Keystone XL Delayed

[Bonam]

pipeline jobs are very short term, refinery jobs are permanent

Nothing is "permanent".

[eyeball]

Building a refinery where the oil is would reduce the overall impact oil production has on the planet. Shipping finished product instead of raw material uses less fuel which means less carbon emissions. Keeping most of the mess and dealing with it in the place responsible for creating it in the first place is also the ethical thing to do.

Oh, and we also get a shit whack of investment and high-paying jobs doing all the above.

WTF is this pipeline nonsense anyway, who's freakin' brainwave was it to ship all this potential out like it was just another barge full of raw logs? Let me guess the people who ship raw logs.

I say leave it in the ground if piping it out is the best we can do with it.

[Guest Derek L]

Building a refinery where the oil is would reduce the overall impact oil production has on the planet. Shipping finished product instead of raw material uses less fuel which means less carbon emissions. Keeping most of the mess and dealing with it in the place responsible for creating it in the first place is also the ethical thing to do.

Oh, and we also get a shit whack of investment and high-paying jobs doing all the above.

WTF is this pipeline nonsense anyway, who's freakin' brainwave was it to ship all this potential out like it was just another barge full of raw logs? Let me guess the people who ship raw logs.

I say leave it in the ground if piping it out is the best we can do with it.

It’s cheaper to build the pipeline, bringing the “product” to already existing refineries in Texas…If we refine it here, we still have to ship the finished product, unless you‘re doing that by railcar or tanker, that means a pipeline…and though crude/bitumen has a higher viscosity then refined petroleum, the difference isn‘t, in the scheme of things, that stark..The delay in shipping our oil to the Gulf region refineries, where Canadian oil producers would receive between an additional 15-20 dollars a barrel, will likely cost Canadian producers close to a billion dollars a month in lost potential earnings

Edited November 11, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

One more thing I’ll add, as Yoda said to Obi-Wan, there is “another”. Being realistic, with the delay in the Keystone Xl project till 2013, will likely seriously hurt and perhaps kill it……..The plan B for Canadian & American producers, is an expansion of already existing pipelines………One current proposal is the “Wrangler” pipeline, which unlike Keystone, already crosses the US/Can boarder, hence won’t require approval from the US government, which means Obama can’t “kill it”………Reader’s Digest, Wrangler will tap into pipelines that already brings bitumen from Alberta to Illinois, then Okalahoma. The proposal is to extend this line to the gulf coast.

To qualify myself, I don’t receive any form of payment from involved companies, and all information relating to it is in the public domain (and I sure as hell wouldn’t incriminate myself with any form of insider trading etc), but I’d offer as free advice, anyone that plays the market to look at Enbridge stock…….I bought some additional preferred shares this morning.

edited spelling

Edited November 11, 2011 by Derek L

[Argus]

What about jobs for our guy's? Texas should be in the business of shipping refinery equipment to Alberta.

Shipping finished product instead of raw materials would also have less impact on everyone's environment.

I completely agree. I'm not sure the reasons, but I think it's because most of the big players in the Alberta oil patch are headquartered in the US and already have refineries there. They don't want to spend billions on new ones here.

[Argus]

Not as much as you might think....the US has diversified supply over the past 20 years, and is less dependent on MidEast oil. Canadian deliveries are assured unless you abrogate NAFTA.

The US refusing to allow a pipeline to import Canadian oil constitutes an abrogation of that section of NAFTA as far as I'm concerned, and frees Canada to find buyers elsewhere.

[Argus]

i believe the pipeline was estimated to cost 7 billion and a large refinery is about 10 billion...pipeline jobs are very short term, refinery jobs are permanent, build the refinery in alberta...

Absolutely agree. Finish the product here, then ship it abroad.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US refusing to allow a pipeline to import Canadian oil constitutes an abrogation of that section of NAFTA as far as I'm concerned, and frees Canada to find buyers elsewhere.

Calm down...this is just election year politics. The pipeline will be built even if re-routed. See defiinition of 'delayed'.

[Smallc]

Canadian capacity to refine is tapped out...and if we were to refine it here, we'd need a pipeline AND a refinery. That would be in the neighbourhood of $20B, and it's an investment that might not be made.

That said, there are expansions of refineries in Canada happening all of the time.

Edit: Some news agencies are reporting that this could very well kill the pipeline.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Canadian capacity to refine is tapped out...and if we were to refine it here, we'd need a pipeline AND a refinery. That would be in the neighbourhood of $20B, and it's an investment that might not be made.

That said, there are expansions of refineries in Canada happening all of the time.

Edit: Some news agencies are reporting that this could very well kill the pipeline.

Not only that, there is the added expense of shipping all the finished products of cruse. Remember that they don't waste a drop and it makes various products, all have to be transported separately. The texas route was the cheapest way for the oil to be refined, that's not even up for debate.

It could kill it, which makes the pipeline going west a bigger possibility. I imagine that regulatory review in January is going to go quite quickly. That alone should put heat on the Americans.

[eyeball]

Why doesn't Alberta just funnel weapons and special ops forces into Nebraska and install a friendly dictator there?

Isn't that how it's usually done when something gets in the way of the big oil interests?

[Guest American Woman]

The US refusing to allow a pipeline to import Canadian oil constitutes an abrogation of that section of NAFTA as far as I'm concerned, and frees Canada to find buyers elsewhere.

Canada, I'm sure, will do whatever it pleases.

It's not the US refusing a pipeline to import Canadian oil, it's some Nebraskans refusing to jeopardize their main water supply for drinking and irrigation. They want it rerouted, the oil company does not. So how does that become "the US's refusal?" What about Canada's refusal to reroute it?

The Nebraskans are not obligated to put Canada's well being above theirs. You're obviously not putting their well being above yours. Yet apparently you believe they should put your well being above their own, and I'd love to hear why they should do that.

