Guest Peeves Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/Instead+pipelines+build+refineries+here/5662248/story.html There are thousands of miles of SAFE pipelines over North America, ecologists should know that. If the USA doesn't want Canadian oil then they will need to accept more tankers in the Gulf with the associated risk. Mexico's supply to the USA is lessening. The demand for oil is increasing with waking giants ike India and China. There will be lots of markets for Canada's oil if the USA continues in places to balk at the pipeline. The continuing controversy in the U.S. surrounding TransCanada's proposed Keystone pipeline may just be the best thing that ever happened to Canada. Perhaps it will force us to finally just say no to being hewers of wood and drawers of water. While Keystone's success is important, it's time Canada comes of age and starts to transform more of its resources into value-added products at home.When it comes to our oil resources, this is no small undertaking. The price tag to build the infrastructure and refining complex scaled for our vast oil reserves could be as much as $100-billion and could take 20 years. We have the resources, the natural proximity to ports, rail infrastructure and voracious customers south of the border and within 36 hours of our export terminals. All it takes is vision, capital, know-how, tenacity and chutzpah. And a big bold plan. Why continue trying to prop up the pipeline fight? Let's show some national gumption and refine the stuff then sell it. Keep all the jobs here. Keep more profit here. A refining complex in Canada would also be better for the environment. Refined products are roughly half the volume of raw bitumen and Canadian environmental standards are the highest in the world. The NRWP refinery will be the first refinery in the world with an integrated CO2 solution.Canada is awash in capital. Our pension funds are scouring the planet for long-term yield-generating assets to offset their liabilities. We are investing our retirement funds all over the world. For example, the $150-billion Canada Pension Plan portfolio has only 14% invested in Canadian equity. Approximately 40% of CPP's portfolio is invested in foreign equities and the balance in debt, real estate and infrastructure, a large portion of which is offshore. CPP, along with the other large Canadian pension funds, have invested in foreign infrastructure projects partly due to a lack of opportunities at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 ... Why continue trying to prop up the pipeline fight? Let's show some national gumption and refine the stuff then sell it. Keep all the jobs here. Keep more profit here. Will Canada stick with it if/when the price for oil drops? Will Canada continue to fight over equalization payments? Will Canada take the good (increased revenue ) with the bad (oil spills)? If so...what took so long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Will Canada stick with it if/when the price for oil drops? Refining oil is far more profitable when the price of oil is low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Refining oil is far more profitable when the price of oil is low. Then why does Canada lack domestic refining capacity and west-east distribution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Then why does Canada lack domestic refining capacity and west-east distribution? I give up. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 I give up. Why? Same reason Canada sends beef and pork to US slaughterhouses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Same reason Canada sends beef and pork to US slaughterhouses. You're a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 You're a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Thank you...I try my best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Thank you...I try my best. Still, the fact remains: refining oil is more profitable when the price of oil is low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Still, the fact remains: refining oil is more profitable when the price of oil is low. Not necessarily....gross margins can be eroded by many things depending on the distillate. Refinery profits are now at a golden age with crude prices much higher than before. Tarsands production has the added burden of higher production costs. Using a Laffer Curve, your position would have profits maximized when the price of crude oil is zero, but this would not be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 John Bolenbaugh, a Keystone employee-turned- pipeline activist came all the way from Michigan to speak out against the pipeline. Having served as a spill cleanup worker for an Enbridge Energy Partners' spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, Bolenbaugh told The Huffington Post that the risks entailed in building another pipeline are just not worth it. âIâm a union worker, I work for Pipefitters 355 in Battle Creek, Mich., and I will not accept a job for a tar sands pipeline. I will not do it because Iâve seen the devastation and the sick people from what a tar sands spill does when there is a leak and thereâs gonna be a leak. Itâs gonna happen sooner or later.â http://www.vxec.com/2011/11/thousands-gather-in-lafayette-park-in-culmination-of-tar-sands-protests/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 It's one thing for the Harper government to get what they want at home, by doing it their way, its another thing entirely to get another nation to do it your way and I think the Harper could lose on this one, and so could Obama. Even it was passed in the US, the people who don't want it, would make it very hard to built it, after all, Americans do own guns and are not shy on using them, although I'm not saying for sure they would, but who knows how high the passion goes on this topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 It's one thing for the Harper government to get what they want at home, by doing it their way, its another thing entirely to get another nation to do it your way and I think the Harper could lose on this one, and so could Obama. Even it was passed in the US, the people who don't want it, would make it very hard to built it, after all, Americans do own guns and are not shy on using them, although I'm not saying for sure they would, but who knows how high the passion goes on this topic? Now further delays, further studies. I doubt there are substantial percentages of 'working people' against the pipeline..