Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash White House announces it will reject Keystone Pipeline. John Boehner really wishes he had control over his investment portfolio right about now   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

6513 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2012 at 2:17 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

357 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-01-18 04:12:15 PM  
apparently Obama is "focused like a laser" on jobs... unless they actual create something of value.
 
2012-01-18 04:12:59 PM  

cryinoutloud: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Way to go Obama! You've successfully postponed an issue that would have put you at odds with your base in an election year! What courage!

I don't know about that. I'm about as libby-lib as they come, and as far as I'm concerned, the pipeline is a done deal, either by Obama or the next guy down the line. It's already half-built, FFS.


The right did what the do best. They framed the debate in a dishonest way. The pipeline was always going to be built. But the energy lobby got their GOP friends to come up with a bill to help them avoid all those environmental studies and all that boring permit paperwork. But they couldn't come out and say they really just wanted to ignore the laws we have and let the energy guys to whatever they hell they felt like. So they framed the debate as for/against even building it.
 
2012-01-18 04:13:42 PM  

CitizensUnited: apparently Obama is "focused like a laser" on jobs... unless they actual create something of value.


You are the worst, laziest troll I've ever seen. Where's the entertainment value man?
 
2012-01-18 04:14:15 PM  

Knara: The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.


Yeah, but this stuff is sludge, that as Grand_Moffit pointed out, can not and will not be processed at the end point of the pipeline. It's all about export sales to other countries, nothing about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
 
2012-01-18 04:14:38 PM  

mrshowrules: I didn't know that. I thought it was crude.


It's synthetic crude and dilbit.
 
2012-01-18 04:15:42 PM  

simplicimus: Knara: The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.

Yeah, but this stuff is sludge, that as Grand_Moffit pointed out, can not and will not be processed at the end point of the pipeline. It's all about export sales to other countries, nothing about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.


Yeah but you can't say that...otherwise no one in America would support it.

Which is why they use the BS "Jobs and Energy security" talking point that I've kept hearing from politicians in both Canada and the US.
 
2012-01-18 04:15:46 PM  

that bosnian sniper: unyon: Yeah it is, but that's not the kicker. The kicker is in the refinement. This isn't a crude pipeline, it's a pipeline for the undigested slurry of marginally useful and only partially processed oilsands.

That's the drum I've been beating since I got clued into it by a former geology prof who spent about 20 years as a field geologist for oil companies. Athabasca oil sands are not light, sweet crude Americans have been programmed to think of any time they hear "crude oil". Hell, for that matter refining isn't the alchemical process Americans have been programmed to believe it is in which just about any hydrocarbon on Earth is poured into a magical barrel that poofs it into gasoline at the push of a button. It's not a goddamn Mr. Fusion.

The very fact oil sands are "economically feasible" for extraction and refining ought to be a god damn pulsating, flashing multi-colored beacon coupled with waving red flags and triple-digit-decibel warning klaxon that we need to get off farkin' fossil fuel not "some time in the future...", "well when it becomes economically feasible itself...", or even "in a foreseeable time span". We need to get off that shiat as soon as possible, if for no other reason than the catch-all group of resources known popularly as petroleum has uses more important central to our economy that aren't burning it.

It's not even an environmental issue for me. The environment's nice and all, and I'd prefer to not see it get wrecked because we're too stupid to recognize unsustainable policy and do anything about it before we're past the point of no return, but economic and political reality is much more important to me personally. And, as unfortunate as it is the latter of those two is the genuine problem: our politicians are too busy taking "campaign contributions" from damn oil companies to do what is to any marginally-educated person on the issue who's not trying to sell snake oil rather emergent and self-evident.


The simpler way to put it would be to simply say that using tar sands is the industrial equivalent of scraping the bottom of the barrel hard enough to dig up the crud and crap that's accumulated at the bottom.
 
2012-01-18 04:17:11 PM  

sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).


Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)
 
2012-01-18 04:17:58 PM  
Awwwww. Didda wittle wich boy woose some money?
 
2012-01-18 04:20:56 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).

Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)


That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.
 
2012-01-18 04:22:08 PM  

CPennypacker: CitizensUnited: apparently Obama is "focused like a laser" on jobs... unless they actual create something of value.

You are the worst, laziest troll I've ever seen. Where's the entertainment value man?


Are you not entertained?!?
 
2012-01-18 04:22:54 PM  

www.citizens4freedom.com

John, Mitch. You guys thirsty?

 
2012-01-18 04:23:19 PM  

patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

Cuchulane
Kochs win big if Keystone XL pipeline is approved (new window)

Shocker.
They are pure evil.


Bendal: trappedspirit: Wouldn't the footprint on this thing be about the same as a new interstate?

Rural interstates on new location tend to have about 300' of R/W, and 76' of pavement (4 12' lanes, two 10' outside paved shoulders, and 2 4' inside shoulders). I don't know how wide a pipeline R/W is required, but they don't pave anything so I'd say no, the footprint isn't nearly as bad as an interstate. Unless you own a forest, that is; then you get a nice wide swath cut through it for the pipeline.


Pipeline right-of-ways are generally a lot like any utility right-of-way, somewhere in the 50' wide range. Wide enough that if they bisect caribou habitat, they won't cross, according to my sister who is a wildlife biologist that does environmental assessments on pipeline projects.

sprawl15: unyon: But the bottom line is- we have the input, you guys have the idle refining capacity. From a pure efficiency/economics perspective, it makes a certain degree of sense for everyone.

The Midwest already has the refining capability to do it. Adding the connection to the Gulf Coast doesn't add a massive amount of extra refinery capability, it just enables it to be sold on the global market instead of domestically.

And by clearing up the glut of oil, it drives up oil prices in the Midwest, which will net greater job losses than even the cheeriest estimates of jobs created within two years.


And you better not build a bridge, lest someone jump off of it. Interesting argument.

A few issues: 1) the refinement requirement isn't just to take it from say crude to gasoline or crude to petrochemical. There is a primary step required to even get it crude-like. My understanding is that those facilities are unique to the Gulf Coast. 2) your more-oil-will-eventually-raise-prices argument is truly dizzying. Here's a hint- Oil should and will become more expensive regardless of what happens with this pipeline.

Despite what the drill baby drill crowd might have you believe, the only defense in the long term is to use less. I'm pushing for Canadian energy policy where we use little, so that we can sell it all to the countries that aren't as *ahem* forward looking.
 
2012-01-18 04:23:39 PM  

unyon: Whatever is building up in Oklahoma, I can assure you that it's not from the oil sands awaiting refinement.


This is a blatant lie. Keystone phase 1 and 2 alone are purposed towards shipping synthetic crude/dilbit to both Oklahoma and extant Midwest refineries. Were this a magical type of non storable oil, it wouldn't need to go through Cushing.

unyon: And there is lots of idle refining capacity on the Gulf coast.


There's no value in refining in the Gulf compared to the Midwest. The very purpose of Keystone Phase 3 is to unstick the glut in Oklahoma. Canada's National Energy Board, after reading a report filed by TransCanada, determined that the value of this pipeline in terms of reduced Midwest supply could reach $5 billion dollars in increased profits simply because of the ability to ship overseas instead of getting stopped up in Cushing.
 
2012-01-18 04:24:35 PM  

sprawl15: Jake Havechek: The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11

A SECOND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS STRUCK THE SOUTH TOWER


Oh wow, I feel bad for laughing at that.
 
2012-01-18 04:25:40 PM  

GameSprocket: DisposableSavior: AmorousRedDragon: unyon: By the way: If I were in charge, you motherfarkers wouldn't get one goddamned drop until you recognized our legitimate arctic sovereignty claims. If you can't be a supportive neighbour, then fark you. Maybe the Chinese would appreciate a new friend.

