XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas

[NotMe]

}Please show us where the companies involved stated }this......

That was part of the original business plan announcement which required a 'deep water port capable of handling refined products for export'.

}It wouldn't if you libs would allow new refineries to be built.

There have long been (unused) permits for refinery expansion. No EPA, no new enviormental studies, no new state permitting. The industry bean counter justification for not spending the money 'we don't have a need for additional capacity'.

I live in N. Texas and we have a lot of retired oil industy engineers living here. Some of whom I've either gone to school with or worked with. THEY KNOW what's going on and often were in on the orginal planning.

}}Yeah, let's focus on the negatives.

Focus on the negatives. Under our current circumstance water is more precious than oil. Just look at the cost of beef and vegetables. A flat of lettuce is selling wholesale FOB shipping point for 3 to 4X what it was a few years ago. The direct cause is LACK OF SUFFICENT WATER.

When there are spills the industy is proud of itself if they can recover 5%. The rest goes where?

}}Forget all the high paying jobs building the pipeline. Forget that it gives the USA another source of friendly oil. Yeah, I know you claim all the oil is going to be exported. I'm waiting for proof of that. I would imagine SOME of it would be turned into diesel, for which there is currently a hot export market. Whatever there is today, the oil market is always in flux. By the time the pipeline is built, the situation could be different. But one thing is for sure. We would have a pipeline for a safe source of oil available in an emergency, like a mideast war. The govt could even divert the oil, if absolutely necessary.{{

Thousands of new jobs? The original claim was 20K in the end the reality was < 10% and even those for less than two years. As to the refinery jobs discounting maintance trun a round if they ran three shifts that's less than

200 people. But those folk have jobs at the effected plants as it is. So no new jobs there.

I made a good living in, around anf from the oil patch for decads. I'm not on the outside looking in, I've been there and watched it happen.

[Douglas Johnson]

I was in favor of the pipeline last year. This year, not so much. I am beginning to think it is solving a problem we don't have anymore. It well might be better to build pipelines to the North Dakota and south Texas shale oil fields, which are currently shipping oil out by rail. Truly domestic production, less damaging than extracting oil sand oil, with production growing daily and forecast to be huge. Also, no presidential approval required.

-- Doug

[trader4]

I don't doubt that SOME of it may go overseas. What I don't believe is the companies involved stated that it was intended that all or most of the products would go overseas. I mean, why would they? Oil in fungible. And while right now it's profitable for some of certain products to go to fill oveseas demand, who knows what will happen by the time the pipeline is built. I agree it's like any other business.

[trader4]

When you have a link, let us know....

Well, I guess they would know. And if they're wrong, why isn't Obama after them to build more capacity?

I didn't know they farm lettuce in TX. And whatever impact your droubt is having on lettuce, it hasn't shown up here in NJ. Iceberg is selling for $1.70 a head.

 The direct cause is LACK OF SUFFICENT WATER.

So, because TX is having a drought, we shouldn't build any new oil piplines. You're too funny.....

What reality? They haven't even built the critical part that all the bitching is over..... And with high unemployment ANY new jobs that are good paying is a plus. I thought you libs were the ones who care?

 As to the refinery jobs

Strange for someone who's so deadset against building a pipeline.

[Vic Smith]

That pipeline will be another excuse. When gasoline prices spike 50 cents a gallon, Wall Street oil "analysts" will pontificate about how a break in the pipeline, or just a broken pump, has kept oil from the refineries. The same "not enough refinery capacity" refineries that exist right now without the supply from the pipeline.

[trader4]

Like Canada isn't going to develop and produce the tar sand oil anyway, just because the hippies in the USA refuse to allow it to come here? They will either use it themselves or it will make it's way to other buyers. And those same hippies stand in the way of not only this pipeline, but every other energy project as well.

[Gil]

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.

[nestork]

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".

1. 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.

2. 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.)

1. 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.

1. 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).

[trader4]

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.

[Harry K]

Yep, last I heard the US is a net EXPORTER of oil. IOW words we are shipping more oil out than we are bringing in.

Harry K

[trader4]

That isn't true. We are producing a lot more oil today then

10 years ago. And imports have dropped. But the USA still imports about 40% of it's oil. Part of that is when you have an economy that sucks, demand is reduced from what it otherwise would be. The bigger part is new production though.

[trader4]

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.....

[trader4]

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.

[krw]

The US recently became a net exporter of GASOLINE. It still takes oil to make the gas and that is imported (more than not).

[Douglas Johnson]

I would expect the rate of development and the amount they extract would depend on the ease/cost of getting it to market.

I'd bet few of the people of the people opposed to this pipeline would describe themselves as "hippies". I would be very surprised if the ranchers that don't want it across their land answered to "hippie". Or the owners of the independent refinery that filed suit.

Even the environmentalists that seem to be the folks you are targeting probably don't use the term. The last enclave of hippies that I know of are in Santa Clara, CA. They probably use the term "senior".

-- Doug

[Oil Man]

The US is not necessarily a NET exporter of Gasoline.

It is true that you export gasoline:

===================

Feb 29, 2012

Refiners are expanding on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest, even as unprofitable plants along the East Coast were shut. Operable capacity in the U.S. climbed 0.8 percent to 17.7 million barrels a day in December from a year earlier.

U.S. refineries in the Gulf Coast, where about half of U.S. capacity is located, operated at 88.8 percent last year, up from 88.6 percent in

2010.

?It helps keep refinery utilization rates up in this country,? Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) in San Antonio, said in a telephone interview. ?Otherwise we would see what we?re seeing on the East Coast, where refineries are shutting.?

In the fourth quarter, Valero, the largest U.S. independent refiner with

14 North American plants, exported about 5 percent of its gasoline output and 17 percent of its heating oil and diesel production, Day said.

Gasoline demand in the U.S. sank 2.9 percent to 8.736 million barrels a day last year as pump prices averaged $3.521 a gallon, the highest in records dating back to 1919.

?The reason we can export so much is demand in the U.S. is weak,? Cohan said. Since 2005, the U.S. has lost nearly 2 million barrels a day of total product consumption, he said. ===================

But according to this, you are also importing gasoline:

=====================

=====================

Up to 1.6 million barrels of gasoline a day in 2006, declining to about

600k barrels as of a year ago, and 400k barrels today.

And by the way, your ability to export gasoline (from some of your PADD zones) is not because your domestic refinery situation has improved over the past 5-10 years. It's because your economy has gone into the toilet over the past 5 years (thanks to Bush's illegal wars).

Europe uses more diesel fuel in cars and other personal vehicles than is the case in North America, and vice-versa. Hence Europe has relatively more gasoline as a result of their refining operations that can be exported to North America, and that's also why more diesel vs gasoline is exported from the US.

I would guess that your gasoline imports happen primarily on the east cost, with some small amount on the west cost (and no gasoline imports into the gulf states). You don't seem to have an efficient way of getting Texas-refined gasoline to the Eastern Seaboard states, hence their reliance on either imported gasoline, or refining more expensive european brent in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other east-cost refineries (at least those that are still operating).

[nestork]

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.

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.

[Douglas Johnson]

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:

" 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

[trader4]

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.

[HeyBub]

The money the Obama administration handed out, to Solyndra et al, was not for green energy. Obviously.