New Pipeline From Canada To The US Gulf Coast?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 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."

frown.gif


If they dare, they would be facing invasion. You cannot drill into another nation's portion of their resource, that's asking for war.
No worry for Cuba . When has the USA won a war by any definition? The management will not allow a victory.
 
A number of things about this project haven't been mentioned:
The oil produced is more accurately call bitumen. It is thick, heavy, toxic, and can only be handled in specialized refineries. It must be either heated or cut with light oils to be pumped. The pipeline must pass over the Ogalla aquifer which covers eight states, provides drinking water for 2 million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture...and the pipeline crosses an active earthquake zone. The bitumen, being extremely toxic, would have a devastating effect if it leaks into the aquifer. The pipeline would be buried 4' deep, they are applying to use thinner pipe than standard, and would use higher than common pressures to pump this very viscous stuff. Oil company executives are buying off politicians to be able to put their pipeline on private lands...farmers, etc., under eminent domain whether the owner wants to grant the rights or not. http://ownerscounsel.blogspot.com/2010/11/can-transcanadas-keystone-pipeline-take.html

Mining the oil sands to produce the bitumen crude requires huge amounts of natural gas and water (it isn't drilling, it is strip mining) with massive poisonous tailings ponds remaining. A massive soil reclamation project for decades adds to the cost.
 
Originally Posted By: Ken2
A number of things about this project haven't been mentioned...

Some of the links posted do mention environmental safety concerns, causing decision on the pipeline to be delayed:

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Keystone XL Pipeline Is Vital to US
Quote:
The pipeline, owned by TransCanada Corp. (TRP, TRP.T), has become a lightning rod for criticism of the oil sands. Crude oil there is more expensive to extract, and requires an energy-intensive process that results in more carbon-dioxide emissions. A decision on Keystone XL by the U.S. State Department, expected in the second half of this year, also comes amid a spate of high-profile pipeline ruptures and explosions across the U.S.

Obviously there are no cheap, easy, safe alternatives available anywhere else. We are stuck between a (shale) rock and a hard place.
 
Quote:
I know the State Department is thoroughly concerned that an agency, namely the EPA, is dictating policy to them, a full cabinet post, so there’s conflict in there.”

You gotta' love government red tape.
 
Originally Posted By: LTVibe

"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."


They might want to build the Cushing-to-Port Arthur link first, because right now there are more pipelines to Cushing than there are pipelines leading away from there. The result is a glut of oil in that one location, while prices on the Gulf Coast are $10-15 a barrel higher.
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Why don't they build a refinery in Montana or S.D and a shorter pipeline?


There was supposed to be a new refinery in southeastern South Dakota... but I haven't heard any news about it for quite some time.

Perhaps the investors got tired of waiting for government permits?
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Why don't they build a refinery in Montana or S.D and a shorter pipeline?


How about Denver - Powerpoint on Denver's Suncor refinery - Note that it cost 4 million to ship a single part to the refinery. That was just for Low sulfur Diesel not to process Syncrude.

Realistically there are billions of dollars in refinery capacity and infrastructure on the Gulf coast already built. (Some that will be under utilized with the ban on Gulf drilling) The Canadians would rather replace the Off-shore oil in the US market rather than compete with it.
The Canadians probably want access to world markets and world prices as well. Montana and South Dakota aren't major markets for anything but Huckleberry Jam and pheasant hunting gear.
 
Montana has plenty of oil as does North Dakota. I don't know about South Dakota except that they have a thriving economy and one of, if not the lowest levels of unemployment at this point in time.

As for building another pipeline, that's fine but I still have to wonder why we need to get oil from Canada when we have plenty of our own.

I guess for the same reason we can't make our own clothes anymore.
 
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Montana has plenty of oil as does North Dakota. I don't know about South Dakota except that they have a thriving economy and one of, if not the lowest levels of unemployment at this point in time.

As for building another pipeline, that's fine but I still have to wonder why we need to get oil from Canada when we have plenty of our own.


More oil from Canada means less oil from Venezuela and Nigeria. It's a reliable source, and it makes more sense for Canada to sell to us than to load the oil on tankers and send it to Asia.
 
Are U.S. Bureaucrats About to Make a Huge Oil Supply Blunder?

Quote:
Warnings are rampant that in the absence of the Keystone pipeline, Canada will build alternative export routes to the West Coast to ship oil sands crude to the booming Chinese market. One can hardly blame them.

And there goes a great chunk of the U.S. oil energy security. One wonders if some of the folks in D.C. are Americans or a cynic might wonder if they’re subversives.
 
Originally Posted By: LTVibe

Are U.S. Bureaucrats About to Make a Huge Oil Supply Blunder?

Quote:
Warnings are rampant that in the absence of the Keystone pipeline, Canada will build alternative export routes to the West Coast to ship oil sands crude to the booming Chinese market. One can hardly blame them.

And there goes a great chunk of the U.S. oil energy security. One wonders if some of the folks in D.C. are Americans or a cynic might wonder if they’re subversives.





I don't think it could be classified as a "blunder". I would think "sabotage" of the U.S. economy and "aiding" the enemy would be more accurate descriptions. No one is that stupid and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Energy have well documented agendas of their own which don't necessarily coincide with what is in the best interest of the U.S.
 
Foreign interests attack oil sands

Quote:
"We were shocked that only 37% of those who wrote complaining [about the equipment going to the oil sands] lived in the state and the rest were from places like Nigeria, Venezuela. Most were international," he said. "The equipment was held up for quite some time and some is still held up awaiting permits."

This was hardly surprising.

Nigeria and Venezuela are, like Saudi Arabia, suppliers of oil to the United States. Getting involved in opposition against the oil sands is simply a dirty trick against a competitor. But it's also more. The oil sands can supply the world with lots more oil, thus keeping prices lower than otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
US to become world’s largest oil exporter
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Snagglefoot
dave1251
  • Locked
Gulf Oil Corp
Replies
1
Views
4K
JHZR2
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
F
  • Locked
Colonial Pipeline back to 66%...
Replies
15
Views
3K
Sam3
Back
Top