itsbob
I bowl overhand
I would bet that we'd be at a even plane or a little ahead taking away the transportation by products.. BUT alas, it's pretty much moot.. Tar Sands aren't fiscally viable with gas at less than $3 a gallon..
Keystone question
- Thread starter SamSpade
- Start date
I would bet that we'd be at a even plane or a little ahead taking away the transportation by products.. BUT alas, it's pretty much moot.. Tar Sands aren't fiscally viable with gas at less than $3 a gallon..
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
What get's me is why does the whole thing even matter when the Keystone already exists?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yup.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I agree with Bob. Cheap gas has already negated the need for Keystone, as the Tar Sands project will soon be forced to shut down.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
New pipeline (Keystone XL) adds 500,000 barrels a day to production/ transportation, bringing just that one pipleline to over 1.1M barrels a day. We currently import around 7 - 8 M barrels a day.
Keystone XL will use a larger diameter pipeline as well as take a "shortcut" through the US.. shortening the distance dramatically over what it has to travel now.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
The need is a comprehensive national energy policy centered around an enormous increase in nuke power.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I agree, but that's like arguing against a freeway because we already have a surface street. Obama is all about Keystone, the entire thing was built on his watch, his party is pushing him to say no because the other side likes it I think.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Have-the-Canadian-Tar-Sands-had-their-Day.html
From April 2013, with US production increasing the need for Canadian oil decreases, (Drill baby Drill) and today it's not making them any money to refine tar sand oil.
Crude is less than $48 a barrel now. Current Tar Sand operations won't be viable for too much longer, and they may be forced to halt production.
From April 2013, with US production increasing the need for Canadian oil decreases, (Drill baby Drill) and today it's not making them any money to refine tar sand oil.
Crude is less than $48 a barrel now. Current Tar Sand operations won't be viable for too much longer, and they may be forced to halt production.
Last edited:
Vince
......
It doesn't matter. Obama will veto this no matter what.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
It will just get built in 2 years then.
Tilted
..
I think there's more to it than the global warming aspect you're referring to, and that isn't even the concern that I myself have noticed being expressed most often. But before I mention a couple other issues, I would make the general comment that there's been a whole lot of silliness coming from both sides when it comes to this issue - e.g., over-making both the benefits case and the detriments case and what they're trying to do in Congress right now (i.e. forcing a blanket approval of the project on the federal level without even knowing what route will be, or if any route will be, approved on the state level - meaning without actually being able to consider what it is that's really getting approved - as opposed to waiting until we know what the project will actually entail and then being able to consider and approve or disapprove the project based on those details, details that we may know with some certainty fairly soon; frankly, what we're seeing now is a dog and pony show being performed for little reason other than to fire up electorates, but that's of course nothing new).
As for the expressed concern you're referring to, yeah I'd agree it's mostly a silly one. I suppose the pipeline could result in some small amount of additional production from these supposedly dirtier sources (either production efforts shifted to those sources from others or net additional production overall). For instance, the small expected transportation savings (over, e.g., rail) could make a small amount of additional production make sense fiscally. But we're talking about the extreme margins. I don't give that particular concern much credit.
The concern I hear expressed more often though is contamination of aquifers from some kind of leak - maybe caused by defects in the installation or by seismic activity. My gut tells me those concerns are also overstated, but I'm not in a position to assess them in any substantive way. Probably most of us aren't, we're just relying on (1) our guts and (2) the assumption that someone has considered them and fairly determined that the risks are negligible. That's probably a reasonable assumption. But as a threshold matter I think the concern is legitimate, especially if you're among those that get their water from one of the aquifers at issue. And although transporting oil by rail is, as others have suggested, likely more dangerous from the perspective of how likely it is that a mishap will occur, using a pipeline to transport it may indeed be more dangerous (in some areas) from the perspective of how much damage might be done in the unlikely event of a mishap.
The concern that I think has the most merit, and the one that has me reconsidering my long-held (but previously not fully considered) position that the XL project should be approved as soon as possible, is the eminent domain issue. That concern is not one that I've heard expressed as some of the others. I accept that the government has to be allowed to take private property for public use under in some limited circumstances - e.g. to build roads. But I've never thought it was appropriate to allow private parties to use the power of government to take other private parties' property (i.e. against their desires) primarily for the benefit of the former private parties, or for the primary benefit of a fairly small number of particular private parties. (I disagreed with the Kelo decision, by the way, as I assume many posters here did.)
That's why we're talking about here, taking property (or taking the use of property) from private parties and giving it to other private parties. And the primary beneficiary of his project would be a private foreign company. There are some secondary beneficiaries in the U.S. (as well as in Canada), e.g. oil drillers that could save a small amount on shipping costs and for which additional projects might become feasible. And there's arguably a very marginal benefit to the U.S. economy and to U.S. consumers in aggregate, but that benefit is not certain and best case it would be quite small.
So I don't think we're talking about a public use here, we're talking about private use - even if that private use could arguably and indirectly benefit a broader swath of the public. That's an important distinction I think. Walmart developing property for a new store is a private use of that property not a public one (in this context), but it could arguably help the local public in a number of ways. An interstate highway is a public use, the public owns it and gets to use it (for the most part, though certainly with some limitations). A pipeline built by and owned by a private foreign company, and used to transport their customers' oil, is not a public use. Again, possibly a net public benefit (a small one), but not a public use. If TransCanada can acquire the land (or the land use) that it needs on its own, then more power to them - I'm inclined to say let them build their pipeline. I believe in the government getting (or staying) out of the way as much as is practicable. I believe in freedom, to include those freedoms embodied in the notion of property rights. So I also believe that if I own something, the government should only be able to take it (or take use of it) from me under very limited circumstances. This doesn't pass the test. If it's my property, I should get to say whether or not I'll let someone tear it up and bury a pipeline under it. If you want it bad enough, buy it (or its use) from me at a price that I'm willing to agree to, i.e. the fair price. Owning property should mean something, it should mean a lot.