You wanna make nice with Canada and have access to our resources? Be a better friend.

You know what happens to Canada if we get into a fight with China, right? Ever play Fallout?

Came for the Fallout reference.

Unfortunately, every time I try to play Fallout 3, the game stops responding the the mouse and keyboard after a few minutes. Thanks a lot, Bethesda, you are making me miss out on political points!


I think AmorousRedDragin and I were referring to the opening vid for the original Fallout, where it references America annexing Canada.
 
2012-01-18 04:30:43 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.


Yup. That's the sole purpose of this pipeline, and it will directly hurt American interests to have it built. There is literally no benefit to the US to building this thing.

unyon: There is a primary step required to even get it crude-like. My understanding is that those facilities are unique to the Gulf Coast.


The 'primary step' is done in Canada. That's why I'm talking about synthetic crude and dilbit; it's processed to get it capable of transport by changing its form to something resembling crude. Do you think they would ship actual saturated sand via pipeline?

unyon: your more-oil-will-eventually-raise-prices argument is truly dizzying. Here's a hint- Oil should and will become more expensive regardless of what happens with this pipeline.


Global prices will go down very slightly (after all, more supply). Local prices will rise significantly.
 
2012-01-18 04:32:09 PM  

Infernalist: The simpler way to put it would be to simply say that using tar sands is the industrial equivalent of scraping the bottom of the barrel hard enough to dig up the crud and crap that's accumulated at the bottom.


Well, we're not going full-bore into shale oil (yet), which is as far as I know the "we're breaking out the bottom of the barrel just to see if it burns too" point, but we're awfully damn close.
 
2012-01-18 04:32:49 PM  

sprawl15: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.

Yup. That's the sole purpose of this pipeline, and it will directly hurt American interests to have it built. There is literally no benefit to the US to building this thing.


But...but...jobs.
 
2012-01-18 04:34:09 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).

Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)


What Grand_Moff said. Plus, this has been the case for a long time. Not everything that comes out of Canada is tar sands, as far as I know.

*That* being said, most of our domestic production is, indeed, exported as you say.

But our domestic production is so pitifully small compared to our needs (and there's simply not enough oil there in any form that would allow us to meet the entire demand domestically) that the whole conversation is more or less moot. We need alternative energy sources, because no matter how hard the GOP tries to wish it into reality, we simply can't run our infrastructure from domestic petroleum sources.
 
2012-01-18 04:36:39 PM  

sprawl15: Yup. That's the sole purpose of this pipeline, and it will directly hurt American interests to have it built. There is literally no benefit to the US to building this thing.

[. . .]

Global prices will go down very slightly (after all, more supply). Local prices will rise significantly.


But, oil is a fungible commodity! You can't flag the molecules! It has fungibility. Higher global supply meets demand and lowers prices everywhere, since it's a global market!
 
2012-01-18 04:39:48 PM  

simplicimus: Knara: The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.

Yeah, but this stuff is sludge, that as Grand_Moffit pointed out, can not and will not be processed at the end point of the pipeline. It's all about export sales to other countries, nothing about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.


That's the reality, isn't it? The US doesn't own the oil, the oil companies do. And they'll sell to the highest bidder.

I know nothing about phase 3 of the pipeline, but there's definitely a refinement requirement for synthetic crude, and Port Arthur has that. In fact, even opponents of oilsands (new window) say that it's destined for texas to be refined.

Is it due to be exported after that? Who knows, and who cares. It's a commodity. If you want it, you just have to offer the best price. My response to argument that it will drive up fuel costs in the midwest and elsewhere, because that oil may be currently bottlenecked? Good! Artificially distorting the market by limiting free movement isn't in anyone's best interest, and b) carbon is too cheap anyways. It's high time the US got out of rainbow and unicorn land when it comes to fuel prices.

