Why aren't environmentalists upset that 1 million barrels will be traveling every day from Vancouver to Asia on the open ocean?

[healthmyths]

It would add 590,000 barrels per day to its existing capacity of 300,000 barrels per day.
From Vancouver, the oil could be shipped on tankers to Asia or elsewhere.

Canada's oil sands industry is taking a big hit » Yale Climate Connections

With the Biden administration cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a troubled industry seeks ways to transport its product.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Keystone was to carry 700 barrels over 1 mile on dry land with 16 monitors detecting links.
But now to move the oil from Canada to Asia means 1 million barrels traveling one mil on the open ocean 24 hours a day.
1 million barrels per day on the open ocean.
Remember Exxon Valdez 1989 and this was just 200,000 barrels.
So where are the environmentalists?

 

[excalibur]

They hate America is why. Thus the pipeline being stopped by Traitor Joe©™.

 

[Hellbilly]

How do you know environmentalists aren't upset about it?

 

[AFrench2]

You're asking why environmentalists are upset about oil traveling by ship across the ocean from Canada to Asia?

Probably because the ocean has a population of *checks notes*...0.

So there's nobody who really cares to complain about boats traveling the ocean.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why aren't environmentalists upset that 1 million barrels will be traveling every day from Vancouver to Asia on the open ocean?

Because they are more concerned about forcing us into communism and "green" is the new red.

 

[Utilitarian]

You're asking why environmentalists are upset about oil traveling by ship across the ocean from Canada to Asia?

Probably because the ocean has a population of *checks notes*...0.

So there's nobody who really cares to complain about boats traveling the ocean.

That's not how this works. If environmentalists were more logical (or at least if political activists were), they would look at risk assessments.

Pipelines have the fewest accidents of any oil transport methods. They are safer than ships, trains, or trucks.

If the concern is truly the environment, then pipelines should be seen as the best method of transport for oil (when available).

But it's not really about the environment. It never has been. It's about interests that benefit from blocking pipelines. If you have money in transport by ship, trains, or trucks, then you can always throw money at a few useful idiots to block a pipeline project.

 

[ReinyDays]

We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...

Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”


Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.

There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...

With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...

 

[yidnar]

You're asking why environmentalists are upset about oil traveling by ship across the ocean from Canada to Asia?

Probably because the ocean has a population of *checks notes*...0.

So there's nobody who really cares to complain about boats traveling the ocean.

and the boat engines are running on solar and vegetable oil ! the simple fact of the matter is many leftist leaders are in bed with worthless green energy companies that would go belly up without gov funding .

 

[sartre play]

All oil spills are a negative, If forced to chose better the ocean than our drinking water here on American soil. No water we are all dead.

 

[AFrench2]

You're asking why environmentalists are upset about oil traveling by ship across the ocean from Canada to Asia?

Probably because the ocean has a population of *checks notes*...0.

So there's nobody who really cares to complain about boats traveling the ocean.

and the boat engines are running on solar and vegetable oil ! the simple fact of the matter is many leftist leaders are in bed with worthless green energy companies that would go belly up without gov funding .

What the **** are you talking about, Sparky?

 

[Orangecat]

This one picture exposes the useful idiots and their ignorance:

 

[healthmyths]

How do you know environmentalists aren't upset about it?

Because I've written on this forum several times the massive damages that oil tankers can do versus the historically low leakage of the 185,000 miles of pipeline. But the MSM continues to ignore this aspect.
Nearly 9 million gallons(163,636 barrels) of crude oil have spilled from pipelines in the United States since 2010 or
in 10 years less than 16,363 barrels... now compare that to a 1 million barrel oil tanker..Exxon Valdez was 200,000 barrels!

 

[Rigby5]

All oil spills are a negative, If forced to chose better the ocean than our drinking water here on American soil. No water we are all dead.

But the reality is to get TO the ocean, you have to use rail or trucks if you don't allow pipelines.
And pipelines are much safer than rail or trucks.

The part on the ocean is the same whether you use pipelines or rail/truck.
So the ocean part has nothing to do with it.
The only question is between pipelines and rail/truck?

 

[healthmyths]

We're a time before this shipping port in Vancouver is realized ... still time for the protests, riots, burning and mayhem to stop this nonsense ...

Unlike conventional crude oil, which occurs as a liquid within the pore spaces of solid rock, oil sands are a mixture of semi-solid oil, sand, clay, and water. The viscous crude, called bitumen, can’t just be pumped like an oil well; extraction methods use more energy and more water and are much more costly than conventional oil drilling. For deposits near the land surface, the sand-plus-oil mixture is strip-mined, then processed with hot water and solvents to release the bitumen. For deeper deposits, the “in-situ” process too is complex: Steam must be injected underground to allow the bitumen to flow into extraction wells. National Geographic, citing a litany of environmental problems left to be addressed, has called oil sands the “world’s most destructive oil operation.”


