Canada threatens trade war with EU over oil sands

Feb 21, 2012
View of the Syncrude oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta Province, Canada, in 2009. Canada has threatened to lodge a World Trade Organization complaint against the European Union if the bloc labels oil from Alberta's tar sands as highly polluting, documents published Monday show.

Canada has threatened to lodge a World Trade Organization complaint against the European Union if the bloc labels oil from Alberta's tar sands as highly polluting, documents published Monday show.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe obtained a copy of a letter sent in December by Canada's ambassador to the EU, David Plunkett, to EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, which contains the explicit warning.

The group was then released to Canadian media and excerpts were published on Monday.

Canada would "explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including at the " if a new EU fuel directive were to single out crude in a "discriminatory, arbitrary or unscientific way," Plunkett wrote.

The proposed EU fuel quality directive would limit use of non-conventional fuel, such as the oil extracted from the vast in western Canada, saying that exploitation of the oil sands threatens the environment.

Such fuels would be labeled as causing more highly polluting than other sources of crude.

A key bloc committee is due to vote Thursday on the measure.

Canada currently does not export crude to Europe, but Ottawa and the fear that if passed, the EU measure would have ramifications for its sales in other markets.

Canada's natural resources minister Joe Oliver criticized the EU proposal in October and said Ottawa would defend its interests if the EU were to discriminate against oil sands crude.

Canada and the EU are in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement, which both sides hope will go into effect this year.

Explore further: Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Using microbes for the quick clean up of dirty oil

Sep 08, 2009

Microbiologists from the University of Essex, UK have used microbes to break down and remove toxic compounds from crude oil and tar sands. These acidic compounds persist in the environment, taking up to 10 years to break ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

10 hours ago

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

11 hours ago

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 101

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 21, 2012
Obama with monies from the Rockefeller Bros., Corp. Ethics Int'l, & NRDC Funds and the Pembina Inst. has done a little of what the EU is attempting by canceling the the Keystone XL pipeline. China and India will happily take all that oil after a pipeline is completed to BC. Hopefully, Canada will be successful w/ the WTO suite.
lengould100
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2012
if a new EU fuel directive were to single out oil sands crude in a "discriminatory, arbitrary or unscientific way," Plunkett wrote.
Sounds reasonable. In other words, put up scientific proof of claims to excessive environmental damage from oil sands operations (not possible) or shut up. The only evidence-based data I've seen indicate that oil sands production produces less CO2 per unit refined product than Venezuelan heavies on which most of Southern US operates now. Searching for reference again.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
EU should invest into cold fusion research. Which doesn't, so I cannot take its environmentalism seriously. It's just trade war, because the EU is lead with Germany, which maintains "over-standard relationships" with Russia and its oil and gas from Kazakhstan. This cannot change the fact, the Syncrude oil sands extraction devastates the Canadian nature in really bad way.
ormondotvos
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2012
For references and exhaustive analysis, see http://www.theoildrum.com search "oil sands"

"Peak oil, which is not the same as running out of oil, simply says that there comes a time when oil production is as high as it can go. The limits may be economic, or they may be geological. In fact, they are likely a product of both. And, there comes a time when oil is no longer economical as a fuel. Not because there is no more, but because it costs so much that continuing the oil paradigm (or the NG, coal or nuclear paradigms for that matter) is impossible, and the cost of renewable energy will be less than limited resource energies."
Excalibur
3 / 5 (18) Feb 21, 2012
China and India will happily take all that oil after a pipeline is completed to BC.

TransCanada already made it clear the that oil was destined for overseas markets, not the US.

And, once completed, said pipeline would be used to draw down other TransCanada oil stocks in the US, stocks that are presently supplying the Midwest.

All it wants is access to a warm water port in the Gulf of Mexico.

The US gains nothing but a few thousand temporary construction jobs and a long lived environmental hazard.
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
"All it wants is access to a warm water port in the Gulf of Mexico."

You know, given man-made global warming our Canadian friends may not need a warm water port in the Gulf. They will have one in Hudson Bay with free shipping across the Arctic Ocean.

Sure they can build the XL but will it ever really get used? Oil is going out of fashion.

El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2012
what are you talking about the northwest passage now exists -- f a warm water port
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
what are you talking about the northwest passage now exists -- f a warm water port


An Arctic "port" on the northern coast of Canada isn't really an option as there is no infrastructure to support one. Hudsons bay would work but even that would be a lengthy construction process as nothing exists there either (for the time being).
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Your right, there is no infrastructure to do a North passage even if the AGW creates an environment allowing passage. Maybe 15 years from now, it might be a worthy investment by big oil.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2012
Your right, there is no infrastructure to do a North passage even if the AGW creates an environment allowing passage. Maybe 15 years from now, it might be a worthy investment by big oil.


When rigs start going up in the arctic I would imagine we'll see at least one or two Ports established. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at oil company board meetings when the topic of the Arctic ocean comes up....maybe there is something in the Heartland documents about big oils "save the arctic" foundation....I doubt it.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2012
The only evidence-based data I've seen indicate that oil sands production produces less CO2 per unit refined product than Venezuelan heavies on which most of Southern US operates now.

I think when they talk about 'more polluting' they're not talking about the CO2 balance, but all the toxic chemicals that are pumped into the ground and used during the extraction of oil from tar sands.

If you look at pictures of regions where tar sand oil extraction is taking place you'll probably agree.
Gawad
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
Hi AA, while tailings ponds are certainly one consequence of tar sands extraction, they are in fact talking about CO2 balance. This is because extraction is very energy intensive, so much so that when the world price for oil is under 70$/barrel it quickly become unprofitable. In other words, you burn a lot of energy to get that energy out of the ground, resulting in the extraction of oil from tar sands producing a lot more CO2 than the extraction of other more conventional forms of oil.

Of course, though, I don't think the EU has quite factored the CO2 produced as a result of the military and security expenses required to keep importing so much oil from politically unstable regions into their equation.

Canadians. We may shake our heads at A LOT of things crazy Americans do...but we'll never blow them up. And even if we ever did so accidentally, we'd always at least say "Sorry!", eh?
Excalibur
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 23, 2012
Having been denied a permit for the pipeline, TransCanada is now trying to use eminent domain to seize easements from nearly 60 property owners in Texas and South Dakota.