The US has two choices- either flow the crude to the Gulf for refinement and purchase (domestically or internationally), or Canadians find another way to get the product to market, likely via Prince Rupert. Given global demand, those are the only two options on the table.
 
2012-01-18 04:42:38 PM  

CPennypacker: OgreMagi: "IT"S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT".

Except that oil is going to get sold no matter what we do. If we don't build the pipeline and have it fall under our EPA regulations, the oil will be sold to China who seem to be going out of their way to see how much pollution that can generate.

Plus there are the jobs it will create. Estimates are as high as 250,000 new jobs. How much will someone who can't feed their kids care about the environment?

I heard it was 5 million jobs

Stupid Fartbongo


All joking aside, the actual number is probably closer to 20,000 jobs. That's still a significant number.
 
2012-01-18 04:43:45 PM  

OgreMagi: CPennypacker: OgreMagi: "IT"S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT".

Except that oil is going to get sold no matter what we do. If we don't build the pipeline and have it fall under our EPA regulations, the oil will be sold to China who seem to be going out of their way to see how much pollution that can generate.

Plus there are the jobs it will create. Estimates are as high as 250,000 new jobs. How much will someone who can't feed their kids care about the environment?

I heard it was 5 million jobs

Stupid Fartbongo

All joking aside, the actual number is probably closer to 20,000 jobs. That's still a significant number.


Thankfully we don't make all of our decisions solely based on how many temporary jobs they will create
 
2012-01-18 04:44:34 PM  

OgreMagi: CPennypacker: OgreMagi: "IT"S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT".

Except that oil is going to get sold no matter what we do. If we don't build the pipeline and have it fall under our EPA regulations, the oil will be sold to China who seem to be going out of their way to see how much pollution that can generate.

Plus there are the jobs it will create. Estimates are as high as 250,000 new jobs. How much will someone who can't feed their kids care about the environment?

I heard it was 5 million jobs

Stupid Fartbongo

All joking aside, the actual number is probably closer to 20,000 jobs. That's still a significant number.


Spread over how much time, is always my question. I can buy it resulting in 20k jobs, but if they're scattered over the course of 15 years, its not as good as it seems at first glance.
 
2012-01-18 04:45:22 PM  
Obama appears to have found his spine and his brass balls.

Lets hope he keeps them for a while now, eh? Doesn't cave in . . . again.
 
2012-01-18 04:45:26 PM  

OgreMagi: CPennypacker: OgreMagi: "IT"S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT".

Except that oil is going to get sold no matter what we do. If we don't build the pipeline and have it fall under our EPA regulations, the oil will be sold to China who seem to be going out of their way to see how much pollution that can generate.

Plus there are the jobs it will create. Estimates are as high as 250,000 new jobs. How much will someone who can't feed their kids care about the environment?

I heard it was 5 million jobs

Stupid Fartbongo

All joking aside, the actual number is probably closer to 20,000 jobs. That's still a significant number.


The actual number is closer to 5,000 to 6,000 jobs for approximately 2 years. That's ignoring any jobs lost due to raising fuel prices in the midwest that would result.
 
2012-01-18 04:46:14 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).

Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)

That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.


There is no way to use this oil in the Midwest without first putting it through the refineries on the Gulf coast. It's too heavy. The Midwest refineries can not handle diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands. If you ran this stuff into a standard refinery it'd trash the place. Unless someone built a heavy oil refinery in the Midwest when I wasn't looking, you're wrong.
 
2012-01-18 04:47:21 PM  

unyon: I know nothing about phase 3 of the pipeline, but there's definitely a refinement requirement for synthetic crude, and Port Arthur has that. In fact, even opponents of oilsands (new window) say that it's destined for texas to be refined.


