|
11 Mar 12 - 06:09 PM (#3321446) Subject: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: JohnInKansas A "first" in the debates over construction of a "super pipeline" to transport Canadian oil to US Gulf coast refineries has appeared in the Christian Science Monitor: How much would Keystone pipeline help US consumers? . It's a first of its kind because the article actually takes what appears to be a reasoned and rational look at a fairly broad range of expert analyses and testimony, instead of repeating the propaganda-based hype spouted by US politicians (mainly by Republicans but also infecting a number of deluded Democrats). The proposed "Keystone Pipeline" is currently on hold, delayed primarily due to environmental concerns about running a super pipe directly across the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies irrigation water for nearly 30% of the irrigated agricultural production in the US, and all of the potable water for most of the US population between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. Members of Congress were "surprised" that there might be concern about pollution in that water resource in the event of a leak. Those of us who rely on that, as the only available water we've got were not at all surprised. Advocates in Congress have claimed that the pipeline is "absolutely necessary," yet analyses reported in the article indicate that existing pipelines along with existing truck and rail transport capabilities, are fully adequate to support current and projected production of Canadian oil at least for the next 20 years or so. Claims by advocates that construction of the pipe will add "thousands of jobs" ignore the loss of jobs for those now providing the (fully adequate) transport of all this oil needed or usable by the US(?). Advocates in Congress have claimed that the pipeline will lower the cost of fuels in the US, but the analyses indicate that the main effect will be to permit diversion of "excess supplies" from the US west coast and midwest, thereby permitting an increase in the price of oil and oil products in the US "Midwest" (about half the population of the US?). The claim of reducing fuel costs for US consumers is also suspect due to the stated intent of the Canadian producers that most of the oil transported by the pipeline will go to US Gulf Coast refineries to be made ready for increased exports, primarily to China, Japan, and other places. That this is a real factor is demonstrated by the almost instant defeat of a bill introduced in Congress to require that most of the pipeline product be barred from export in order to make it available only, or at least primarily, to US uses. Claims that this particular pipeline is "essential to national security" for the US appear to be almost totally vacuous, since existing facilities are capable of moving all the oil likely to be needed from sources affected by the pipe, and putting most of the supply in a single pipe makes it an instant target for terrorist attack, if that's what the tinfoil hat crowd is afraid of. Since a significant attack on that pipe could also almost immediately destroy the entire water supply for half the country, it could be considered a "very lucrative target," and defending more than 1,000 miles of pipe at every possible point of attack would be a very difficult task. The real reason for Canadian support of the pipe apparently is that more convenient transport of Canadian crude to Gulf Coast US refineries, for subsequent export to non-US users would permit Canadian producers to raise the price of the crude oil, increasing some Canadian's income by about $4 billion (US) per year, and of course the US refineries would reap an additional profit for processing more, and "more expensive," oil. Obviously this pipeline would be of significant benefit to a few Canadian producers, and to the US refiners and exporters. One might suspect that those thus affected in the US are also substantial contributors to politicians, so of course they would benefit(?). It appears, however, that it offers little real benefit to the people in the US and claims of necessity seem vastly overblown. Since these comments are what I got from this (and a very few other credible reports) I'd suggest reading the original at the link to see if I got at least part of it right. John |
|
11 Mar 12 - 06:12 PM (#3321450) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: gnu Idiots and greedy idiots. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 07:05 PM (#3321472) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: pdq "On November 10, 2011, four days after twelve thousand people encircled the White House, the culmination of months of protests, President Obama announced "the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review". TransCanada stated they have been in conversation with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and fourteen different routes were being studied, including eight impacting Nebraska. They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala aquifer and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer." |
|
11 Mar 12 - 08:04 PM (#3321492) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bobert Bottom line??? The US takes all the risk and at the end of the pipeline Canada sells oil to China... Lousy deal for the US... None of that oil is earmarked for the US... No thanks... B~ |
