Why is Trump looking for the deal to put America first when the deal is about the planet NOT America, therefore, should put the planet first?
31-35, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
One of my concerns is what China does after it builds the 1K plus coal plants it plans to build. What would they build them not to use them? What happens later on with all the ones they will have?
katielass · F
@Jackjjacksonjr: Exactly and China and India are not held accountable for at least 15 years and even then this is not enforceable. Why even china can be a recepient of our money. This was a fool deal made by a fool and it took Trump to have the guts to tell them to f off, we're not doing this. Let them be unhappy that they aren't screwing us. And let the fools here piss and moan all they want, who cares.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
Quite frankly, I was a little concerned about the same thing. Case in point, let's talk about 'where' China actually gets it's raw coal from in the first place. Perhaps they have their own underground coal reserves, I don't know. I've never googled it. But what I can tell you about for sure, is a 'Natural Resource' supply arrangement that China has had with Canada for at least 10 years now.
Alberta Canada is the mining location for the Canadian coal. Many years ago, a pipeline was constructed for the transport of liquified coal from Alberta to the BC coastal harbor. It is not known (by me) if the pipeline actually 'snakes' it's way through the mountains to the Port of Vancouver, or if it diverts south-west and joins the shipping port at Cranbrook BC, which of course is significantly inland of the coastal mountains, yet has shipping access to the Pacific.
The deal is, raw coal is mined from open-pit coal mines in Alberta. It is crushed up like powder. Water is then added (but no sugar!) and the entire mess looks like black cake batter, but stinks just like the air in Prestwick Scotland in the winter time because, yes.... they still heat with coal.
This highly liquified batter, officially called a "slurry", is then pumped through this coal pipeline to an awaiting tanker ship bound for China, but loaded somewhere in BC. Upon arrival in China, the coal 'slurry' is pumped off the ship, the water is then boiled-off from the 'slurry' in huge evaporation plants, reverting the coal powder back to it's natural, dry state.
That dried coal powder is then compressed into square blocks about 12" square, transported by truck to where it's needed, then burnt in coal-fired ovens. The infrastructure for all that to happen is huge to say the least.
My question is, China is Canada's primary export receiver of coal, as the stuff isn't really used much anywhere else in the world, particularly in Canada. In fact, the Province of Ontario has completely banned the use of coal, while handing out incentives ($) to convert to natural gas.
If that coal slurry pipeline infrastructure between Alberta and BC is now dismantled, that coal in Alberta stays in the ground, pretty much for ever, which of course is good thing. Problem is, Alberta is more bankrupt now from the implosion of the Alberta Tar Sands Initiative which occurred after the cancellation of the southbound Keystone Pipeline fiasco, than it was after their Provincial Trust Fund got spent by some unknown, masked man.
That is why Albertans pay Provincial Income Taxes now which they never paid before and that is also why they now pay the full Provincial component of sales tax on purchased items, rather than just the Federal component. Alberta makes it's money from the sale of natural resources, not from the sale of it's Intel..😏
Yet to answer your question, perhaps China's underlying intent all along, was to continue using the coal from Canada in that new 1K coal plant, along with all the other plants they have... 😷
Quite frankly, I was a little concerned about the same thing. Case in point, let's talk about 'where' China actually gets it's raw coal from in the first place. Perhaps they have their own underground coal reserves, I don't know. I've never googled it. But what I can tell you about for sure, is a 'Natural Resource' supply arrangement that China has had with Canada for at least 10 years now.
Alberta Canada is the mining location for the Canadian coal. Many years ago, a pipeline was constructed for the transport of liquified coal from Alberta to the BC coastal harbor. It is not known (by me) if the pipeline actually 'snakes' it's way through the mountains to the Port of Vancouver, or if it diverts south-west and joins the shipping port at Cranbrook BC, which of course is significantly inland of the coastal mountains, yet has shipping access to the Pacific.
The deal is, raw coal is mined from open-pit coal mines in Alberta. It is crushed up like powder. Water is then added (but no sugar!) and the entire mess looks like black cake batter, but stinks just like the air in Prestwick Scotland in the winter time because, yes.... they still heat with coal.