Does Marjon know of this?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
Does Marjon know of this?

It's not socialism if companies control the government that then enforcs the socialist acts. :-/
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 24, 2012
"But, but ... what of the private property rights that are being violated?"

He's gonna have a tough time squaring his circles on this one. :lol:
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2012
"All it wants is access to a warm water port in the Gulf of Mexico."

You know, given man-made global warming our Canadian friends may not need a warm water port in the Gulf. They will have one in Hudson Bay with free shipping across the Arctic Ocean.

Sure they can build the XL but will it ever really get used? Oil is going out of fashion.



@howhot
Are you saying that Hudson Bay will be a warm water port? That's ridiculous and a premature AGW assumption on your part. We in the U.S. need that oil NOW, at least until a viable alternative for crude oil is discovered and produced effectively. Don't forget that most plastics are made from oil. Also, don't you think it would be a bit to our advantage to be free of our dependency on middle eastern and Venezuelan oil and the accompanying U.S. military presence in the middle east, and the endless participation to the Israeli commitment? I would much prefer the Keystone XL to be built for the Texas oil refineries. Obama is a fool.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2012
We in the U.S. need that oil NOW, at least until a viable alternative for crude oil is discovered and produced effectively. Don't forget that most plastics are made from oil. Also, don't you think it would be a bit to our advantage to be free of our dependency on middle eastern and Venezuelan oil and the accompanying U.S. military presence in the middle east, and the endless participation to the Israeli commitment? I would much prefer the Keystone XL to be built for the Texas oil refineries. Obama is a fool

It is you who have been fooled. As noted above "TransCanada already made it clear the that oil was destined for overseas markets, not the US.

And, once completed, said pipeline would be used to draw down other TransCanada oil stocks in the US, stocks that are presently supplying the Midwest."

The net result would be that the US gets even LESS Canadian oil than it does now.
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2012
That can be changed. The Republicans can force TransCanada to make a commitment to sell their oil to American refineries, which is original destination for the oil in the first place. Do you honestly believe that American companies will allow this oil to be sold to foreigners when that pipeline is crossing through on U.S. soil? Don't be naive. IF the pipeline gets built at all, that oil is ours. And as I've said. . .until a viable alternative to oil is found, we must keep using oil. There is no alternative to it at this time. . .Find an alternative and we can pursue that. Right now, it would behoove all of us to freeze our butts off in a freezing cold house from lack of oil for heating. . .or for gasoline.
Use public transportation. . .still needs gasoline. There's no other way.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2012
OK. . .Ethanol would be a decent alternative as it can be obtained from biomass. In fact, American deserts can be converted to farming and grow sweet sorghum as a biofuel. But there aren't enough farms right now to grow the stuff and desert areas would be too labor intensive to convert into farms. Perhaps in the future, after we acquire the pipeline oil, it can be used to agriform * the deserts into successful farming areas to grow the sweet sorghum. When that crop is established on a regular basis and all vehicles run on that ethanol, then we can kiss TransCanada and their oil sands goodbye

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2012
It is you who are naive.

Oil and gas go to the markets where it brings the most, regardless of what consumers here need.

The same thing is happening to the natural gas that the frackers are ripping out of Pennsylvania's forests; it's destined for abroad, all with the explicit Legislative and Gubernatorial approval of the Koch Bros. puppets in Harrisburg.

The Republicans don't give a damn about "energy independence," just the $$$$$$.
Excalibur
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2012
@Excal
Sweet Sorghum doesn't require much water. It grows well in drought areas and offers 2 crops per year. It only requires a minimum of fertilizer and water and is a very efficient plant. It's used for food, ethanol production and silage for animals. This project, if used, would have to depend on the desert being converted first into at least partially arable land. . .not as sand dunes that you see now. That requires a lot of energy (gasoline) for the earth movers and other equipment. A small section at a time for agriforming (terraforming) with water from areas like Las Vegas piped in would be needed. With plants growing in the desert, weather patterns may change so as to provide occasional rainfall once the plant life is in place. Sweet sorghum is most often used to make syrup because of the high sucrose content. When the sugars are extracted from the plant, it gets processed for either syrup or fermented for biofuel. It's highly efficient for both products.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2012
deep. . .at this point in time and in this lousy economy with high unemployment, we are NOT going to allow any shenanigans to go on as far as much needed fuel. The country has to be kept running and the country runs on oil no matter how you or anyone feels about it. If TransCanada wants permission for the KXL, they will have to bend and kiss a lot of asses before they get that permission, and we will MAKE SURE that that oil stays here, irregardless of how much China, e.g. is willing to pay for it. Otherwise, the deal is off. Oh sure, TC can sell their oil to China and India from their Canadian ports, but comes wintertime, everything slows down and ports can get pretty icy up in Canada. Also, selling to China may cause China to be more aggressive for that oil. They will get aggressive anyway because they need it to further their own economy and stay politically strong.
I assure you that Americans will not allow this thing to go through unless we partake of it. We are not fools.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2012
We have thrown many RINOs out of political office already. RINO = Republican in name only. We can do it again with both Democrats and Republicans as well as the President if they don't do what we will them to do. Don't underestimate the will of Americans. We get things done in spite of having a Commie in the White House now. If you think that Americans such as the occupy Wall Street vermin are in power, you are very wrong. They are not the real Americans as you shall see in the near future.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2012
Oh and Excalibar. . .thanks for the 1 rating. . .now make sure you give a 1 rating to all my other posts as it only means First Prize. . .LOL

back to the topic: Russia will probably withhold their fossil fuels from European countries and sell to China also. Especially if Putin wins the election next month and tries to reunify the former USSR to get more revenue and slave labor. ^5 Putin
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
Bitchieguy does like to pretend he/she/they know what they are talking about... Fossil fuels are indeed traded on a global scale.
http://205.254.13...m#Global Patterns of Oil Trade
Oh and Excalibar. . .thanks for the 1 rating. . .now make sure you give a 1 rating to all my other posts as it only means First Prize. . .LOL
You say ignorant things, you get rewarded for it. LOL
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2012
Sweet Sorghum doesn't require much water.