(jobs), guaranteed oil source. Mostly the 'elite' type that could not care the price of oil. When I see the Redfords and other washed up actors demonstrating or blogging on the ecological worries yet ignoring the ecological concerns of other energy sources, I give them little credibility. http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=a62924cc45ea4110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextchannel=f7280665b91ac010VgnVCM1000008049a8c0RCRD&vgnextfmt=print What can you tell me about our nation's pipelines?The nation's pipelines are a transportation system. Pipelines enable the safe movement of extraordinary quantities of energy products to industry and consumers, literally fueling our economy and way of life. The arteries of the Nation's energy infrastructure, as well as the safest and least costly ways to transport energy products, our oil and gas pipelines provide the resources needed for national defense, heat and cool our homes, generate power for business and fuel an unparalleled transportation system. The nation's more than two million miles of pipelines safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year. They are essential: the volumes of energy products they move are well beyond the capacity of other forms of transportation. It would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to move the volume of even a modest pipeline. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of 75 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday. These alternatives would require many times the people, clog the air with engine pollutants, be prohibitively expensive and -- with many more vehicles on roads and rails carrying hazardous materials -- unacceptably dangerous. Pipeline systems are the safest means to move these products. The federal government rededicated itself to pipeline safety in 2006 when the PIPES Act was signed. It mandates new methods and makes commitments for new technologies to manage the integrity of the nation's pipelines and raise the bar on pipeline safety. Pipeline systems consist of a few major components: Pipelines that collect products from sources, such as wells on land (gathering lines) or offshore, or from shipping, such as tankers for oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG). These systems move the product to storage, processing (such as treatment for gas or refining of petroleum). Transmission pipelines that transport large quantities of hazardous liquids or natural gas over longer distances; transmission lines deliver natural gas to distant power plants, large industrial customers and to municipalities for further distribution; petroleum transmission lines deliver crude oil to distant refineries or refined products to distant markets, such as airports or to depots where fuel oils and gasoline are loaded into trucks for local delivery. Distribution lines are a part of natural gas systems, and consist of main lines that move gas to industrial customers, down to the smaller service lines that connect to businesses and homes throughout a municipality. Along these pipelines are pump stations for liquids and compressor stations for natural gas, storage and distribution facilities and automated control facilities to manage the product movement and maintain safety. Should a pipeline fail, a drop in pressure normally triggers systems that close valves to isolate the failed pipeline. The federal authority for pipeline safety is PHMSA, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety is responsible for regulating the safety of design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of U.S. oil and natural gas pipeline facilities. How big is our pipeline infrastructure: how many miles of what kinds of pipelines are there in the United States? In 2003, there were over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying natural gas, and hazardous liquids (chiefly petroleum and refined petroleum products, as well as chemicals and hydrogen). Here is a breakdown: More at link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 11, 2011 Report Share Posted November 11, 2011 John Bolenbaugh, a Keystone employee-turned- pipeline activist came all the way from Michigan to speak out against the pipeline. Having served as a spill cleanup worker for an Enbridge Energy Partners' spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, Bolenbaugh told The Huffington Post that the risks entailed in building another pipeline are just not worth it. “I’m a union worker, I work for Pipefitters 355 in Battle Creek, Mich., and I will not accept a job for a tar sands pipeline. I will not do it because I’ve seen the devastation and the sick people from what a tar sands spill does when there is a leak and there’s gonna be a leak. It’s gonna happen sooner or later.â http://www.vxec.com/2011/11/thousands-gather-in-lafayette-park-in-culmination-of-tar-sands-protests/ Right. The pipeline spilled about 20,000 barrels. By comparison the BP rig in the gulf spilled over 4 million barrels. Is he calling for oil rigs to all be closed up? What about tankers? Forced to tie up at docks? Does he want to go back to horse and buggy days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 12, 2011 Report Share Posted November 12, 2011 Right. The pipeline spilled about 20,000 barrels. By comparison the BP rig in the gulf spilled over 4 million barrels. Is he calling for oil rigs to all be closed up? What about tankers? Forced to tie up at docks? Does he want to go back to horse and buggy days? With less supply from Mexico, there will of necessity be more oil tankers with increased risk of tanker leaks or disasters like the Valdez. Do environmentalists really get it? Every energy source has its draw backs and risks. With oil, I would trust a pipeline over a tanker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.