This highly liquified batter, officially called a "slurry", is then pumped through this coal pipeline to an awaiting tanker ship bound for China, but loaded somewhere in BC. Upon arrival in China, the coal 'slurry' is pumped off the ship, the water is then boiled-off from the 'slurry' in huge evaporation plants, reverting the coal powder back to it's natural, dry state.
That dried coal powder is then compressed into square blocks about 12" square, transported by truck to where it's needed, then burnt in coal-fired ovens. The infrastructure for all that to happen is huge to say the least.
My question is, China is Canada's primary export receiver of coal, as the stuff isn't really used much anywhere else in the world, particularly in Canada. In fact, the Province of Ontario has completely banned the use of coal, while handing out incentives ($) to convert to natural gas.
If that coal slurry pipeline infrastructure between Alberta and BC is now dismantled, that coal in Alberta stays in the ground, pretty much for ever, which of course is good thing. Problem is, Alberta is more bankrupt now from the implosion of the Alberta Tar Sands Initiative which occurred after the cancellation of the southbound Keystone Pipeline fiasco, than it was after their Provincial Trust Fund got spent by some unknown, masked man.
That is why Albertans pay Provincial Income Taxes now which they never paid before and that is also why they now pay the full Provincial component of sales tax on purchased items, rather than just the Federal component. Alberta makes it's money from the sale of natural resources, not from the sale of it's Intel..😏
Yet to answer your question, perhaps China's underlying intent all along, was to continue using the coal from Canada in that new 1K coal plant, along with all the other plants they have... 😷
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@katielass:
Isn't any money going to China from us actually borrowed from them in the first place?
Isn't any money going to China from us actually borrowed from them in the first place?
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@swirlie:
Fascinating analysis and all news to me thank you. One thing that strikes my is the effect of the slurry boiling. Wouldn't thet creat a whole new set of noxious fumes? In fact some sort of noxious fumes must be emitted powder is liquified.
It sounds like way too much capital is tied up on thr operation which sounds like it could continue for one hundred years for it to simply stop. You make a good case as to why the Keystone Pipeline should be open and I think it ultimately will be to access that. Here is the northern mid Atlantic US there are tons of fracked and capped natural gas wellls awaiting open pipelines and an increase in natural gas prices.
Waiting for a price bump may also be part of the reason the sand tsar gas isn't being harvested.
As I understand it the Paris Accord is completely voluntary and both the US and Canada are more than in compliance anyway and despite President Trump bailing the US will nonetheless be in compliance.
So who is stirring up all the noise and why?
Fascinating analysis and all news to me thank you. One thing that strikes my is the effect of the slurry boiling. Wouldn't thet creat a whole new set of noxious fumes? In fact some sort of noxious fumes must be emitted powder is liquified.
It sounds like way too much capital is tied up on thr operation which sounds like it could continue for one hundred years for it to simply stop. You make a good case as to why the Keystone Pipeline should be open and I think it ultimately will be to access that. Here is the northern mid Atlantic US there are tons of fracked and capped natural gas wellls awaiting open pipelines and an increase in natural gas prices.
Waiting for a price bump may also be part of the reason the sand tsar gas isn't being harvested.
As I understand it the Paris Accord is completely voluntary and both the US and Canada are more than in compliance anyway and despite President Trump bailing the US will nonetheless be in compliance.
So who is stirring up all the noise and why?
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
I will start at your last sentence and work my way up!
You asked, "So who is stirring up all the noise and why?".
First of all, you are absolutely correct when you stated that the US is fully compliant regardless of President Trump bailing the U.S. out of the deal. The show will go on with Corporate America, regardless of the declarations made by President Trump.
This may sound far-reaching to you, but something Donald Trump has never recovered from (in my humble opinion), was from the time when President Obama 'roasted' Trump publicly about a year ago or more, when Obama totally humiliated Trump as he sat in his chair in the audience, rocking back and forth in his chair with anger, staring straight at the floor and red as hell in the face. Trump was deeply embarrassed, totally humiliated, angered beyond comprehension.
