News The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

[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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Topher925]

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.

http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

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/2009/05/18/us-oilsands-carbon-idUSTRE54H6C220090518

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.

http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

So I wouldn't call an increase of ~25%* increase in CO2 emission inflammatory when comparing petroleum to coal.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

 

[SixNein]

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.


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.

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.

 

[SixNein]

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.

 

[feathermoon]

. . . 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.

 

[feathermoon]

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.

 

[feathermoon]

Issues from the anti-XL side:

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
Cornell study shows XL could reduce jobs in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/keystone-pipeline-restraining-order_n_1277615.html
TransCanada, a Canadian company, attempts to declare imminent domain on American's property for pipeline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/keystone-xl-state-dept-ig_n_1266041.html
Environmental review process mired in controversy (State Dept eventually gets cleared of malfeasence and bias)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/keystone-pipeline-infographic_n_941069.html
Shows TransCanadas other pipeline spills (12 in a year).

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

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.

CO_2e 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---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-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/2009/05/18/us-oilsands-carbon-idUSTRE54H6C220090518

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.

http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

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/co2-emission-fuels-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.

 

[WhoWee]

CO_2e 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?

 

[aquitaine]

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?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

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.

 

[mheslep]

The Alberta chart from CaptFP shows 107 g CO2/MJ for oil sands, of which 33 g comes from well to tank production, and US average imported oil shows 102 g CO2/MJ, of which 28 g CO2/MJ comes from production. Looking at just production emissions, as I suspect most these other reports do, the difference is 17%. The difference for total emissions, production and consumption of the oil, is 5%.

Similarly California heavy oil as 42% higher emissions than average US oil for production, but we don't see Hanson reading speeches in front of Ca heavy oilfields.

 

[SixNein]

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?

Artificially starve our civilization of energy? 0.o

Why would you need to build more capacity to charge the storage systems? One of the major benefits of building massive storage systems is that peak shaving can be performed.

One of the distinctive characteristics of the electric power sector is that the amount of electricity that can be generated is relatively fixed over short periods of time, although demand for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. Developing technology to store electrical energy so it can be available to meet demand whenever needed would represent a major breakthrough in electricity distribution. Helping to try and meet this goal, electricity storage devices can manage the amount of power required to supply customers at times when need is greatest, which is during peak load. These devices can also help make renewable energy, whose power output cannot be controlled by grid operators, smooth and dispatchable.

http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/energy-storage

Essentially, the idea is similar to a capacitor for a Camera flash. The battery for the camera cannot generate enough power to make the flash... flash. So the capacitor stores energy and it releases when the flash occurs. Likewise, our current system is akin to using a big enough battery to provide enough power from a generation perspective instead of using a capacitor. There exists a great deal of waste in this method.

 

[aquitaine]

Artificially starve our civilization of energy? 0.o

Why would you need to build more capacity to charge the storage systems? One of the major benefits of building massive storage systems is that peak shaving can be performed.

So what about when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? If you're going to go entirely renewable, that needs to be taken into account which is the true reason for needing massive energy storage in the first place. Remember, these are energy sources that don't always produce. I submit Exhibit B, a Der Spiegel article discussing that, despite having spent 100 billion euros all those solar farms for weeks and weeks they didn't produce any electricity. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also submit http://www.kgw.com/news/local/TriMet-solar-energy-project-construction-begins-in-SW-Portland-134694858.html Trimet spent ~$350,000 on a mini solar farm and is expected to save ~$3,500, and these only have a lifespan of about 25 years. So in order to be competitive electricity would need to be at least 4 times what it is today. That is why going with these nonsensical solutions is starving our civilization energy.

 

[edward]

Points to ponder.

The Keystone pipeline appears to be two pipelines. EDIT. my bad one of the piplines was completed in 2010?? The map is interactive

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html


There is still a twin Canadian pipeline being planned for the pacific.

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


Tar sands open pit mining is about as ugly as it gets.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/what-are-tar-sands-110902.html


The bitumen produced at the mines is too thick to flow through a pipeline without lighter weight hydrocarbons added. Essentially it isn't the crude oil we know and love. Most web sites refer to it as synthetic crude.

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


The pipeline is to be buried just four feet deep and will run at a pressure of 1400 PSI

http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/keystone-pipeline-project-moving-toward-completion?page=show

EDITED 7:18 PM

 

[SixNein]

So what about when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? If you're going to go entirely renewable, that needs to be taken into account which is the true reason for needing massive energy storage in the first place. Remember, these are energy sources that don't always produce. I submit Exhibit B, a Der Spiegel article discussing that, despite having spent 100 billion euros all those solar farms for weeks and weeks they didn't produce any electricity. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also submit http://www.kgw.com/news/local/TriMet-solar-energy-project-construction-begins-in-SW-Portland-134694858.html Trimet spent ~$350,000 on a mini solar farm and is expected to save ~$3,500, and these only have a lifespan of about 25 years. So in order to be competitive electricity would need to be at least 4 times what it is today. That is why going with these nonsensical solutions is starving our civilization energy.

