Tag Archives: oil

Feeding Our Cars

Posted on by 0 comment

You know we’re at a crossroads in our future when more is spent to feed our cars than the people on this planet.

The Gazette shares this update recently and discloses that more corn is now used to create ethanol than to feed livestock.

Now, this might be because more livestock is being grass-fed (ie. naturally) as opposed to being stuffed with a product that they aren’t naturally supposed to eat, but the more realistic prospect is that we’ve pushed demand for hybrid fuels to stupid levels because of bad planning and design on behalf of our auto manufacturers.

This is the first time since the dawn of the use of domesticated animals that we’ve allowed this change to happen.

Which brings me back to a term that I created a while ago:  euthanol.  Definition:  the generation of a product that effectively starves most of the planet for the benefit of a select few.

MayDay 2011: Iraq, Libya and Oil

Posted on by 3 comments

Memos that are no longer secret expose a link between oil firms and the invasion of Iraq, according to the Independent in the UK.  They’re just stating what most people feel is obvious:  taxpayers in the UK, the US, Canada and elsewhere are funding massive military operations through debt expansion so that we can protect and collect crude resources around the world.

What does this have to do with the Canadian election?  Everything.

Most Canadians did NOT want Canada to be involved with the invasion of or continued military presence in Iraq, but two people stood out in the days preceding the invasion:

  • Stephen Harper
  • Michael Ignatieff

The NDP and the Green Party have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

If you’re a pacifist and you’re sick of the gradual expansion of the US throughout the world, the choice in the election should be obvious, but there’s one catch:  Libya.

Unfortunately, it looks like ALL of the parties (except the Greens since they didn’t have any MPs when this decision was made) have failed Canadians as they fueled up the jets for the ‘no-fly zone’ protection of Libya.

When you have a chance, ask your candidate and the leaders of each party where they stand on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and even Iran.  All are part of the expansionist plans of the US and peace-seeking Canadians do not want to be a part of it.

Canada needs leadership that will steer us off this disastrous course.  We need to take a back seat with NATO and we need to show true leadership with the UN and organizations that are committed to peace throughout the world.

MayDay 2011: At Least Someone Will Make Money Off The Tar Sands

Posted on by 0 comment

The EU announced earlier this week that it will begin to price Canadian oil from the Tar Sands ‘differently’ than other energy products and sources.

In effect, the EU is putting a tariff on our oil since we’re not willing to control and take responsibility for this issue ourselves.

This is great news for the EU though:  they’ll be making billions off our oil.

And we don’t under a Conservative regime.

What an awesome plan!  What’s next?  Letting someone sell our water for a profit?

The Cost of Carbon and the Canadian Economic Action Plan

Posted on by 0 comment

This article reminded me of the conditions applied to Canadian Economic Action Plan programs:  no environmental review.

This will cost us all.

My hope is that sooner rather than later Canadians will have the ability to audit these programs, not just economically but also with respect to their impact on the environment.  And when we do, we’ll likely realize that Canada’s Economic (In)Action Plan will be much more costly than originally thought.

Stay tuned.

Why Prorogue Canadian Democracy? For the Oil

Posted on by 3 comments

Late in the evening on December 30th, one thing survived Stephen’s Harpooning of Canadian democracy:  oil.

That’s right.  While the rest of us were being distracted about losing our ability to have even a moderate sense of democracy in this country, the Harper-crites were busy ramming through an approval on the Mackenzie Pipeline.

And then I realized:  the prorogue moment was a very risky smoke screen on the part of the Cons in order to ensure that it was business as usual for Big Oil.

Is this even legal since everything was shut down at the same time by ‘Tsar-per’?

Original story from the New York Times:

Canadian Board Approves Western Gas Pipeline

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Published: December 31, 2009

HOUSTON — A long-delayed natural gas pipeline in Western Canada, which has the potential to provide significant amounts of energy to North America, has cleared a crucial hurdle by receiving the endorsement of a Canadian government review panel.

The $15.4 billion Mackenzie Valley project, which involves Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, would connect natural gas fields in the Arctic with the rest of Canada and potentially with the United States.

Some Indian communities and environmental groups have called the 750-mile pipeline a threat to local species and native cultures and have expressed concern about the greenhouse emissions created if the gas is used to heat and upgrade Tar Sands into usable fuels. Greenhouse emissions from oil sands are substantially higher than from conventional oil and gas production.

But the joint review panel, after five years of study, concluded late Wednesday that the project “would deliver valuable and lasting overall benefits and avoid significant adverse environmental impacts.” It continued, “The project itself, as long-term infrastructure, provides a key basis for future economic development.”

The National Energy Board and federal cabinet still need to approve the project, but they are expected to follow the recommendations of the review panel. The board is scheduled to hold hearings in April.

If the project is approved, the oil companies would then have to decide whether to build the pipeline, given the current low gas prices, the prospects for competing gas fields in western Canada and the uncertainty of financial support from the Canadian government. Furthermore, a competing and also delayed gas pipeline project in Alaska might overtake the Canadian project.

“If the oil companies think prices are firming on gas, they will go ahead with this,” said Donald Hertzmark, a consultant who advises energy companies on international projects. “It could still be important for the United States and Canada, especially if gas takes off as a transportation fuel or if environmental issues slow down or derail the development of shale gas resources.”

The oil companies originally filed applications for the project in 2004, and hoped to begin operations five years later. But the review panel took longer than expected to complete its study. Now gas industry experts say operations could start in 2014 at the earliest.

The review panel, which assessed the environmental and socioeconomic impacts, concluded that the pipeline would not harm fish in the Mackenzie River. But it called for regional planning to protect many species including polar bears, caribou and beluga whales.

It also recommended that the gas be used to replace coal-fired electrical generation to control greenhouse gas emissions that have been linked to global warming and climate change.

The three gas fields that the pipeline would connect have reserves that are estimated at six trillion cubic feet — an amount equal to more than two years of total Canadian consumption of gas. The pipeline would initially supply about one billion cubic feet a day, which could be expanded after future offshore and onshore drilling.

The United States Energy Department has projected that Canadian annual gas consumption will increase from 3.3 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 4.7 trillion cubic feet in 2030, largely because of the expanding needs of the oil sands industry.

Production in Canada’s conventional natural gas fields have been in decline, along with exports to the United States.