policing. And it NEVER WILL BE, without appropriate laws and regulations. Death-for-profit is just too lucrative. Ask the mafia.

That being said, it is also all too easy to write stupid laws and regulations. Over-hyped politics combined with lobby monies (bribes, actually) is exactly why that happens.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-19 13:26:02)

Antius · 2016-12-19 15:52:59

Sounds like you chaps have got enforcement issues. I guess I am just accustomed to working in a place with powerful regulators. When it comes to safety and environment, they tend to come on people like a tonne of bricks. I know that the US nuclear regulator has highly prescriptive standards. Breaking the rules means huge fines and prison sentences. Big money does buy a free pass to pollute in this industry. In the UK, the turning point for the oil industry came with Piper Alpha. A couple of hundred men burning to death really got the public's attention. Kind of like the oil industry's Chernobyl.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-22 20:39:39

Your system of government is parliamentary, that means either one party has the government or another party does, it seems to me this would result in some widely gyrating policies, where each successive government undoing the work of its predecessor. Parliamentary governments don't often get deadlocked, they tend to plow ahead, which is why you jumped to a government run healthcare system while we squabbled about it in Congress between the House, Senate, and President. For stability we try to avoid radical change, one exception was the Obama Administration, most of the Republicans did not want to be called "racist" so they funded Obamacare! Every time Congress Opposed Obama, Obama would threaten to shut down the government and the Media would blame the Republicans, and so Congress acceded to Obama's demands. I don't put so much faith in government. I think government should only govern when it has to, when the result of not governing would be utter chaos, but a lot of things don't need to be governed or regulated. We need to get government to stop regulating much of our lives.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-29 20:44:30

The executive order has been signed and now we are seeing the back lash from doing so...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mexic … he-answer/

First, the consequences of a 20 percent tariff potentially go far beyond the trading relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. International trade is governed by the rules set by the World Trade Organization (WTO). An important provision the 164 member nations have agreed to is that countries will not impose quotas or tariffs on imports unilaterally.
If the U.S. violates this agreement, other nations will feel free to violate it as well. The result could be be the erection of trade barriers around the globe. That would be a disaster for world trade and result in slower economic growth rates (not to mention the substantial adjustment costs within all countries as they adjust to the large reduction in imports).

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-29 23:41:03

A tariff is a tax, Trump can't pass one without the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives doesn't want to. There is probably a face saving way to say that Mexico paid for the Wall while getting it build. Mexico can mean either the Mexican government or its people. The cost of the wall is estimated to be around $15 billion. If we collect revenue on it from toll crossings along the border with Mexico over the next 10 years, we would need to collect $1.5 billion a year or $4,109,589 a day. If we charge $5 to cross the border, we would need 821,918 such border crossings a day to totally pay for the border wall. this doesn't require the Mexican Government to write us a check, so the can safe face by saying that they didn't pay for it, while Trump can say Mexico did. I think a 20% tariff would pay for the wall rather quickly, but if don't take interest into account, we have an arrangement where Mexico pays for it over whatever period is required to get it paid for, the books are then balanced and everyone is happy!

RobertDyck · 2017-01-30 01:03:06

There's a fence along much of the border now. He'll just add some tiny bit to what's there now, and hang "Donald Trump" signs all over the entire length.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-30 20:41:24

If a tarriff is on mexican good and they are no longer bought then just how much will you collect to build your wall... try the number zero.....

President Trump Orders New Limits on Regulations He signs the Trump Signs Executive Order to Curtail Regulations aimed at slashing federal regulations to help businesses...

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-31 01:32:05

SpaceNut wrote:

If a tarriff is on mexican good and they are no longer bought then just how much will you collect to build your wall... try the number zero.....
President Trump Orders New Limits on Regulations He signs the Trump Signs Executive Order to Curtail Regulations aimed at slashing federal regulations to help businesses...

Not as simple as that, the truth is it depends on the demand curve, there is a certain range of tariffs that will produce the maximum revenue, go above that and revenue will drop due to decreased imports, go below that and revenue will drop due to less revenue collected. A tariff can do one of two things, it can be used to discourage imports from Mexico, or it can be used to raise revenue. If you want to maximize revenue, you don't want to discourage imports by raising the tariffs too high, but if you want to discourage imports, you are not going to get much revenue our of a tariff designed to do that. So Trump is going to have to decide what to do, does he want to pay for the wall or does he want to discourage trade with Mexico, a tariff would efficiently do both at the same time, as there is a trade off between one and the other.