Mining bitumen strips away forest cover and topsoil, leaving acre upon acre of barren, black ground. The post-processing tailings are piped into vast ponds, which contain an “acutely toxic” mixture of water, sand, hydrocarbons, ammonia, acids, and heavy metals. The total volume of wastewater currently exceeds 4 billion gallons and counting, with 1.5 gallons of tailings waste produced for each gallon of bitumen. Scientific studies have detected toxins in the aquatic environment downstream from oil sands production, and a 2017 analysis estimated that cleanup costs will exceed the value of oil sands royalties collected by the province of Alberta.

There are some issues with the pipeline itself ... but the main focus of environmentalists is what's being done to the Alberta country-side ... the land and the water is ruined, poisoned ... it will cost more to clean-up than the oil produced is worth ... today ...

With the pace of technological improvements, the time will be soon that we can extract this resource without the huge overhead ... we'll need oil then more than we need it now ...

Where are your facts?? NO links. No substantiation! I don't believe a word you wrote! Is it that difficult to show the links so we can judge the veracity of your comments?

 

[surada]

How do you know environmentalists aren't upset about it?

Because I've written on this forum several times the massive damages that oil tankers can do versus the historically low leakage of the 185,000 miles of pipeline. But the MSM continues to ignore this aspect.
Nearly 9 million gallons(163,636 barrels) of crude oil have spilled from pipelines in the United States since 2010 or
in 10 years less than 16,363 barrels... now compare that to a 1 million barrel oil tanker..Exxon Valdez was 200,000 barrels!

Its a lot easier to clean up an oil spill in the ocean than to clean one up in rivers and creeks.

 

[AFrench2]

How do you know environmentalists aren't upset about it?

Because I've written on this forum several times the massive damages that oil tankers can do versus the historically low leakage of the 185,000 miles of pipeline. But the MSM continues to ignore this aspect.
Nearly 9 million gallons(163,636 barrels) of crude oil have spilled from pipelines in the United States since 2010 or
in 10 years less than 16,363 barrels... now compare that to a 1 million barrel oil tanker..Exxon Valdez was 200,000 barrels!

You're ignoring nearshore and offshore drilling as well in these stats. How big was the BP Oil Spill(underwater pipeline) in comparison to Exxon Valdez (ship)?

Volume	4.9 million barrels BP Oil Spill

 

[sartre play]

If we spent as much time on other solutions, Maybe it be a little less important, Be nice if we did not have constant Gas crises.

 

[ReinyDays]

Where are your facts?? NO links. No substantiation! I don't believe a word you wrote! Is it that difficult to show the links so we can judge the veracity of your comments?

Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

I quoted YOUR link that you posted in the OP ... you don't believe a word you said? ... that's sad, clueless and sad ...

 

[my2¢]

I believe the thread is missing the picture. Environmentalists are against the mining of this heavy crude itself. Its problems are well documented as the article linked by the OP's points out:

Oil sands mining yields four to eight times the energy used to mine it, and in-situ oil sands extraction –
which accounts for the majority of production – returns only 3.2 to 5.4 times the energy investment.
Those figures don’t include transportation or final refining. By comparison, conventional oil brings a
10- to 20-fold return of the energy invested.

As a result, the carbon intensity of oil sands is troublingly bad: One study found the extraction and
processing of oil sands produces more than twice the greenhouse gasses compared to other North
American crude oils. Furthermore, recent work that measured greenhouse emissions from oil sand
mining via aircraft found emissions to be approximately 30% higher than previously reported.
​

It is cheaper and cleaner to refine the lighter crude we have from Texas and North Dakota.

In regards to shipping, after the Exxon Valdez accident shippers were given notice to phase out their single-hulled oil tankers and since 2015 these tankers have been outlawed in both US and Canadian waters.

So in regards to the Exxon Valdez pictures from 1989, here is a video from 2013 pertaining to pipelines:

​

 

[healthmyths]

How do you know environmentalists aren't upset about it?

Because I've written on this forum several times the massive damages that oil tankers can do versus the historically low leakage of the 185,000 miles of pipeline. But the MSM continues to ignore this aspect.
Nearly 9 million gallons(163,636 barrels) of crude oil have spilled from pipelines in the United States since 2010 or
in 10 years less than 16,363 barrels... now compare that to a 1 million barrel oil tanker..Exxon Valdez was 200,000 barrels!

You're ignoring nearshore and offshore drilling as well in these stats. How big was the BP Oil Spill(underwater pipeline) in comparison to Exxon Valdez (ship)?

Volume	4.9 million barrels BP Oil Spill

Not sure how a oil drilling is compared to Exxon except the volume. How many oil drilling platforms spill oil per year should be your comparison which is with these facts..

Oil spills

Oil is an ancient fossil fuel that we use to heat our homes, generate electricity, and power large sectors of our economy. But when oil accidentally spills into the ocean, it can cause big problems. Oil spills can harm sea creatures, ruin a day at the beach, and make seafood unsafe to eat. It...

www.noaa.gov

US Economy

The state of the U.S. economy can impact your money and life. From economic growth and the national debt to unemployment and interest rates, learn what it means for you.

www.thebalance.com