Keystone XL pipeline

On Guard for Thee · November 16, 2014

US domestic capacity does not and will not meet demand for at least 15 - 20 years, and it's unlikely then. You're right about it going where it's going to get to a refinery, but that's about it. There's no reason to send the bulk anywhere but into continental North America.

PS - do you think that shale oil is cheap?

According to Rex Tillerson that will happen in about 5-6 years. But what would he know? In the meantime there's lot's of cheap Saudi oil available to keep the tank full. I know you're not an Obama fan but I reckon he's got this one nailed.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2014

Canada doesn't own the bitumen, oil companies do. Many already own and run refineries, that have excess capacity to process the dirty heavy tars produced in Alberta and Venezuela. I suppose these companies do not see the economic benefit to adding even more, expensive, low margin refining capacity in Alberta...where the finished products would still have to be moved to shipping ports. Hence a pipe to Texas makes sense, but not through the heart of the Ogallala.

So much for the fabulous profits for the oil sector that typically has net margins of only 8%. Somebody has to pay for the pipeline, and somebody has to pay for the oil extraction infrastructure, royalities to goverment, and other capital costs....in good times and bad (i.e. high and low oil prices).

The aquifer stonewalling is just more of the same political battle to curb fossil fuel development and fight for the global warming religion.

President Obama was able to string it out so long for political gain because it is obvious that Canada will never build equivalent east-west pipeline capacity, refineries, or terminals. Now the game is coming to an end and it will cost twice as much.

On Guard for Thee · November 16, 2014

So much for the fabulous profits for the oil sector that typically has net margins of only 8%. Somebody has to pay for the pipeline, and somebody has to pay for the oil extraction infrastructure, royalities to goverment, and other capital costs....in good times and bad (i.e. high and low oil prices).

The aquifer stonewalling is just more of the same political battle to curb fossil fuel development and fight for the global warming religion.

President Obama was able to string it out so long for political gain because it is obvious that Canada will never build equivalent east-west pipeline capacity, refineries, or terminals. Now the game is coming to an end and it will cost twice as much.

Oh is that what makes Exxon-Mobil the most profitable corp. on the planet, that measly 8% return? sorry, but I used to work for them.

Mighty AC · November 16, 2014

The aquifer stonewalling is just more of the same political battle to curb fossil fuel development and fight for the global warming religion.

No, pipelines are leaky and the Ogallala is a critical water source in a very dry region. It just makes sense to build around it.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2014

No, pipelines are leaky and the Ogallala is a critical water source in a very dry region. It just makes sense to build around it.

Nope....and here is why the risk is minimal and limited:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer

On Guard for Thee · November 16, 2014

Nope....and here is why the risk is minimal and limited:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer

Yep that's about par with your type of posts to support your claims. Could it get any weaker? His claims are all preceded with "as I understand it", and "apparently" You need to better if you want to convince anyone.

Edited November 16, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

Mighty AC · November 16, 2014

Nope....and here is why the risk is minimal and limited:

The report didn't take into account other important factors:

- Some of the chemicals found in the primary type of oil the pipeline would carry are trade secrets, so it's impossible to know how they would behave in the Ogallala aquifer.

- The report analyzed the effects of only a 42,000-gallon spill, even though far larger spills have plagued U.S. oil pipelines in recent years. A 2010 accident in Michigan dumped more than a million gallons of a type of oil known as dilbit into the Kalamazoo River. In 2011, a pipeline leaked 63,000 gallons of oil into Montana's Yellowstone River.

- The DEQ's study was generic, rather than specific to Nebraska's geology and hydrology. The actual risks would vary, the scientists said, depending on where the spill occurs in the Ogallala aquifer, the location of nearby wells and other site-specific factors.

- Groundwater experts say it's virtually impossible to restore a contaminated aquifer to pristine conditions

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130114/nebraska-keystone-xl-pipeline-ogallala-aquifer-transcanada-dilbit-oil-spill-bemidji-landowners-tar-sands-dilbit

Edited November 16, 2014 by Mighty AC

Smallc · November 16, 2014

According to Rex Tillerson that will happen in about 5-6 years.

