# The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

by Topher925
Tags: bringing, house, keystone, pipeline
P: 1,672
 Quote by feathermoon They wouldn't, unless there was a large disinformation campaign surrounding it, telling them to believe otherwise.
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!

 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!
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.
P: 27
 Quote by 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?
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. PF Gold P: 2,988  Quote by 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. 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.  P: 27 I think Topher is speaking from an environmental perspective. P: 12  Quote by 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.
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.
P: 60
 Quote by 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.
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.
P: 60
 Quote by 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.
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.
P: 60
 Quote by CaptFirePanda It's actually quite complex. The WTI/Brent differential can/will have huge impacts on US futures if it keeps spreading the way it is. The glut in the Midwest may pose a short-term gain in depressed gasoline prices, but overall it's going to hurt the economy more than it will benefit it. So, sure.. the blue collar argument is having to pay more to fuel their daily commutes. In the long run, however, it is a far more complex issue that prices at the pump.
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.

 By the way, your condescension isn't appreciated. My questions were legitimate questions because you seem to be looking at a rather small and short-term benefit from low WTI prices.
You're right, no reason for that. Won't happen again.

 The confirmation bias goes both ways. My support goes so far as to present facts rather than the rhetoric or sensationalism that accompanies this sort of discussion. I would assume that if you are willing to believe Pembina reports, then you would categorically dismiss any information to the contrary.
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.

 How would the numbers seem safe? If you are mining an area of ~40000 hectares why would it be reclaimed if it is still active? To report that it has not been reclaimed is misleading and pointless. Drying processes significantly speed up the process of recovering tailings, so decade long time frames are an exaggeration (3-5 years for earlier traditional settling methods). The idea of whether something can be fully reclaimed exists for every land disturbance, not just oil sands operations. Open pits, tailings, etc... associated with other activities have just as much impact and just as much reclamation potential as the oil sands. What point exactly? The point that you cannot reclaim active mining operations?
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.
P: 1,123
 Quote by feathermoon 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.
Why don't you support this a bit?
P: 27
 Quote by 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?
The differential has only recently reached these marks. Because of how oil is bought and sold, pre-existing futures would likely maintain activity. If the differential continues to grow or remains at this level for an extended period then the impacts will begin to be felt.

 The only losers are some gulf and east coast refineries, but that won't last longer than the spread.
But what was going to magically fix the differential other than the pipeline reversals/expansions?

 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.
That's like saying I would support the bombing of the US in order to reduce overall hydrocarbon consumption. This isn't a very constructive claim to have made.

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

 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.
It's not the percentages I'm worried about. It is the fact that they are comparing the amount of disturbed land (with active mining/tailings/etc...) to the amount of reclaimation certified land when they should be comparing the amount of land that is no longer in use and is being reclaimed to the amount of land having been certified. The amount of rec. certified land is still quite small as reclamation standards require that the areas being reclaimed need to be monitored for 15+ years before a certificate can be issued. Currently, there are about 4800 hectares of reclaimed land that are being monitored.

 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.
As I've mentioned above, 15 or more years of monitoring are required before the certificate can be issued. Pond 1 had been undergoing reclamation for quite sometime. As it was the original tailings pond used when operations began in the late 60's, there was a fair amount of accountability placed on Suncor to assure that the area was completely back to "equivalent land capability". This is a fairly comprehensive and onerous set of standards to meet so reclamation certificates are not a dime a dozen.

 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.
There currently is no legislation that states a specific timeframe as operations may sometimes reuse pre-existing sites that have been inactive for a period of time. This is an attempt to reduce footprint.
 P: 128 Keystone XL is not the end. There will be more projects to come for both the United States and Canada. http://oilsandstruth.org/updated-con...035?size=large
 P: 27 The map, although quite busy looking, is actually very tame. For example, here are the existing pipelines in North America for 2002: The scale doesn't allow for every last pipeline to be displayed, but we can see how pervasive they are across the continent. I'd like to point out that production numbers in the box below the legend must represent projections, as current levels of production and emissions are not nearly that high. For example, in 2009, emissions from oil sands projects (and associated co-gen facilities) were at 41.9 Mt. Further to that, emissions dropped by over 25% in the last decade and will likely continue to drop, so an increase in production does not mean an equivalent increase in emissions. I do agree, however, that there will likely be a jump in pipeline projects and other associated transportation of dilbit/SCO because of the increasing demand for it.
P: 1,672
Good news! The Senate came through.

 The Senate has voted down a Republican-backed amendment that would have authorized construction of the Keystone Pipeline from Alberta to the Midwest and Gulf Coast.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ipeline-fails/
P: 615
 Quote by CaptFirePanda The map, although quite busy looking, is actually very tame. For example, here are the existing pipelines in North America for 2002: The scale doesn't allow for every last pipeline to be displayed, but we can see how pervasive they are across the continent. I'd like to point out that production numbers in the box below the legend must represent projections, as current levels of production and emissions are not nearly that high. For example, in 2009, emissions from oil sands projects (and associated co-gen facilities) were at 41.9 Mt. Further to that, emissions dropped by over 25% in the last decade and will likely continue to drop, so an increase in production does not mean an equivalent increase in emissions. I do agree, however, that there will likely be a jump in pipeline projects and other associated transportation of dilbit/SCO because of the increasing demand for it.
how many of those are above ground?
P: 60
 Quote by Topher925 Good news! The Senate came through. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ipeline-fails/
 Republican presidential candidates and lawmakers have hammered Mr. Obama for his decision to oppose the pipeline, which they suggest could ease rising gas prices and would create jobs.
Amazing these unfounded and misleading assertions are being used as a selling point.
P: 60
 Quote by WhoWee Why don't you support this a bit?
Because clean environments are consistently undervalued economically. Because it won't do anything its proponents say it will. Because of the negative impacts it will have, which I've already mentioned in previous posts.
PF Gold
P: 2,988
 Quote by feathermoon Because clean environments are consistently undervalued economically. Because it won't do anything its proponents say it will. Because of the negative impacts it will have, which I've already mentioned in previous posts.
What does that possibly have to do with bombing Iran?
 P: 60 The current Iran situation, and the pipeline issue both affect the WTI/Brent spread. As I said, it was an idle thought and was not to be taken as an argument for anything.

 Related Discussions General Physics 2 General Discussion 0 Earth 33