# The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

by Topher925
Tags: bringing, house, keystone, pipeline
P: 27
 Quote by mheslep Sounds right but then the difference in 2008 emissions between the US and Canada was only 6.7%.
Yes, so that would bring them relatively close to one another (if there were no other increases to take into consideration on either end). One must be cognizant of the fact that the 6.5% increase is due to the processing of crude bitumen which, in turn, is being processed to satisfy the demand of a (primarily) US market.

Also, the fact that Canada is a colder country in general accounts for much of the reason why the per capita numbers are similar. Canada is also ~5% larger by area and much less densely populated.

 Quote by Topher925 How exactly are his remarks inflammatory? He's only addressing the impact of harvesting non-conventional sources of fossil fuels, not the motivations behind it. No matter which way you look at it, refining oil from tar sands has significantly greater negative consequences than refining conventional crude oil.
Inflammatory because his comparison to coal is quite wrong. Also, looking through many of his other statements, he is certainly fictionalizing/exaggerating things.

This diagram:

shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
PF Gold
P: 2,990
 Quote by CaptFirePanda ... Also, the fact that Canada is a colder country in general accounts for much of the reason why the per capita numbers are similar. Canada is also ~5% larger by area and much less densely populated.
Yes I'm thinking the average transportation distance traveled per person is large in the US and especially Canada compared to much of the world.
PF Gold
P: 2,990
 Quote by CaptFirePanda This diagram: ... shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
Illuminating chart in several ways. First, it shows how calling the tar sands 'dirty' compared to all other oil is a myth. Second, 20-35% of oil energy is lost before it hits my tank, where another 80% is lost before arriving at the wheels? I had previously seen 10-12% loss at the refinery, but 20-35% in total? Bring on the EV's.
PF Gold
P: 861
 Quote by SixNein I agree. There is a perspective on climate change to be considered; however, from my understanding, this forum doesn't have any kind of moderator who is an expert on the topic. So I'll avoid the discussion for now.
True that we don't discuss climate change anymore. But that doesn't mean that the Sierra club and other green groups are not lobbying heavily against the pipeline. It would be only right IMHO to at least mention this fact.
PF Gold
P: 861
 Quote by WhoWee Will that still be the case after the Idiana site is retrofitted? (from your link)
Good point. The people in Whiting Indiana think the idea is great. The city has been in decline for years.

But this pipleline will not be transporting conventional crude oil as we know it. It is actually a very heavy synthetic crude and needs to have lighter weight hydrocarbons added to pass through a pipeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

http://news.discovery.com/earth/what...ds-110902.html
P: 771
 Quote by Topher925 Discussion of climate change is in fact band on the forum. I've got the infractions to prove it. I don't necessarily agree with the policy but its not my forum.
While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned.

Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.
P: 1,123
 Quote by Jack21222 While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned. Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.
Has President Obama specifically claimed that global warming/climate change was a factor in his decision to halt the pipeline and all of the jobs and oil - or has he specified the location of the pipeline?
P: 1,672
 Quote by CaptFirePanda Inflammatory because his comparison to coal is quite wrong. Also, looking through many of his other statements, he is certainly fictionalizing/exaggerating things. This diagram: shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
I don't know what a "CO2e" is but the data on that diagram conflicts with most other sources. Most sources on the subject state a 5-45% increase in CO2 emissions in well to wheels scenario when comparing oil sands to conventional means. And the tank to wheels should be about the same as the modern internal combustion engine is going to have roughly the same combustion efficiency no matter which form the oil comes from. Once should really only care about the well to tank or well to wheals.

 It depends on how you measure it. Industry likes to use a so-called well-to-wheel approach, which takes into account all emissions created by a barrel of oil from finding it and pumping it out of the ground to burning it in a gas tank. By that measure, oilsands crude creates between 10 and 45 per cent more carbon dioxide than other crudes, depending on the source.

The International Energy Agency estimates an average of 20% increase of CO2 emissions when compared to conventional petroleum.

