News The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

[WhoWee]

This doesn't answer my question at all.

Also, please note that the US is the second largest emitter of CO₂, behind only China.

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.

 

[mheslep]

This doesn't answer my question at all.

Also, please note that the US is the second largest emitter of CO₂, behind only China.

Per person the US is behind several countries including Canada.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

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.

1) There is already a Keystone Pipeline running from Alberta (Hardisty) into the US. The Keystone XL project is an extension on the pipeline in order to transport it into Texas;
2) Refining capacity is a result of current pipeline operation. The glut of crude going into the Mid-west and the inability to get crude to the Gulf Coast from Cushing has put strain on refining in both areas. The spread in WTI and Brent pricing is due to the market access.
3) Canada already exports a significant amount of it's production to the US (it imports the most to the US currently). Getting the crude bitumen to the Mid-west will do very little, if anything, to reduce US imports from the Middle East.

Just because the oil is shipped to the Mid-West does not mean it isn't going to be sold to China.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Per person the US is behind several countries including Canada.

Please show me what your source is for this. Everything I find does not support this at all.

 

[WhoWee]

1) There is already a Keystone Pipeline running from Alberta (Hardisty) into the US. The Keystone XL project is an extension on the pipeline in order to transport it into Texas;
2) Refining capacity is a result of current pipeline operation. The glut of crude going into the Mid-west and the inability to get crude to the Gulf Coast from Cushing has put strain on refining in both areas. The spread in WTI and Brent pricing is due to the market access.
3) Canada already exports a significant amount of it's production to the US (it imports the most to the US currently). Getting the crude bitumen to the Mid-west will do very little, if anything, to reduce US imports from the Middle East.

Just because the oil is shipped to the Mid-West does not mean it isn't going to be sold to China.

Isn't the EPA in the process of closing down some of the Gulf refineries?
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/160182

Why not develop a new refinery somewhere on the Great Lakes?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Isn't the EPA in the process of closing down some of the Gulf refineries?
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/160182

Why not develop a new refinery somewhere on the Great Lakes?

The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.

Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.

I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO₂ emissions by country.

 

[WhoWee]

The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.

Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.

I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO₂ emissions by country.

Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.

 

[mheslep]

Please show me what your source is for this. Everything I find does not support this at all.

I can only find 2008 data at the moment. Back then (metric tons CO2 per capita):
1. Qatar 53.5
2. UAE 34.6
...
8. Luxemburg 21.9
...
11. Australia 18.9
12. US 17.5
...
15 Canada 16.4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Looking further back US emissions per person declined steadily from 1997 up through 2008.

More recently I'm ~relatively sure I read that with the ramp up of the tar sand oil production Canada nudged higher than the US in 2010. Unless and until I can find recent data disregard. I do have the energy use per person (World Bank) data showing Canada uses more energy per head than the US, so one would expect ...
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...idim=country:CAN:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en

 

[mheslep]

Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.

CaptFP likely meant to direct to me.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.

Yeah, sorry I meant mh. My bad.

I can only find 2008 data at the moment. Back then (metric tons CO2 per capita):
1. Qatar 53.5
2. UAE 34.6
...
8. Luxemburg 21.9
...
11. Australia 18.9
12. US 17.5
...
15 Canada 16.4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Looking further back US emissions per person declined steadily from 1997 up through 2008.

More recently I'm ~relatively sure I read that with the ramp up of the tar sand oil production Canada nudged higher than the US in 2010. Unless and until I can find recent data disregard. I do have the energy use per person (World Bank) data showing Canada uses more energy per head than the US, so one would expect ...
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...idim=country:CAN:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en

Because emissions associated with the oil sands account for only 6.5% of Canada's overall emissions (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca.energy/files/files/OilSands-GHGEmissions_e.pdf), I wouldn't think that they account for a very large change in the per capita numbers.

Also, efficiences in oil sands production and processing has brought down the total emissions by ~29% since 1990 and are projected to decrease by a further 10% (see the same NRCan Oil Sands document).

As a generally colder country, I am not surprised that energy use per capita is higher in Canada than the US. However, hydroelectric power is a huge source of power for those provinces/territories that can access it. Overall it accounts for a significant percentage of energy compared to the US, which is far more reliant on coal-fired electricity generation (see here for hydroelectricity stats by country)

 

[edward]

I was under the impression the delay was to insure the safety of the Ogallala sp? aquifer.

The old refineries at Whiting Indiana which once supplied most of the middle west are being modernized to refine the Canadian oil. I do have a bit of a problem that the new refineries will be owned by BP.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7046513

But then they already own and are gearing up other refineries in this country.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030203&contentId=7055766#7205736

I do have a problem with the oil going to a Texas port. It could end up anywhere, including China.