Because of economic reasons, not capacity reasons. If it's refined in Port Arthur, they can sell it internationally. If the connection between the northern pipes and Texas is not built, they have to hard carry it to international sale by truck or by train down from Cushing (which some companies are currently doing; that's how big the price differential is). See the link about the delta between the Brent and WTI indices.

unyon: The US has two choices- either flow the crude to the Gulf for refinement and purchase (domestically or internationally)


As I've already said (what, six times now?), domestic sales have nothing to do with shipping it to Texas. It's not even projected to lower the price of oil locally around those refineries, since the whole goal of the project is to ship internationally.

unyon: Artificially distorting the market by limiting free movement isn't in anyone's best interest


While this is true, it's even farther from our interests to help Canada pipe oil to a Saudi refinery to sell to China with an environmental time bomb waiting to happen in the largest aquifer in the world, a farming region whose gas prices will raise 10-20 cents a gallon as a direct result.
 
2012-01-18 04:48:17 PM  

Five Tails of Fury: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).

Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)

That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.

There is no way to use this oil in the Midwest without first putting it through the refineries on the Gulf coast. It's too heavy. The Midwest refineries can not handle diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands. If you ran this stuff into a standard refinery it'd trash the place. Unless someone built a heavy oil refinery in the Midwest when I wasn't looking, you're wrong.


There is a pipeline that already sends oil from Alberta to refineries in Illinois just across the river from me. So I assume they have the a
 
2012-01-18 04:49:05 PM  
Good.
 
2012-01-18 04:49:37 PM  
If people want cheap oil, they'd better be prepared for the necessary efforts to make that happen.

That being a complete take-over of the oil businesses, nationalizing the oil reserves, every drop, and confiscating the equipment and materials to run those companies.

Of course, a sizable percentage of the country would simultaneously catch fire and have their craniums erupt at the socialism in action, so it's not all bad.
 
2012-01-18 04:51:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Five Tails of Fury: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).

Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)

That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.

There is no way to use this oil in the Midwest without first putting it through the refineries on the Gulf coast. It's too heavy. The Midwest refineries can not handle diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands. If you ran this stuff into a standard refinery it'd trash the place. Unless someone built a heavy oil refinery in the Midwest when I wasn't looking, you're wrong.

There is a pipeline that already sends oil from Alberta to refineries in Illinois just across the river from me. So I assume they have the ability to do that.


FTFM
 
2012-01-18 04:52:51 PM  

unyon: simplicimus: Knara: The Freepers are going with the line of "Obama is refusing Canadian crude"

Nevermind that the most crude from a single source that we already import is Canadian.

Yeah, but this stuff is sludge, that as Grand_Moffit pointed out, can not and will not be processed at the end point of the pipeline. It's all about export sales to other countries, nothing about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

That's the reality, isn't it? The US doesn't own the oil, the oil companies do. And they'll sell to the highest bidder.

I know nothing about phase 3 of the pipeline, but there's definitely a refinement requirement for synthetic crude, and Port Arthur has that. In fact, even opponents of oilsands (new window) say that it's destined for texas to be refined.

Is it due to be exported after that? Who knows, and who cares. It's a commodity. If you want it, you just have to offer the best price. My response to argument that it will drive up fuel costs in the midwest and elsewhere, because that oil may be currently bottlenecked? Good! Artificially distorting the market by limiting free movement isn't in anyone's best interest, and b) carbon is too cheap anyways. It's high time the US got out of rainbow and unicorn land when it comes to fuel prices.

The US has two choices- either flow the crude to the Gulf for refinement and purchase (domestically or internationally), or Canadians find another way to get the product to market, likely via Prince Rupert. Given global demand, those are the only two options on the table.


You're saying this because you're in Calgary where you will definitely see the benefits of this.

Here in the Midwest, I look at this pipeline and think that we'll only deal with the risks and little if any of the benefits in this venture.

So why should I support this?
 
2012-01-18 04:53:20 PM  

unyon: make me some tea: I'm glad to see him stand up on this. Of course it's only a rejection of the current plans. If they can come up with a way to run the pipe without it going through sensitive watershed he may revisit the decision.

