The Energy East pipeline is dead

October 7, 2017 4:19 PM

The planned tarsands-transporting pipeline was canceled on Thursday after the National Energy Board of Canada insisted on "assessment of greenhouse gases generated by the fossil fuels to be transported in the pipeline".
posted by clawsoon (33 comments total)

fuck you, oil ♥
posted by ragtag at 5:09 PM on October 7, 2017 [11 favorites]

I'm all for cutting down our greenhouse emissions, but not if we crash civilization by forcing a supply shock. I worry that things have been allowed to get too close to the brink.
posted by MikeWarot at 5:24 PM on October 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

It's going to live on as one of Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives' zombies. For ever. The little pipeline that shipped a zillion talking points.
posted by sneebler at 5:24 PM on October 7, 2017 [4 favorites]

I'm not worried about supply shocks:

https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=oil&graph=production

And

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html

Basically, in spite of a whole bunch of minor successes like wind & solar energy and electric cars and so on, we're on track to burn more fossil fuels than ever. "Climate change, what's that?
posted by sneebler at 5:30 PM on October 7, 2017 [8 favorites]

I'm all for cutting down our greenhouse emissions, but not if we crash civilization by forcing a supply shock.

"how much is this gonna cost?" he asks as we drive over the cliff
posted by ragtag at 5:36 PM on October 7, 2017 [14 favorites]

Natural gas is too cheap to fully productize still.

real natgas price (2009 dollars)

EVs are going to eat the ICE market next decade, after 2 years with a Gen 1 LEAF you’ll never see me driving an ICE again (unless it’s a rental).

Vehicle miles doubled 1980 - 2005 (the youngest boomers turned driving age in 1980) but aren’t going to double again, at least burning fossil fuels.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:47 PM on October 7, 2017 [2 favorites]

I, too, worry that things have been allowed to get too close to a civilization-crashing brink. By which I mean the global warming part of course.
posted by traveler_ at 5:48 PM on October 7, 2017 [11 favorites]

Still, if somebody's going to profit from the collapse of civilization, wouldn't you rather it be the Canadians than the Saudis or Russians? (Or the Texans?)*
*rhetorical question
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:54 PM on October 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

[i]Still, if somebody's going to profit from the collapse of civilization, wouldn't you rather it be the Canadians than the Saudis or Russians? (Or the Texans?)*
*rhetorical question
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:54 PM on October 7[/i]


from the gulf coast, the oil colony of the united states, drowning in our own swollen hot Gulf , i say FUCK THAT xenophobic noise. score this one for the planet, citoyens, and on to the next one, as fast as you can formez vos bataillons.
posted by eustatic at 6:22 PM on October 7, 2017 [3 favorites]

many oil engineers in Dallas will shed a tear for this pipe, and yet, they will remain gainfully employed, no worries. the oil industry has quite a lot to do in engineering the clean up of their fucking messes. just ask the native people, from alberta to isle de jean charles, louisiana.
posted by eustatic at 6:24 PM on October 7, 2017 [1 favorite]

Keystone XL and Trans Mountain are also looking more doubtful. Maps and numbers for existing and proposed Canadian pipelines.
posted by clawsoon at 6:41 PM on October 7, 2017

I'm with onefellswoop.

So, Energy East is done. And meanwhile our continent will keep buying and burning 22 million barrels of oil a day, regardless. All this means is that some smaller fraction of that oil is going to come from Alberta.

Pro: it's about 20% more carbon intensive than conventional crude, "door-to-door", so yes, there are CO2 savings.

Con: Canada loses out on resource revenue which benefits all Canadians (not just Albertans). Canada (yes, mainly Alberta) loses out on jobs.

Con: Because you're not buying from Canada, some larger fraction of your oil is invariably going to come from somewhere with worse conditions for labour (lax safety standards, worse protections), and lower environmental standards. And it might come from a dictatorship.

Con: More oil has to travel longer distances, in tankers and via rail. And not necessarily more safely than via a modern pipeline.

I live in Alberta (although I don't work in energy or any related industry), so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt. I want to reduce oil usage, and CO2 emissions in general, as much as all of you. But I don't think this gets us closer to that as a planet, and I don't see much of an upside.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 10:28 PM on October 7, 2017 [2 favorites]

I live in Alberta (although I don't work in energy or any related industry), so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt. I want to reduce oil usage, and CO2 emissions in general, as much as all of you.