|
11 Mar 12 - 08:33 PM (#3321501) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: JohnInKansas Permitting for the pipeline resides with the Administration rather than exclusively with Congress, but only because it's an "international pipeline" giving the Dept of State some say in the matter. Nebraska is only one of several states where the aquifer could be adversely affected, but their formal complaint probably deserves much credit for pausing the process long enough for some potentially sane participants to have their inputs. Unfortunately sanity in the process has been somewhat slow to make much of an appearance. To their credit, at least some of the Canadian parties to the experiment have appeared willing to work with our Dept of State, although evidence for that continues to be somewhat obscured by the posturing of those on this side of the border. It's obvious that they want a pipe, and it would benefit them; but the "Party** first and f**k the people" candidates here have made it rather difficult to know the details (although some of us probably do know enough of them?). ** "Party" of course meaning "our big donors" ???? John |
|
11 Mar 12 - 08:49 PM (#3321512) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bill D Routing that pipeline to avoid the aquifer and sand hills does not solve the problem of what they must do to get tar sands THROUGH that pipe!. Heat and toxic chemicals are required to make the thick stuff flow! ANY break and someone gets serious pollution! Add to that the real stats on how many jobs would be created...and when... and you get a bad cost/benefit analysis. Add to THAT the probability that only a small portion of any oil refined would stay here, and the whole thing is just a short-term profit for a few big players. |
|
11 Mar 12 - 10:38 PM (#3321565) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: JohnInKansas It does seem to be the consensus opinion that extraction of tar sand oils is significantly "less green" than extraction from other sources; but the claim for at least several decades has been that "we're running out of the other sources." In several cases I, and some others I've known, have interpreted that claim as actually meaning "we're running out of other sources that I own," but it is undeniably true that some oil fields have been pretty well exhausted. It's also quite likely that places where new fields might be discovered are finite, and dwindling. Crude oil, from any source and extracted by any methods, is really nasty stuff, so any spills from this pipeline could be a significant problem even without direct impact on water resources. Of course when the Trans-Alaska pipeline was being considered it was explained to us all that it would be perfectly constructed, meticulously maintained, and would never leak. So we know that it can be done ... ... ... ... or was that yet another gurgle up north that we just heard ... ???? John |
|
12 Mar 12 - 01:50 AM (#3321595) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Ebbie Isn't it true that the president has not just postponed but vetoed the plan? |
|
12 Mar 12 - 07:11 AM (#3321649) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: JohnInKansas Ebbie - Congress passed "a law" demanding that the EPA approve the pipeline within 30 days, but being a clever bunch of ... (is monkeys too complimentary?)... they failed to repeal the law requiring the EPA to conduct full environmental impact reviews before granting a permit. Since it would require a court opinion to determine which law should have precedence, it was left to the Administration to decide which of the conflicting rules to follow, and I believe the Administration only issued an executive order that no approval will be given until the required environmental impact studies are completed with a favorable result (as required by the prior existing law), and gave a "not prior to 2013" as a timeline for completion of the studies. A veto would only have sent the "Congressional Posturing Piece" back to Congress where they could use it for additional lies, blather, propaganda, and posturing. Since there are virtually zero occupants in the set of [news reporters who actually understand how the Legislative and Executive branches of our government are supposed to work] (on the rare occasions when either actually does some work), it's difficult to pin down exactly what has happened, but the approval of the permit for the pipeline is blocked with respect to the required EPA license, pending a satisfactory impact statement, and additionally requires approval of the State Department since it's an "international operation." Decisions about how laws are implemented and enforced are given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, and the Administration has properly asserted that authority. There are a number of different processes that can be used to extract "flowable oil" from the tar sands, but all that I've heard of have significantly more adverse environmental impact than ordinary pumpable wells (and even those make a nasty mess). I haven't seen what specific processes are planned, but those things will be done in Canada and are thus something that only Canada can regulate. While it would be theoretically possible for a treaty applicable to the pipeline to specify that the US can accept only oil produced by "low environmental impact processes" I don't see that as a likely part of the plan. I've also seen little in the news here about how concerned Canada really is about pollution of their space; but it must be assumed that they have some applicable regulations ... (or maybe not?????). John |
