Keystone Pipeline evaluation

[Robert.Boston]

There is a reason for it that most people never even thought of: US citizens most likely will not see a drop of that oil; it will most likely be shipped via a barge to another country so that other country can use that oil.

The price of crude oil and refined products is (mostly) set in the world market. Therefore increased supplies of product will result in lower prices, regardless of whether any of the molecules from Alberta actually find their way into the US market.

(I don't support the pipeline, but I'd prefer that arguments against it are sound.)

The argument against the pipeline that I think ought to have the greatest traction in the current American political scene is this: when (not if) the Keystone XL pipeline leaks, it will be American soil and aquifers that are contaminated: we get the environmental risk, while the Albertan tar-sands producers and the pipeline owners get the profits. If things go really bad, it's American lives at stake fighting fires, etc. As we're seeing with BP, don't expect that the company responsible for the accident will make everything right and everyone whole.

The real argument ought to be about carbon and the high environmental cost of exploiting the Albertan tar sands, but that's not going to carry the day in current American politics.

 

[slipdrive]

I tend to see it as two unfortunate primary realities.
1) gasoline comes from oil from pipelines or ships. If it doesn't come from Canada in a (new) pipeline, it will get to the US coastal refineries in other ways. There are a lot of old pipes in the ground.
2) Canada has and will continue to develop the massive oil-in-place in Alberta, unless Canadian choose to change that. The oil produced will be burned or converted somewhere in the world.
We can choose to use as little energy, from as much renewable sources as we can.

 

[dsm363]

I guess my question is why add the risk of a spill across the US if we see little benefit other than the oil getting to the broader market (which if it was refined in Canada it would reach the same market)?

 

[Dan5]

The price of crude oil and refined products is (mostly) set in the world market. Therefore increased supplies of product will result in lower prices, regardless of whether any of the molecules from Alberta actually find their way into the US market.

(I don't support the pipeline, but I'd prefer that arguments against it are sound.)

The argument against the pipeline that I think ought to have the greatest traction in the current American political scene is this: when (not if) the Keystone XL pipeline leaks, it will be American soil and aquifers that are contaminated: we get the environmental risk, while the Albertan tar-sands producers and the pipeline owners get the profits. If things go really bad, it's American lives at stake fighting fires, etc. As we're seeing with BP, don't expect that the company responsible for the accident will make everything right and everyone whole.

The real argument ought to be about carbon and the high environmental cost of exploiting the Albertan tar sands, but that's not going to carry the day in current American politics.

While true it would put more oil in circulation, but at the same time the cartels may cut back production to counter act that (that is what I would do), forcing the price up more and somewhat screwing over the US. That crude is a royal pain to refine (Valero does a good job of taking that garbage, but Hess plants are used to better stuff)

Also, more oil short term means more demand which means more people get accustomed to it which over the long term leads to higher prices in order to maintain the same standard of living.

Long term anything the enables more demand for a finite resource will eventually lead to a collapse.

 

[ggies07]

He nails it! Gave me goosebumps

 

[ggies07]

This is nuts!

Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Owner Wins Climate Leadership Award

 

[dhrivnak]

I guess my question is why add the risk of a spill across the US if we see little benefit other than the oil getting to the broader market (which if it was refined in Canada it would reach the same market)?

Because the risk of spill from a pipeline is smaller than the risk of spill from a train or truck. As long as we buy oil they will ship it. So why not ship in the most environmentally friendly was?

 

[dsm363]

Because the risk of spill from a pipeline is smaller than the risk of spill from a train or truck. As long as we buy oil they will ship it. So why not ship in the most environmentally friendly was?

Doesn't most of that oil not end up in the US though? They are transporting it to the gulf where it can be shipped to international markets or refined into gas to also ship out. They could simply build the refineries right near the source I would think.

 

[nwdiver]

It would certainly appear that the most viable argument in favor of KXL among those that accept AGW is that the oil is going to be produced no matter what so it should at least be shipped with the lowest risk possible... that reasoning is flawed for several reasons...

- The pipeline reduces the cost at which the oil would not be produced; Tar Sands oil costs ~$65-$70 / barrel... oil is currently at $83; if their margins are too low they will not sell... and the higher their margins the more they will produce.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Have-the-Canadian-Tar-Sands-had-their-Day.html

- Projects have been canceled or significantly delayed in the past due to rising infrastructure costs; Lack of a pipeline may not be the only cause but it can be a contributing factor.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/joslyn/article18914681/

- KXL isn't the only route being blocked...
http://pipeupagainstenbridge.ca/blog

This disaster is far from inevitable. Even if it does succeed eventually, every day that oil isn't sent to market is a victory since a future where we aren't addicted to oil IS inevitable... we just need to buy some time until that future arrives.