Still doesn't address the question of where that water will come from.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2012
at this point in time and in this lousy economy with high unemployment, we are NOT going to allow any shenanigans to go on as far as much needed fuel. The country has to be kept running and the country runs on oil no matter how you or anyone feels about it. If TransCanada wants permission for the KXL, they will have to bend and kiss a lot of asses before they get that permission, and we will MAKE SURE that that oil stays here

Again, how very naive you are.

The Republicans don't give a rat's ass about the energy needs of the US at the lowest possible cost. They're in the business of selling for top dollar to whoever is able and willing to pay.

For proof, look to Pennsylvania's natural gas that the frackers are shipping offshore, with the blessing of the Koch Bros.'s puppets.

Their backroom deals with TransCanada are already made. Now they just want their payoffs.

Wake up and smell the sewage.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2012
We have thrown many RINOs out of political office already. RINO = Republican in name only. We can do it again with both Democrats and Republicans as well as the President if they don't do what we will them to do. Don't underestimate the will of Americans. We get things done in spite of having a Commie in the White House now. If you think that Americans such as the occupy Wall Street vermin are in power, you are very wrong. They are not the real Americans as you shall see in the near future.

Your bias is very badly showing, in more than one place.

Are you a bought and paid for shill? Or, is your ignorance of the facts innocently born?
hopefulbl
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
people of Canada. I am a Canadian. I am not against oilsands, but against pipeline to west coast. Although the environmental concerns are real, I do not want to pay a premium for my gasoline. This pipeline will drive up demand and prices for canadian oil of all sources, and we canadians who are subsidizing the construction of pipeline will be competing with asian interests for our oil which will drive up prices for us at the gas pump, significantly more than the cost benefits in jobs, etc. The only winners are the oil producers from coast to coast & the asian manufacturers at the expense of my pocketbook and loss of canadian manufacturing jobs...do the math, yes on oilsands especially as technology cleans it up and NO PIPELINE TO WEST COAST. DO THE MATH DO THE MATH DO THE MATH
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2012
Ghost says"
Bitchieguy does like to pretend he/she/they know what they are talking about... Fossil fuels are indeed traded on a global scale.
http://205.254.13...m#Global Patterns of Oil Trade
Oh and Excalibar. . .thanks for the 1 rating. . .now make sure you give a 1 rating to all my other posts as it only means First Prize. . .LOL
You say ignorant things, you get rewarded for it. LOL


Ghost, you are still a fool and an idiotic girlyman. . .of course fossil fuels are traded in the world market' on a global scale. I NEVER said it wasn't. It's a commodity just as everything else for sale or trade. Why don't you take a course in reading comprehension, Ghost. It might help you to understand what people are saying much better.
Just as you had to question my knowledge about the existence of bamboo rebar in making conrete, which you had never heard of, nor done any research on it.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
Now you feel a new desire to question my knowledge of anything about fossil fuels as though you are the sage of the age. . .LOL
Well, GhosofGirlyman. . .maybe you should learn how to Google for things of which you have no knowledge so that you can avoid making stupid arguments and dumbass remarks just to impress your "friends" on Physorg, eh?
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
With 9 oil refineries in Alberta, Canada, but for the Winter conditions it would still be to Canada's advantage to build the pipeline across Canada to the West coast if they prefer selling the oil to China and India and not to the U.S. They would probably need to provide warmth to the pipeline to keep the oil flowing fast, in spite of the freezing temps. That is up to the Canadian gov't as to whom they want to sell their oil. But they will not be allowed to build KXL through S.D., Neb., OK., and Tx just so they can sell it to other countries. I can assure you , it will not happen.
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Here is the breakdown of Canadian oil refineries, according to Wiki:
Canada

Newfoundland and Labrador
North Atlantic Refinery, located in Come by Chance, (North Atlantic Refining), 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)

Nova Scotia
Imperial Oil Refinery - Dartmouth, (Imperial Oil), 89,000 bbl/d (14,100 m3/d)

New Brunswick
Saint John, (Irving Oil), 300,000 bbl/d (48,000 m3/d)

Quebec
Montreal-East, (Shell Canada), 161,000 bbl/d (25,600 m3/d). Montreal East Refinery (Shell Canada). On June 4, 2010, Shell Canada officially announced the commencement to downgrade the refinery into a terminal, following the unsuccessful attempt to find a buyer to take over the plant.[8]
Montreal, (Suncor Energy), 140,000 bbl/d (22,000 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009) and historically a Petrofina refinery. Montreal Refinery[9]
Lévis, (Ultramar(Valero)), 265,000 bbl/d (42,100 m3/d)[9]
RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Ontario
Nanticoke Refinery, Nanticoke - (Imperial Oil), 112,000 bbl/d (17,800 m3/d)
Sarnia, (Imperial Oil), 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)
Sarnia, (Suncor Energy), 85,000 bbl/d (13,500 m3/d)
Corunna, (Shell Canada), 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
Lubricant Refinery
Mississauga, (Suncor Energy), 15,600 bbl/d (2,480 m3/d) - aka Clarkson Refinery - base oil production is 13,600 bbl/d (2,160 m3/d) of API Group II capacity and 2,000 bbl/d (320 m3/d) of API Group III capacity. Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009) and historically a Gulf refinery.

Saskatchewan
CCRL Refinery Complex, Regina (Consumers' Co-operative Refineries Limited (CCRL)), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Upgraders (improve the quality of crude for sale at a higher price)
Husky Lloydminster Refinery, Lloydminster, (Husky Energy), 25,000 bbl/d (4,000 m3/d)
Husky Lloydminster Upgrader Lloydminster, (Husky Energy), 75,000 bbl/d (11,900 m3/d)

RitchieGuy
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Alberta
Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)
Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)
Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen
Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Alberta (cont'd)

Long Lake[disambiguation needed ], Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Suncor, Fort McMurray, (Suncor), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

]British Columbia

Burnaby Refinery, Burnaby, (Chevron Corporation), 52,000 bbl/d (8,300 m3/d)
Prince George Refinery, Prince George, (Husky Energy), 12,000 bbl/d (1,900 m3/d)
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2012
We have thrown many RINOs out of political office already. RINO = Republican in name only. We can do it again with both Democrats and Republicans as well as the President if they don't do what we will them to do. Don't underestimate the will of Americans. We get things done in spite of having a Commie in the White House now. If you think that Americans such as the occupy Wall Street vermin are in power, you are very wrong. They are not the real Americans as you shall see in the near future.


deepsand says:

Your bias is very badly showing, in more than one place.

