XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas

Page 1 of 3  
President Barack Obama was silent on the issue of the XL pipeline that proponents want to build between Alberta and Texas.
His silence on the issue is seen to be favourable toward the pipeline because it appears that he is trying to distance himself from comments he made earlier in his presidency where the said that overland pipelines could be a threat to the environment.
Canada has large oil reserves in the form of tar sand oil, and it is this tar sand oil that is expected to be transported to Texas via the XL pipeline. Texas has lots of unused refining capacity for that oil. Proponents of the pipeline point out that building the pipeline is a win-win situation for both the US and Canada both because of the jobs it would provide in the near term and the energy independance it would provide the US over the medium and long term. The US gets a reliable supply of oil and Canada gets a customer for it's oil without having to run the much greater environmental risks of transporting that oil by sea.
I'm hoping that within the next few months, your president will make an announcement saying that he's approving the building of that pipeline.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I sure wouldn't hold my breath on that one. If he had any intention of approving it, he could have done it a long, long time ago. It probably would have even gotten him votes. Now, no reason for him to piss off the extreme left that is his base.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nestork,

How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The USA will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.
Dave M.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David M:
Perhaps nobody will be dependent on anybody.
Perhaps this pipeline is part of some "north American union"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13/02/2013 6:45 PM, David L. Martel wrote:

Good point. At one time we were like two peas in a pod. Not any more though. Since the USA became paranoid about 'security' and started treating us like complete strangers I'd just as soon we kept our oil instead of selling it to you guys at well below world market prices. But I guess that since the investors, many of whom are from the USA, want to maximize their return we won't have any choice since they see it as good for both of us.
Gil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Our socialists and oil tycoons want to irritate the world and keep prices high.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Good point. At one time we were like two peas in a pod. Not any more though. Since the USA became paranoid about 'security' and started treating us like complete strangers I'd just as soon we kept our oil instead of selling it to you guys at well below world market prices. But I guess that since the investors, many of whom are from the USA, want to maximize their return we won't have any choice since they see it as good for both of us.
Gil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gil wrote:

Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying to enter the U.S. from Canada.
If you keep your oil, what will you do with it? Collect it and trade it with your friends?
A 2,000 mile pipeline is horrendously expensive, but the cost is a mere drop in the bucket compared to building a refinery in Canada necessary to turn this oil into something you could, you know, actually USE.
Another other alternative is Canada's OWN pipeline to move the oil from central Canada to west coast ports for eventual shipment to China. One thing stands in the way of that possibility: The Rocky Mountains. The highest peak in the Canadian Rockies is about 13,000 feet. (The highest elevation for the Alaskan pipeline is 4,700 feet.) Another obstacle is that (probably) no one in Canada has enough money to build such a pipeline, including the national government.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/02/2013 7:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Three, eh? Over how many years? And that out of tens of thousands of border crossings every day. How many of your own citizens have you caught in that same time planning on carrying out terrorist acts?
If I was a foreign terrorist intent on doing the USA harm, guess which border I'd be coming across. Probably the one with thousands of illegals sneaking across every year and entering the USA undetected.

No, keep it in the ground until we need it. Fifty or so years from now when you guys don't have any left we'll still have more than enough to meet our needs,...that is if you haven't invaded us by then to take our oil and fresh water resources by force.

Actually Canada has refinery capacity in the east that could make use of this oil instead of using foreign oil as we do now. Of course there are the environmentalist that think transporting oil eastward is unacceptable - just look at the uproar going on at present about reversing the flow of oil in an existing pipeline to move western oil eastward.

Yeah, but guess what? You still have to run a pipeline through Canada, across the US border and then south to your refinery stations. (That is unless you plan on tankering it down the coast.) So the same basic 'pipe line' problems and challenges still exist.
Another obstacle is that (probably) no one

Probably true, but there's lots of foreign capital willing to invest in such just as there is now.
Gil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would be an interesting day to see what the libs who don't want to enforce security on that border have to say, if and when it happens...... The vast majority just have pictures of hordes of Mexican gardeners coming across. In fact, tens of thousands are from other countries, including places like eastern europe. But it appears the far easier path for terrorists is to just come in as a tourist, student, etc because a whole lot of them are not identified and on a list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gil wrote:

ONE is too many! So say some.

