Why do we need Keystone pipeline? (Build a refinery in ND) (enemies, regular)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before I answer any more questions, perhaps you should...
Why do you think it shouldn't go to Texas? Do you have proof of your theories?
What's your dog in this fight?
Do you live in Nebraska? Work in the oil/gas industry and know something the rest of us don't? Arm-chair environmentalist? Psychic? Or gasp.. elected official?
Just once I'd like to hear from some one with first-hand knowledge instead of ideas and links. If you can't write it in the first-person its hearsay and speculation... prove me wrong with life experience..
1- What theories? You might want to clarify your conclusions before I can respond to it. As for why it shouldn't go to Texas? Wasn't that taken off my question that you refused to answer? My question was... why does it need to go to Texas, if it is about oil for the US consumption?
2- People like you. Political hacks, with utter non-sense on public forums.
3- No, but neither do you. And one doesn't need to work in an industry to be able to discuss it. Or, am I being a bit too much of inconvenience for someone who should know better? This issue affects my country. And I hate it when personal/political agenda use my country for an excuse to promote their end, at any expense, either directly or while being self-defeaters.
There, you've my responses. Now, back to the question you've avoided since before you brought these as yet another excuse:
Why wouldn't building an oil refinery over building a pipeline work?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,133,438 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Why wouldn't building an oil refinery over building a pipeline work?
Nothing to think about... If they want to build a refinery I wouldn't see why it wouldn't work... hell.. it would do nothing but help us personally, cause it takes pipelines in and out to transport the product anyway. But what your forgetting is this... TransCanada is an oil PRODUCTION company. They sell the crude to others to refine. Who do you want to build this refinery? Our government... yeah... they run everything so well? The pipeline was a privately funded project and the only way you would even get a refinery would be for some other privately funded corp to build it. It would have to be financially viable. Might be? Might not? I haven't a clue. And like I said before... I grew up in a refinery town... sometimes you better watch out for what you wish for..... you just might get it....
It's a hypothetical at this point in time anyway. Nobody's building one. Nobody's planning one (that we know of anyway). So.. it's a moot argument. The arguments for XL were very real. So go ahead and argue the hypothetical all you want, just like this thread it matters not.
Two reasons, refineries and ports. Seen a map of O Canada! lately? The US was blessed with numerous harbors and ports that needed almost no modifications or dredging at all. O Canada! (and many other countries) have few natural ports or harbors to use.
I suspect money is another issue. As I said, there are no exports/tariffs at Port Arthur, because it is a Foreign Trade Zone. If they exported from Canada, they might have to pay export taxes/tariffs/duties to the Canadian government. They might be saving enough money on taxes/tariffs to pay for the pipeline over the long-term. I don't know the specifics, but if I had to guess, I would say that is a primary motivator, in addition to the lack of port facilities, and the lack of refineries.
Also, note this:
Quote:
It is no secret that Canada’s ports are riddled with organized crime, and nobody seems to be doing much about it.
That is from a report by a parliamentary committee in the Canadian government. Gotta wonder if that doesn't come into play somehow.
FYI, this tar sand stuff is not your typical crude oil. It is as much as 40 times as viscous as normal crude so they need to add some really nasty thinners to thin it enough to pump thru a pipe.
Yes. That is not speculation or conjecture, it is fact. The Alberta provincial government says so.
Nothing to think about... If they want to build a refinery I wouldn't see why it wouldn't work... hell.. it would do nothing but help us personally, cause it takes pipelines in and out to transport the product anyway. But what your forgetting is this... TransCanada is an oil PRODUCTION company. They sell the crude to others to refine. Who do you want to build this refinery? Our government... yeah... they run everything so well? The pipeline was a privately funded project and the only way you would even get a refinery would be for some other privately funded corp to build it. It would have to be financially viable. Might be? Might not? I haven't a clue. And like I said before... I grew up in a refinery town... sometimes you better watch out for what you wish for..... you just might get it....
It's a hypothetical at this point in time anyway. Nobody's building one. Nobody's planning one (that we know of anyway). So.. it's a moot argument. The arguments for XL were very real. So go ahead and argue the hypothetical all you want, just like this thread it matters not.