Are you a bought and paid for shill? Or, is your ignorance of the facts innocently born?


deepsand. . .Last time I checked, my facts were accurate, more so than yours and your buddy, Ghost's. And yes, I am extremely biased FOR the success and survival of my country. Don't you feel the same about yours? If not, then why not?? You seem bitter. Are you resentful of loyal Americans?
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
@RitchieGumb; If you think that the Hudson Bay could be warm water point of entry in 15 years from global warming, your either joking or crazy. At 16 years, it becomes a real possibility. People just do not realize how amazingly dangerous global-warming is and how quickly we are making it happen. This year alone we have put out more greenhouse human-creted CO2 than in any year ever. Multi-Gigatons of heat trapping CO2. If you project using the "hockey-stick model", global temperature rise Hudson Bay could be ice free; and make the investment in your pipeline look like the stupidest construction ever done.

Your a twit.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
there comes a time when oil is no longer economical as a fuel. Not because there is no more, but because it costs so much that continuing the oil paradigm
This time is here already, if we include the cost of fossil fuel wars (Iraq, Kuwait) and corresponding arms race, the price of environmental pollution (aerosols, oil spills), the cost of crude oil and gas consumed during mining and transport and the price of financial crisis resulting from fluctuations of crude oil prices. I'm talking about billions of dollars per week. This cost would be completely unnecessary if we wouldn't ignore the cold fusion research and if we would realize it with the same enthusiasm, like the development of nuclear weapons before sixty years.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
"if we include the cost of fossil fuel wars", Which is one more reason for the US to completely push all alternatives to Oil (and coal at home for environmental reasons).
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?

@Excal. . .good question. . .perhaps this link will help to explain the answer better. Scroll down to surface and sub-surface water, although the rest of the page is also interesting: http://ddl.nmsu.e...iew.html

Water can be piped in from many locations. The American deserts do have supplies of water such as melted ice runoff from mountains.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
howhot says:
@RitchieGumb; If you think that the Hudson Bay could be warm water point of entry in 15 years from global warming, your either joking or crazy. At 16 years, it becomes a real possibility. People just do not realize how amazingly dangerous global-warming is and how quickly we are making it happen. This year alone we have put out more greenhouse human-creted CO2 than in any year ever. Multi-Gigatons of heat trapping CO2. If you project using the "hockey-stick model", global temperature rise Hudson Bay could be ice free; and make the investment in your pipeline look like the stupidest construction ever done.

Your a twit.


LOL. . .I suggest you again read what I said earlier on the first page about your possibility of a warm water PORT up in Canada due to your AGW. I disagree that Hudson Bay will become a deep water port that doesn't freeze over in Winter. It will still freeze even if you think it won't, even in 30 years from now.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
@howhot. . . .so what are your suggestions for an alternative to fossil fuels that can be used NOW, since it appears that continued usage of those fossil fuels are driving you nuts with the horror of CO2 maybe turning Canada into a tropical paradise. Please explain, in detail, what your alternatives are so that we can all go out and warm our homes in cold weather with such products as you can suggest. Mind you, it cannot be anything that emits a gas or uses electricity because that would defeat the purpose of trying to get off the grid which requires coal, gas or oil-fired furnaces to produce the steam that turns the turbines. Would you suggest 20 million chipmunks running frantically in round cages that are connected to batteries that store the energy to light a few houses? Of course, you would still have to feed the little rascals and give them time off for sleep and make wee wee. And you can't run a car on enslaved chipmunks under the hood. What do we use in place of gasoline?
Excalibur
3 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?

@Excal. . .good question. . .perhaps this link will help to explain the answer better. Scroll down to surface and sub-surface water, although the rest of the page is also interesting: http://ddl.nmsu.e...iew.html

Water can be piped in from many locations. The American deserts do have supplies of water such as melted ice runoff from mountains.

You are getting dumber and dumber. Water is fast becoming a more and more scarce commodity, thus becoming more and more costly.

The aquifers that that mountain runoff replenishes are fast being depleted.

And, you've totally ignored the expense of building, operating and maintaining the infrastructure that would here be required.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 27, 2012
"Are you resentful of loyal Americans?"

No; I'm disdainful of stupid Americans.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
The Heartland Institute apparently has hired ItchieGuy to waist your time. His goal is get you to read stuff that sounds smart but isn't. It sounds like G7. ItchieGuy, are you G7?

Anyway, ItchieGuy has nothing to say except why a pipeline over farmland doesn't do environmental damage to Sorghum farms. He doesn't say anything about what a barrel of Oil does to CO2 in the atmosphere, an average barrel of crude oil will produce a minimum of 317kg of CO2 when consumed (almost 700lbs). That is what goes up into the atmosphere for all of us, human and cows.

Anyway, ItchieGuy is just one of the G7 "Hurt-your-land" Institute members just propagandizing everyone here.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
IchieGuy put this question to me;
Please explain, in detail, what your alternatives are so that we can all go out and warm our homes in cold weather


What? Really; you have never heard of Solar Power? Are you a complete oil dupe? Wind is amazing, Hydro is amazing, Solar is the future. Oil can easily be displaced with bio-products.

Show me why Wind, Hydro, Solar, and Bio can NOT replace the Oil Sands. Please explain that.

Excalibur
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
He could be a shill for The Heritage Foundation, which has mounted a propaganda campaign championing Keystone XL.
Excalibur
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
A bit of reading suggests that RitchieGuy may be yet another sock puppet of "Potty Mouth" Pirouette.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
howhot says:
IchieGuy put this question to me;
Please explain, in detail, what your alternatives are so that we can all go out and warm our homes in cold weather


What? Really; you have never heard of Solar Power? Are you a complete oil dupe? Wind is amazing, Hydro is amazing, Solar is the future. Oil can easily be displaced with bio-products.

Show me why Wind, Hydro, Solar, and Bio can NOT replace the Oil Sands. Please explain that.



