West-East Pipeline

[dre]

I'm pretty sure that's only in a North American context. In other words, that includes Canadian energy.

No.

[Smallc]

No.

Citation? I remember the President's speech. It was about North American energy independence.

According to this:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/05/25/american-energy-independence-great-shake/pO9Lsad4cVQvjdpyxMI1DO/story.html

The US is not on track for energy independence until 2030 (and I'm still not sure what that includes...often Canadian oil is counted as already being part of the equation for American energy use purposes)....and that's assuming that the US can continue to increase production at the current rate and that demand for oil won't again increase. Also, oil demand is still not back to it's 2007 peak...mostly because the US economy has never recovered to that level.

Regardless, this is why Line 9, Energy East, Transmountain and Northern Gateway (as unlikely as it seems, it will happen) will go forward, even if Keystone XL doesn't.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Citation? I remember the President's speech. It was about North American energy independence.

According to this:

Funny, I remember this President's speech:

[Icebound]

Its easy to become energy "self-sufficient" or energy "independent".

Simply quit doing "stuff", and let others do the polluting, etc.

Energy consumption per capita in US/Canada, turned rather flat after that speech (from its previous exponential per capita growth).

...but you can guess what happened to in-country manufacturing, etc... vs offshore.

[August1991]

Personally, I suspect that fracking is going to wind up doing a lot more damage to the environment than the oil sands.

Personally, i think fracking is going to remove the need for the Keystone XL pipeline.

[Smallc]

Well, since Keystone XL was going to carry North Dakota oil.......

The US having enough oil of it's own (not for many many many years) does not eliminate the need for Alberta to get its crude to refineries and ports. We need Northern Gateway, Transmountain, Keystone XL, Line 9, and Energy East for that.

[GostHacked]

Personally, i think fracking is going to remove the need for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Fracking has a whole other and larger environmental impact than building a pipeline. The water table will get contaminated. This operation has already been linked to small quakes. The chemicals used in fracking are vry toxic and carcinogenic.

As the lesser of the two evils, the pipeline is the better solution.

[Social Justice]

Both the government and the petrochemical industry are at odds with a significant demographic of the public. The reality is that industrial development has evolved our international culture into an energy dependent society. The quest continues to fuel economic engines that sustain this society at environmental expense. Energy production is one of few functional sources of wealth creation with sustained demand, therefore the historical development is understood to have been robust. Extraction, refinement and transportation of natural resources are defined as nation building efforts of massive scale. Canada is a resource rich nation whose development to date has been largely based on primary industry, with the single exception of the auto industry. The development of a functional delivery system for value added secondary industrial output based on domestic resources is relevant in economic terms for future development. The nation can produce and export raw energy at the same time as it consumes the energy to produce value added products for both domestic and export consumption.

In my view, pipelines, ports, rail yards, and road terminals are all integrated portions of our current infrastructure that are not currently perceived to be as much as a functional energy grid as that of the electrical generation industry. There exists at this moment a vast network of industries involved in the production and delivery of energy that operate without functional organizational efficiency. This energy network is continent wide and operates outside of direct political control, virtual corporate governance competes with political authority, well hidden from public view.

To suggest that development will stop in folly. The pipeline is a delivery system required for our energy grid infrastructure and it will be upgraded and expanded without doubt. When that delivery system fails, the companies will be liable and that is a fact. Would it not make sense to legislate penalties for failure instead of legislating to prevent opportunities? People need to understand that in order to protect the environment we need to prosecute environmental crimes, Development should be a good thing, not a bad thing. Society should move forward, not backward. Its as simple cleaning things up as we go. Leaving a mess behind is not an option, just like not moving forward is not an option.

Pipelines leak,

Pipe casings crack

Boats sink

Trains derail

If its made by man it breaks, that is a fact. We need to understand that fact very well and understand the consequences of that reality. There will be accidents there is no doubt about it. Liability and individual rights are where the legal matters appear, and therefore where the government should plan to meet these issues. I believe that government should take the high ground and place individual right above corporate profit. To do less for its own citizens is to act against them.

