Pipeline to Houston (Rockwall, Kaufman, Canadian: unemployed, school, contractors)

[piyf]

I wouldn't say that crude or refined fuels is a "bomb" under ground. We have lines that are far from high pressure and run over 20k bbls per hr at less than 300 psi.


And if the EPA approves it and it's in Harris County. Then the company is going to be paying (getting hosed in my opinion) a lot of money for carbon credits. 1 credit is around $50k. And it takes a bunch to put up just one tank let alone a functioning terminal.

[jfre81]

Was talking about this earlier while drinking with a friend of mine in the O&G business...

This would indeed create a lot of jobs, upstream and down. One catch is this crude from the tar sands in Canada is "sour" crude, as opposed to Texas "sweet" crude. The difference is that "sour" has a high sulfur content, and sulfur compounds are corrosive to both pipelines and refining equipment. So what they would need to do is build a refinery (or more than one) up there primarily to extract the excess sulfur from the crude before sending it down the pipe.

What it's not going to do is become some magic bullet that makes our oil consumption self-sustaining. All that oil like any other, whether it comes from Canada or Saudi Arabia or right here in Texas, goes onto the open market. More oil coming onto the market means OPEC can just cut production to maintain a price point it likes. This is pretty simple economics, though it seems not that simple to people who think we're just going to drill OPEC out of the market. It just doesn't work like that, but it makes great rhetoric when fishing for votes from people who don't know better.

I think it's a net gain and should be built if the right safety measures are in place. A spill where our food is produced would not be an optimal scenario, so let's not have that happen.

[piyf]

Most of what we get is sour and it's from small mom and pop type rigs all over the state. I'm not going to act like I know much about corrosion but Shell and many other refineries have been shipping sour crude by pipeline for decades using the same pipeline. And they are required to have a smart pig go through the line to check thickness and any cracks in the line every couple of years.

There's risks in anything but crude and refined product lines would be my last thing to worry about. I would be fighting if they wanted to build a ammonia line close by.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Kind of two sides working here.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which caused a lot of economic harm all up and down the Gulf Coast (this is without even going into the environmental effects) I think at least some of the concern is legitimate, especially considering this thing would be going through the heart of the country's bread basket.

Done properly though it would have a great deal of benefits.

Baloney !
The tree-huggers are basically against the development of any physical infrastructure that would facilitate economic growth. These people have
an anti-growth mentality and really don't care about the adverse effects upon the population at large.

[crone]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Baloney !
The tree-huggers are basically against the development of any physical infrastructure that would facilitate economic growth. These people have
an anti-growth mentality and really don't care about the adverse effects upon the population at large.

I call BS on that. I have been a tree hugger since birth. So have all of my kids, grandkids, InLaws, outlaws any anybody I'd have dinner with or go to a ballgame with. We all understand the land and time we live in. We all understand that the world turns on "Sex and Gasoline" thanks to Rodney Crowell. We also think that your right to bring product to the market does not give you the right to harm anything or anybody, growth or no growth.. There is no cost benefit equation to people's health. Get all the stuff you want. Just leave the rest of us the ability to breathe and have clean water and children not burdened with birth defects.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Baloney !
The tree-huggers are basically against the development of any physical infrastructure that would facilitate economic growth. These people have
an anti-growth mentality and really don't care about the adverse effects upon the population at large.

Right. Everyone who had lost their business (temporarily or permanently) along the coast after that spill had an "anti-growth mentality." Shame on them for being in the way of BP's oil. Damn treehuggers, all of them.

[Oildog]

Many pipelines are equipped to transport 'sour' crudes. The Canadian stuff is more viscous as well (think molasses), so it may required higher capacity pump stations. Refineries are being configured to process this material. Some are shutting down because its not cost effective for smaller facilities to upgrade to the metallurgy required (Yaaaay, close those dirty refineries!!!). But the big ones are getting bigger. Its more about the ability to ACCESS available crude.

[jfre81]

Maybe this would help about the sale of BP's refinery in Texas City and getting it brought up to date.

[mikeyyc]

Part of the rationale of the Keystone pipeline is that some Houston refineries are already equiped to deal with Venezuelan crude, of which the oil sands are very similar.

With the decreased imports from Venezuela, the oil sands fill in nicely, and you don't have to spend billions and have the regulatory nightmare of trying to build a new refinery.

[jfre81]

Our port is also equipped to send the crude to China for refining over there. I guess we win either way?