As for Congress it is all politics.

 

[aquitaine]

I think renewable energy will look better and better as we head into the future. At a certain point, the economics of renewable energy will look better than fossil fuel. In addition, continuously rising gas prices is going to inject a great deal of poison into the political process. And only God knows how the global economy will respond. My guess is a lot of demand destruction.

The simple fact that we are discussing tar sands and shale should indicate a lifestyle change up ahead.

Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.

 

[edward]

Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.

Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:

What makes tar sands particularly odious is that the energy you get out in the end, per unit carbon dioxide, is poor. It's equivalent to burning coal in your automobile.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

 

[SixNein]

Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.

I agree in the sense that renewables are unlikely to match the performance of fossil fuels in our lifetime. But fossil fuels are limited, and we are beginning to bump into that reality. Gas prices are bound to rise as conventional oil wells decline. After the prices go so high, even horses may look better than cars. On the other hand, oil does have some amazing chemical properties, and I think it will continue to be used for a long time to come; however, our days of setting it on fire is coming to an end.

In a decade or two, we may very well be having this same discussion on coal. There is a huge demand placed on coal, and eventually we are going to hit limits. People who believe that we can ride exponential growth rates forever are out of their minds.

 

[SixNein]

Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:



http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

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.

 

[aquitaine]

I agree in the sense that renewables are unlikely to match the performance of fossil fuels in our lifetime. But fossil fuels are limited, and we are beginning to bump into that reality.

They never will match fossil fuels because of fundamental 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.

In a decade or two, we may very well be having this same discussion on coal. There is a huge demand placed on coal, and eventually we are going to hit limits. People who believe that we can ride exponential growth rates forever are out of their minds.

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 http://depletedcranium.com/terrified-of-nuclear-energy-germany-goes-for-fossil-fuel/, 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.

 

[mheslep]

Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:



http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

Hanson is a noted climate scientist who knows about the impact of CO2 once it gets in the atmosphere. But why credit Hanson with any of the details about oil sand production? Is he also now a petroleum engineer?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

I was under the impression the delay was to insure the safety of the Ogallala sp? aquifer.

We have touched on this earlier in the thread. TransCanada has met all of the requirements and special conditions put forward. Based on the high viscosity of dilbit and the depth of burial, risk to the Ogallala is low.

The old refineries at Whiting Indiana which once supplied most of the middle west are being modernized to refine the Canadian oil... I do have a problem with the oil going to a Texas port. It could end up anywhere, including China.

Not wanting oil to go to China is an interesting argument. One, it essentially supports Iranian oil production (they rank 3rd on oil imports to China) while displacing competition to Saudi Arabia. If China is going to have to compete more aggressively with the US for Saudi oil, then the US will, as a result, have to increase imports from Canada (namely, the oil sands).

Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

His remarks seem inflammatory, at best. The fact that bitumen can be marketed with such a relatively low return on energy speaks more to demand than anything else. The oil sands are not produced because they have a low return on energy, they are produced because demand makes them marketable.

 

[WhoWee]

The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.

Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.

I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO₂ emissions by country.

When I read about the EPA pulling permits - I have to wonder what those shut downs cost the economy?

from the original link
"The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday rejected the air quality permits for 122 industrial facilities in Texas, including the BP and Valero refineries in Texas City.

The pulling of the flexible air permits that are issued by the state under EPA’s authority means the facilities do not have legal operating permits.

EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz said none of the facilities will be required to shut down but all will be required to obtain new permits under stricter guidelines.

Earlier this year, the agency pulled more than 200 permits, citing what it said were deficiencies in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s flexible air permitting process."

 

[WhoWee]

Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:



http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

Will that still be the case after the Idiana site is retrofitted? (from your link)

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Actually, it's a banned topic - that's why it won't be discussed - isn't it?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

From my understanding it is "banned" because, without a Climate Change expert to moderate the discussions many (if not all) of them were degrading into "My ice cap is bigger than yours" kind of arguments.

So, you're both right maybe?

 

[mheslep]

Because emissions associated with the oil sands account for only 6.5% of Canada's overall emissions ...

Sounds right but then the difference in 2008 emissions between the US and Canada was only 6.7%.

 

[Topher925]

Actually, it's a banned topic - that's why it won't be discussed - isn't it?

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.

His remarks seem inflammatory, at best. The fact that bitumen can be marketed with such a relatively low return on energy speaks more to demand than anything else. The oil sands are not produced because they have a low return on energy, they are produced because demand makes them marketable.

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.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

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.

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:

http://www.oilsands.Alberta.ca/images/FS-CES-GHG-Chart-Well2Wheels.png

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.

 

[mheslep]

...

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[edward]

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.

 

[edward]

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-are-tar-sands-110902.html

 

[Jack21222]

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.