As I watched that pitiful performance on TV by President Obama as he publicly humiliated Donald Trump for ...you name it, it suddenly occurred to me in those moments the camera was fixated on Trump's profile, that Trump was going to crush Obama somehow, some way, even if it took all of Trump's money to do it.
It was immediately after that humiliating performance by Obama, that Donald Trump officially stepped up to the plate and threw his name in the hat for the Presidency. Prior to that performance however, Trump was very indifferent to the notion of running for President. Politics was not his game. He was flattered by the notion, yes of course. But in truth, he never really wanted the job.
But after that embarrassing episode on national TV, Trump was in! Officially! he was running for the Presidency, come hell or high water. Ever since Trump got elected to the Presidency, he has gone after every single initiative that Obama had accomplished, ...to then only reverse what Obama had done, to then declare the accomplishment of Obama "a complete disaster". In a round-about way, Trump was now doing to Obama what Obama had done to Donald during that public 'roasting'. Trump was belittling Obama, making Obama look completely incompetent during the whole time he held office for 8 years.
It is my opinion, that President Trump exited the United States from the Paris Accord against ALL advise to do otherwise, for the sole purpose of fulfilling a personal vendetta he has held against Obama, by UN-doing all the hard work that Obama had dedicated a great deal of time and money toward 'climate change' during the course of those 8 years.
Trump publicly declared Obama's efforts on climate change, "the futile work of the misinformed". I believe that America's exit from the Paris Accord is about 'settling a score' which 'Donald Trump the corporate citizen', holds steadfastly against 'Obama the Untouchable Establishment'; and NOT about Trump's decision to exit the Paris Accord being construed as appeasing Trump's 'base', as the news pundits have speculated.
Trump knows that corporate America will continue to keep the carbon footprint small, but in exiting America from the Accord, he can do so under the pretense of correcting a fraudulent intent from the previous Administration, where Obama has now been painted with a brush which falsely depicts him as totally screwing America over by allegedly deceiving America about the carbon details.
Trump will bring America back to the table for a so-called, "better deal", but in the meantime, he will diminish Obama's Presidential efforts to the size of a pin head while he has the opportunity to do so on a global stage.
~~~~~~~~~
OK, back to coal now!
Regarding the emission of noxious fumes when powdered coal is liquified ...the fumes are actually emitted during the evaporation process when the liquid is boiled-off. It is the fine dust particles that are like talcum powder which causes respiratory issues, not fumes themselves although noxious.
For example, asbestos dust... Asbestos dust, not unlike coal dust, is so fine, that very specific asbestos face masks must be worn, because the dust will pass right through a very fine filter and straight into the lungs. The same thing applies to Silica dust, which is the dust emitted from Silica Sand which is used in a 'sand blaster'.
When asbestos dust, coal dust or silica dust get into the human lungs, a person will die from suffocation. The dust cannot be removed from the lungs, even over an entire lifetime. "Lifetime" by the way, is only a couple of years after continuous exposure while using the wrong breathing equipment or no breathing equipment. In China, only rudimentary face masks typically seen worn in a hospital, are supplied to their sweat-camp laborers who work in those evaporation plants which dries out the coal slurry.
Word of caution: Don't ever stand downwind of a sand blaster and don't ever try to clean up vermiculite particles with a vacuum cleaner. 50% of vermiculite home insulation sold in Ontario during the 1970's was made from asbestos sent in from Quebec. The vacuum cleaner will disperse the asbestos dust throughout the whole house as it transits the filtration system and vacuum bag.
~~~~~~~~
Regarding the Tar Sands being held in limbo awaiting a price bump, you are absolutely correct.
I was flying back home from Vancouver to Toronto about 4 years ago. I was sitting in Business Class and my adjacent seat mate, was the CEO of Shell Canada. We exchanged business cards, which is an informal networking handshake. So I jokingly said to him, "..if he made himself the one responsible for the price of gas at the pumps?".