Their objections are based on very good reasons.

Edited November 11, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

Wow, looks like AW knows all about what Americans, Canadians, and Nebraskans want.

If only the rest of us could speak for so many, too.

[blueblood]

Canada, I'm sure, will do whatever it pleases.

It's not the US refusing a pipeline to import Canadian oil, it's some Nebraskans refusing to jeopardize their main water supply for drinking and irrigation. They want it rerouted, the oil company does not. So how does that become "the US's refusal?" What about Canada's refusal to reroute it?

The Nebraskans are not obligated to put Canada's well being above theirs. You're obviously not putting their well being above yours. Yet apparently you believe they should put your well being above their own, and I'd love to hear why they should do that.

Their objections are based on very good reasons.

Is it actually jeopardizing their water supply? There are miles and miles of pipeline elsewhere that can easily contaminate water supplies. I think it was a successful use of fear tactics.

[Smallc]

Take it away, Jim:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the decision to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline may kill the project and could add momentum to efforts to open up the Asian market for Canadian oil.

The U.S. State Department announced the delay Thursday, saying it wanted to look at other possible routes for the $7-billion pipeline which Calgary-based TransCanada has proposed to carry mostly Canadian crude from the Alberta oilsands to the U.S. Gulf coast.

The department said it wants to consider routes that would bypass the Sandhills, an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska as well as avoid crossing over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to 1.5 million people in eight states.

“The decision to delay it that long is actually quite a crucial decision,” Flaherty told Bloomberg News at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu.

“I’m not sure this project would survive that kind of delay."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/11/keystone-flaherty.html

[Smallc]

Is it actually jeopardizing their water supply? There are miles and miles of pipeline elsewhere that can easily contaminate water supplies. I think it was a successful use of fear tactics.

And now, as a result, both Americans and Canadians will suffer.

[Guest American Woman]

Is it actually jeopardizing their water supply? There are miles and miles of pipeline elsewhere that can easily contaminate water supplies. I think it was a successful use of fear tactics.

It is a threat to their water supply, as I said previously, about 80% of their drinking water and water for irrigation. There are ranchers whose livelihood would be greatly affected by contamination due to an oil leak. They don't object to the pipeline, just the route which puts their main water supply in jeopardy. They would support it if rerouted. The planned route would cross the Sandhills region of the Ogallala aquifer, which serves 1.5 million people, so it's not comparable to "miles and miles of pipeline elsewhere." Apparently not only is it the main water supply, but the conditions of the land make it more susceptible to water contamination. "Fear tactics" have nothing to do with it - since they support a rerouting of the pipeline.

[Guest American Woman]

And now, as a result, both Americans and Canadians will suffer.

Much better if Nebraskans suffered, eh? How selfish of them to look out for themselves and their families! As an American, I apologize for their not putting your wishes, your well being, above theirs. How dare they put themselves above your well being the way you are putting your well being above theirs!

[eyeball]

Take it away, Jim:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/11/keystone-flaherty.html

I think you mean, give it away Jim:

“It may mean that we may have to move quickly to ensure that we can export our oil to Asia through British Columbia,” Flaherty told Bloomberg.

Why is everyone so intent on exporting our petro-jobs away to foreign workers? Boy where's Trudeau's vision when you really need it?

BC should buy, process and realize the benefits of adding value to Alberta's oil.

[olp1fan]

contamination. "Fear tactics" have nothing to do with it - since they support a rerouting of the pipeline.

too bad so sad 4 you

enjoy high unemployment and saudi oil

if you think canada is waiting until after the presidential election you are so delusional

Edited November 11, 2011 by olp1fan

[msj]

Much better if Nebraskans suffered, eh? How selfish of them to look out for themselves and their families! As an American, I apologize for their not putting your wishes, your well being, above theirs. How dare they put themselves above your well being the way you are putting your well being above theirs!

Just so we're clear: you are speaking, as an American, on behalf of Nebraskans who do not want the pipeline for environmental reasons and who, presumably, don't mind paying more for energy.

There.

Perhaps someone else can put in some more adjectives, adverbs, disclaimers, nouns, and other such nonsense to fill in the gaps and then we can have a true AW post!

[Argus]

It’s cheaper to build the pipeline, bringing the “product” to already existing refineries in Texas…

Cheaper to whom? It might well be cheaper for the companies involved if they already have assets in the US but is it better for Canada? I think it isn't. I think it's better for us to refine it here, and keep the jobs and profit here.

[Argus]

Canada, I'm sure, will do whatever it pleases.

It's not the US refusing a pipeline to import Canadian oil, it's some Nebraskans refusing to jeopardize their main water supply for drinking and irrigation. They want it rerouted, the oil company does not. So how does that become "the US's refusal?" What about Canada's refusal to reroute it?

Are you going to suggest that no matter where this pipeline was routed the environmental lobby wouldn't be screaming and howling and demanding Obama kill it? Of course they will. And you can't blame Nebraska's nimby attitude as that's nationwide, and it was the US government which made the decision, not Nebraska.

Right now we're shipping oil to the US at a discount because of how overloaded that pipeline is. We need to stop that, and start sending it to the Japanese and Chinese.

[Argus]

Much better if Nebraskans suffered, eh? How selfish of them to look out for themselves and their families! As an American, I

And when the US is short of oil and Canadian oil is being pumped to tankers headed for China the people of Nebraska can, to quote a previous Alberta premier, freeze in the dark.

[Wilber]

What a strange thread. Americans have every right to determine what constitutes an environmental issue on their own territory. It doesn't have to make sense and they don't have to justify it to us. I'm amazed that Canadians would assume otherwise considering what their reaction would be to Americans dictating to us on similar issues regarding our territory.