Here's the thing with the pipeline: if they're going to be running oil tanker truck from Canada to Texas anyway, it's actually "greener" from an emissions standpoint to run a pipeline. Of course there's always the risk of a spill. I dunno, I'm on the fence about it.

A pipeline makes all the sense in the world. Transporting it any other way is crazy talk. Risk assessment and pipeline analysis and maintenance schedules have made light year leaps over the last decade. Companies now know what they have, how to monitor, and what's at risk. I know, I support all the backline systems for a company that exclusively does pipeline risk assessment modelling for guys like BP, Transcanada, and Cenovus.

The regulatory and compliance framework has been beefed up in recent years, which has forced the industry to have to pay attention to aging pipelines in a way that they never had before. Provided that the route is a sound one, this is something worth supporting. And I say that even as a filthy hippie.


Tell that to Exon and the Yellowstone River.
 
2012-01-18 04:53:23 PM  

OgreMagi: All joking aside, the actual number is probably closer to 20,000 jobs. That's still a significant number.


Nowhere close. It's close to 20,000 man-years, including both the Canadian and US portions. The actual allocable portion of US labor that will be hired for this pipeline is about 7,000-10,000 man-years. The number of permanent US hires is around 100 people.
 
2012-01-18 04:54:41 PM  

sprawl15: unyon: Whatever is building up in Oklahoma, I can assure you that it's not from the oil sands awaiting refinement.

This is a blatant lie. Keystone phase 1 and 2 alone are purposed towards shipping synthetic crude/dilbit to both Oklahoma and extant Midwest refineries. Were this a magical type of non storable oil, it wouldn't need to go through Cushing.


You need to distinguish crude from dilbit. Your argument would make complete sense- if you were planning on shipping that surplus in Oklahoma back to Hardisty, Alberta.

unyon: And there is lots of idle refining capacity on the Gulf coast.

There's no value in refining in the Gulf compared to the Midwest. The very purpose of Keystone Phase 3 is to unstick the glut in Oklahoma. Canada's National Energy Board, after reading a report filed by TransCanada, determined that the value of this pipeline in terms of reduced Midwest supply could reach $5 billion dollars in increased profits simply because of the ability to ship overseas instead of getting stopped up in Cushing.


We're conflating two different issues. Linking phase II and phase III together will allow midwest crude supply to head south, possibly for export. Phase III is a very specific 36" pipeline for shipping not-yet-crude for refinement (and possible export).

sprawl15: unyon: There is a primary step required to even get it crude-like. My understanding is that those facilities are unique to the Gulf Coast.

The 'primary step' is done in Canada. That's why I'm talking about synthetic crude and dilbit; it's processed to get it capable of transport by changing its form to something resembling crude. Do you think they would ship actual saturated sand via pipeline?


No, that was my point as well. I've lived and worked in Fort MacMurray. My uncle was one of the first employees at the Syncrude plant there. I'm well aware of what it looks like as it's stripmined. It gets upgraded, but it still ain't usable crude at that point, just portable in something other than a 40 tonne dump truck. We're in agreement here- others in this thread are conflating what it is that will actually travel through the Hardisty line.

Global prices will go down very slightly (after all, more supply). Local prices will rise significantly.

'Significantly'? Only if they're 'significantly' artificially depressed right now. In which case, this is good news, not bad news. Carbon ain't nearly expensive enough as it is.
 
2012-01-18 04:54:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Five Tails of Fury: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: sprawl15: patrick767: The NPR article linked above (new window) says that the goal of the pipeline is to reach the Gulf refineries. Yet Grand_Moff_Joseph further in this thread said the Gulf refineries can't handle tar sand oil. Citation? Which is it?

The Gulf refineries can handle the Canadian crude. Port Arthur, Texas in particular has a tar sand refinery (half owned by Saudi Aramco, the nationalized Saudi oil company).

