The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

WhoWee

I thought there were 3 reasons Americans supported the pipeline - 1.) lower gas prices, 2.) jobs, and 3.) energy independence from the ME?

Evo

Can you link to the studies that support those ideas?

Topher925

OK, thats nice, but I do NOT support the Keystone pipeline!

And as has been being discussed in this thread, the Keystone pipeline project has been accused of - 1) increasing gas prices, 2) producing not many jobs at all, and 3) would not do diddly squat from providing energy independence from the ME (ALL the oil would be exported form the US)

WhoWee

What other possible reasons would Americans want the pipeline - other than lower prices, jobs, and energy independence? These have been the expectations discussed in the media.

Jobs were anticipated:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=15387980

Lower gas prices are/were anticipated:
http://www.speaker.gov/Blog/?postid=281784

This touches on an expectation of lower prices and energy independence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1305569.html

"With retail gasoline prices on a path to top $4 a gallon soon and possibly touch $5 if political tensions with oil-producing Iran get worse by midyear, voter frustration with Obama likely will rise - with or without Keystone being built.

"Delaying the Keystone XL pipeline is not the reason gasoline prices have been going up, and moving forward on a variant of Keystone will not bring them down," said Michael Levi, an energy analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations. "When it comes to today's gas prices, the Keystone fight is a sideshow," he said.

As Democrats in Congress perked up over the TransCanada announcement, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski went to the floor of the Senate to squash any celebration. She complained that in her home state, the Trans Alaska Pipeline was only "half full" with oil because Democrats had blocked new drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as some offshore drilling projects.

Obama is countering that there are no easy answers to rising energy prices and that "drill baby drill," a policy of expanded domestic oil exploration advocated by Republicans, will not end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

But that "is a big communications challenge for him" at a time when the cost of filling the gas tank is rapidly escalating, said the senior Senate Democratic aide."

mheslep

Yes but there's no need to go to other media sources, the White House covered it nicely Monday when it commented on the southern end of the pipeline!
followed by , "But as we made clear", blah blah, blah blah blah.

Topher925

None of these sources provide any real argument or reasoning as to how the Keystone pipeline will lower gas prices and provide better energy security from the ME. They're really just articles about bashing President Obama for his rejection of the pipeline. And the parts where they do touch on the amount of jobs that would be created, they don't state if they are permanent or temporary. Once the pipeline is built, where will those "thousands" of jobs go?

TransCanada stated in THEIR VERY OWN APPLICATION for the pipeline that this project is expected to increase oil prices in the US. They also very clearly stated that all the oil refined from the pipeline would be exported. How would that help the US obtain energy security from the ME?

WhoWee

My point was these 3 items are the ones discussed in the media and debated by politicians - these are the talking points people are focused on - not a technical argument. If the pipeline won't create jobs, or lower the price of fuel, or help achieve energy independence from the ME - why would anyone want it?

feathermoon

They wouldn't, unless there was a large disinformation campaign surrounding it, telling them to believe otherwise.

Topher925

Hold on a sec feathermoon, are you saying that government and big oil companies would lie to the public using main stream media outlets in order to make a profit at the public and the environments expense? Why I can't believe anyone would propose such wild allegations!

I'd be lying if I said this doesn't irk me a bit, but it really isn't the same situation. You sited yourself that the oil produced from Cushing would be sold domestically, not globally. Also Cushing doesn't have stock piles of tar sands oil, its crude, which was the biggest issue of the Keystone pipeline for me.

CaptFirePanda

The pipeline will create jobs - it doesn't build and monitor itself.

Reducing Middle East imports - Canada already supplies a large amount of its exports to the US; there isn't much room to increase those exports. As for Middle Eastern dependance, a lot of this has to do with policy. Currently, US imports from the Mid-East are at ~21% or so.

THE WTI/Brent differential is a crucial facotr in all of this. When WTI is selling at an almost $20 discount. This differential is not a good thing from the perspective of exploration and production in the US. Companies with global interests, would scale back US operations in favour of exploiting plays that are going to fetch them Brent prices.

mheslep

So? In that way how do Cushing stockpiles differ from tar sands oil? Neither is confined solely to domestic consumption, but will have a sold more cheaply domestically. Pile up enough of either and local producers will find away to ship it elsewhere.

CaptFirePanda

I think Topher is speaking from an environmental perspective.

Oltz

Capt you hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph. Regardless of where the oil is sold bringing a new supply to market and to efficient refining will reduce global prices and WTI will still be able to trade below Brent. It is not uncommon to throttle production when the trade gap becomes to large. To lower prices we need to expand all 3 parts of the supply side production,refining, and transport (both to refining and to market).

Reducing demand globally is not in our control.

The Tar sands will be sold and used no matter what "we" want would you rather nobody in the US have any employment from it?

People work in refineries people maintain pipelines people transport the finished fuel...we have the option to make those people Americans.

Plus it does give us access to another supply when the ME gets temperamental with its supply as well as adding a diplomatic chip to conversations with china by giving us some influence on the supply of fuel to them.

feathermoon

I refer you back to this Cornell study showing a potential reduction in employment due to the XL. I'm not positive jobs is a good argument unless you can point out some flaw with the study.

We have no influence in the supply of fuel to China if the XL goes through. Contracts are already in place for exportation in that regard.

feathermoon

You say this, and yet drilling is at a peak right now. So what companies are not producing or exploring here in favor of elsewhere?

Midwest refiners are making higher profits because of the WTI/Brent spread. Their stocks are up. Some savvy hedge funders will probably be able to short the Brent and long sell the WTI as the gap closes. The only losers are some gulf and east coast refineries, but that won't last longer than the spread.

Either way, with the Seaway reversal, and the southern section of XL getting built, I suppose the spread should become a moot point in this topic, long term.


An aside: I bet any people who would support bombing Iran and would also support the pipeline. Since the Iran situation is increasing the spread and the pipeline would reduce it, that's sort of amusing.

feathermoon

I think that would be hard to quantify. I'd like to see a study showing this (I've been Googling all night too, surprisingly hard to find information relating prices benefits to long term economic effects).

The blue collar argument does affect everyone directly, after all. Most people won't even notice subtle ill effects.

You're right, no reason for that. Won't happen again.

I'm not going to defend an organization I don't know much about. The part of their study I mentioned was the percentage of land reclaimed from the tar sands mining/drilling. I could find other sources for that percentage for you if you wish. I will not dismiss information, even that's contrary to my assumptions if it's provable, or hell even sounds legitimate.

Thus, my contention to quoting Dr. Moore as misleading. The first tailings pond reclaimed was in 2010. Not quite stunning since it went inactive in 97. However, I'll be interested to see how wetlands restoration turns out.

Active may be a subjective term for these things, though. I think they just had to introduce legislation on how long an inactive pond or site could be left before reclamation, even.

WhoWee

Why don't you support this a bit?