Keystone Pipeline

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, you're right. I'm not being clear on my position.

1) The tarsands should be only harvested once much higher environmental standards can be maintained
2) Atmospheric carbon is a problem, and this problem is aggravated by tar sands development.
3) The price of oil is only going to rise, and so Albertans are just as benefited by keeping the oil in the ground as they are in harvesting it quickly. This is especially true in that Alberta's employment rate is nearly topped out, so there aren't more 'jobs' available.
4) I think Canada should try to value-add the oil instead of Texas, so the refineries should probably be built in British Columbia or en route to the Hudson's Bay.

That said, I recognise that the oil is going to be used up. I'd prefer to convert that oil into as much economic progress as possible (per barrel) so that we're more able to afford whatever future adaptation is required.

This is why I think the US is being foolish, because it would be better (for them) to let Alberta shunt that oil to them as quickly as possible, to value-add to the oil in Texas, and let Albertans bear the environmental brunt

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, that doesn't hold in the long run either. Our access to that oil in 20-40 years is more advantageous than our selling refined products to Mexico today.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Actually, that doesn't hold in the long run either. Our access to that oil in 20-40 years is more advantageous than our selling refined products to Mexico today.

I don't think that assuming that corporate board members and politicians act in the people's long-term interest has any place in rational discussion.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think that assuming that corporate board members and politicians act in the people's long-term interest has any place in rational discussion.

I'm sure they don't. The only government in the world that thinks strategically about oil is the Saudis.

 

[kochman]

I'll try. Gimme a few minutes - I'll edit this post. I just spent like 45+ minutes Googling this stuff myself to find out & reading up on it, so I'll try to post the relevant stuff I found.

basic OPEC info on wikipedia man, I'm glad Wikipedia isn't blacked out

where we get our oil from OPEC countries are only like a third, I was surprised, but still foreign countries.

shows the Top 10 largest world oil companies by reserves and production we aren't on the list; Iraq is #4, Kuwait's on there twice - did not know that an hour ago

If We Drill in the U.S., We Don't Get the Oil I don't know anything about this site, but like I said, I just started Googling this.

says we can't know where our oil comes from "The United States and many other countries in the world consume more refined products (i.e., gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and jet fuel) than can be produced without using crude oil that is imported from other countries. At the same time, certain countries export more crude oil than they consume. When crude oil supplies from one country/source drop off, world oil demand is still met but with a different mix of crude oil supplies. When the overall supply of crude oil decreases, the world market “tightens” and prices usually rise."


Is that enough? I mean, I mostly found this stuff by Googling things like "US oil global markets", "OPEC US oil", "US foreign oil", so I guess I could be off, but how do you interpret all that? I'm open to other articles, but I started not knowing much other than what I'd read here, & I don't see how else to read that.

There honestly aren't any "dissenting opinion" articles. We just don't produce enough to sustain ourselves, & we never could, so as long as we have to buy overseas, we have to play by their rules. Otherwise, they just cut us off or jack up the prices if we try to keep "our" oil to ouselves.

Well... ok... the point is, we don't know where our oil comes from... but, we do, to some extent.
I didn't see anything conclusive that oil refined in TX is going everywhere but the USA...
It also doesn't change the fact that, whether that oil is going to wherever after being refined... the transport BEFORE refining is much more efficient coming from Canadia than the ME... the after refining piece isn't changing no matter where the oil comes from. I still find it hard to believe that much of that oil isn't destined for the USA (and no article showed otherwise). I know it is bought via OPEC, but it isn't like it all gets physically centralized in some oil warehouse and then shipped to the customers...
It's more like, S Arabia sells us X amount of barrels via OPEC, and since they happen to have X amount of barrels at our refineries in TX, that is what we get... I think.

Either way, less transport (because the pre-refining piece has been made more efficient), plus American jobs (which means less people on welfare and more people activitely contributing to the tax base)... two major pluses.

Build the pipeline.

 

[Silurian]

OPEC does not buy Oil.
It alters the price by changing production up or down.

