Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
And shipped by rail and water , both of which are more environmentally hazardous than the pipeline.
J
This is something they keep talking about but haven't done in several years because it's too expensive.
And shipped by rail and water , both of which are more environmentally hazardous than the pipeline.
J
Yeah, it is, in actual terms of affecting oil shipped, Keystone XL is pretty unimportant.
The only notable thing about Keystone XL is the media attention it generated.
The alternative is rail transport which is much more prone to spillage.
J
It's pretty easy to stop drilling tar sand.
This is something they keep talking about but haven't done in several years because it's too expensive.
Yeah, it is, in actual terms of affecting oil shipped, Keystone XL is pretty unimportant.
The only notable thing about Keystone XL is the media attention it generated.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area."[8]
Won't matter. The oil companies have already decided that Keystone did not make financial sense in the first place.
On January 9, 2015 the U.S. House voted 266–153 in favor of the pipeline. On the same day, the Nebraska Supreme Court cleared the way for construction, after Republican Governor Dave Heineman had approved of it in 2013.[59]
A bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline was passed by the Senate (62–36) on January 29, 2015,[60] and by the House (270–152) on February 11, 2015.[61] President Obama vetoed the bill on February 24, 2015, arguing that the decision of approval should rest with the Executive Branch.[62] The Senate was unable to override the veto by a two-thirds majority, with a 62-37 vote.[63]
Transcanada sued Nebraska landowners who refused permission allowing for pipeline easements on their properties, in order to exercise eminent domain over such use. However, on September 29, 2015, it dropped its lawsuits and acceded to the authority of the elected, five-member Nebraska Public Service Commission, which has the state constitutional authority to approve gas and oil pipelines.[64]
On November 6, 2015, the Obama government rejected the pipeline, stating that "The Keystone XL pipeline does not serve the national interests of the United States". This decision also affects US-Canada relations between Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau.[65]
On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[34] On June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[19] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[35] The pipeline, from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Patoka, Illinois, United States, became operational in June 2010.[23]
We can do that now without the Pipeline. Because, see, they can't sell it to anyone else right now.
Sure, the oil may have to physically run through our fingers if the pipeline is there but right now it does that anyways, except it doesn't have anywhere to end up right now except us. We already have Canada's oil secured, building a pipeline allowing them to sell to other Non-USA countries would make it less secure. And its not like we can force them to pump oil into our pipeline if they just refuse to pump it anywhere.
We would have loved to keep all of Iraq's oil, but see the greedy companies that paid off their congressman wouldn't make as much money that way.
We already have Canada's oil secured, building a pipeline allowing them to sell to other Non-USA countries would make it less secure. And its not like we can force them to pump oil into our pipeline if they just refuse to pump it anywhere.
Cornyn continued: "It’s unfortunate that the President would shut down this bipartisan legislation. In Texas, we’ve seen the direct positive impact of the pipeline on the local and state economy. The Texas leg of the project, which delivers more than 400,000 barrels of crude oil from Cushing, OK to Southeast Texas each day, has already created 4,800 jobs in just the year it's been up and running."
I just read about this incident in another thread on this forum (article posted by ReindeerThistle in his "[RD] News Thread of the Americas" thread):
Wisconsin Sees 2 Train Derailments Over Weekend, Both Resulting In Spills
The oil is going to be produced anyway.
Wouldn't we be better off having it transported by pipeline rather than by rail or truck?
I don't take people seriously if they call it "tar sand".
You prefer calling it asphalt?I don't take people seriously if they call it "tar sand".
Pretty unimportant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Almost 10% of what the USA produces is a significant amount of oil.
What are you talking about? They are doing it now. They have been from the beginning of production.
J
Except it doesn't cost them that amount of capacity, it just costs them the difference between that and the next best thing they can do for $8 billion.
As Keystone fight drags on, oil industry quietly expands pipeline network
Even TransCanada has been busy. The company unveiled a 200-mile, $600-million proposal late last month that would carry oil from North Dakota’s Bakken field north to Canada and connect to other lines that can take it to the East Coast.
“When Keystone was first announced, I think that was something like a third of (TransCanada’s) expected budget,” said DeSai, the Edward Jones analyst. “TransCanada now has had so many projects that now Keystone’s a much smaller percentage.”
President Barack Obama has said his decision on Keystone, which would take Canadian tar sands oil to Gulf Coast refineries, would depend in part on its possible contribution to global warming. He is awaiting a State Department report on its environmental impact.
But the State Department does not review pipelines that are entirely inside the United States, which is the vast majority of them.
U.S. rejection of Keystone gives TransCanada a "more focused argument" for needing Energy East, said FirstEnergy Capital analyst Steven Paget, as the company seeks to win over Canada's two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec.
Keystone's rejection boosts the case for Energy East "volumetrically," said Wood Mackenzie analyst Skip York.
"It provides clarity to the industry about what options are going to be there and helps the Canadian government move forward on what their position is going to be."
Without Keystone, oil producers may face a pipeline capacity crunch.
Energy East faces no lighter scrutiny however, and environmentalists are preparing for a fight.
"The victory with Keystone XL really energizes the already very substantial movement against (Energy East)," said Adam Scott, climate program manager for Environmental Defence Canada. "The arguments for rejecting Keystone XL apply to Energy East even more so - there's more oil and the risk of tankers (transporting oil) on the east coast of Canada."
Canada's newly elected Liberal government reiterated it was prepared to support domestic pipelines like Energy East, but only if there was buy-in from local communities.
'COMMITTED' TO KEYSTONE
TransCanada Chief Executive Russ Girling said the company and its shippers "remain absolutely committed" to Keystone and that "misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science."
Girling said one option is a new application for a U.S. presidential permit for a Canada-U.S. pipeline.
TransCanada shares, which sank on news of the rejection, closed down 4.3 percent at C$43.32 in Toronto.
"It’s not good for any company to lose a project that represents more than 10 percent of its current EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) and that it has already invested C$2.8 billion into," Paget said. "There will probably have to be a writedown."
David Cockfield, portfolio manager at Northland Wealth Management, which owns TransCanada shares, said investors shouldn't be surprised.
"If anybody thought it was somehow going to get approved, boy, I don't know what planet they were on," he said.
28% more expensive than Keystone XL after converting Candian dollars to US?The Energy East pipeline is a proposed oil pipeline in Canada. It would deliver oil from Western Canada to Eastern Canada, from receipt points in Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and port terminals in New Brunswick and possibly Quebec. The TransCanada Pipelines project would convert about 3,000 kilometres of natural gas pipeline, which currently carries natural gas from Alberta to the Ontario-Quebec border, to oil transportation. New pipeline, pump stations, and tank facilities would also be constructed. The CA$12 billion pipeline would be the longest in North America when complete.
Not in the capacity they want to ship it in. Also, it still doesn't benefit the USA overall to build this thing.
So Obama is supposed to disadvantage the U.S. in order to make selling oil for Canada easier?
So Obama is supposed to disadvantage the U.S. in order to make selling oil for Canada easier?
The usa should probably just annex Alberta.