I’m Back, and now a rant about oil

I find myself wanting to rant more and more about everything and Twitter sometimes just doesn’t cut it. So I’m (once again) going to make an effort to blog a little more. 

Something that irked me a few days ago was the announcement by the Obama Administration to delay approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline until 2013 (after the 2012 election). Being in the business it is easy to see why he did this, he hasn’t been very tough on environmental policy and his supporters, mostly the green ones, have noticed. So by kicking this can down the road he avoids approving a pipeline that Enviros hate for reasons I will dispel later, and he has their support for his re-election.

I will say this first, this pipeline is not crucial for US oil consumption, however it will create jobs in the energy sector, lower oil prices in the US, and move our oil dependencies further away from the Middle East. Something that everyone wants in our shit of an economy right now; jobs and lower energy costs.

A quick over view of the Keystone XL. It is an extension of the already existing Keystone Pipeline. It would pump and additional 700,000 barrels of oil a day to US refineries. (The Current Keystone Pipeline pumps about 600,000 barrels a day). The oil would be from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta Canada. Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the US, and the last time I checked the friendliest supplier too.

So why not approve the plan. Well Enviros are afraid of a few things:

1) Building such a long pipeline will increase the threat of a failure in the line that results in an underground spill. This is might sound scary, but the US already has thousands of miles of pipelines across the country. This 3,000 km pipeline would be an increase of 1% in the US pipeline network. Pipeline bursts are rare, and in the event of one, the pumps are shut down immediately to reduce spillage. 

3) The proposed route takes it through some sensitive areas in Nebraska and Kansas. Well TransCanada has already agreed to move the route to avoid these areas. So this is no longer an issue.

2) It takes energy to pump this oil from Canada to the US. This pipeline working at capacity would result in an emissions increase of 18 million tons of CO2 per year. Again, a valid point if Weather, I mean global climate change, is caused by CO2. However, just because 18 million tons is a big number doesn’t mean it is significant. Last year China’s total CO2 emissions rose by 780 million tons. That’s right folks, if we added this pipeline and operated it at full capacity, we would emit as much additional CO2 in one year as China did in 8.4 days.

Here is the best part though. If we don’t build this pipeline, Canada is still going to have all this oil and no one to sell it to. So supply and demand will drive the market and Canada will find someone who is in desperate need of oil and sell it to them. And can you guess who really needs oil, yep China. Canada will build a pipeline to their western coasts and then load the oil up on tankers and ship it to China. And then China will probably just set it on fire to add CO2 emissions for fun and laugh at the American Enviros. 

Plain and simple, it is just stupid for us to delay building this pipeline. It’ll add jobs, it’ll reduce energy costs, and it’ll have a lower environmental impact than the other alternatives. 

Trains and America

I’ve heard so many people talk about how great more trains in America would be. By this, they mean more trains like Europe. A good example is the Eurostar which I’ve used. It connects Paris, Brussels, and London all by high speed rail. I went from Brussels to London in 2hrs. It was great, cost $60, and I slept the entire trip. The drive would be close to 5 hours, maybe a little less (all on the wrong side of the road), and petrol (which is gas) costs more in Europe. 

The Eurostar is only one example. Many high speed rails connect major cities across the entire continent. Imagine if the United State had such a system. Chicago to New York in a few hours. Indianapolis to L.A (probably through Chicago) in an afternoon/evening without a TSA agent feeling you up? Sounds great, deal me in.

Oh what, we can’t do that in America. You know why? Because in America we have to pander to, well everyone. It’d be racist, or bigotry, or corporate greed, or elitism, or some other crap excuse probably made up by someone who doesn’t get their way with high speed rails.

(Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying any of the aforementioned reasons are excuses made up by people who don’t get their way. But in the instance of high speed rails it is)

What I am saying though is, High Speed rails are only practical if they can travel at high speeds. This means a train from Chicago to New York, or Washington D.C. to L.A. would need to not make a stop in every state, or at every city it comes close to.

For my friends in Indiana, let me give you an example of how the debate would go if a high speed train was proposed to travel from Indianapolis to Chicago (maybe a 30 min trip).

Business sensible person: “Let’s build a high speed rail from Indy to Chicago”

Politician #1: “Great idea. Let’s see the plan. Oh it goes through my district city of Lafayette. We should build a stop there.”

BSP: “Well that would slow the trip down by about 100%, it wouldn’t make much sense.”

P #1: “But if the gov’t is going to pay for this, then we need to make it available to everyone, especially my friends in Lafayette.”

BSP: “But then it is more a high speed rail from Lafayette to Chicago, and the trip from Indianapolis, the 12th largest city in America, is essentially a connecting trip to Lafayette, not the 12th largest city in America.”

P #1: “Yes, but then the people of Lafayette, the 10th largest city in Indiana, will not be left out.”

Politician #2: “You guys talking about a rail from Indy to Chicago? Great, let’s make a stop in my district town on Crowne Point.”

BSP: “How does that make any sense? You’re not getting it. The HIGH speed rail cannot make multiple stops between major cities, especially ones that are a 2 hour drive, and a 30 min drive from the end destination. The high speed rail should connect centers of business, population, and tourism, not towns that are ‘big’ in your district.”

P #1 and #2: “Yeah, can’t do that.”

The point here is Government cannot be relied on to build high speed rails in America. Our politicians and government are more concerned with the well being of every individual and don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, so every service or program is built under a giant tent, which is fine, but only when a few services or programs are offered, and when private industry can’t do better.

Example, would anyone fly in a plane run by Amtrak? Probably, but it wouldn’t be profitable. The litmus test should be simple. If this makes sense and is cost effective, a private company would already be doing it in order to make money. so goodbye postal service, goodbye Amtrak, goodbye lots of wasteful programs that could be employing real workers who are not sucking down government money, but real money from consumers. 

I digress though. The point here is, everyone who is running around whining about how the government should fund high speed rails needs to stop. Then pool their money together and start a business. This business would acquire land, build tracks, buy trains, and start some high speed rail lines. A real far fetched idea for a generation that fails to really grasp the idea of sacrifice and risk and reward. 

The inspiration for this post is in the below re-blogged post of the introduction of a new high speed rail line in Japan by Japan Railways (which used to be government owned but is now operated by a group of seven for-profit companies that took over most of the assets and operations of the government owned Japanese National Railways in 1987, well ahead of the learning curve on what government can successfully operate and what they cannot). Looks how happy everyone is, and government did not do it, private companies out to make a profit did. Hooray for them.