New Presidential Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by Vuflanovsky
Any word on what the export vs. U.S. domestic draw on this oil will be?? I'm sure the majority percentage of this oil coming to Houston and Port Arthur will be exported but how much of a majority?? I've seen figures close to 70%, so I would assume it's in that range. Like they've said for some time...it's basically oil through the U.S. ...not to it. You'd think that anyone presenting the XL Pipeline as a 40 cent a gallon drop in U.S. gas prices might either be a disingenuous liar or woefully uninformed.


Nearing 100% most likely, as the refineries in Houston, Port Arthur, etc., have a preference for heavier/sour oils, compared to the very light sweet, basically condensate, that comes from the shale wells.


Also access to low-cost Canadian feed will keep prices lower. Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc., have enjoyed very low gas prices because the Koch's realized at an early point in the development of the resources in Canada that it'd make a lot of sense to feed their refineries with cheap Canadian feed.


Yeah, that was basically my question because my understanding was the XL Pipeline was never set up to benefit the U.S. consumer other than in selected markets and dependent on refineries...it was set up for export to Latin America and Europe. So if someone was saying that full capacity through the pipeline would mean a significant drop in U.S. gas prices that wouldn't be correct.
 
Originally Posted by Vuflanovsky

Yeah, that was basically my question because my understanding was the XL Pipeline was never set up to benefit the U.S. consumer other than in selected markets and dependent on refineries...it was set up for export to Latin America and Europe. So if someone was saying that full capacity through the pipeline would mean a significant drop in U.S. gas prices that wouldn't be correct.


Taken a step further, it'd be probably more efficient to send Alaska-produced oil to Asia (Japan is practically next door), and to feed the US west coast refineries with Canadian oil through pipelines, than it would be to ship Canadian oilsands-derived oil to Asia, and continue to bring Alaska product down to the lower 48.

But I'm not aware of any plans to build reasonable pipeline networks between Canada and California.
 
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Trying to avoid any political noise but a new Presidential permit has been issued for the stalled Keystone XL Pipeline. A judge in Montana had put the brakes on the first one.

This administration won 6% of cases in the court.
Average administration won 72% of cases in the court.
Just predicting where this is going.
Idea does not equal competence.
 
In terms of U.S. gas supplies, it's a moot argument either way and is almost guaranteed to be more parts sideshow than relevance.
 
Originally Posted by Donald
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.



Yeah... Like seeing an ENTIRE forrest cut down.... For blanking solar panels... Brilliant... No. Actually... Totally stupid.
High level math shows the "renewable" energy idea is a total farce... And that even people like yourself.... Will not want to live like a true off the grid person... You won't. Or... You would have be doing it now. Which you don't.
 
They are building the man camps and the lay down yards. One of the lay down yards near me is filling up with pipe already.
 
Originally Posted by P10crew
They are building the man camps and the lay down yards. One of the lay down yards near me is filling up with pipe already.


Good. Get 'er done.
 
Get government out of the way, drill, drill, drill AND Nuclear Power for the climate change people.

Solar more toxic then both the above.

Windmills kill TENS of THOUSANDS of birds (and eagles) in the USA every year far more then any oil spill, yet the press doesnt show you the photos of dead birds at windfarms.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Get government out of the way, drill, drill, drill AND Nuclear Power for the climate change people.

Solar more toxic then both the above.

Windmills kill TENS of THOUSANDS of birds (and eagles) in the USA every year far more then any oil spill, yet the press doesnt show you the photos of dead birds at windfarms.

Nuclear power will have to be seriously considered again.
France figured that out. However, we in the US will end up in the nightmare due to various lobbying factions.
By the way, we have wind mills in neighborhood. No dead birds and no cancer.
 
.

0520BDF7-4DE5-4580-9364-7E9C1665FBB4.jpeg
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
.


Good. Our birds are just smart
smile.gif

This bird strike thing is ridiculous. I do not see people complaining about planes and mitigation efforts to keep birds away at airports.
I know one thing, not many of them can be found around local coal plant.
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 4WD
.


Good. Our birds are just smart
smile.gif

This bird strike thing is ridiculous. I do not see people complaining about planes and mitigation efforts to keep birds away at airports.
I know one thing, not many of them can be found around local coal plant.


You "KNOW" it ?

I've worked in coal plants since 1991, and there are birds everywhere...

So what's the basis of your "knowledge" ???
 
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 4WD
.


Good. Our birds are just smart
smile.gif

This bird strike thing is ridiculous. I do not see people complaining about planes and mitigation efforts to keep birds away at airports.
I know one thing, not many of them can be found around local coal plant.


The problem is the windmill "people" are the first to cry when a few hundred ducks get covered with oil from a spill, yet the windmill people are ok with 10s of THOUSANDS of birds (including eagles) getting killed every year.

So windmills are not environmentally friendly. Just a fact. Create electricity anyway you want but no one has a right to say windmills are better then burning oil or gas.

Solar Power, same deal, NOT environmentally friendly, considered 10 times (10,000 percent) more toxic to the environment then nuclear power.

The bottom line is, we have all the planet saving energy sources right now available to us with Nuclear as the holy grail, but the people are too uneducated to understand that and god forbid they are unable to understand the difference of fact from fake news. :eek:)
 
Last edited:
Talking to a guy from W. Texas at a seminar … a new wind farm was commissioned and one unit went down shortly after starting … he got to see a young "used" blade … "blood all over it" were his words …

Wind and solar are too entrenched with emotions and polar views. But it only works right if mainly engineers, companies, and consumers play the correct role in the equation.
Sadly we know it's becoming a peddlers act …
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
The problem is the windmill "people" are the first to cry when a few hundred ducks get covered with oil from a spill, yet the windmill people are ok with 10s of THOUSANDS of birds (including eagles) getting killed every year.

Cleaning birds with dish soap creates a better photo opportunity.
 
It's all politics. They never talk about the fact that there already is a Keystone pipeline. The XL is just an upgrade. Currently the excess oil is transported by rail or truck or whatever. Actually more dangerous statistically. If there is money to be made you better believe it is going to be moved somehow.
 
It's not only going to be tar sands oil in this one. There is a spur into the Baaken as well. Pretty sure this XL is 18" pipe. I have been on several upgrade jobs where we build what we call "take off bays" in our substations that will feed 1 pumpstation along the route.115 kv 2000 amp. Crazy amounts of megawatts moving crazy amounts of oil coming from plays that are expected to last many many years. On the XL they need 1 pump station every 50 or 52 pipe miles.
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 4WD
.


Good. Our birds are just smart
smile.gif

This bird strike thing is ridiculous. I do not see people complaining about planes and mitigation efforts to keep birds away at airports.
I know one thing, not many of them can be found around local coal plant.


The problem is the windmill "people" are the first to cry when a few hundred ducks get covered with oil from a spill, yet the windmill people are ok with 10s of THOUSANDS of birds (including eagles) getting killed every year.

So windmills are not environmentally friendly. Just a fact. Create electricity anyway you want but no one has a right to say windmills are better then burning oil or gas.

Solar Power, same deal, NOT environmentally friendly, considered 10 times (10,000 percent) more toxic to the environment then nuclear power.

The bottom line is, we have all the planet saving energy sources right now available to us with Nuclear as the holy grail, but the people are too uneducated to understand that and god forbid they are unable to understand the difference of fact from fake news. :eek:)

Dude, windmills are amateurs:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-by-skyscrapers-american-cities-report
 
Cool, now that you are online...please enlighten us about your stated knowledge of coal plants and bird life...you missed responding to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top