"Wind is amazing, Hydro is amazing, Solar is the future." hotshot says. Does this mean that you haven't read about birds flying into windmills on windmill farms and dying? Not that that would matter to phony environmentalists. And that windmills change the air pressure and thus the weather patterns. I guess you haven't read that either.
And how about solar? Oh yes, how many solar companies have gone bankrupt and absconded with taxpayer money because Obama chose to invest that taxpayer money into failing solar companies?
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2012
And did you pay attention to the fact that on cloudy days when the sun don't shine, which happens a lot in the fall and winter months in many regions of the world, solar power is useless and electricity from the grid to heat homes has to be used instead? Have you bothered to find out the asking price for a whole lot of solar arrays and its maintenance for a single home? Did you wonder how come Solyndra, one of your amazing solar companies were busy destroying and busting up millions of dollars worth of perfectly good solar panel glass tubes AFTER they had gone bankrupt?
Oh, and have you noticed that amazing solar power can't run a car very far even with a whole slew of batteries in the car? Have you also noticed that electric companies haven't resorted to utilizing wind OR solar power to produce electricity for their customers because solar and wind are unreliable and tend to fail either alone or being used together? Do you realize how many blackouts there would be if solar and wind
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
are used exclusively by the electric companies. Wind is weather; solar is weather; both are dependent on the weather patterns. Every time the weather changes, it affects wind and solar. Why do you think that sailboats also have a gas or diesel engine on board at all times. The wind AND solar are very unpredictable. Cities and towns will go dark if solar and wind are used exclusively.
Hydropower is great as long as the water doesn't freeze and become ice. It's also great if a city is close to a water source like Niagara Falls. Too far from a water source like that and the costs are enormous to maintain the needed cables, wiring, poles, etc. plus the infrastructure for the turbines, et al.
Biofuels? I've already mentioned the growing of sweet sorghum which is already being grown in many parts of the world for food, biofuel and silage. However, deepsand questions whether it can be grown out in the desert because of the runoff water from the mountains is not to his liking.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2012
deepsand apparently didn't comprehend the various types of desert and thinks that there is only one kind. . .with big sand dunes. There are aquifers and oases that take in the water from when it rains heavily in the rainy season out in the right kind of desert where sweet sorghum could be grown. I have said already that sweet sorghum is excellent as a biofuel, but deepsand cannot comprehend the enormity of the amazing uses for sweet sorghum. It's apparent that howhot and deepsand cannot be bothered to take into consideration all these different aspects of solar, wind, hydro, and my suggestion for sweet sorghum. Instead, howhot rags on and on about how we and the cows are going to die because CO2 is in the air, without offering valid reasons for changing from oil other than the alleged global warming. I think howhot, deepsand and probably many others are subject to histrionics (hysteria) over rising seas, CO2 and all the other things that AlGore and pseudo-scientists insist are happenin
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2012
There is no denying that solar power is a nice idea if one can afford the purchase price and maintenance over the years, and the eventual replacement of the panels, etc. Not everyone can afford such luxury. Wind power is dangerous to migrating birds and a windmill farm can change temperature, wind shifts, etc., and wind speed is too variable to maintain reliable direct current unless the energy goes to batteries. Wind and solar power cannot sustain the heavy electrical needs of large cities or even of large towns. And it's only partially effective on individual houses.
If you AGW people are really interested in averting your alleged disaster, then you should demand that biofuels be grown out in desert areas where human populations are scarce so that it is only the plants that get the water, not communities. If you have nothing else to offer but saying amazing solar and amazing wind and hydro, then you're not really serious about it. In other words, put up or shut up.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
It is crystal clear that you attempt to evade by misdirection and obfuscation.

Do you really think that no one reading this knows anything of the Physics involved?

That we all know nothing of the growing water shortages in the country that render your desert-to-farm land notion unfeasible?

That all here are as little concerned for the environment as you seem to be? Have you any idea of the scope of damage being done to Canadian flora and fauna?
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2012
And it is crystal clear that YOU have nothing to offer as suggestions on how to circumvent the alleged coming disaster except for your holier-than-thou crap and your own obfuscation and misdirection away from the problem of the need for oil as opposed to the need for CO2 sequestering.
You, deepsand, talk large but offer nothing. Where are YOUR suggestions, big guy, eh?
Bog_Mire
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
RitchieGuy, your bofuel sorghum idea wasn't bad - except getting water from "areas like Las Vegas" - practice what you preach and do a little research on the decline in runoff reaching Hoover Dam. Vegas is going to run out of Hydro power sooner or later because there isnt going to be enough water harvested at Hoover to run the turbines any longer. And no one thought to invest in massive solar & wind farms in just about the most perfect place for it. Face palm.
Bog_Mire
3 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
Dude - you think that Obama is a "Commie" Is he a Muslim as well? Comments like that do your arguments no profit at all.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
deepsand says:
"Have you any idea of the scope of damage being done to Canadian flora and fauna?"

Not being a Canadian, I don't have first-hand knowledge of the damage except for what I've read in magazines and internet. I understand how damaging the extracting of fossil fuels can be to the environment, which is an unavoidable problem if the Canadians expect to stay warm in the Winter time. I cannot condemn the Canadian government for providing that oil so that their people can remain comfortable and not freeze to death. But I will condemn them for wanting to sell that oil to China, a country that will someday attempt to bury us all, those of us in the "free world", that is.
For all I know, however, maybe we are not worthy to be free, given that so many Americans, Canadians, and other ethnicities seem to be anxious to give up all that which makes us a free people. As we head toward socialism, we will give up our freedoms one by one, so I hope the Canadians will know WTF happened.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
Bog. . .Obama is a big Socialist bordering on Communist. He is steeped in both and all or most of his appointees are either socialist or bending toward it. No, I don't think he's a Muslim in his heart, but he does seem to have a great reverence for that faith and many of its followers. . .like King Saud.
It was a shameful display of ignorance when Obama bowed before the emperor of Japan also. What a stupid man he is. An American president bows to no one. We have no need to bow to show respect.
I only mentioned Las Vegas as an example because outside of Vegas is desert. But I also said later on that the sweet sorghum needs to be grown in a desert area where human population is scarce so that all the water from rainfall and runoff goes to the plants. As I've said, there are different types of deserts and they have to pick the right ones. Sweet sorghum doesn't require very much water anyway, which is why it is excellent as a source of biofuel that can be grown in arid land.
good night
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2012
RG, you are just making yourself look dumber and dumber with every uncivil and irrational remark that you make.