The question was (this time in bold):
Why wouldn't building an oil refinery over building a pipeline work?
To protect Canada's environment; help O Canada! exploit international markets; and to help O Canada! reap greater profits.
No.
The oil is very heavy high Sulfur oil. It is of no value to Americans.
The oil is destined for export. Building a refinery in North Dakota would only exasperate the problems for O Canada! The oil must go to a refinery at a port so that it can be exported.
The pipeline terminus is Port Arthur, Texas. Port Arthur is a US Commerce Department designated Foreign [Free] Trade Zone. That means there are no export duties or tariffs charged, and that means the American people don't profit from the export of goods there.
The products refined from very heavy high Sulfur oil are diesel, aviation fuel, asphalt, tar, petroleum jellies, lubricants, a variety of distillates, paraffin, naphtha, and base chemicals for use in other products. For example, you do get the base chemicals necessary for Dacron and other synthetic fibers, plus some organic alcohols like Neodol-12, Neodol-15 etc.
The diesel cannot be sold in the US because it is high Sulfur, and the cost for the Sulfur redux to reduce it to 15 ppm to meet EPA standards is cost-prohibitive. No one is going to buy diesel at $8/gallon. Likewise the 2 to 3 gallons of gasoline that you would get are high Sulfur, and the cost to reduce the Sulfur to 30 ppm to meet EPA Tier 2 Regulations is cost-prohibitive.
Are you willing to pay $6/gallon for gasoline?
No, not yet.
Anyway, the operand here is "export." This very heavy high Sulfur useless oil was always intended for export.
Building the pipeline is cheaper for O Canada! than building refineries and dealing with the environmental problems. Also, O Canada! just doesn't have the port facilities to export large quantities of oil or refined oil products, and it would cost too much to expand existing port facilities.
Not insane...
Mircea
Couldn't rep you, but as always, very informative. So let me comment instead.
As usual, the debate rarely ever touches upon legitimate points, because the agendas and objectives are always something other than those stated.
Be that as it may, there really is no excuse at this point for the shear ignorance of the general public who fail to look deeper into issues, and instead, simply adopt the talking points presented to them.(present company excluded : ))
The first question that comes to my mind would be "why low grade Canadian crude" ? (of course you'd have to be aware of the fact that the US has identified and proven lite sweet crude oil reserves which may indeed be the largest in the world before that would be an obvious question). You touched upon all of the reasons why this Canadian oil would be destined for export, thereby offering no particular direct energy relief to US markets (one side of the debate). So obviously, there must be another agenda afoot, other than the economic activity for the Texas Gulf Coast region ... keeping in mind that building such an infrastructure is not a net-economic-gain in and of itself. Only the future profits realized by that pipeline would it eventually realize a net benefit. But that's only if public funds pay for such infrastructure!!
This Keystone XL project is privately funded, and represents an immediate influx of economic activity estimated in the 20 Billion range, 2 Billion for Texas.
The greater question that isn't being asked is ... what is the long term strategic agenda here? I don't profess to have any inside knowledge on the matter, but if I were to speculate, I'd say that the pipeline represents a strategic and costly infrastructure investment which is being passed off as a transcontinental pipeline for Canadian crude, when the reality is that this is really a preliminary stage to develop the capacity to handle the estimated 18 Trillion Dollars worth (@ $90 barrel) of US crude located in ... tada ... North Dakota. Tapping this source of not so secret secret oil represents a 10 fold increase in US oil production, which could instantly eliminate our need for imported oil, and transform the US a net oil exporter.
I think this fits squarely into the ongoing efforts we see in the destabilization of the Middle East. How is it related? Well, as is everything else on God's green earth, it's all about "supply and demand". The reason why the knowledge of this massive US oil reserve has been kept hidden and in the ground is price stability. Dump massive amounts on the market, and the prices would nose dive around the world, and oil companies won't tolerate that. The American public, of course, would benefit greatly if their energy costs were cut by 2/3rds, but too easily led by their noses with false propaganda about climate change and environmental impact studies funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
The issue is extremely complex .... in order to develop US reserves, which will ultimately be needed to keep the currency from total collapse, you have to remove an equivilent amount of foreign oil from the market in order to keep the prices stable, to maximize the profits. Just the impact of the US halting oil imports and using our own oil would be enough to throw markets in a tailspin ... which is why most people don't even realize that we have more freaking oil than anyone else on the planet ... and this has been known since at least the 1970's or before.