He said it was the crap-tar sands oil that is calling that price, not him! He informed me that the break-even price to produce an Imperial gallon of gas (4.54 liters), required a crude oil price of $80 per barrel. He said that to me when the price per barrel was around $90. He also said that it took 45 gallons of Alberta Tar Sands crude, to make one gallon of gasoline, among finer oils, etc. The problem was, it was extremely dirty oil, full of Bitumen, as compared to oil from an oil well. Last time I checked, the price of crude oil was $19 per barrel on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Yikes!
His greatest fear was the price of oil dropping below the $80 break-even floor, in which case not a cent was being recovered at the pumps at $1.20 per liter of gas. So I said to him that my greatest fear if I were him, would be my inability to unload thousand of acres of land-stake claims, when the oil finally tanks below $80 like it historically does in Alberta during the 'bust' times. He looked at me like I had two heads... I smiled at him and said, "Ditch the land, man, before the Board of Directors turn you into a farmer!".
Not suggesting that I influenced his decision in anyway as we chatted our way across the prairies, but I just read 6 months ago that Shell had successfully sold it's very last land-stake in the Tar Sands project... And can you guess who bought all of Shell's land-stakes??? Imperial Oil of Canada and Exxon from the U.S.!
Right now, the Alberta Tar Sands project is a ghost town, because corn-gas did them in.
Ever since 10% alcohol (ethylene) was added to regular gas, oil revenues have plummeted and oil reserves have skyrocketed, causing huge surpluses to magically appear with nowhere to store the refined product. As consumers, we are not using it fast enough.
The price of corn however, has skyrocketed and more corn is used in Canada today to supplement gasoline content, than is used in the food chain.
Today in Ontario, there is a shortage of corn in the food industry because of the re-focused priority corn has been given for ethylene production. 🌽!
I will start at your last sentence and work my way up!
You asked, "So who is stirring up all the noise and why?".
First of all, you are absolutely correct when you stated that the US is fully compliant regardless of President Trump bailing the U.S. out of the deal. The show will go on with Corporate America, regardless of the declarations made by President Trump.
This may sound far-reaching to you, but something Donald Trump has never recovered from (in my humble opinion), was from the time when President Obama 'roasted' Trump publicly about a year ago or more, when Obama totally humiliated Trump as he sat in his chair in the audience, rocking back and forth in his chair with anger, staring straight at the floor and red as hell in the face. Trump was deeply embarrassed, totally humiliated, angered beyond comprehension.
As I watched that pitiful performance on TV by President Obama as he publicly humiliated Donald Trump for ...you name it, it suddenly occurred to me in those moments the camera was fixated on Trump's profile, that Trump was going to crush Obama somehow, some way, even if it took all of Trump's money to do it.
It was immediately after that humiliating performance by Obama, that Donald Trump officially stepped up to the plate and threw his name in the hat for the Presidency. Prior to that performance however, Trump was very indifferent to the notion of running for President. Politics was not his game. He was flattered by the notion, yes of course. But in truth, he never really wanted the job.
But after that embarrassing episode on national TV, Trump was in! Officially! he was running for the Presidency, come hell or high water. Ever since Trump got elected to the Presidency, he has gone after every single initiative that Obama had accomplished, ...to then only reverse what Obama had done, to then declare the accomplishment of Obama "a complete disaster". In a round-about way, Trump was now doing to Obama what Obama had done to Donald during that public 'roasting'. Trump was belittling Obama, making Obama look completely incompetent during the whole time he held office for 8 years.
It is my opinion, that President Trump exited the United States from the Paris Accord against ALL advise to do otherwise, for the sole purpose of fulfilling a personal vendetta he has held against Obama, by UN-doing all the hard work that Obama had dedicated a great deal of time and money toward 'climate change' during the course of those 8 years.
Trump publicly declared Obama's efforts on climate change, "the futile work of the misinformed". I believe that America's exit from the Paris Accord is about 'settling a score' which 'Donald Trump the corporate citizen', holds steadfastly against 'Obama the Untouchable Establishment'; and NOT about Trump's decision to exit the Paris Accord being construed as appeasing Trump's 'base', as the news pundits have speculated.