Get this through to your brain: There is NO WATER TO SPARE for converting US deserts to farmland. Do your homework.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
Dear bitchyboy
That can be changed. The Republicans can force TransCanada to make a commitment to sell their oil to American refineries
So... How would they do that? With tanks and A-10s?
From the link,

"Generally, crude oil and petroleum products flow to the markets that provide the highest value to the supplier. Everything else being equal, oil moves to the nearest market first, because that has the lowest transportation cost and therefore provides the supplier with the highest net revenue, or in oil market terminology, the highest netback"
RitchieGuy may be yet another sock puppet of "Potty Mouth" Pirouette.
Hey bitchie you still sharing your nick with your gf? How romantic. Oh maybe one of you is now paolo potentatertots? Ahaahaaahahaha flooder.

This is only one of the many economic factors governing which producers sell what oil to whom.

You really should read a little before you spew.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
Hydropower is great as long as the water doesn't freeze and become ice.
Well that's funnier and stupider than usual. 'Yes let's design our arctic hydro dam to draw water from the surface where it is frozen. Why? Because it's stupid? Because bitchieboy expects us to?'
I have said already that sweet sorghum is excellent as a biofuel
And very tasty with a steaming bowl of butterbeans I hear. Yum.

Solar power on Germany
http://en.m.wikip...mal_site

Euro wind power
http://www.ewea.o...p?id=180
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?


It could easily come from reservoirs (they're the only reason there's much farmland in my area)...but we're not allowed to build them anymore...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?


It could easily come from reservoirs (they're the only reason there's much farmland in my area)...but we're not allowed to build them anymore...
And why is that MM? a link or more info would be very informative. Is it because of it's deleterious effect to the water table? Or perhaps the inevitable saltification of the surface? Or just that it is so prohibitably expensive and energy hungry to try to cultivate the DESERT?
Excalibur
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?


It could easily come from reservoirs (they're the only reason there's much farmland in my area)...but we're not allowed to build them anymore...

Want water? Just build a dam or reservoir. Shazam; water is created!

deepsand
3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2012
... American deserts can be converted to farming ...

Where is the water needed for such going to come from?


It could easily come from reservoirs (they're the only reason there's much farmland in my area)...but we're not allowed to build them anymore...

With the water to fill such coming from where?

Or, is the the case that the building of a reservoir is sufficient for creating water?
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
Itchyguy says:
Obama is a big Socialist bordering on Communist.


OH GROAN! Another free-republic political hack that is out to flame Obama. Probably a Birther that can't think for itself. The republicans can even get a sane idea in there heads. I'm sorry but your a waste of time.

I see you have already imploded.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2012
Well, he may be of some value yet, if he truly has a method for transmuting sand into water.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2012
yum. . .butterbeans are tasty. . LOL
Actually, TheGhostofGirlyman has NEVER offered any valid solutions to the problem of atmospheric CO2. He/she can only attack good solutions that others offer and make dumb comments. And unfortunately, deepsand and howhot follow in TheGhostofGirlyman's footsteps instead of coming up with some brilliant ideas other than their usual offerings of unreliable solar, wind and hydro.

Well, he may be of some value yet, if he truly has a method for transmuting sand into water.


LOL. . .deepsand. . .now you KNOW that I've never said anything about transmuting anything, but you do have either a good sense of humour OR a well developed imagination, however strange.
If you find someone who knows how to transmute sand into water, do let howhot in on it. i'm sure she's dying to know.

ModernMystic is partially correct. Surface reservoirs are not good in a desert area because the water evaporates quickly. But underground reservoirs and aquifers prevent
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2012
evaporation. The point is to prevent evaporation by any means. As I've said, in certain types of desert (which I'm certain that only intelligent people can comprehend) there are oases, subsurface aquifers, as well as runoff from nearby snow-capped mountains, plus the occasional heavy rainfall in the rainy season. There is also the early-morning dew that desert plants can absorb, just like barrel cactus and other desert plants.

From what I've read here in these 3 pages, you people are not really interested in solutions that make sense. Solutions to the CO2 problem like growing sweet sorghum to produce ethanol to run cars and trucks and heat homes and provide electricity is a stupid solution, in your uninformed opinions. All you want to do is talk about hockey sticks and rage about the humanity causing us all to die in the future and do some name-calling that makes no sense.
Since sweet sorghum growing in desert areas and elsewhere seems to offend your sensibilities, I will
RitchieGuy
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2012
withdraw it as a solution to the fossil fuel problem. You are evidently NOT serious about ending the pollution and just want to bitch and moan and yell that something has to be done about it. But you can't come up with your own ideas to the problem that can be used everywhere and is reliable. I offered the idea of growing sweet sorghum out in certain types of desert because those deserts are virtually uninhabited by humans and large animals which would compete with the plants for water. You have rejected my idea, so go find another one.
The solar panel on my house is of no use on cloudy days and I have no choice but connect to the grid or use a gas generator. I tried wind power and most of the time. . .no wind. I have no access to hydro or thermal energy unless I move to a water source like Niagara or Iceland for thermal. So what should I do? I am growing sweet sorghum this Spring on 40 of my acres and hope to get 2 crops out of it. Most of it will become ethanol for my tractor, etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2012
I have no access to hydro or thermal energy unless I move to a water source like Niagara
You mean so you could build a big water wheel in the falls? I dont think local ordinance would permit this.
or Iceland for thermal
You mean by living inside a volcano like the vikings did? Then you would have a problem with A/C.
because those deserts are virtually uninhabited by humans and large animals which would compete with the plants for water
Uh, what water?
I am growing sweet sorghum this Spring on 40 of my acres
That wouldnt be 40 acres of DESERT would it? That would explain your whole train of thought.
and hope to get 2 crops out of it. Most of it will become ethanol for my tractor, etc.
Uh how? By magic? Did the nice aliens give you a transmogrifier of some sort? You gonna build a big still? Is da revenoors gonna let yall do dat? I hear sorghum mash lets out a stink when you cook it up-
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2012
deepsand says:
RG, you are just making yourself look dumber and dumber with every uncivil and irrational remark that you make.

Get this through to your brain: There is NO WATER TO SPARE for converting US deserts to farmland. Do your homework.


