The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

CaptFirePanda

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.

DrClapeyron

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

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.

Topher925

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/

SHISHKABOB

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?

feathermoon

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.

feathermoon

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.

mheslep

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?

feathermoon

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.

CaptFirePanda

Quote by SHISHKABOB

how many of those are above ground?

I don't have any numbers, but (unlike the Trans Alaskan) the majority of crude/natural gas pipelines are housed underground.

Similar Threads for: The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline
Thread	Forum	Replies
Importance of a keystone in an arch?	General Physics	2
Playing House in the White House - a letter from the Bush girls to the Obama girls	General Discussion	0
Is there a meteorological Keystone?	Earth	33

DrClapeyron	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

feathermoon	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.