Trump knows that corporate America will continue to keep the carbon footprint small, but in exiting America from the Accord, he can do so under the pretense of correcting a fraudulent intent from the previous Administration, where Obama has now been painted with a brush which falsely depicts him as totally screwing America over by allegedly deceiving America about the carbon details.
Trump will bring America back to the table for a so-called, "better deal", but in the meantime, he will diminish Obama's Presidential efforts to the size of a pin head while he has the opportunity to do so on a global stage.
~~~~~~~~~
OK, back to coal now!
Regarding the emission of noxious fumes when powdered coal is liquified ...the fumes are actually emitted during the evaporation process when the liquid is boiled-off. It is the fine dust particles that are like talcum powder which causes respiratory issues, not fumes themselves although noxious.
For example, asbestos dust... Asbestos dust, not unlike coal dust, is so fine, that very specific asbestos face masks must be worn, because the dust will pass right through a very fine filter and straight into the lungs. The same thing applies to Silica dust, which is the dust emitted from Silica Sand which is used in a 'sand blaster'.
When asbestos dust, coal dust or silica dust get into the human lungs, a person will die from suffocation. The dust cannot be removed from the lungs, even over an entire lifetime. "Lifetime" by the way, is only a couple of years after continuous exposure while using the wrong breathing equipment or no breathing equipment. In China, only rudimentary face masks typically seen worn in a hospital, are supplied to their sweat-camp laborers who work in those evaporation plants which dries out the coal slurry.
Word of caution: Don't ever stand downwind of a sand blaster and don't ever try to clean up vermiculite particles with a vacuum cleaner. 50% of vermiculite home insulation sold in Ontario during the 1970's was made from asbestos sent in from Quebec. The vacuum cleaner will disperse the asbestos dust throughout the whole house as it transits the filtration system and vacuum bag.
~~~~~~~~
Regarding the Tar Sands being held in limbo awaiting a price bump, you are absolutely correct.
I was flying back home from Vancouver to Toronto about 4 years ago. I was sitting in Business Class and my adjacent seat mate, was the CEO of Shell Canada. We exchanged business cards, which is an informal networking handshake. So I jokingly said to him, "..if he made himself the one responsible for the price of gas at the pumps?".
He said it was the crap-tar sands oil that is calling that price, not him! He informed me that the break-even price to produce an Imperial gallon of gas (4.54 liters), required a crude oil price of $80 per barrel. He said that to me when the price per barrel was around $90. He also said that it took 45 gallons of Alberta Tar Sands crude, to make one gallon of gasoline, among finer oils, etc. The problem was, it was extremely dirty oil, full of Bitumen, as compared to oil from an oil well. Last time I checked, the price of crude oil was $19 per barrel on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Yikes!
His greatest fear was the price of oil dropping below the $80 break-even floor, in which case not a cent was being recovered at the pumps at $1.20 per liter of gas. So I said to him that my greatest fear if I were him, would be my inability to unload thousand of acres of land-stake claims, when the oil finally tanks below $80 like it historically does in Alberta during the 'bust' times. He looked at me like I had two heads... I smiled at him and said, "Ditch the land, man, before the Board of Directors turn you into a farmer!".
Not suggesting that I influenced his decision in anyway as we chatted our way across the prairies, but I just read 6 months ago that Shell had successfully sold it's very last land-stake in the Tar Sands project... And can you guess who bought all of Shell's land-stakes??? Imperial Oil of Canada and Exxon from the U.S.!
Right now, the Alberta Tar Sands project is a ghost town, because corn-gas did them in.
Ever since 10% alcohol (ethylene) was added to regular gas, oil revenues have plummeted and oil reserves have skyrocketed, causing huge surpluses to magically appear with nowhere to store the refined product. As consumers, we are not using it fast enough.
The price of corn however, has skyrocketed and more corn is used in Canada today to supplement gasoline content, than is used in the food chain.
Today in Ontario, there is a shortage of corn in the food industry because of the re-focused priority corn has been given for ethylene production. 🌽!