Ah, I did not know that they had one down there. I stand corrected. :)

That said though, a few folks further up thread are still correct in that the extra refining on the Gulf is not the point of this effort - it is to get the oil out of the Midwest and into the export market.

There is no way to use this oil in the Midwest without first putting it through the refineries on the Gulf coast. It's too heavy. The Midwest refineries can not handle diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands. If you ran this stuff into a standard refinery it'd trash the place. Unless someone built a heavy oil refinery in the Midwest when I wasn't looking, you're wrong.

There is a pipeline that already sends oil from Alberta to refineries in Illinois just across the river from me. So I assume they have the a


My error, I wrote too quickly and need to check my brain today, I've been watching this closely all day as it pertains to my work.
There are refineries that currently process bitumen. The problem is that they're pretty much at capacity, and the oilsands is ramping up steadily to where it will be generating most of Canada's oil production (compared to the standard oil being pumped out of southern and central Alberta and Saskatchewan) within ten years or so. The unused capacity for heavy oil processing is on the Gulf coast; that's why TransCanada wants to get their oil there. Plus it's closer to oil ports so things can be moved around successfully once processed.
TransCanada has made it clear that the project is aimed at reducing dependency on outside oil sources in North America.

Sorry about the earlier statement, I was too hasty in my reply.
 
2012-01-18 04:59:14 PM  

unyon: 'Significantly'? Only if they're 'significantly' artificially depressed right now. In which case, this is good news, not bad news. Carbon ain't nearly expensive enough as it is.


So if raising the cost of fuel is your goal, let's shut down the pipeline all together and make them truck it.
 
2012-01-18 05:00:01 PM  

sprawl15: spiderpaz: When they say 20K jobs, they mean (10K jobs for 2 years). The "jobs" are actually "job-years". Studies have shown that only a handful (
And of those short-term jobs (1-2 years in length), 30% of those will be in Canada, not the US.

Now, that still means 7K people in the US can get a job for 1 to 2 years. I think that is a good thing.

Most of the jobs created in the US will be done by import/national labor, not locally sourced labor. I mean, they'll hire local ditch diggers, but in terms of technical work? That's coming from corporate.


Those numbers also include those working in the refinery. The ones that already work in the refinery. It is not like this will cause the refinery to expand. They will just stop paying taxes importing sweet oil, and start importing Canadian crap tax free under NAFTA.
 
2012-01-18 05:00:58 PM  

Five Tails of Fury: My error, I wrote too quickly and need to check my brain today, I've been watching this closely all day as it pertains to my work.


It's ok. It happens


TransCanada has made it clear that the project is aimed at reducing dependency on outside oil sources in North America.


Which is why it needs to be sent to Texas while there are still refineries here in the Midwest which can do the same task.

Riiiight.

The real story is that TransCanada is using this pipeline to get onto the international market. They're doing the same thing with the Northern Gateway between Alberta and BC where they have explicitly said that it's intended to send oil to China.

Although they can't say that here in the US or support for this pipeline in the US would tank.

Canada is the beneficiary and only beneficiary in this deal.
 
2012-01-18 05:02:44 PM  

unyon: You need to distinguish crude from dilbit.


I did, by typing "synthetic crude/dilbit". Does a slash mean something different in Canada?

unyon: We're conflating two different issues. Linking phase II and phase III together will allow midwest crude supply to head south, possibly for export. Phase III is a very specific 36" pipeline for shipping not-yet-crude for refinement (and possible export).


No. I was talking specifically about Phase III. You said I'm wrong because I'm mentioning Phase II and III, then carried on to only talk about Phase III to agree with me. Pay closer attention, please.

unyon: It gets upgraded, but it still ain't usable crude at that point, just portable in something other than a 40 tonne dump truck.