That only works when Canadian Oil is included as American oil.

Smallc · November 16, 2014

Oh is that what makes Exxon-Mobil the most profitable corp. on the planet, that measly 8% return? sorry, but I used to work for them.

They sell a great deal of product and so they make a lot of money in total. Their overall margin is abysmal.

bush_cheney2004 · November 16, 2014

The report didn't take into account other important factors:

If undeclared hazardous materials and solvents are used for dilbit, then they should have already been disclosed. This is not a game of hide and seek for Canadian bitumen. The aquifer is several orders of magnitude larger than any spill, and certainly larger than the amount that would/could reach the aquifer. "Pristine" is a word that betrays the real agenda.

There is no requirement for zero risk, not even for nuclear waste disposal.

Edited November 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

On Guard for Thee · November 16, 2014

They sell a great deal of product and so they make a lot of money in total. Their overall margin is abysmal.

That's true to a point. They do sell a lot of product. The margins vary greatly depending on where in the world they are working.And you can damn sure bet they got you by the short and curlies. If they aren't happy overall, up goes your gas price.

Smallc · November 16, 2014

You don't have a clue how the market works do you? It's completely driven by speculation...and the margins are some of the smallest in the business world.

Michael Hardner · November 16, 2014

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-may-threaten-aquifer-that-irrigates-much-of-the-central-us/2012/08/06/7bf0215c-d4db-11e1-a9e3-c5249ea531ca_story.html

Interesting article about the Ogallala Acquifier, in that two experts are arguing about the threat:

Under ordinary circumstances, Kleeb and Goecke would be natural allies. Democrats in a red state, they both care about preserving Nebraska’s unique environment. Instead, they are divided over Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile steel pipeline that would carry heavy, low-quality crude from Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Texas.

Mighty AC · November 17, 2014

If undeclared hazardous materials and solvents are used for dilbit, then they should have already been disclosed. This is not a game of hide and seek for Canadian bitumen. The aquifer is several orders of magnitude larger than any spill, and certainly larger than the amount that would/could reach the aquifer. "Pristine" is a word that betrays the real agenda.

There is no requirement for zero risk, not even for nuclear waste disposal.

I think both the people doing the diluting and the people doing the refining know what's in the chemical soup, but the researchers doing the aquifer study didn't know. Hence, they couldn't test if the chemical soup would find it's way into the water.

Granted the word pristine is a bit of red herring. With all the agriculture in the area I'm fairly sure it's already contaminated to some degree. Plus, the water will be tested prior to the pipe being installed for baseline data. However, the water is currently clean and critical in the region and in many places the water table is very close to the surface. Through, one 13 mile stretch of the route through Nebraska the water table is within 10 feet of the surface. Over most of the route it ranges from 20-50 feet. That's close and oil will get into the water.

Can it be cleaned...probably but could it easily be avoided at this stage? Most certainly. That's why I'm not arguing against the pipe, because it's preferable to rail transport and pipes plus ships off an extremely dangerous point of the BC coast. However, the route could be improved to avoid contamination from spills we absolutely know are going to happen.

bush_cheney2004 · November 17, 2014

...Can it be cleaned...probably but could it easily be avoided at this stage? Most certainly. That's why I'm not arguing against the pipe, because it's preferable to rail transport and pipes plus ships off an extremely dangerous point of the BC coast.....

There is nothing special about the BC coast compared to other North American and global sites for pipelines, terminals, and crude carrier traffic. This is just more of the same eco-political game. Bitumen sinking to the bottom of the ocean just makes cleanup more expensive. Ultimately, Canada wants the impacted American states to take risks it is not willing to bear itself.

On Guard for Thee · November 17, 2014

There is nothing special about the BC coast compared to other North American and global sites for pipelines, terminals, and crude carrier traffic. This is just more of the same eco-political game. Bitumen sinking to the bottom of the ocean just makes cleanup more expensive. Ultimately, Canada wants the impacted American states to take risks it is not willing to bear itself.