There is way more going on here than moving Canadian oil to Texas refineries for export ... you can take that to the bank.
This is spot on! The question at this time is if Trans-Canada even reapplies. I'm thinking that if they do they'll have to file with FERC first, so it will be at least another 3 years before it gets back to this point... I hope I'm wrong, but since the whole project was canned instead of approved conditionally I think we're back to square one.
The number of jobs is very subjective. Take out the high by Trans-Canada, Take out the low by the nay-sayers and look somewhere right in the middle. But.. don't forget the impact to other industries and the towns along the path. As far as dependency... anything we can do helps us. Unless of course, you know something that none of the rest of us do other than personal speculation.
I always love this thinking when folks are talking about moving away from oil? Just what? What's the best, newest thing? Solyndra? I'm serious.. I'd love to know where to invest.. but currently there is nothing in the works that can seriously reduce our consumption that in itself doesn't take oil/gas to produce....
-With respect to jobs, not doing the project doesn't mean Trans-Canada shelves their money and does nothing with it. Maybe they invest the cash elsewhere, creating jobs elsewhere. It's not as easy as saying "we're not doing the pipeline, so we missed out on jobs".
Additionally, Enbridge Energy transports approximately 60% of Canadian oil sands and 45% of the Bakken crude. Enbridge plans on expanding it's existing pipelines to help meet increasing demand. So, if the Keystone Pipeline was approved, would Enbridge still be looking to invest in expanding?
Point being - the government cannot directly control the creation or destruction of jobs. One action in one place can or cannot result in job creation, but it could result in destruction of jobs elsewhere.
I don't see what Solyndra has to do with anything. Solar installers have a tremendous backlog of work in the U.S.A. My state, New Jersey, is one of the leading states for installation of solar arrays. Solar is one of multiple pieces to the future of our energy production. We can absolutely significantly reduce our consumption - but we have to be willing. It doesn't seem that the majority of Americans are right now. But it is possible and technologically feasibly.
-With respect to jobs, not doing the project doesn't mean Trans-Canada shelves their money and does nothing with it. Maybe they invest the cash elsewhere, creating jobs elsewhere. It's not as easy as saying "we're not doing the pipeline, so we missed out on jobs".
Additionally, Enbridge Energy transports approximately 60% of Canadian oil sands and 45% of the Bakken crude. Enbridge plans on expanding it's existing pipelines to help meet increasing demand. So, if the Keystone Pipeline was approved, would Enbridge still be looking to invest in expanding?
Point being - the government cannot directly control the creation or destruction of jobs. One action in one place can or cannot result in job creation, but it could result in destruction of jobs elsewhere.
I don't see what Solyndra has to do with anything. Solar installers have a tremendous backlog of work in the U.S.A. My state, New Jersey, is one of the leading states for installation of solar arrays. Solar is one of multiple pieces to the future of our energy production. We can absolutely significantly reduce our consumption - but we have to be willing. It doesn't seem that the majority of Americans are right now. But it is possible and technologically feasibly.
I love solar energy ... clean ... and free. That last part spells it's demise up to this point in time .... had solar energy technologies been allowed to advance at a pace which could have been achieved without interference, the technology could be so inexpensive now, that the average American could have been energy independent with just a small infrastructure investment. Really, the entire underdeveloped world too.
But the world is controlled by energy .... and the energy brokers aren't going to allow that type of revolution to occur until such control is shifted elsewhere.
That's the reality. And as long as there is a plentiful supply of oil ... and there is (contrary to the claims of peak oil) don't expect that revolution to occur any time soon. It ain't gonna happen.
Answer in bold: NO ONE is willing to pay for a refinery. The pipeline had the money already lined up.
In other words, there is something more than ensuring oil supply to the US. Who would these people be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