First of all. . .how ridiculous you and Excaibur appear for giving ModernMystic a 1 rating for offering his own idea that is totally innocuous and well meaning. Clearly you have no shame, if that means anything to you. I gave him a 5 to try and offset your stupidity.
Secondly, have you ever heard of the Negev desert in Israel and how the Israelis living in kibbutzim transformed the Negev desert into farmland? No, I don't suppose you have.

http://www.jewish...wth.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2012
First of all. . .how ridiculous you and Excaibur appear for giving ModernMystic a 1 rating for offering his own idea that is totally innocuous and well meaning. Clearly you have no shame, if that means anything to you. I gave him a 5 to try and offset your stupidity.
No, because you are a suckup. MM is pretty clever and can see that you are not. Clever that is.

So, how exactly are you going to turn 40 acres of sorghum into hooch again? I missed that-
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2012
After reading the link, think about how it can also be done in the U.S. and other countries. Disregarding what the Israelis have done for their own survival in semi-arid desert areas of the Negev and not copying their technology would be very stupid, even mindless.
Here's another one. Possibly the only other problem that Israel has, other than the Palestinian, is the overpopulation of such a small country with Jews moving to Israel who will require even more water and food products. The only answer for the survival of Israel is to cut down on immigration.

http://www.moprn....t_en.htm
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2012
You still haven't explained were the additional water required for your desert-to-farm plan is going to come from.
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 28, 2012
First of all. . .how ridiculous you and Excaibur appear for giving ModernMystic a 1 rating for offering his own idea that is totally innocuous and well meaning. Clearly you have no shame, if that means anything to you. I gave him a 5 to try and offset your stupidity.

Clearly you lack the ability to understand that "innocuous and well meaning" in this case is still just plain dumb.

And, your rewarding it makes you dumber.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 29, 2012
And it appears that both deepsand and Excalibur are even dumber than GhostofGirlyman when it comes to reading comprehension. Is it just that your pitiful plea to have everything explained to you over and over again is supposed to make everyone think that I haven't explained anything sufficiently? Or is it that one of you is a sockpuppet for FrankHerbert and is attempting to get even like the school bus bully that he is even as an adult? Or maybe Ghost is switching to one of his own sockpuppets like his buttbuddy FrankHerbert does? In any case, and to be more concise as to the source of the water, I repeat once again, so pay attention this time. . .UNDERGROUND AQUIFERS, SUBSURFACE RESERVOIRS, RUNOFFS FROM SNOW-CAPPED MOUNTAINS, RAINFALL, MORNING DEW. Oh and the use of drip irrigation similar to the Israeli method. If the desert farmers wish to use pipelines and pumps from the source, that's their decision. Of course, drilling for oil and the oil sands will still be available.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 29, 2012
Which word(s) of CURRENT WATER SHORTAGES do you not understand?
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 29, 2012
You are certainly assuming much with your "current water shortages" fable. Exactly WHERE is the shortage? I haven't heard of any such shortage that would prevent growing of crops. Even during a drought it will eventually rain and fill the aquifers and reservoirs. When a drought occurs, people are advised not to water their lawns and cut back on water usage. That's how it's always been. And eventually it rains again.
You are obviously just another Chicken Little yelling about impending disasters when there is none. Maybe you should go to talk to Obama and tell him of this water shortage. I'm sure he will be surprised to hear about it. It should also come as a surprise to the bottled water companies.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (14) Feb 29, 2012
Not my fault that your knowledge of current events in the US over the past decade is so lacking.

Before making your dessert-to-farm plans, you should have done your homework. Then you'd know of the ongoing water wars west of the Mississippi.

As for bottled water, you are obviously equally clueless as to both its sources and its effects on aquifers.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 29, 2012
First of all. . .how ridiculous you and Excaibur appear for giving ModernMystic a 1 rating for offering his own idea that is totally innocuous and well meaning. Clearly you have no shame, if that means anything to you. I gave him a 5 to try and offset your stupidity.

Clearly you lack the ability to understand that "innocuous and well meaning" in this case is still just plain dumb.

And, your rewarding it makes you dumber.


It appears that your charity knows no bounds when it comes to handing out 5 ratings to your Physorg friends no matter how stupid and idiotic are their words. But an innocent comment from another member throws you into a hysteria fit and you must punish him by giving him a 1 rating. How childish of you and your buttbuddy. It's apparent that you are not a trained scientist with enough intelligence to see the error of your ways. So please keep downvoting me also. At least I have a good conscience.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2012
Not my fault that your knowledge of current events in the US over the past decade is so lacking.

Before making your dessert-to-farm plans, you should have done your homework. Then you'd know of the ongoing water wars west of the Mississippi.

As for bottled water, you are obviously equally clueless as to both its sources and its effects on aquifers.


dessert to farm plans?? What dessert? Are we having baked Alaska down at the farm? ROFLOL
Yes, I'm aware that water is being cut off to farms in certain areas out West. But California has always had problems of that nature and it has never had anything to do with global warming. That's the California climate and that state depends on getting its water from Washington state and Oregon. The valleys toward the east of the Sierra Madre doesn't get water becomes the mountains block the rain clouds from coming over to that side. So who are they going to sue? Nature?
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2012
It's simply a case of too many people living in a state where it doesn't rain as much as on the East coast. But when it DOES rain, houses get washed down from the hills and flooding occurs in low lying areas. That's California. They get flooded when it rains heavily because they've cut most of the trees so there's not many trees to hold down the soil and the houses just slide down with nothing to stop them. Big expensive houses and small alike go sliding downhill. California is cursed. . .floods, earthquakes, wild fires, drug cartels, gangbangers, gay marriage. You name it, they've got it. LOL
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
Reservoirs conserve water otherwise lost to the ocean from melting snow packs and mountain storms (where a lot of water gets dumped). Do you really want me to explain it to you all like you were the three year olds you're acting like?

The conserved water can then be moved anywhere. Is it costly to build one? Not especially. Is it costly to move the water great distances away from the reservior....atm yes it is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (10) Feb 29, 2012
You are certainly assuming much with your "current water shortages" fable. Exactly WHERE is the shortage?
Uh in the desert? That is why it is a desert isnt it?
The conserved water can then be moved anywhere.
You assume that there are significant amounts of unconserved water to be used.
Is it costly to build one? Not especially. Is it costly to move the water great distances away from the reservior....atm yes it is.
I am unclear here... You are saying to build a reservoir at some distance from the point of use in the desert, and then pipe it there?