From OPEC

OPEC’s objective is to coordinate and unify petroleum policies among
Member Countries in order to secure a steady income to producing
countries; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to
consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in
the petroleum industry.

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/OPECLTS.pdf

I would assume that the Canadians want to build the pipeline to Texas because that is where the existing refineries are located. There is spare refinery capacity in Texas and as the Texas oilfield run dry there will be more spare capacity.

 

[warpus]

I wouldn't be opposed to this pipeline if the environmental concerns were taken care of first.

 

[Patroklos]

They were taken care of, after years of study. Why people think you need to look at something for ten years to know if it is enviromentally safe is beyond me.

Well it isn't actually, the reason they want more reviews is because their is no finding that would appease certain quarters. It's just a diversion.

 

[warpus]

They were taken care of, after years of study. Why people think you need to look at something for ten years to know if it is enviromentally safe is beyond me.

Well it isn't actually, the reason they want more reviews is because their is no finding that would appease certain quarters. It's just a diversion.

Meh, I read an article recently which claimed that not *all* of the concerns were taken care of and that the pipeline, if built, would negatively affect a natural habitat of some species or other.

We're in no rush, as far as I'm concerned. It's you guys who want to get this built for reasons like "jobs" and "dependence on ME oil". We couldn't care less about any of that. We won't (or shouldn't) build this if it there are environmental concerns.

 

[Cutlass]

I wouldn't be opposed to this pipeline if the environmental concerns were taken care of first.

That won't happen. It would require the pipeline company to post a bond or have insurance capable of 100% cleanup costs of any spill. And that would cost so much that the pipeline wouldn't be built in the first place.

It's all about private profits and socialized risk.

 

[warpus]

That won't happen. It would require the pipeline company to post a bond or have insurance capable of 100% cleanup costs of any spill. And that would cost so much that the pipeline wouldn't be built in the first place.

It's all about private profits and socialized risk.

I don't know many details, but based on what I've read, I'd say that the risks outweigh the benefits here for us.

 

[Silurian]

Assuming the oil is not going to be left in the sand the risks from the pipeline have to be compared to the risk of tankers sinking in the gulf.

(Of course the best way to reduce the risk is for the US to cut oil usage)

 

[galdre]

(Of course the best way to reduce the risk is for the US to cut oil usage)

well that's just un-American

 

[Cutlass]

Assuming the oil is not going to be left in the sand the risks from the pipeline have to be compared to the risk of tankers sinking in the gulf.

(Of course the best way to reduce the risk is for the US to cut oil usage)

Not many tankers actually sink. And they are a very cost effective way of moving oil from one place to another.

 

[Silurian]

Not many tankers actually sink. And they are a very cost effective way of moving oil from one place to another.

Not many oil rigs blow up as well.

Pipe lines are less likely to result in a major oil spill than tankers.

 

[Tristan_C]

Obama gets lobbying money from both sides while the decision is left unmade. This is the best explanation for his stated reasoning, which is that Republicans imposed a deadline on his decision, which "left no time to approve the project" (San Francisco Chronicle). This move puts the decision off until after the election.

In the meantime, though, the pipeline may likely proceed along an alternative route through the US that doesn't require his approval. This will be environmentally-safer and less risky than selling the oil to China (where it has to cross open water by tanker) and more cost-effective than waiting for Obama to finish collecting donations over the issue.

 

[Cutlass]

Not many oil rigs blow up as well.

Pipe lines are less likely to result in a major oil spill than tankers.

But a pipeline spill can happen in places where complete cleanup never quite happens. Aquifers don't recover.

 

[kochman]

But a pipeline spill can happen in places where complete cleanup never quite happens. Aquifers don't recover.

That's why they plan on re-routing it around the aquifiers... because of this concern.

 

[Cutlass]

That's why they plan on re-routing it around the aquifiers... because of this concern.

Which they should have done in the first place. But it's still not enough to justify the project.

 

[kochman]

Which they should have done in the first place. But it's still not enough to justify the project.

Absolutely they should have done that in the beginning, but it is still in the planning phase... so it's ok... we don't need to crucify them over it.