 

[ggies07]

Congress Will Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline, With An Eye On Louisiana : The Two-Way : NPR

I'm sorry, no, I'm not sorry that I'm against this. The only thing these people see is $ when we now have renewable energy technology. If you believe that we are part of the problem with climate change, then all this oil needs to stay in the ground. Every possible way of making that happen needs to be tried and NOT passing the Keystone pipeline is one of them. It makes me sick to think we are making huge advances with solar and here we are trying to pass a bill to move dirty, the dirtiest!, oil out there through a pipe.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I tend to see it as two unfortunate primary realities.
1) gasoline comes from oil from pipelines or ships. If it doesn't come from Canada in a (new) pipeline, it will get to the US coastal refineries in other ways. There are a lot of old pipes in the ground.
2) Canada has and will continue to develop the massive oil-in-place in Alberta, unless Canadian choose to change that. The oil produced will be burned or converted somewhere in the world.
We can choose to use as little energy, from as much renewable sources as we can.

Maybe the USA could run two big fat pipes to Canada and say "Send us the NG and water you're wasting instead."

 

[Canuck]

This is why the midterm elections were important. The only question left is whether President Obama will veto this bill. Let's hope so.

 

[ggr]

This is why the midterm elections were important. The only question left is whether President Obama will veto this bill. Let's hope so.

Well, it still would have to pass the Senate, which is currently still Democrat controlled; even though one Democrat is pushing it, that's posturing. Even in February when the new congress seats, it would still be possible for the Democrats to filibuster in the Senate, although it isn't clear to me how they might want to play it. Only then would it get to the President to veto or not.

 

[Canuck]

Well, it still would have to pass the Senate, which is currently still Democrat controlled; even though one Democrat is pushing it, that's posturing. Even in February when the new congress seats, it would still be possible for the Democrats to filibuster in the Senate, although it isn't clear to me how they might want to play it. Only then would it get to the President to veto or not.

Good. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ggies07]

This is great to see. From 350.org:

Congress is about to vote on another bill that would force approval of Keystone XL. But today President Obama's Press Secretary said he would veto the bill, even if it did pass.
That's testament to the power of your organizing. Let's keep pushing.

 

[Merrill]

Congress Will Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline, With An Eye On Louisiana : The Two-Way : NPR

I'm sorry, no, I'm not sorry that I'm against this. The only thing these people see is $ when we now have renewable energy technology. If you believe that we are part of the problem with climate change, then all this oil needs to stay in the ground. Every possible way of making that happen needs to be tried and NOT passing the Keystone pipeline is one of them. It makes me sick to think we are making huge advances with solar and here we are trying to pass a bill to move dirty, the dirtiest!, oil out there through a pipe.

Also the more we make the more we sell overseas and as far as I can tell only the oil companies get richer. We are using less oil in this country and producing more so as long as we sell out of the U.S. the cost of fuel has not reduced in proportion to demand. Let's do more clean energy, take that investment and spend it on solar, wind, geothermal.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Well, it still would have to pass the Senate, which is currently still Democrat controlled; even though one Democrat is pushing it...

I think step one is just a strategy play, to get votes on record. Fossil Dems need to show a record, to their own fossil voters. This why Reid would bring such a bill in the current session. In the next R-dominated session, it will come down to Landrieu, Manchin, and the couple other D-Senators who can beat a filibuster. Then, veto, with over-rule being unlikely.

British Columbia and Quebec are not Manitoba, tar sand provinces. They flank ocean access. To the south, it's up to us.

On top of the aforementioned economic insanity of relying upon this oil, is other takes on just how carbon intensive the well-to-wheels emissions become. 32lbs/gallon goes up to 37-38.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf

 

[ggies07]

Bill McKibben article:

Congress is about to sabotage Obamas historic climate deal - Salon.com

Key parts:

Much more fundamentally, though, the problem is this: you can’t cut carbon without, you know, cutting carbon.

To meet that target you have to do things. If you don’t do things — if you keep approving pipelines and coal mines and fracking wells — then you won’t meet the target.

YES!

For the moment, Keystone is the best example of this principle. So far we’ve stopped it for three years, and in the process pushed companies to pull $17 billion in investment out of the tar sands.

 

[ggies07]

See, with projects like these, there's no reason to dig in the ground and move dirty liquid anymore. This is great to see for this country.

Africas largest solar farm (325,480 PV modules) is now fully operational! : TreeHugger

 

[RiverBrick]

British Columbia and Quebec are not Manitoba, tar sand provinces. They flank ocean access. To the south, it's up to us.

Unfortunately, I have no faith in Ottawa and Quebec stopping the flow through the East.