Bitchyboy says:
I am growing sweet sorghum this Spring on 40 of my acres and hope to get 2 crops out of it. Most of it will become ethanol for my tractor, etc.
HOW are you going to turn your crops into fuel?
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2012
You assume that there are significant amounts of unconserved water to be used.


LOL come on Otto, you are FAR more intelligent than that. How much water runs from the land into the ocean currently? That's exactly how much unconserved water there is. To say it's a staggeringly HUGE amount would be an understatement....

I am unclear here... You are saying to build a reservoir at some distance from the point of use in the desert, and then pipe it there?


The only feasible way I would know how to do it considering current technology...and that would be expensive. It's all cost benefit. I'm not saying that I agree with Ritchie about transforming all desert into farmland would be economically beneficial. I'm just saying it's POSSIBLE to transform significant portions of desert into farmland. And that's ALL I'm saying.
ziphead
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
Sweet Sorghum doesn't require much water...


Neither does Saguaro cactus. Would you like to grow that instead?
By the way, are you out of your flipping mind?

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 29, 2012
It appears that your charity knows no bounds when it comes to handing out 5 ratings to your Physorg friends no matter how stupid and idiotic are their words. But an innocent comment from another member throws you into a hysteria fit and you must punish him by giving him a 1 rating. How childish of you and your buttbuddy. It's apparent that you are not a trained scientist with enough intelligence to see the error of your ways. So please keep downvoting me also. At least I have a good conscience.

Potty Mouth, reincarnating yourself after Pirouette was executed has made you no more rational or civil, let alone of better conscience, than before.

As usual, when you've talked yourself into a corner, you look for the nearest rabbit hole. Here you've steadfastly refused to address the simple question as to how you would gain water for turning desert to farmland, without taking it from others, and then turn around and say "what desert?"

You deserve every bullet that you take.
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 29, 2012
How much water runs from the land into the ocean currently? That's exactly how much unconserved water there is.

Seems to me that you've overlooked the value, both economic and environmental, that that flowing water provides both before and after it reaches the lakes and seas.

Moving it to other places, even at no transportation cost, is not a zero sum game.
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2012
I did NOT say, "what desert?". I said "what dessert?", which is the way you spelt it. Don't you read your own posts, deep? You spelt it as dessert, which is why I asked if we're having baked Alaska down on the farm. You don't seem to comprehend your own posts, so it's not surprising that you can't comprehend the posts that others make. Tch Tch. . .such a shame. And I had sincerely hoped that you had some modicum of intelligence rather than emulating Ghost and FrankHerbert. . .who is evidently lurking about in these threads under an assumed sockpuppet name ready to pounce on one of those 5 stars to downrate or uprate for punishment or reward. Such a sad fellow he is. Probably still living in his mom's basement apartment. Have you wound up like FrankHerbert, deepsand?
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2012
ziphead says:
Sweet Sorghum doesn't require much water...


Neither does Saguaro cactus. Would you like to grow that instead?
By the way, are you out of your flipping mind?



Can you convert saguaro cactus into biofuel?
absolutely, now did that satisfy you?

RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2012
Excal says:
How much water runs from the land into the ocean currently? That's exactly how much unconserved water there is.

Seems to me that you've overlooked the value, both economic and environmental, that that flowing water provides both before and after it reaches the lakes and seas.

Moving it to other places, even at no transportation cost, is not a zero sum game.


Seems to me what we have here is a failure to communicate. The cost of moving water from one place to a desert farm is irrelevant when you figure in the alternative cost of fossil fuel usage and its undesirable effects on climate, environment, health, and economics. AGWites continually warn of future collapse worldwide. So is collapse far better than investing in sweet sorghum farming in certain desert areas that already have water or where water can be piped in for drip irrigation where very little water is lost and the plant roots get most of the moisture? You have to choose one or the other.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2012
I've already mentioned the best sources of water for these farms that would then become former deserts. Keep in mind that not ALL deserts are suitable for farming. If a saguaro cactus and other plants grow on it, then it is most likely good enough for agriforming as long as there is no competition for existing water supplies from humans. All harvested sweet sorghum would be taken to a factory for milling in order to extract the sugars (sucrose) from the plant tissues. The sugars are then fermented to produce a high alcohol content which in turn becomes ethanol eventually. None of the plant is wasted; biofuel, animal feed (silage) and grain for human consumption are the most important products from the plant. In addition, it doesn't require much water to grow before harvesting. I can't think of any other plant that would make a better biofuel than sweet sorghum. It is a proven product already and is highly efficient in place of fossil fuels.
RitchieGuy
1.5 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2012
I hope that people can now comprehend all that I've said. . .and what ModernM said. I've had to repeat myself several times because certain people seem to be averse to reading earlier posts and ask the same questions over and over. Perhaps some would prefer using fossil fuels rather than the alternative. That's your decision, not mine. If Canada builds the KXL through the midwest, I hope that they heed Bill Clinton's advice to avoid the Oglala aquifer and reroute the pipeline through the sandy hills instead.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2012
How much water runs from the land into the ocean currently? That's exactly how much unconserved water there is. To say it's a staggeringly HUGE amount would be an understatement....
MM that water is SUPPOSED to run into the ocean. This is no flippant remark... siltation is a severe problem where natural waterways are interrupted. This is the major problem.

Upstream diversion affects downstream river use including shipping, fishing, and water use for inhabitants. Many complex problems with diversion.
I've had to repeat myself several times because certain people seem to be averse to reading earlier posts and ask the same questions over and over.
You know, repeating the same stupid shit like youre oblivious to common sense does not help your cred. What cred you say?

Like for instance
I can't think of any other plant that would make a better biofuel than sweet sorghum.
-When the people here know you arent qualified to judge such things.

WHERE is your STILL dumbass?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2012
Bitchyboy tells incredibly brainless lies like:
I am growing sweet sorghum this Spring on 40 of my acres and hope to get 2 crops out of it. Most of it will become ethanol for my tractor, etc.
-And then ignores people when they call him/her on it.

HOW are you going to turn your crops into fuel DUMBASS?
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
Ahh crap. Ritchieguy is Pirouette! It walks like a duck, talks like a duck... 20 post of paid-by-Koch to waste bandwidth.
Excalibur
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2012
All that's missing are his fake Martians in a terrarium.