[jbg]

Don't get too hopeful. Think about how much opposition the keystone and north gateway pipeline generated. Then remember that our "beloved" premier Dalton closed to two gas plants purely to appease nimbys. As much sense as this project makes. People will oppose it simply because its oil.

Didn't St. Laurent make a run at this too? If I remember it didn't end too well for him.

[jbg]

Fracking has a whole other and larger environmental impact than building a pipeline. The water table will get contaminated. This operation has already been linked to small quakes. The chemicals used in fracking are vry toxic and carcinogenic.

As the lesser of the two evils, the pipeline is the better solution.

They are both necessary. Middle East, Indonesian, African and Venezuelan oil is fraught with environmental and political perils of their own.

There is frankly no good way to get the energy we require for a modern economy.

[Social Justice]

They are both necessary. Middle East, Indonesian, African and Venezuelan oil is fraught with environmental and political perils of their own.

There is frankly no good way to get the energy we require for a modern economy.

I must disagree, I think you are in error. Take the Alberta oil sands for an example, strange but true.....the oil sands vary in depth below the surface across the map. That right, from the Rockies to Saskatchewan..and beyond in fact. The land above it is contaminated and not suitable for habitation in many places. The contaminated soil leaches out to effect ground water tables, this is a natural state in Alberta. The process of extraction while entirely dirty from start to finish in most peoples minds in fact actually clean up the mess as they produce the extracted material. The largest waste product of with the greatest volume is clean sand, go figure. There is an enormous amount of energy and water that are used to extract the products from the raw material, which of course both of which have adverse environmental effects on their own. That said, the environment is cleaned up through the open pit mining process, you get what you pay for in simple terms. The real down side of oil sand development is the intensive use of water, which in the extraction process itself becomes contaminated. Fortunately all oil sand leases contain land recovery plans, which are unfortunately not properly enforced.

Alberta is unique in that one respect of oil sand development.

[FutureCanadian]

I personally wouldn't mind either pipeline as long as there is stringent measures taken to ensure pipeline safety as well as a measure in place to tax the fossil fuels and let Canadian federal/provincial government and/or American federal and state governments as they see fit (revenue neutral tax cuts, R&D, healthcare, infrastructure etc.)

[August1991]

Fracking has a whole other and larger environmental impact than building a pipeline. The water table will get contaminated. This operation has already been linked to small quakes. The chemicals used in fracking are vry toxic and carcinogenic.

As the lesser of the two evils, the pipeline is the better solution.

Wow!

----

IMHO, fracking is about to reduce the world price of crude to well below $100, even $50, like it has reduced the NA price of natural gas to $4.

I reckon that the only thing supporting the world price of crude now is European traders' faith in the State, government, or godlike, intervention.

Edited August 14, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

I guess that what I am saying is that energy/gasoline will be American - cheap but taxed. Like tobacco.

Edited August 14, 2013 by August1991

[Social Justice]

I am not at all positive that fracking represents the end to conventional oil. Natural gas does not provide all the products that oil does. In addition don't forget methane ice on the shelf, a virtually limitless supply of natural gas for domestic consumption and export. There are lots of alternatives to oil, but none as economically viable.

Both the EU and America have long and difficult paths to follow as the Chinese become the worlds largest market and worlds largest exporter; As this takes place Chinese dependence on foreign supplies will limit their growth and consume available supply causing a rise in price. Fracking growth will continue but will never cause the downfall of conventional oil.

[jbg]

I am not at all positive that fracking represents the end to conventional oil. Natural gas does not provide all the products that oil does. In addition don't forget methane ice on the shelf, a virtually limitless supply of natural gas for domestic consumption and export. There are lots of alternatives to oil, but none as economically viable.

It is my understanding that cars can run on natural gas. Once a network of natural gas pumps at existing stations, or natural gas stations opens up, the competitive advantage will begin to back out oil. This will be easier than generations ago since there are far fewer filling stations than back in the day, making it less expensive to alter the network.

[FutureCanadian]

Does anyone know the enegy conversion of natgas into how far on how much a car can go? Is it similar to gas?

What about the price of nat gas if cars also needed it for a fuel source? I doubt it would be as cheap as it is now if that was the case, but would it matter if it was still cheaper relative to gas?

