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.
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.
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.
Our socialists and oil tycoons want to irritate the world and keep prices high.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
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.
These is not that much 'excess capacity' in the USA. The oil that XL will bring to the gulf coast is intended to be sold (if contracts are no already in place) as export which will reduce the available refinery capacity for those in the good old USA. This equates to an increase fuel cost.
BTW the folk who operate the XL pipe line have a very bad reputation for safety and have had something on the order of 13 'incidents' in the first year of recently new pipe lines that they have build.
Well, so far, none of our Prime Ministers have gone to the General Assembly at the UN and called your President George W. Bush "the Devil'.
'2006 Chvez speech at the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
formatting link
Also, there aren't quite as many Canadians that have taken a solumn vow to martyr themselves waging holy war against the American infidel.
Canadians speak the same language as Americans.
We live under a similar democratic system of government as Americans.
We have much the same culture as America.
We inherited the same legal system, the British Common Law, from Britain.
We practice the same major religions as Americans.
The Canadian military and coast guard regularily train with the American military and coast guard and those of other member countries of NATO. Our police forces and spy agencies share information with each other as well.
And there are literally millions of personal, professional and business relationships between the people and businesses in our two countries.
I could go on, but you can see why a state of friendship would normally be expected to arise between countries with so much in common and so many ties between them.
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.
I'm in Texas and keep up with this sort of thing. Within 200 miles of Houston, we have about 9% excess refining capacity. Nine percent is a HUGE number. At full capacity, Texas' 27 refineries can refine about five million barrels per day. About 10% of that is 500,000 bbls. The XL pipeline, can supply about 435,000 to 591,000 bbl/day.
So what? You can't build a house without making sawdust.
I would like to see your reference for that announcement, because I don't believe it exists.
I have seem the libs trying to block it, try to turn it into that, cobbling together their case from any scrap they can. Oil is a fungible commodity. It will ultimatley find it's way onto the word market one way or another. It's hard for me to believe someone building a pipeline stated that the oil will only be exported. Is it likely that after it's refined, some of it gets exported? Sure. But if that's the benchmark, then might as well stop a lot of the oil sources in the USA.
Please show us where the companies involved stated this......
as export which will reduce the available refinery capacity for
It wouldn't if you libs would allow new refineries to be built.
Yeah, let's focus on the negatives. 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.
Many people in the north american oil industry is apparently scratching their heads as to why oil inventories have been at their historic upper limits more-or-less continuously for the past few years.
Yes, you moron. You've just explained the concept of supply and demand.
As I've already explained, there is a huge difference between the WTI and Brent prices right now, and this price difference seems to have started about 3 or 4 years ago.
Why are there two different oil markets - each with their own price?
Because of logistics. The north-american supply is not designed to be exported, and because there is a buildup of supply, the WTI price is lower than Brent.
So you have the LIE that Obama is trying to curtail US oil production, when in fact you have historic high levels in storage, and you don't have enough distribution and refining capacity. What you have is a shortage of refining capacity, and that is leading to spot shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel in certain markets at certain times of the year, combined with a patchwork of state-level regulations about fuel formulations that makes it more difficult (AND EXPENSIVE) to keep those markets supplied with a comfortable margin.
Lots of oil from the north sea. And the middle east is also counted as part of the European (Brent) market.
That has nothing to do with the fact that we have more oil sitting in storage in North America, and the constant false claims that you're paying too much for gasoline in the US because Obama won't let you drill for oil on US territory. It's false because gas prices are high because of pipeline logistics and refinery issues (how many there are, operational status, type of crude they can refine, etc).
Look at the graphs and DOE reports of oil inventories. Lots of oil in storage at Cushing. Historic high levels.
Which apparently neither you nor your kook conspiracy website believe in. More supply in the USA, less imports, so the price here is lower than Europe.
It's not just logistics. The two classification differ in their physical characteristics too. But so what?
When he shuts down the whole Gulf because of an accident at one rig, what do you call that? BTW, that included rigs that were just starting to drill, that would have had no potential for an accident because the oil and gas were still 10,000 feet down. When he's cut back on drilling permits on public lands during his term, what do you call that? Are we drilling in ANWR?
The only reason US production is up is because of a LOT of new drilling on private land. Land where everyone knew there was oil, it was just that at $40 it wasn't profitable to go after it. At $90, it is.
Refinery capacity has grown steadily over the decades. One problem though is any time a company wants to do anything to increase supply, the usual alliance of libs and tree huggers is right there to block it. Witness the XL pipeline. They don't want anything built, be it a pipeline, refinery, new power plant, new power line, etc. Even windmills, they are all for it, until it comes time to actually build them. Then most of them become unacceptable. exactly that is going on here in NJ.
Still if it's true that we need more refinery capacity, then why aren't Obama and the libs focusing on THAT? How about finding out if it really is a problem and if so, figuring out how to build more refinery capacity? No, instead the only capacity they are interested in is ethanol and windmills. So, why would anyone be surprised that those areas are where the new capacity is going? It's exactly what Obama and the libs want and exactly what they are subsidizing.
Those state level regulations are actual regional mandates imposed by, you guessed it, the federal govt, via the EPA. And again, it's the diehard environmentalists that insist on keeping them in place. What do you propose?
Let's assume what you say is true. Obama has been there for 4+ years now. If that is the problem, why was he talking about more subsidies for green energy and not doing one thing to solve what you claim is the real problem? I mean he could figure out how to pour billions down rat holes like Solyndra easy enough. I suppose it's Bush's fault.....
Who cares. That's supposed to prove some world war planning, executive orders, etc behind it from a kook website?
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.
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.
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.
Sawdust is not toxic. I paid for my engineering degree working in the oil patch and more times than I care to mention in the refineries around the Ship Channel. The one that has been mentioned most in the plans for the XL oil was (is) owned in part by BP and has a horrendous history of bean counter screw ups that have resulted in big fines and more than a few deaths.
Need I mention that refinery availability is a fungible number and often used to justify high fuel prices.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.