|
12 Mar 12 - 08:25 AM (#3321669) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bobert The pipeline was tied to a temporary extension of payroll taxes, Eb, that the Repubs insisted that Obama decide (yes or no) on the pipeline... He decided no but left the door open for it to be taken up later after it had been assessed and new application were made... This is all about politics... The BIG LIE that the Repubs are telling is that Obama isn't for increasing production for the American people... The pipeline was never for the American people... All it would do is furnish oil to the "world market" and the American people would have no leg up on bidding for it... Here's an idea... Why no refine the crap in Canada, build a pipeline and the US get 50% of the production at a fixed rate for the next 20 or so years... The way it is proposed, we get nothing but the risk... B~ |
|
13 Mar 12 - 06:42 AM (#3322132) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: JohnInKansas Aw Bobert. The Canucks would probably complain about all the pollution those refineries would cause, and they'd worry about scarin' the P' Bears and Moosies. Ya don't think they'd really go fer it, do ya? John |
|
13 Mar 12 - 07:56 AM (#3322170) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bobert Of course the Canooks don't want any risk... Do ya' blame 'um??? I mean, this is an all-for-them-nuthing-for-America deal... Bad deal for US!!! Republicans are morons and must be getting $$$ from the Canooks under the table... B~ |
|
13 Mar 12 - 08:52 AM (#3322198) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: artbrooks Don't assume dishonesty when sheer stupidity is all that is necessary. |
|
13 Mar 12 - 11:08 AM (#3322275) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bill D Oil_refineries_in_Canada It is done in places. I'm not sure why they want to pump dangerous sludge 2000 miles south. |
|
13 Mar 12 - 03:11 PM (#3322359) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: artbrooks Saturated market in Canada and the US midwest, Bill. If it can be shipped to the Gulf, than it can be sold at world market prices, which are some $15 a barrel higher. |
|
13 Mar 12 - 03:21 PM (#3322364) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bill D "Saturated market"???Let them refine it and lower the price of fuel....or at a minimum, pipe the refined products that are easier to pipe to the east... what? you say I have no idea of how the market works? Maybe...but I have an idea of how the market OUGHT to work. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 09:11 AM (#3322711) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: GUEST,mark-s (on the road) Not to worry. The tar sands will be transported in any event, by safe, reliable, tried and true rail. Burlington Northern ownes that market, and in turn is owned by President Obamas supporter, Warren Buff.............oops, theres the doorbell. |
|
14 Mar 12 - 11:43 AM (#3322787) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bill D lessee....Ⅵ + ∂+≤ ≄ 9/21 ß = ....nope... it will take more diesel fuel to transport it than can be extracted from the loads... |
|
14 Mar 12 - 10:28 PM (#3323018) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: JohnInKansas But Bill - It will probably take about the same amount of diesel fuel to pump it through the pipe as to haul it by rail. And since it's unrefined at the end where it needs the biggest push, they'll have to bring in refined diesel by rail or by truck in order to have any at the pump where they need it, or build a local refinery just to run the pump. I'm not up to date on the latest practices, but pumping it through the pipe will require a number of "booster stations" spread along the pipeline. Practice a few years back was about 50 to 75 miles between boost pumps for heavy fluids, so about 20 pumping stations along the route(?). Each of the booster stations is a stationary and pretty much constant polluter, about like running the train at full power 24/7 inside the station (?). The train (or trucks) can bring their own fuel and they just "pass through" so that there's less concentrated local accumulation of pollution, with time for some dispersal between trips. Take you pick on which you think is better with respect to the tailpipe effects. John |
|
15 Mar 12 - 06:47 AM (#3323120) Subject: RE: BS: The Keystone Pipe From: Bobert Here's an idea... Why not let Canada build refineries and sell oil to the northern US states at market prices or let the US build refineries in northern states and buy Canadian tar sands junk and let them refine it supply other northern states... This entire idea of pumping sludge to Texas with the hope of refining it with no idea even what to do with the non-oil portion of the sludge is without one ounce of thought... B~ |