 There’s no doubt that fuel made from tar sands produces more CO2 than those made from conventional crudes – but not three times more, about 20% more on average according to the International Energy Agency.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=527

Even the IHS CERA (which I consider bias) estimates a 5-15% increase in CO2, much more than the percent the diagram states.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...54H6C220090518

Some consider it even worse when considering the well to tank model.
 ...a well-to-tank comparison, which excludes burning the final fuel. By that measure, a barrel of oilsands oil creates three times more greenhouse gas than a barrel pumped from the ground.

So I wouldn't call an increase of ~25%* increase in CO2 emission inflammatory when comparing petroleum to coal.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html
PF Gold
P: 183
 Quote by aquitaine They never will match fossil fuels because of fundemental limitations on energy density and reliability. The only two exceptions to that, geothermal and hydro, are not portable and are geographically limited. Solar depends on whether or not the sun is out and how good the weather is, but even on a sunny day the energy density is extremely low. Wind is pretty much useless, it too has extremely low energy density and is even less reliable. When the steam engine became prevalent in the second half of the 19th century sails quickly disappeared for anything other than recreation, and it was like that for a reason. Even today's recreational sailing craft usually have gas or diesel engines on them. Coal usage will only continue and even grow if we don't go with nuclear power. Hydro and geo are great, but not everywhere has equal access to them because of geography. Germany has proven this decisively. I submit Exhibit A, an analysis of what is REALLY going on in Germany following their unfortunate decision. They're building 26 new coal power plants, second only to China.
In my opinion, energy storage is the largest obstacle to renewables. If we could just store massive amounts of energy, we could run a much lower energy generation capacity.
PF Gold
P: 183
 Quote by Jack21222 While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned. Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.
I think its just a bad situation all around.
P: 60
 Quote by mege . . . That should be another key to how urgent the development of these resources are, and help to show that someone is going to use them. It might as well be us IMO. Also, just because a fringe group protests the tar sands doesn't mean 'the canadian public' is against it. In fact the article (regarding the protests) mentions that a Greenpeace founder is actually OK with tar sands mining because the area is left generally better than they found it. . .
Emphasis mine.

I wasn't going to reply until I'd caught up with reading everyone's post, but you caught my eye already.

1.) The tar sands oil isn't going to be used by us if XL is approved. The plan is to pipe it to Gulf refineries for major exportation. You posted an article claiming Canada responded to Obama saying they would sell to Asia. In reality, exporting was the plan all along. XL will actually raise oil prices in the U.S. midwest by allowing easier exportation of Canadian oil. Your statement is disinformative.

TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US$3.9 billion.”
This benefits 'us IMO' how?

2.) Tar sands mining leaves the area generally better than when they've found it? You believe that? Provide evidence for that statement.
P: 60
 Quote by WhoWee Running the pipeline across Canada to a new refinery would solve three problems. 1.) no need to run a new pipeline in the US 2.) increased refining capacity 3.) greater energy independence from ME sources Bonus - we get the oil instead of China.
Well you're right once.

2.) Not sure how you figure increased refining capacity will result from a pipe.
3.) U.S.A. is already largely energy independent from ME sources, and the pipeline will decrease supply from Canada unless they increase production to compensate.
Bonus - if a pipeline is built, China will get the oil that we're getting now.
 P: 60 Issues from the anti-XL side: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf Cornell study shows XL could reduce jobs in America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1277615.html TransCanada, a Canadian company, attempts to declare imminent domain on American's property for pipeline. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1266041.html Environmental review process mired in controversy (State Dept eventually gets cleared of malfeasence and bias) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_941069.html Shows TransCanadas other pipeline spills (12 in a year).
P: 1,123
 Quote by feathermoon Well you're right once. 2.) Not sure how you figure increased refining capacity will result from a pipe. 3.) U.S.A. is already largely energy independent from ME sources, and the pipeline will decrease supply from Canada unless they increase production to compensate. Bonus - if a pipeline is built, China will get the oil that we're getting now.
Increased production would result from adding a refinery on the Great Lakes.
P: 27
 Quote by Topher925 I don't know what a "CO2e" is but the data on that diagram conflicts with most other sources. Most sources on the subject state a 5-45% increase in CO2 emissions in well to wheels scenario when comparing oil sands to conventional means. And the tank to wheels should be about the same as the modern internal combustion engine is going to have roughly the same combustion efficiency no matter which form the oil comes from. Once should really only care about the well to tank or well to wheals.
CO2e is Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Your 45% upper limit is pulled from the Moose Jaw Times article and is far beyond the general consensus of 5-20% (or so). As you can see from the chart, both well to tank and tank to wheels are displayed and I mention the tank to wheels is consistent across the board.