So when you said, "There is a primary step required to even get it crude-like. My understanding is that those facilities are unique to the Gulf Coast.", did you mean Canada instead of the Gulf Coast? Or are you suggesting that the sand is currently trucked from Canada to Texas for refinement, then trucked back up as synthetic crude/dilbit to Canada to be pumped?

unyon: Only if they're 'significantly' artificially depressed right now.


Know how I know you didn't read the link?
 
2012-01-18 05:03:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Canada is the beneficiary and only beneficiary in this deal.


Well, China is also a beneficiary. They're the ones selling most of the steel to Canada.
 
2012-01-18 05:04:32 PM  

Craptastic: CPennypacker: CitizensUnited: apparently Obama is "focused like a laser" on jobs... unless they actual create something of value.

You are the worst, laziest troll I've ever seen. Where's the entertainment value man?

Are you not entertained?!?


actually, what I had in mind was something more like this:

Link (new window)

-or-

Link (new window)
 
2012-01-18 05:05:05 PM  
Leaking Keystone pipeline. (new window)

This thing will leak, it would be reckless to let it go through without at least trying to minimise the foreseeable damages.
 
2012-01-18 05:05:20 PM  
As someone that is relatively under-informed on all the subtleties of the industry, what is to stop Canada from building a refinery that can handle this stuff somewhere in Canada? Either somewhere close to the source that it is pumped from, or close to where it would be shipped to China from (either of the coasts)? Is the price to build one so astronomically high that it outweighs the benefit of not having to jump through the hoops to ship it south/adding value at the site/shipping refined stuff?
 
2012-01-18 05:06:07 PM  

cryinoutloud: I think he's trying to illustrate that there's already a shiatload of pipelines in this country. That were all approved, built, and are now being used without much comment from anybody.


In that case why not just show a map of every water pipe in America. There are a shiatload of them too. If you're going to try and claim that this pipeline is exactly like every other pipeline be it for oil, gas or whatever, just go whole hog and show how America is covered in water pipes!
 
2012-01-18 05:06:12 PM  

asurferosa: Those numbers also include those working in the refinery. The ones that already work in the refinery. It is not like this will cause the refinery to expand. They will just stop paying taxes importing sweet oil, and start importing Canadian crap tax free under NAFTA.


There's a giant refinery close to my town, and I met a guy that works there. I was talking to him about working there and I asked him how many guys are working at the refinery at a time.

"Sixteen."

"Sixteen? Like...in your department?"

"No. Sixteen guys in the whole place, at any time. There used to be a lot more, but the company cut back a lot on manpower. So yeah...hundreds of acres of pipeline and valves and...sixteen guys to watch all of it. Obviously we usually have their hands full."

Holy crap.
 
2012-01-18 05:07:38 PM  

CitizensUnited: Craptastic: CPennypacker: CitizensUnited: apparently Obama is "focused like a laser" on jobs... unless they actual create something of value.

You are the worst, laziest troll I've ever seen. Where's the entertainment value man?

Are you not entertained?!?

actually, what I had in mind was something more like this:

Link (new window)

-or-

Link (new window)


Interesting link thanks. I see where the 200,000 jobs talking point came from

In terms of the potential impact on U.S. employment, TransCanada makes the following claim:

TransCanada is poised to put 13,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline-- pipefitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, among other jobs-- in addition to 7,000 manufacturing jobs that would be created across the U.S. Additionally, local businesses along the pipeline route will benefit from the 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL will create through increased business for local goods and service providers.

Basically it came from the same place Paul Ryan got the numbers for his budget.
 
2012-01-18 05:08:55 PM  

VRmp3: As someone that is relatively under-informed on all the subtleties of the industry, what is to stop Canada from building a refinery that can handle this stuff somewhere in Canada?


Their own government doesn't trust TransCanada enough to build a pipeline to their west coast, so they'd rather pump it over the US. Refineries are expensive, though, it's better to use existing refinery capacity than to build a new one in nearly every case.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report