Well it's obvious you don't give a shit about your coasts, but to us there is something special about ours. If they do build XL I'll laugh at you when your gas prices go up.

Mighty AC · November 17, 2014

There is nothing special about the BC coast compared to other North American and global sites for pipelines, terminals, and crude carrier traffic. This is just more of the same eco-political game. Bitumen sinking to the bottom of the ocean just makes cleanup more expensive. Ultimately, Canada wants the impacted American states to take risks it is not willing to bear itself.

Sure, from my point of view contamination of your soil and water are better than mine, but I'd still rather we avoid as much damage as possible in any location. The dilbit port location selected in BC is in a difficult channel for navigation, which makes this particular part of the coast more dangerous for crude carrier traffic.

bush_cheney2004 · November 17, 2014

Sure, from my point of view contamination of your soil and water are better than mine, but I'd still rather we avoid as much damage as possible in any location. The dilbit port location selected in BC is in a difficult channel for navigation, which makes this particular part of the coast more dangerous for crude carrier traffic.

Then just extend the pipelines and terminal(s) as needed to reduce the navigation danger. This kind of project has a much better chance of getting done in the U.S. compared to Canada for lots of reasons, some having nothing to do with environmental risk or piloting crude carriers.

On Guard for Thee · November 17, 2014

Then just extend the pipelines and terminal(s) as needed to reduce the navigation danger. This kind of project has a much better chance of getting done in the U.S. compared to Canada for lots of reasons, some having nothing to do with environmental risk or piloting crude carriers.

Extend the pipelines? It's expensive to build a pipeline all the way from Kitimat to China.

Mighty AC · November 17, 2014

Then just extend the pipelines and terminal(s) as needed to reduce the navigation danger.

I agree. If dilbit was to be shipped to China via the BC coast, that would make sense. However, the current conservative government is taking orders from Enbridge on this one and they aren't too concerned about spills.

This kind of project has a much better chance of getting done in the U.S. compared to Canada for lots of reasons, some having nothing to do with environmental risk or piloting crude carriers.

What are you referring to here? Refineries already setup for dilbit with excess capacity?

bush_cheney2004 · November 17, 2014

...What are you referring to here? Refineries already setup for dilbit with excess capacity?

No, I am referring to the provincial bickering over how revenue would be allocated / shared. This suggests that environmental issues take a back seat to the main blocker....revenue sharing. There is no shortage of proposals to expand existing capacity to BC's coast or develop new pipelines, but they have not moved forward in Canada. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline reflects this reality....'git er done.

overthere · November 18, 2014

Well it's obvious you don't give a shit about your coasts, but to us there is something special about ours. If they do build XL I'll laugh at you when your gas prices go up.

Only one of our coasts is special though.

The East Coast and Great Lakes have seen pipelines, refineries and zillions of tankers and somehow have survived the experience. I'm sorry you don't care.

hen just extend the pipelines and terminal(s) as needed to reduce the navigation danger.

I am puzzled why they haven't just switched the Gateway pipeline route to the existing Yellowhead rail and road right of ways and terminate in Prince Rupert. It's only a couple hundred km further, and far less hassle required. Or they could just upgrade the track a bit and ship it all by rail to Prince Rupert terminals. Much of that line already has heavy duty ribbon rail, they might have to twin some sections but the Railway Act is so dominant it would not take much more than money to get it done.

There is no shortage of proposals to expand existing capacity to BC's coast or develop new pipelines, but they have not moved forward in Canada. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline reflects this reality....'git er done.

Yep. We're paralyzed and have largely missed the boat in taking advantage of opportunities, the export of bitumen and LNG being two examples. Luckily BC has not had and does not have any qualms about shipping heaps of toxic coal across the Pacific.

Oh well, we can always count on the always reliable Ontario manufacturing sector to carry the Canadian economy and pay for health care, education and the rest of our plump social contract. .

guyser · November 19, 2014

Oh well, we can always count on the always reliable Ontario manufacturing sector to carry the Canadian economy and pay for health care, education and the rest of our plump social contract. .

Always been thus. WIll continue that way for quite some time.