 http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---Wo...-disaster%3F/1 The International Energy Agency estimates an average of 20% increase of CO2 emissions when compared to conventional petroleum. http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=527 Even the IHS CERA (which I consider bias) estimates a 5-15% increase in CO2, much more than the percent the diagram states. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...54H6C220090518
The diagram I provided shows about 2-10%. This is, of course, a factor of the type of oil (eg. Saudi oil is light, US crudes are heavier). So, yes if you take the lightest of light crudes you could likely come up with a number near 20%. If you take the heavier crudes, the differential decreases significantly.

 Some consider it even worse when considering the well to tank model.
So far, all of these numbers should consider the well to tank model,.. If not, then they are not using the conventional method of comparison. As stated earlier, the final burning of the fuel produces the same emissions regardless of fuel type.

If CERA is considered biased, why isn't a random range of 10 to 45% presented in the Moose Jaw Times approached with some caution?

 So I wouldn't call an increase of ~25%* increase in CO2 emission inflammatory when comparing petroleum to coal. *http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html
It may look much closer, but you need to look at the relative differences. Light crude is 30% less than Coal. If we were comparing the proper factors, crude bitumen would still be 15% less than coal. Using the original analogy, light crude is just as bad as coal, if not equivalent!

However, this is the tank to wheel comparison and, as we've discussed, it is exactly the same for crude no matter what the source. It is the well to tank comparison that shows where crude bitumen processing increases emissions from 5-20%.

This is why his remarks (there are others) are inflammatory. They fall closer to fiction than fact.
P: 1,123
 Quote by CaptFirePanda CO2e is Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Your 45% upper limit is pulled from the Moose Jaw Times article and is far beyond the general consensus of 5-20% (or so). As you can see from the chart, both well to tank and tank to wheels are displayed and I mention the tank to wheels is consistent across the board. The diagram I provided shows about 2-10%. This is, of course, a factor of the type of oil (eg. Saudi oil is light, US crudes are heavier). So, yes if you take the lightest of light crudes you could likely come up with a number near 20%. If you take the heavier crudes, the differential decreases significantly. So far, all of these numbers should consider the well to tank model,.. If not, then they are not using the conventional method of comparison. As stated earlier, the final burning of the fuel produces the same emissions regardless of fuel type. If CERA is considered biased, why isn't a random range of 10 to 45% presented in the Moose Jaw Times approached with some caution? It may look much closer, but you need to look at the relative differences. Light crude is 30% less than Coal. If we were comparing the proper factors, crude bitumen would still be 15% less than coal. Using the original analogy, light crude is just as bad as coal, if not equivalent! However, this is the tank to wheel comparison and, as we've discussed, it is exactly the same for crude no matter what the source. It is the well to tank comparison that shows where crude bitumen processing increases emissions from 5-20%. This is why his remarks (there are others) are inflammatory. They fall closer to fiction than fact.
Again, has President Obama specifically cited CO2 as a reason to block the pipeline?
P: 201
 In my opinion, energy storage is the largest obstacle to renewables. If we could just store massive amounts of energy, we could run a much lower energy generation capacity.

No we wouldn't, the energy used is the same and you would have to build significantly more capacity to charge the batteries or whatever energy storage mechanism there is. In addition the storage mechanism itself is likely to be massively expensive, costing more than a billion dollars per gigawatt. Why go with something so expensive and unreliable when there are clearly better choices? Why do you want to artificially starve our civilization of energy?
P: 27
 Quote by WhoWee Again, has President Obama specifically cited CO2 as a reason to block the pipeline?
I certainly hope not, because that would be a complete red herring.

I'm only putting CO2 discussions into a more realistic context as it seems to keep coming up in this discussion.

 Related Discussions General Physics 2 General Discussion 0 Earth 33