Void · 2017-01-31 22:27:19

Quote:

SpaceNut wrote:
If a tarriff is on mexican good and they are no longer bought then just how much will you collect to build your wall... try the number zero.....
President Trump Orders New Limits on Regulations He signs the Trump Signs Executive Order to Curtail Regulations aimed at slashing federal regulations to help businesses...
Not as simple as that, the truth is it depends on the demand curve, there is a certain range of tariffs that will produce the maximum revenue, go above that and revenue will drop due to decreased imports, go below that and revenue will drop due to less revenue collected. A tariff can do one of two things, it can be used to discourage imports from Mexico, or it can be used to raise revenue. If you want to maximize revenue, you don't want to discourage imports by raising the tariffs too high, but if you want to discourage imports, you are not going to get much revenue our of a tariff designed to do that. So Trump is going to have to decide what to do, does he want to pay for the wall or does he want to discourage trade with Mexico, a tariff would efficiently do both at the same time, as there is a trade off between one and the other.

Tom thanks for providing the above. A very good analysis I think.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-31 22:28:09)

Void · 2017-01-31 22:28:59

And now for some mischief;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin … story.html

Commentary: Keystone XL, Dakota Access pipelines: Good for the environment and the U.S.

Pipeline transportation for oil is safer and expected to be better for the environment than the alternative, which is usually rail transport. While the trans-border segment of the Keystone XL pipeline is missing, in spite of two environmental impact studies by the State Department that found less environmental harm than if the oil moves by rail or barge, the oil still moves by rail. The State Department must approve the pipeline since it crosses a U.S. border.
There are those who argue that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not completed, the oil would stay in the ground in Canada, benefiting the environment. But that's wrong for several reasons. First, absent the Keystone XL pipeline, some Canadian oil is already moving to the U.S. by rail. Second, the Canadians will still extract the oil if it doesn't get sent to the U.S.; it will just be exported elsewhere. This was also confirmed by State Department studies. Third, if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, the U.S. won't use less energy, as some unrealistically claim. We will just import more oil from other countries, and our two biggest sources of imported oil are Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Isn't it better to get oil from Canada?

Alright, my commentary:
If from Saudi Arabia, you have to burn a lot of fuel to get it here in tankers. That after all puts Carbon into the atmosphere.
If from Venezuela, guess what? Tar sands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Venezuela
While the Venezuela tar oil is a bit easier to extract, it is in fact very Carbon rich, and full of Sulfur and toxic metals. (Canadian Tar sands have similar problems, I believe).

Quote:

Furthermore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has worked with regulators in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois, and has widely consulted with affected Native American tribes, to design the best route. The pipeline would not cross the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, and there are already eight other pipelines operating with tight regulation under Lake Oahe.
In addition, prompt action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve other gas and oil pipelines, providing they meet all current environmental and safety regulations, would also permit the U.S. to benefit from its energy resources and would reduce our dependence on imported oil, especially from Venezuela and the Middle East. In particular, we need pipelines to carry oil and gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio to markets in New York, New England, and the Gulf Coast.

More of my commentary:
I feel that it will be found likely that if you poke around the protesters, and investigate you will be able to follow money and power back to globalists, both foreign and domestic, who rake in money both from foreign oil related commerce, and from concerns who love to stir up trouble in foreign countries with oil. That leads to military actions which then allows the federal honey pot to be tapped to pour coins into favored entities accounts. It is done on a periodic basis.

It is my opinion that for some time, every effort has been made to keep the U.S. hooked on foreign oil in part for the above reasons. At one time when we were in a contest with the Soviet Union that process made sense, but it no longer does. It was dirty business, but necessary then, but not now.

Alright, lets talk Shale Oil.
A new discovery?
http://www.ogj.com/articles/uogr/print/ … -play.html
https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-estimate … -formation
Quote:

The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz, program coordinator for the USGS Energy Resources Program. “Changes in technology and industry practices can have significant effects on what resources are technically recoverable, and that’s why we continue to perform resource assessments throughout the United States and the world.”

If I recall correctly, the previous administration really tried to kill shale oil, but it could not.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a … -legacies/
They tried every environmentalist trick, but failed, but they did still try to cripple it. But apparently we have hero's in our country, innovators. People I could admire, and do.
It turns out if I understand correctly we now have 95 years of natural gas available to us at current usage rates. Natural gas has made us one of the least polluting per calorie used countries in the world or will do so. So we are fortunate to have good and clever people who make these things possible. And ~30+ years of shale oil? (Maybe)

We actually have very cheep gas compared to other places (Germany, China). It is going to be a big business advantage for us for years to come. We now are selling oodles of cheep natural gas to Mexico.

The wall is not my main concern here, but lets rename it as a "Fence".

Remember that "Fences" make good neighbors Ha Ha. Now it's a fence, not a wall. What do you think about that?

So, in fact if we wished to we could put a tax on Natural Gas sold to Mexico to finance the maintenance of the "Fence". That is another way.
To be sure, I was really surprised that Trump was going after building the Fence, but oh well, the Mexicans, who should be living in a failed state, will have a nice neighbor with a good fence, who is glad to sell them Natural Gas cheep, and to buy their products that they make.
Nothing to get our pants into a bundle about.

Now back to Oil, Oil Sands in particular.
I have been doing some research, and it appears that new methods for some oil sands will both lower the cost of production, and remediate almost all negative local environmental problems.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tech-coul … 00012.html
Quote:

But one company has pioneered a novel way of extracting oil sands without all of the environmental fallout. MCW Energy has developed a water-free, solvent-based approach to oil sands production, a process that recovers up to 99 percent of the hydrocarbon content. That allows the producer to avoid the need for toxic tailings ponds. The solvents are recycled and with almost no waste left over, the produced sand can then be returned to the ground. In other words, it is a clean form of oil sands production.
MCW has a processing facility in Utah that has an initial capacity of 250 barrels per day, with plans to scale up. It chose Utah for a reason – the state’s Uintah Basin is thought to hold more than an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil across eight deposits. Unlike Alberta’s oil sands, the reserves in Utah are much closer to the surface, which allows for unique approaches like MCW’s solvent technology.

For perspective of size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reser … udi_Arabia
Saudi:

estimated to be 268 billion barrels

vs Uintah Basin > 30 Billion Barrels. About 10%? Pretty sizable.

The points being that this leaves the Sulfur in the ground, I believe, and also possibly the toxic metals. And the process apparently could be used to clean up oil spills, as you would recover "Oil" during your clean up.

Now I will accept that adapting this to the Alberta tar sands needs work, but they are working on it. In fact there is some talk that they may be able to remediate the tailings basins which have already been created.

Athabasca Oil Sands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands

Quote:

Together, these oil sand deposits lie under 141,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi) of boreal forest and muskeg (peat bogs) and contain about 1.7 trillion barrels (270×109 m3) of bitumen in-place, comparable in magnitude to the world's total proven reserves of conventional petroleum. The International Energy Agency (IEA) lists the economically recoverable reserves, at 2006 prices and modern unconventional oil production technology, to be 178 billion barrels (28.3×109 m3), or about 10% of these deposits.[3] These contribute to Canada's total proven reserves being the third largest in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela's Orinoco Belt.[4]

So, even if the solvent methods don't expand the amount of recoverable oil, the number s are 268 (Saudi) vs 178 (Athabasca).
Lots!!!

So, then environmentalists might say, "Well the oil sands are high carbon." Well, guess what, China burns 1/2 of the coal in the world!
Coal must put out more carbon than Oil sands.

This brings us to a question: "Why do environmentalists try to cripple North American energy, but leave worse or equivalent energy in China and from Venezuela alone?

I will give you a suggestion: (It's called 5th column, quislings, etc., our enemies).

See it for what it really is. The enemy is among us. (And the mislead).

We are about to have a #1 energy industry, which pollutes less than other countries.
We will have robotics.
We will be able to import from places like S.E. Asia, and Mexico/Latin America.

We are going to be doing very very well. Very well indeed.

And we are not going to be required to police the whole world anymore either.

And yes, by the way, I am all for electric cars, and electric everything as may be possible. That's likely on the way as well.

The USA is better poised for solar energy than any other major industrial country of the "West" (Whatever that is).

Just putting some facts and suppositions out there, it's your turn next. Your next

Last edited by Void (2017-01-31 23:32:52)

SpaceNut · 2018-10-01 18:45:14

After cancelling the deal of the past, many threats, tariff and border wall and so much more the deal seems to have been struck if ratified.

Canada joins new NAFTA trade accord with US and Mexico; The new agreement will be called USMCA, and is expected to be signed by Trump and his counterparts in 60 days.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the 1988 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada, and is set to be replaced by the 2018 United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement.

But for now it does not remove the tariffs on steel or aluminum....
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/tr … um-tariffs

Have not seen any comparison of the deals of the past to the new Trump deal as of yet....

Terraformer · 2018-10-02 03:49:51

Wow, that was quick. Our government thinks it's impossible the negotiate a trade deal in only two years.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2016-12-13 11:00:20

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#77 2016-12-13 19:18:24

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#78 2016-12-13 19:56:21

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#79 2016-12-13 20:02:25

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#80 2016-12-17 21:14:27

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#81 2016-12-17 23:04:14

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#82 2016-12-18 07:51:09

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#83 2016-12-18 10:00:27

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#84 2016-12-18 10:06:13

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#85 2016-12-18 20:15:16

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#86 2016-12-18 21:32:57

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#87 2016-12-19 01:46:12

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#88 2016-12-19 02:49:21

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#89 2016-12-19 13:18:33

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#90 2016-12-19 15:52:59

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#91 2016-12-22 20:39:39

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#92 2017-01-29 20:44:30

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#93 2017-01-29 23:41:03

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#94 2017-01-30 01:03:06

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#95 2017-01-30 20:41:24

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#96 2017-01-31 01:32:05

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#97 2017-01-31 22:27:19

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#98 2017-01-31 22:28:59

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#99 2018-10-01 18:45:14

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#100 2018-10-02 03:49:51

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

Board footer