So... anyway, I've always supported the XL project as a general matter. But now that I've given it some thought, I have to say don't like the idea of Nebraska, e.g., being able to take people's property (or its use) and give it to TransCanada to build the pipeline. I don't think the government's power should or does, under a proper interpretation of our Constitution, reach that far. That's the concern that should be front and center, but it isn't as many of those most vocally in opposition to the pipeline have other - broader - agendas.
Incidentally Sam, the timing of this thread may turn out to be quite apropos. I'm thinking we may get a decision from the Nebraska Supreme Court this week, a decision based on which it either will or won't be time to move forward with federal approval. If they overturn the lower state court's ruling, it'll be time for the President to #### or get off the pot. If they don't, well then we're probably in for more delays at the state level. That decision may not be coming for weeks yet, I certainly don't have an inside with Nebraska's high court to know - but my gut, informed by speculation I've read from others, tells me it's coming soon.
Tilted
..
In response to some of the posts about oil prices falling so low that Tar Sands oil isn't viable I'd offer a few comments:
(1) There's some merit to those concerns, but...
(2) Oil prices aren't likely to stay this low looking out 2 or 4 years, and the XL project wouldn't be finished tomorrow even if it got approval today. So some future production might get nixed, but some might still be pursued with the expectation that prices will be higher by the time it comes online.
(3) The XL project isn't intended to only transport that Canadian oil - it's supposed to transport some U.S. oil produced around the pipeline's route as well (shale oil, perhaps, but some of that is still viable at lower prices)
(4) Many projects wouldn't just shut down because the project as a whole wouldn't have been viable if oil prices had been expected to be where they are now. Once particular projects are online, the consideration is quite different - they're already pregnant, so to speak, much of the capital investment is gone either way. So producing can still make sense even if the project considered as a whole ends up losing money, producing oil even at lower prices may mean that it loses less money.
(1) There's some merit to those concerns, but...
(2) Oil prices aren't likely to stay this low looking out 2 or 4 years, and the XL project wouldn't be finished tomorrow even if it got approval today. So some future production might get nixed, but some might still be pursued with the expectation that prices will be higher by the time it comes online.
(3) The XL project isn't intended to only transport that Canadian oil - it's supposed to transport some U.S. oil produced around the pipeline's route as well (shale oil, perhaps, but some of that is still viable at lower prices)
(4) Many projects wouldn't just shut down because the project as a whole wouldn't have been viable if oil prices had been expected to be where they are now. Once particular projects are online, the consideration is quite different - they're already pregnant, so to speak, much of the capital investment is gone either way. So producing can still make sense even if the project considered as a whole ends up losing money, producing oil even at lower prices may mean that it loses less money.
That's the OPEC plan.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I believe it is. But when the price goes back up these things that are borderline will open up again.
So in order for OPEC's plan to work they have to keep the price low enough to stop the restart.
Meanwhile I am just thankful the price when down, especially this week when my furnace doesn't cut off long enough to take a deep breath with temps below freezing and an expected wind sucking the heat out of the house.
Tilted
..
Speaking of oil furnaces, I'm heading out the door soon in hopes that the local plumbing supply place stocks the more common oil burner parts. I think the pump on my burner gave out, at least that's my best guess after a bit of troubleshooting. If it isn't that, then my next best guess is an electrical problem and it not being told to pump - I really, really hope that's not the problem. This isn't the best time for the furnace not to be working.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ha. When I get my national energy policy finished and every greenhouse in the land has a pebble bed reactor to heat, provide electricity for the neighborhood and charge my vehicles, they'll be giving oil away. It will be like "Hey, we'll give you gas for life for free with every purchase of an internal combustion engine product!" Oil will be bundled with other products, as per cable TV, just to find uses for the stuff. Companies will be selling back yard oil rigs and delivery oil to fill them just so rich people can say they have one. Plastic houses and car bodies will be all the rage.
Mark my words.
Speaking of oil furnaces, I'm heading out the door soon in hopes that the local plumbing supply place stocks the more common oil burner parts. I think the pump on my burner gave out, at least that's my best guess after a bit of troubleshooting. If it isn't that, then my next best guess is an electrical problem and it not being told to pump - I really, really hope that's not the problem. This isn't the best time for the furnace not to be working.
I take it that you checked that it is getting oil to the pump (plugged filter/line)?
Speaking of oil furnaces, I'm heading out the door soon in hopes that the local plumbing supply place stocks the more common oil burner parts. I think the pump on my burner gave out, at least that's my best guess after a bit of troubleshooting. If it isn't that, then my next best guess is an electrical problem and it not being told to pump - I really, really hope that's not the problem. This isn't the best time for the furnace not to be working.
Recently had the solenoid-operated fuel valve on my furnace pump go erratic. It checked OK electrically but for reasons unknown, would not always open and let fuel flow. And of course every time it didn't open, the furnace controller would time out and lock out.
Words duly marked.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Good advice, and you might check the tank for water.
I went out a minute ago to check my mailbox and soon came back in , that wind is cutting.
No time to be without heat.
Last edited: