Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama's climate change speech may hint at possible Keystone XL pipeline rejection (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which one would be worse? (0+ / 0-)

    Just trying to understand your comment.

    From what I've pieced together over the last few days for my own (unfortunately too inflammatory) diary, the Green River shale oil would produce a little more than half of the CO2 that the tar sands oil would. That doesn't take into account the carbon and methane consequences of disrupting the soil and peat bogs in Alberta.

    •  The Green River area (4+ / 0-)

      is fragile ecologically and the water is scarce and highly vulnerable.

      Use of the water to extract oil is a problem. The possible contamination of the water supply is a problem. To take that oil out would be incredibly destructive.

      So that's all before you consider the impact of the oil itself.

      I have some pictures of that area, will have to upload them to the library.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:15:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No Green River oil shale would be FAR, FAR worse. (5+ / 0-)

      Colorado Green River formation contains no petroleum but instead kerogen,
      which must be cooked into oil and worse it is mixed with calcium carbonate which also releases CO2 when cooked.
      The only way to keep down the CO2 is to insert electric heaters to bake the kerogen into petroleum over years
      and where does electricity come from? Wyoming coal.

      Oil sands are tar which can be processed by ordinary refineries into gasoline, diesel, etc. after being hydrogenated. And where does hydrogen come from?
      Natural gas. So that's more CO2.

      The size of Green River is truly staggering--800 billion barrels of 'oil' compared to 200 billion in Alberta.

      This probably scares the shit out of Jim Hansen.

    •  That's a good diary. But some have estimated... (4+ / 0-)

      ...the Green River formation's oil shale "oil" at 3 trillion barrels, with 1.5 trillion recoverable. And water consumption plus other environmental issues would worsen the overall effect. Much dispute about this since no commercially viable process has yet been developed to get the stuff out economically. Three booms and busts: 1890s, 1920s, 1980s. The last one was helped along with billions in synfuels subsidies but crushed by plunging oil prices. Exxon predicted in 1980 that by 2000, 8 million barrels a day would be being pumped from Green River formation. In fact, there were zero.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:21:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very helpful answers, everyone. Thanks. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  This is what the Green River looks like (3+ / 0-)

      This was taken from the train, in August. As you can see, water is dear in this area, which is among the reasons it's not heavily populated.

      And yes, by Western US standards, that is a major river.

      At other times of year, there would be a lot more color to that image and it can be quite spectacular. Taken through a tinted window, it doesn't really do the landscape justice.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:31:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (77)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (45)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • Environment (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Science (29)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Law (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Congress (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site