Keystone Pipeline

[onejayhawk]

The handwriting is on the wall. A Keystone pipeline bill will be coming early in the new congress. This thread is to discuss the pros and cons. It is an RD thread, so keep the discussion with the facts, not with the politics. There are two major and sevberal minor components to the debate. The first is a pipeline from Steele City to Cushing, the so called Cushing extension. The second part is the "XL" extension, from Hardesty to Steele City, the so called "XL" pipeline. Various other components involve upgrading existing facilities.

Objections based on greenhouse gas emissions are not germane. The basic truth is that the oil will be shipped by pipeline or by tanker, but it will be shipped. If your only objection is that green house gasses are bad, then you have no objection. This is a distinction without a difference.

The position of the Republican party is that all of this is a no brainer. It will provide jobs, tax revenue and will decrease our reliance on unstable crude petroleum sources, particularly the middle east. I would add that the pipeline is more ecologically sound than tankers and that it would benefit Canada, a key strategic ally.

I will also note that some very Democrat Party oriented groups, such as the Laborers Union and the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union support all the versions of the pipeline. Unions opposed to it are silent rather than than active in their opposition. This may indicate a deep divide within the specific Union.

To reiterate, if your only objection is that Carbon emissions are bad, do not bother making it. It is understood by all parties.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

If the carbon emissions objection is not valid because the oil will be shipped anyway, doesn't that "shipped anyway" logic also wipe out some of the so called positives mentioned in your post such as jobs, tax revenue and dependence on Middle East oil?

 

[Farm Boy]

Given that most of the oil being pumped in the proposed pipeline is produced in Canada and being transferred to the Gulf Coast for shipping the pipeline itself seems mostly short term graft at the expense of long term jobs in the USA, which is contrary to the angle people arguing for it tend to take. The oil itself is being moved quite handily at the moment through healthy unionized American railroad labor. Oh wait, I think I tripped over it already.

 

[luiz]

If the carbon emissions objection is not valid because the oil will be shipped anyway, doesn't that "shipped anyway" logic also wipe out some of the so called positives mentioned in your post such as jobs, tax revenue and dependence on Middle East oil?

It wipes out the dependence on ME oil, but not the other two. Without the pipeline the Canadians will eventually refine the oil in Canada itself to get rid of hassle of shipping crude, and in fact there's already a plan in place to build a large refinery on Canada's East Coast. So Keystone will keep and increase jobs in the US Gulf Coast.

 

[bhsup]

What about aquafir contamination? I don't know if that is a legit concern or not, but i here it brought up frequently.

 

[warpus]

If you guys don't hurry up arguing about this stupid pipeline, our government of idiots up here is going to be voted out of office and this ain't ever going to happen.

Not that I necessarily want it to happen - I'm just sayin

 

[Berzerker]

1) eminent domain will deprive many people of their property, I thought the GOP defended private property

2) the oil is going onto the world market, not our market - the over all effect should be lower prices but I dont see why we shouldn't drain the ME before tapping into our resources

3) I assume this will be underground, tornados will wipe out some of the above ground facilities

4) polluting our water table via spills and fracking

5) the oil companies can donate to various cancer funds for good PR even though they're causing cancer

6) one of my buddies is a trencher and the pipeline will be coming thru NE Kansas

 

[luiz]

What about aquafir contamination? I don't know if that is a legit concern or not, but i here it brought up frequently.

Could be, but you have to weight it against the risk of contamination of other forms of oil shipment as well.

 

[luiz]

4) polluting our water table via spills and fracking

What have a pipeline and refining to do with fracking?

 

[Berzerker]

when pipelines rupture the spill far outweighs the damage from train or truck spills

I'd like to know who in Congress is taking bribes from the oil industry to push this thru

 

[Berzerker]

What have a pipeline and refining to do with fracking?

both are polluting the water table?

 

[luiz]

when pipelines rupture the spill far outweighs the damage from train or truck spills

I'd like to know who in Congress is taking bribes from the oil industry to push this thru

What about tanker spills? Because that's what it will take to ship the volumes we're talking about. Also, pipelines are a much more cost-effective and greenhouse gas-effective way to shipping large amounts of oil.

 

[luiz]

both are polluting the water table?

My point is that Keystone pipeline won't increase the amount of fracking at all. It's totally unrelated. Might even reduce fracking if oil prices drop.

