New Pipeline From Canada To The US Gulf Coast?

[LTVibe]

NYT Article: For Oil Sands Project, a Step Forward

"TransCanada, the project developer and one of Canada’s largest energy infrastructure companies, is proposing to build the 1,930-mile Keystone XL pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, to terminals and shipping ports on the Texas Gulf Coast. If constructed, the pipeline could carry up to 900,000 barrels a day at its peak when completed in 2012."

Proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project

"The proposed project is an approximate 1,980-mile (3,200-kilometre), 36-inch crude oil pipeline that would begin at Hardisty, Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Pipeline to be constructed through Kansas to Cushing, Oklahoma, before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace."

 

[FL_Rob]

Oh lord the green movement would go nuts.So ,we can tap Canada but not ANWR?China and Russia can driil in the Gulf, but we cant.For years this double standard has been just killing me.And wont this go against what energy policies have been coming out of Washington?To reduce dependancy on oil?

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
Oh lord the green movement would go nuts.

They already have...

"Environmental groups are crying foul, arguing that the government’s assessment misses the bigger picture by ignoring the increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with fuel derived from tar sands."

Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
And wont this go against what energy policies have been coming out of Washington? To reduce dependancy on oil?

Well, it would reduce our dependence on "unfriendly" oil producing countries...

"In the report, the government cites an increasing demand for crude oil matched with the importance of moving away from “unstable foreign oil supplies” as justification for the project."

 

[yeti]

fl_rob -- you can thank the tree huggers/whale savers for that.there's a lot of oil and nat. gas in the ground, and offshore, but whenever a find is discovered, the "e" people are out in droves, *itching and picketing.
we all remember the gas price after katrina. due to lack of refineries. there have been no new refineries, that i can remember, in canada or the u.s.,since the '70's.again, the e people.
the oil co. heads stopped complaining about the e people a while back.fewer refineries and oil/nat. gas finds keep or help to keep prices high.the oil co. suits are happy, and when confronted,blame the e people.
i have no beef with the "green" way of life,but common sense has to come into play.how high does the price of gas, nat. gas and electricity have to go before the vast untapped resources are used? but, the e people think with their hearts, and not their brains.they are more concerned about the plight of cats and seals, than the north american economy and standard of living.that's the price we all pay to live in countries that have "rules", and wimpy leaders.

 

[Torino]

Common sense??? We certainly don't want to get into that area. If anyone promotes that agenda you'll have black helicopters parked above your home constantly. Dangerous to say the least. John--Las Vegas.

 

[Shannow]

yeti, if the developers have all of their ducks in a row, there's nothing that your "e" people can do to stop something.

Businesses like to say that their development was stopped by greenies, but it really means that they short changed their project, and didn't have the safeguards that they should have in place.

As to rules, I'd guess that you'd be first to put you hand up for a completely unregulated refinery on the block next door to you ?

 

[yeti]

shannow -- re: your first sentence-- you couldn't be more wrong. the e people have been throwing wrenches into the works for decades in n. america, involving drilling for oil, nat. gas, mining for various minerals, building refineries, coal powered hydro generating plants, nuclear power plants -- just to name a few.i know of a few promising mining projects, through investing, that were abandoned due to regulation b.s., and the companies sought out and found projects overseas. do some d.d.i don't know about the goings on where you reside, but n. america is hardly a utopian environment for big business -- in terms of regulation.
it's very difficult for big businesses in n. america to have "all their ducks in a row", because of special interest groups -- the e people among them.the big reasons why big business goes abroad -- they will likely make more money,and,of equal importance, little or no regulation.business friendly countries, and politicians who are easily bought to look the other way, and there are no carbon "rules".
i refer to businesses, in general, since you brought it up in your second sentence.
the e people discourage big businesses to stay in n. america, and they are are only too happy to move abroad.
re: your last sentence -- i'm unaware of refineries in n.america being built "next door" to residential areas.i'm not against regulation, but it should be tempered with common sense. read, again, the first sentence of the last paragraph of my initial post.
time for a cigar and a brandy -- and the ball game. have a good night.
(apologies, as i'm unable to copy any parts of a post).

 

[Kestas]

Why does a new pipeline have to go all the way to the Gulf? They could build it up to our northern border, then splice into the existing pipeline network and reverse the flow.

 

[yeti]

kestas -- good question.just speculating -- other pipeline not large enough to fulfill contractual obligations. the gulf area might be needed to refine such large volumes. distribution from gulf area is cheaper to the southeast/southwest.just bouncing around possibilities.at any rate,i'm sure that it's money related.take care.

 

[Mr Nice]

Silly question...

who has more oil, USA or Canada ?

 

[LTVibe]

Doesn't matter how much oil the US has. We would rather buy oil from everybody else:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin...ontent=My+Yahoo

"As the only country in the world to embargo its own offshore oil and gas reserves, America’s reliance on imported oil can be regarded as strictly voluntary."

 

[Shannow]

UK has proven coal reserves of 45B tonnes,
UK power industry burns nearly 60M tonnes p.a.
UK Imports 45M tonnes p.a.

As one UK engineer put it to me a few years back.

"why would we intentionally run out, and be at someone else's mercy, when they are prepared to sell it to us today, and keep our reserves full ?"

"Yes, a lot of ours is uneconomical to mine (while others are selling cheap), but it's still there if we need it, and economics and necessity are two different things"

 

[LTVibe]

Quote:
"why would we intentionally run out, and be at someone else's mercy, when they are prepared to sell it to us today, and keep our reserves full ?"


Good strategy, but that is not the thinking behind keeping US reserves off-limits. The reasons are driven by environmental concerns and have nothing to do with economics.

Those who support the ban do not want to tap our reserves for any reason or under any circumstances.

 

[yeti]

ltvibe -- don't you know that it's against board policy, or so it seems, to use logic and fact in a post? wake up, man !!!!!

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Quote:
"why would we intentionally run out, and be at someone else's mercy, when they are prepared to sell it to us today, and keep our reserves full ?"


Good strategy, but that is not the thinking behind keeping US reserves off-limits. The reasons are driven by environmental concerns and have nothing to do with economics.

Those who support the ban do not want to tap our reserves for any reason or under any circumstances.





The reasons might be different, but the outcome stays the same. Foreign countries sell us their "easy" oil while it is still fairly cheap. When the easy oil is all gone (20 years? 30?), and oil is scarcer and more precious, our untapped reserves will still be sitting there for our future use.

Once that easy foreign oil is gone, and prices top the $200+ per barrel mark, no amount of environmental concerns will be able to keep us from those untapped reserves.

 

[LTVibe]

Or, the foreign producers could sell us oil from our own reserves...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin...ontent=My+Yahoo

"Hypothetically, with a sufficiently extended horizontal drilling operation, the Cubans could tap American oil and export it to the United States."

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Or, the foreign producers could sell us oil from our own reserves...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin...ontent=My+Yahoo

"Hypothetically, with a sufficiently extended horizontal drilling operation, the Cubans could tap American oil and export it to the United States."

If they dare, they would be facing invasion. You cannot drill into another nation's portion of their resource, that's asking for war.

 

[Shannow]

Been done before, and the victim punished severely.

 

[FL_Rob]

If they dare, they would be facing invasion. You cannot drill into another nation's portion of their resource, that's asking for war.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html

 

[PandaBear]

I think you are not reading this correctly. They are drilling Cuba's share of the reserve, but they cannot take out the US portion. This is commonly done when oil is found bordering two nations.

You can debate about where the border is, but not getting more than your share if the border is defined. Getting more than that would really mean starting a war with the US.