Pipeline

Because that wouldn't support the media's preferred narrative.

Exactly

What could go wrong....?

Nothing people make is bullet proof…even bullet proofing.
After having worked my entire adult life in the energy industry I can tell you two things with absolutely no doubt.
1. Nothing about energy production and transportation is trivial or easy. It doesn’t matter what the source of the energy is.
2. The majority of the population is energy illiterate. This is mostly because the main street media (Both left and right leaning) do not engage actual subject matter experts when talking about complex subjects. Celebrities and journalists should not be considered in the know about anything. That’s the message I was trying to convey with the meme.

That's just how I have fun (take Corpirate media embargo'ed photos, and put 'em, where everyone can see 'em...or here).

Personally I benefit from internal combustion engines. (Even public transit relies on the fossil - and even with a bike and surf rack....buses help).

However, far above the heads of pipeline engineers - are the executives deciding which texhnologies the public will have an infrastructure to depend upon. Whether that's Hydrogen, compressed air, ammonia, or ubiquitous solar - or the barely-to totally-NOT-economical tar sand bitumen.

I get the need for oil...just with risks and benefits properly calculated - and the ACTUAL Costs accurately accounted for...all "EXTERNALITIES" included.

So as a reasonable dude, I assume you would be wyth me on that.

Once a company puts money into infrastructure it will keep producing on that technology until the lifespan of the infrastructure is used up. There are a lot better options than lithium ion as an example but we will be seeing these batteries for years to come. Until that infrastructure is used up. This is one of the main considerations companies make decisions about energy and infrastructure.
Alberta oil sands crude (As produced by Suncor) is $23.20 a barrel as of their las shareholder report. A lot of people say it’s not profitable (Same with ND shale and other plays). It isn’t always true.
All the best Hoss

How much it costs....depends on all the (essentially) free shit they got. I bet it makes sense economically - because we aren't calculating the value of the WATER it takes to make it... And all the energy being used to get...

How many gallons of water get wasted - to make one gallon of bitumen turn into oil? I hear quite a lot... So we are wasting a PRECIOUS resource - the NEXT reseource that people will be fighting wars over (as if they aren't already doing that, in the West Bank etc.). And the bonus is that as SEA LEVELS rise...potable water becomes more scarce...flooded by salt. So the plan seems perfect....the more tar sands we use to raise the temperature - the less water we'll have to drink and fight over....

Since we've got an ENDLESS supply of ammonia....wouldn't that or.compressed air make more sense..

Economics are a bad way to make some decisions - particularly the FALSE ECONOMIES that we create by social/governmental action - which then shape the economic arena, often biasing the process.

It's getting hot in here. How about we not squeeze the last drops of STERNO out of the rag...there are easier ways to get high...

Anyways...good talk. I appreciate your perspective... My friends father is a geologist...so we go back anb forth a lot. Anyway. I appreciate the points...

I just don't want to be THAT kind of NOAHCHITE.