[Bonam]

It is my understanding that cars can run on natural gas. Once a network of natural gas pumps at existing stations, or natural gas stations opens up, the competitive advantage will begin to back out oil. This will be easier than generations ago since there are far fewer filling stations than back in the day, making it less expensive to alter the network.

Natural gas is a gas at room temperature, which means that to keep it in a gas tank at an energy density comparable to gasoline, you either need a very high pressure tank (same problem as with hydrogen fuel cell cars) or you need a cryogenic tank (kept super cold to keep the natural gas liquid), which is heavy, expensive, and requires constant energy input.

[Social Justice]

Natural gas is a gas at room temperature, which means that to keep it in a gas tank at an energy density comparable to gasoline, you either need a very high pressure tank (same problem as with hydrogen fuel cell cars) or you need a cryogenic tank (kept super cold to keep the natural gas liquid), which is heavy, expensive, and requires constant energy input.

That is not to say it can't be done though. In fact it has, burns much cleaner than gas and it a fraction of the cost. Like propane conversions you do lose some mileage.

[hitops]

The main point of fracking is getting oil, not natural gas. The North Dakota/Montana boom is an oil boom.

Natural gas is also abundant. Some fleets use natural gas in their vehicles, for example when I worked for the city there were entire fleets of vehicles that ran on it. Main disadvantages IMO were that you had to fill up very often and it stank.

[AltaRick]

Even if Northern Gateway is approved, not a drop of oilsands oil will be delivered through it, it may not even be built. In order to approve the Pipeline they first need to lift the moratorium on tankers. If that be done then drilling will begin off the Haida Guai which is the real interest for oil producers. Does any country really want oilsands bitumen? Costs of refining are way too high. Alberta can no longer afford to subsidize the oilsands operations, the bbl price has to increase. Who can afford it? The small amount being shipped south by rail now is so heavily subsidized Alberta is losing money selling it.

[jacee]

West-East Line 9 pipeline:

-enbridge-rejects-major-ontario-demands-on-pipeline/

TORONTO A third-party review of risk and engineering assessments, a $1 billion U.S. insurance policy, and a full hydrostatic test of an aging pipeline that cuts across Toronto aren't necessary, Enbridge argued in its final reply to federal regulators who will decide whether to approve an overhaul of Line 9B.

Last week, during public hearings, Ontario's Ministry of Energy urged the National Energy Board to insist upon the hydrostatic test and independent reviews of company-produced assessments, before even considering Enbridge's plans to increase flow to a maximum 300,000 barrels a day and reverse its flow to westbound, allowing it to carry, in part, heavy crude from Alberta.

...

The Toronto Transit Commission said the company lacked site-specific plans for a leak at its Finch station, where the 38-year-old pipeline is wedged between an escalator and a stairwell about 60 centimetres above the subway structure, and warned of "enormous risk" to passengers and workers should a spill occur there.

So the province wants the federal NEB to insist on tests, insurance and other safeguards. Enbridge disagrees. And regardless of the NEB recommendations, Harper has given himself the ultimate decision authority.

I'll be avoiding Finch subway stn.

Edited October 26, 2013 by jacee

[eyeball]

the 38-year-old pipeline is wedged between an escalator and a stairwell about 60 centimetres above the subway structure

I'm reminded of the movie Brazil in which the walls of buildings are plumbed with strange out of place and hopelessly entangled duct work. Kind of like the menagerie of boards, committees, agencies and governments involved with moving influence, money and oil around.

[TimG]

I'll be avoiding Finch subway stn.

You have a larger chance of getting hit by a truck while avoiding finch station than by any accident there. The insanity of environmentalists is they grossly exaggerate small risks while ignoring large risks when those large risks benefit them. That is why environmentalism is, at its core, a philosophy of selfishness (i.e. the environmentalist credo: if it does not benefit me personally i want to stop it to prevent others from benefiting). Edited October 26, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The insanity of environmentalists is they grossly exaggerate small risks while ignoring large risks when those large risks benefit them

do you have... examples... to support your ongoing, unsubstantiated opinion?