The money you'd get now, invested for 50 years, would far exceed the value you'd get five decades hence. Further, in 50 years, we'll be using something more efficient and plentiful than oil, leaving you with a gooey mess that has no market.

But it's a LEVEL route (actually somewhat downhill). Half as many pumping stations and so forth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/02/2013 3:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:

I hope you're right about something more "efficient and plentiful". Don't know what it may be, but I don't expect to be around to see it.
By the way, that "gooey mess" has already been there for tens of thousands of years.

It might be a 'level route' but you'd still have to run it through a 'foreign country' that you apparently don't trust anymore. Further, I expect the environmentalist and First Nations people, both Canadian and American, would have a fit with that since it's still a 'pipeline'. It would probably take years to get approval if at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just a couple of comments on what's been said in this thread so far.
1. While I and most Canadians would prefer to sell our oil to the USA rather than China, and I expect most Americans would prefer to buy their oil from Canada rather than Venezuela, the bottom line is that we are separate countries and each of us will do what's in our own best interest when the time comes to make those important decisions. It's always been that way since the guys in charge have always been "economics" and "politics".
2. The XL pipeline MIGHT be part of a larger North American free trade zone agreement, but there hasn't been any discussions involving Mexico (who also produce oil), and you'd think the politicians would get all those ducks in order before they started making decisions on where to build long expensive pipelines. The cart seems to be before the horse if that were the case.
3. A pipeline through the Rocky Mountains would be a very expensive and controversial proposition, but the Canadian government would not have to fund the building of that pipeline even if it is built on Canadian soil. As often happens, foreign investors would simply incorporate a company in Canada to pay lobby groups in Ottawa to push to have the pipeline built, and eventually hire other individuals and other companies with expertise in building pipelines to build it. In the case of a pipeline through the Rockies, I'd prefer those foreign investors would be Japanese and/or Korean companies rather than Chinese and/or Indian companies.)
4. While it's true that Canada has enough tar sand oil to last it 400 years, and we'll undoubtedly be fueling our cars with more environmentally friendly fuels well before then, gasoline is not the only thing made of crude oil.
Most plastics start life as crude oil, and we make everything from textiles to car bumpers to paint to eyeglass lenses out of those plastics nowadays.
Most chemical pesticides and herbicides are made from chemicals derived from refining crude oil. And, since agriculture in the developed world has become an industry heavily dependant on machinery, lubricants in the form of oils and greases (as well as fuel) are important to maintain food production in developed countries.
When you refine crude oil, you basically distill it. A refinery is really just a big moonshine still that can separate out various condensates depending on their boiling temperatures, and send each condensate through different processing equipment. However, what you're left with at the end of the day when you're finished boiling the oil is a product called "asphalt". Asphalt is critical to cities and rural areas for building and maintaining roads and highways. And, of course, it's used in waterproofing the roofs and basements of buildings.
There are many experts that think we should move to alternative environmentally friendly fuels sooner rather than later so that we can save our crude oil for making all these other important products if and when crude oil reserves become depleted. That's because we have available alternatives to gasoline that we can use as gasoline (like ethanol), but we don't have an alternitive to crude oil for making plastics, lubricants, greases and asphalt.
So, I don't believe Canadian oil will go "unused" because of a worldwide lack of interest in the stuff. But, of course, refining it into fuel is still the most obvious market for the stuff.
5. I also don't believe that if the XL pipeline is built, that the oil shipped through it will be refined in Texas and the resulting products exported from Texas to other countries. But, I believe that something to that effect was said by someone to either help get the pipeline built, or help kill the idea of building it. Those kinds of statements by lobby groups or companies with an interest in building it are for public consumption only and belong in the same bag as election promises. The oil will be sold, pipelined to Texas, and the resulting products sold and used throughout North America (and very possibly on other continents as well).
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..>- Hide quoted text -