It's nice to want things. But what counts is your actions. And your actions right here, right now, have been pro-status quo for the oil industry. So honestly, it would be better if you didn't even pretend that you cared about doing anything about climate change
posted by happyroach at 10:41 PM on October 7, 2017 [8 favorites]

And your actions right here, right now, have been pro-status quo for the oil industry.

I'd say that's a bit harsh. Maybe Pruitt-Ignoe's words have been pro-status quo, but we have no idea what lifestyle Pruitt-Ignoe leads, or activism PI engages in...you know... actions.

Personally I'm against such pipelines, but my opinions don't really change what's going on.

While the Canadian government has been doing good things in regards to pipelines recently, this certainly doesn't seem to be due to Trudeau's leadership - and that is disappointing.
posted by el io at 11:19 PM on October 7, 2017 [4 favorites]

Agreed that supporting this or not, here in this forum, is not action.

It's nice to want things. But what counts is your actions. And your actions right here, right now, have been pro-status quo for the oil industry.

What I mean to say is, even if I took direct action to stop this pipeline from going ahead, I don't see how that gets us closer to a lower-carbon future. Except in the sense that less of Canada's economy (and a bit more of everyone else's) will be based in fossil fuels.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 11:50 PM on October 7, 2017 [2 favorites]

Nice to see those Ethical Oil talking points stuck.

(pay no attention to the massive holding pens for the toxic byproduct of tar sands extraction)
posted by Yowser at 1:51 AM on October 8, 2017 [2 favorites]

less of Canada's economy (and a bit more of everyone else's) will be based in fossil fuels.

I see this point as fairly closely equivalent to saying that less of Canada's economy (and a bit more of everyone else's) will be based on selling crack.

Which is, you know, actually good for Canada.
posted by flabdablet at 4:28 AM on October 8, 2017

.

Wait yay.
posted by spitbull at 5:24 AM on October 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

I don't believe for one bit that the pipeline is done because of environmental issues. They didn't thought it would be profitable so they canned it.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 7:17 AM on October 8, 2017 [4 favorites]

CBC News was reporting that reasons for cancellation included the drop in oil price and Trump allowing the pipeline route through the states that Obama cancelled. Part of me felt like there is incentive to deny that activism has been effective, but part of me admits these explanations are part of the mix.

I'm from coastal BC, where we worry about pipelines and tankers threatening fisheries, so one industry vs another, as well as coastal environment (the world's lungs, that's the ocean)

Nonetheless, Pruit-igoe is correct that sudden changes can cause other problems, most of which will hurt people who are poor, and I'm pretty disheartened at the failures to shift our policies and economy to prepare for the inevitable and needed change away from an oil economy. We've created the situation where the change is sudden, because we allow industry to hold sway over government.
posted by chapps at 9:17 AM on October 8, 2017

I live in Alberta and love Alberta, and will continue to do so when we have a 10% sales tax. This hurts now and will hurt more when it means the defeat of the NDP, but it’s the right thing to do. We are on the cusp of making oil a smaller part of our energy economy and this moves us in that direction.
posted by furtive at 9:18 AM on October 8, 2017 [2 favorites]

Having grown up in Alberta, I have to ask: Do you really think that the NDP has any chance in the next election, given a united Conservative party, no matter what they do or don't do, no matter what pipeline project goes through or not?
posted by clawsoon at 10:21 AM on October 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

For a comments section, there's surprisingly intelligent discussion at AlbertaPolitics.ca.
posted by clawsoon at 10:42 AM on October 8, 2017

I see this point as fairly closely equivalent to saying that less of Canada's economy (and a bit more of everyone else's) will be based on selling crack.

If oil is crack, then internal combustion engines are crack pipes. But I can't even imagine anyone turning down an opportunity to build more of those in Canada.

I'd like our economy to transition away from fossil fuels too, but while demand is still high we can enrich ourselves from it in the meantime. As all the other oil-producing nations are doing.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 10:48 AM on October 8, 2017

"I'd like our economy to transition away from meth too, but while demand is still high we can enrich ourselves from it in the meantime. As all the other meth labs are doing."

Yep. Analogy still works fine.
posted by flabdablet at 11:40 AM on October 8, 2017 [2 favorites]

Let's all gang up on the only poster making rational policy-based comments because they aren't rabidly anti-oil enough for the thread. Yawn.

Comparing oil to crack is sure hyperbolic, but it's hardly useful or intelligent, as far as analogies go.