 

[Berzerker]

What about tanker spills? Because that's what it will take to ship the volumes we're talking about. Also, pipelines are a much more cost-effective and greenhouse gas-effective way to shipping large amounts of oil.

They'll be using tankers to ship the oil with or without a pipeline

My point is that Keystone pipeline won't increase the amount of fracking at all. It's totally unrelated. Might even reduce fracking if oil prices drop.

and my point is fracking and the pipeline will pollute the water table

oil prices have dropped, has fracking? No, fracking is why oil prices have dropped.

 

[luiz]

They'll be using tankers to ship the oil with or without a pipeline

But they'll have to use far less tankers if there's a pipeline in place... The variable cost of the pipeline is much lower, hence use of tankers will plummet.

and my point is fracking and the pipeline will pollute the water table

oil prices have dropped, has fracking? No, fracking is why oil prices have dropped.

But I don't see how fracking is an argument against the pipeline. If anything, people opposed to fracking should want it as a drop in oil price will make some shale plays economically unfeasible.

And the drop in oil prices has already started to reduce fracking, such as in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale formation where breakeven costs are higher than say in the Eagle Ford or Bakken. There are maybe 5 active rigs on the TMS as opposed to a peak of 40 less than an year ago. If prices remain this low for long rest assured there will be a further decrease, and if they were to fall under $40 dollars a barrel or so there would be a major decrease, because the tight oil industry that uses fracking would collapse.

 

[onejayhawk]

This might be helpful. Note the relatively short run to connect Steele City to Cushing, the so called Cushing extension, and much more ambitious XL run.



On thing that has been mentioned frequently is jobs. There are a large number of construction jobs. There are also long term jobs in upkeep and maintenance, plus expected increased employment at the refinery end and the depot sites. In places like Baker Montana, this is a major increase in all jobs available.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Given that most of the oil being pumped in the proposed pipeline is produced in Canada and being transferred to the Gulf Coast for shipping the pipeline itself seems mostly short term graft at the expense of long term jobs in the USA, which is contrary to the angle people arguing for it tend to take. The oil itself is being moved quite handily at the moment through healthy unionized American railroad labor. Oh wait, I think I tripped over it already.

Mostly it is not going there at all. It is going elsewhere. However, the impact on railfreight would be a legitimate issue.

What have a pipeline and refining to do with fracking?

both are polluting the water table?

That would be "Nothing. I am just talking to myself."

Berz, if you have an objection, put it out there. What you have put out so far are so far off point as to be silly.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sure 'the oil will be shipped anyway' is true. Right now, the oil companies are slavering at the idea, and they only have to bribe the Sask gov't to allow it (I think they'd be nuts to, since the alternative is actually building refinery plants in Saskatchewan). Then, when the market price for the oil rises as well as the demand, then the tar sands will increase production.

Yes, there are other projects on the table, but to enact them the oil companies will have to bribe more provincial governments. As well, the rapidity of the development won't be as fast, and this buys time to allow the AGW science and policies to become more robust.

I personally think the pipeline is a net-win for Alberta's pocketbook, local workers, and the pocketbooks of various shareholders. I think intentionally trying to circumvent middle America to sell the oil on the International Market is a net-loss for Americans, since they'll be selling at a higher price. The refinery jobs will be good, though.

There's momentum building around the policy fact that some of the oil has to stay in the ground. The Keystone XL pipeline would create political resistance to this idea, because it would mean the gov't would have to make policies that would ruin worker's jobs, instead of those jobs not existing in the first place (which is amazingly more palatable)

 

[JollyRoger]

com/2014/11/keystone-pipeline-system-map.jpg?w=780[/img]

On thing that has been mentioned frequently is jobs. There are a large number of construction jobs. There are also long term jobs in upkeep and maintenance, plus expected increased employment at the refinery end and the depot sites. In places like Baker Montana, this is a major increase in all jobs available.

J

Netted against job losses in the shipping industry and the temporary nature of the construction phase.

I assume Baker, Montana and the State of Montana are kicking in on this in addition to the Feds, right? Did the bond proposals pass?

 

[Commodore]

when pipelines rupture the spill far outweighs the damage from train or truck spills

I'd like to know who in Congress is taking bribes from the oil industry to push this thru

But how often do pipelines rupture? I'll admit to not being terribly well-informed on the subject, but I don't ever remember hearing about any ruptures in the Alaska Pipeline.