The hippies aren;t just against XL. They are against virtually any energy project of sigificance. They even reject solar and wind when it finally comes time to actually build one. Remember the old cereal commercial? They are line Mikey. They don't like anything.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..> Quite amazing isn't it? The exec director can't answer two simple questions:
1 - What percent of the total USA electricity comes from wind?
2 - What percent comes from solar?
Stuart asked him about 6 times. Just another brainless hippie. If I went on a program to advocate against conventional power, I sure as hell would know the answer to those questions. Either he's a dummy or afraid to tell the truth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
'Oren[_2_ Wrote: > ;3014423']

Well, I'm not exactly "in the loop", but the feeling up here is that Obama is going to be making a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline within the next few weeks, and everyone is waiting for that decision before making future plans.
Note that the "Keystone" pipeline system already exists. The "XL" portion of the Keystone pipeline system is and expansion to the existing pipeline; albeit long additions that would take the pipeline system all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
The Keystone pipeline (and the proposed XL additions) are owned by TransCanada Pipelines, which is the largest pipeline operator in Canada.
http://tinyurl.com/brrtegv
But, I agree with the general gameplan that TransCanada Pipelines is taking on this. The Athabasca tar sands are going to be producing huge quantities of oil for decades to come, and it doesn't make sense not to plan for that future by building expensive pipelines to transport that oil in the most economical way over the long haul. So, as it stands right now, the fact that the oil will be moved by pipeline is more certain than where or when that pipeline will be built.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It might be here sooner than you think. Remember Cold Fusion from the 80s? Pons and Fleichman, who claimed they had produced power from paladium rods in heavy water were ridiculed. But since then there has been continual research into it by everyone from NASA to major universities. And while back in the 80s no one could reproduce the experiment, now most of these researchers are saying they too are getting excess power out of carefully monitored experiments. Energy that can't be accounted for by any conventional means. Which is exactly what P & F had claimed. The new name being used is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. A whole lot of credible scientists now believe something is going on that can't be accounted for. Current thinking is that it's some kind of low energy nuclear reaction and there are some theories as to what might be happening.
Research is continuing to try to determine what exactly is going on. And the problems that lead to the intial rejection in the 80s continue. It appears to occur somewhat spontaneously, can't be reproduced repeatedly, etc. But enough of these scientists appear to be witnessing and recording something that chemical reactions alone can't account for. So, there is a chance that once understood, we might have a whole new cheap energy source.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This was news to me, but you're right. I read the original Pons and Fleichman paper and got excited. Over the next few months, I learned a lesson. But here we go again. This time, I'm more intrigued than excited.
From: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html
" There are estimates using just the performance of some of the devices under study that 1% of the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the world's energy requirements at the order of 25% the cost of coal.
"No promises, but some seriously "strange" things are going on, which we may be closer to understanding and if we can optimize/engineer such, the world changes. Worldwide, it is worth far more resources than are currently being devoted to this research arena. There is a need to core down and determine "truth" and if useful, the need to engineer and apply." -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree. It's a curious thing that the Obama administration has shown no interest at all in this. I mean if they are handing out money for green energy all over the place, you would think some of it could go into this. Imagine what that $500mil that went to Solyndra could do for research into LENR. Surely guys like Chu must be aware of this....
The other unfortunate aspect is there are some real hucksters out there too, that unfortunately are running scams based on LENR. That's bad because with everyone already skeptical, they are going to just make it all the more harder for the real scientists to get taken seriously.
If you want a laugh, take a look at the Italian guy Rossi and his E-Cat generator. This clown claims he has commercial units working, ready for sale, a factory in the USA, etc. He's even demonstrated a half megawatt unit that generated hot water. Of course the thing was also hooked up to a diesel generator and he would not allow anyone else to take any measurements of what was going in vs coming out.
The remarkable thing is he's somehow managed to get a couple credible professors suckered in to give him credibility. And some of the media give him favorable coverage, without demanding answers to obvious questions he doesn't have. It's clear to me his crap is one big scam. Especially since he was convicted in Italy in the 80s for another miracle project that was supposed to turn garbage into oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

The money the Obama administration handed out, to Solyndra et al, was not for green energy. Obviously.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.>

Are they gonna power that sucker with sun beams or moon beams? I have visions of the Simpsons episode where Homer became the conductor for the new solar powered monorail. A monorail built by a scamming huckster......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.