The non-existence of this pipeline does absolutely nothing to change consumption or decrease global emissions.
posted by hamandcheese at 4:36 PM on October 8, 2017 [5 favorites]

Sometimes I just feel like giving up and agreeing with Toby, which I never thought I would say.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:58 PM on October 8, 2017 [2 favorites]

Comparing oil to crack is sure hyperbolic, but it's hardly useful or intelligent, as far as analogies go.

I disagree.

The point of the analogy is to remind me that economics is not always the first consideration when formulating public policy; sometimes there is consideration given to the externalities of activities that would appear to be economic no-brainer Yep Do That calls otherwise.

Exactly as in the case of supplying illicit drugs, it's completely obvious that oil extraction is a big-money industry and less obvious that it is good public policy to encourage it to remain so.

If you can make a serious case for the damage done by fossil fuel extraction being somehow less worthy of taking seriously than that done by illicit drug manufacture when formulating public policy regarding both these things, go right ahead. Because it seems completely bizarre to me that in 2017 the fossil fuel extraction industry's reputation is indeed any better than that of the illicit drug manufacturing industry.
posted by flabdablet at 9:32 PM on October 8, 2017 [3 favorites]

I'd like our economy to transition away from fossil fuels too, but while demand is still high we can enrich ourselves from it in the meantime.

Sometimes I just feel like giving up and agreeing with Toby, which I never thought I would say

As far as I can see it, there are three options for humans now:

1. Fight the good fight and do our best to preserve life on Earth for future generations (and probably fail)

2. Make a couple bucks off the destruction of life on Earth in the hope that that will somehow be enough to buy survival (and probably fail)

3. Give up entirely and hope for a painless death (and probably fail)


Your pick! It's all really just moral posturing at this point anyway. It's just a question of if you want to die on the side of the heroes, the villains, or alone.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 9:50 PM on October 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

"I'd like our economy to transition away from meth too, but while demand is still high we can enrich ourselves from it in the meantime. As all the other meth labs are doing."

You know this is exactly what countries do all the time, right? And there are doubtless dozens of examples that we could come up with, in which both the US and Canada are doing it right now? I mean, there are factories turning out some pretty wildly fuel-inefficient SUVs and trucks in both Canada and the US, and those are basically viewed as economic national treasures beyond reproach.

I am a little suspicious of treating the tar-sands and North American pipeline-project shutdowns as big victories, because they seem suspiciously like NIMBYism: we're going to keep burning petroleum, but this way we're much more comfortably isolated from the consequences of its extraction. If all of North America's petroleum had to come from North America, I suspect we'd use a hell of a lot less of it. Once a resource comes from the other side of the planet, it's a lot easier to ignore the unpleasant details in how it comes to exist. (Like those kids working in the African cobalt mines. Good thing we got rid of all of those here.)

That said, restricting our consumption to what can be produced domestically was never an option, and given the fungibility of input sources for power generation (over a long-ish time horizon, anyway), any restriction in supply will probably lead to a curtailment in demand, or a rise in prices which might make alternatives more viable. So, QED, anything that keeps the black stuff in the ground, anywhere, is probably a Good Thing.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:50 PM on October 8, 2017 [1 favorite]

there are factories turning out some pretty wildly fuel-inefficient SUVs and trucks in both Canada and the US, and those are basically viewed as economic national treasures beyond reproach

...which is exactly why I think the meth lab analogy needs to get more traction in public discourse than it currently does.
posted by flabdablet at 1:27 AM on October 9, 2017 [1 favorite]

they seem suspiciously like NIMBYism

On any properly run planet, political design constraints would be taken as seriously as economic and technical constraints, to the extent that stuff nobody wants in their back yard would simply not happen.
posted by flabdablet at 1:28 AM on October 9, 2017

We need to be winding down oil production in this country, not expanding it. Of course we need other policy solutions to address consumption (e.g. an effective national carbon tax), but restricting production is important too. Insofar as this decision helps us shift away from economic dependence on oil production, it's a good thing.

Once a resource comes from the other side of the planet, it's a lot easier to ignore the unpleasant details in how it comes to exist.

We're pretty good at ignoring the unpleasant details of fossil fuel extraction here in Canada. We're also pretty good at ignoring the consequences of our resource extraction for other parts of the world, as if our moral responsibility ends when our product is sold.producers.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 10:48 AM on October 10, 2017 [2 favorites]