Your mixing apples with oranges. Energy storage systems are beneficial for any kind of power generation. We would need to burn less coal to produce the same capacity.

I'm aware of the intermittent nature of many types of renewables. And this brings me back with the point that we must start with energy storage systems.

 

[WhoWee]

Can we stick to the topic of Keystone?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Points to ponder.

The Keystone pipeline appears to be two pipelines. EDIT. my bad one of the piplines was completed in 2010?? The map is interactive

The Keystone XL project is an extension of the existing Keystone pipeline that already crosses into the US from Canada. This was mentioned earlier.

There is still a twin Canadian pipeline being planned for the pacific.

Yes, the Northern Gateway. This was also mentioned. It has met with opposition from various ENGOs and aboriginal groups.

Tar sands open pit mining is about as ugly as it gets.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/what-are-tar-sands-110902.html

I'd say http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?c=y&articleID=111461539&page=4 are pretty ugly too; or even some oil fields abroad or http://inspirationgreen.com/assets/images/Art/Oil%20Pics/oil%20fields%20bakersfield%20calif.jpg.

We've scarred the surface of the Earth (or poisoned its waters) in many, many ways. The oil sands leave a nasty footprint, but there are extremely stringent reclamation regulations in place. Will these return the landscape to its original state? Not likely. This is the ugly truth of exploiting the Earth's resources that countries around the world demand.

The bitumen produced at the mines is too thick to flow through a pipeline without lighter weight hydrocarbons added. Essentially it isn't the crude oil we know and love. Most web sites refer to it as synthetic crude.

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

False. It is diluted with naptha and/or other constituents into what is referred to as dilbit (diluted bitumen) which is then transported via pipeline to an upgrader. At the upgrader, it is upgraded into Synthetic Crude Oil (SCO). It may also be refined at this point, or further transported to a refinery. Much of this has been mentioned previously.

The pipeline is to be buried just four feet deep and will run at a pressure of 1400 PSI

http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/keystone-pipeline-project-moving-toward-completion?page=show

All pipelines are buried at or around this depth. This allows for regular maintenance and inspection. It also keeps the pipeline well above aquifers. You seem to be suggesting that the Keystone XL pipeline will be over-pressured or, at least, using pressures much higher than other pipelines. Is this accurate?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Some of the comments in this thread surprise me. I realize that this is the General Discussion sub-forum and this is a hot topic, but many of the unsubstantiated or extremely subjective claims seem to run counter to the basic standards of the scientific community that gathers here.

There are extremely important environmental issues to consider when it comes to developing the oil sands. These issues are the same issues that every industrial development needs to consider. Alberta leads the way in examining cumulative effects and the land management tools required to mitigate the effects of its long history of oil and gas development and future development. Every developed and developing country needs to consider the cumulative impacts of industry, urban sprawl, etc... so I'm not sure what the scientific and objective reasons are to "villainize" oil sands development.

As I've said previously, there is a demand for crude oil. The demand is great enough that the oil sands are now economically produce. The same goes for shale gas, tight oil and other unconventional sources of hydrocarbons. Peak Oil clearly illustrates this process of shifting to more and more unconventional sources.

The focus here should not be how "terrible" they are but how to best mitigate the inevitable impacts of developing the oil sands. They are going to be produced, so how do we best address that fact? The provincial and federal government have developed and continue to develop regulations and other tools to offset production. Should this not be where minds come to focus in order to determine how to improve or expand on those tools?

 

[edward]

CaptFirePanda:

False. It is diluted with naptha and/or other constituents into what is referred to as dilbit (diluted bitumen) which is then transported via pipeline to an upgrader. At the upgrader, it is upgraded into Synthetic Crude Oil (SCO). It may also be refined at this point, or further transported to a refinery. Much of this has been mentioned previously.

Actually that is exactly what I stated

Naptha is a lighter weight hydrocarbon. So are butane C4 and pentane C5

Butane (C4), which is either blended with condensate for use as a diluent in Alberta, or sold into U.S. markets.
Condensate (C5), which is used by bitumen and heavy oil producers as a diluent (condensate decreases the viscosity of bitumen and heavy oil, enabling these substances to flow easily through pipelines).

http://www.providentenergy.com/bus/midstream.cfm

 

[CaptFirePanda]

My point was that it isn't synthetic crude at that point, it is dilbit. It only becomes synthetic crude after it is upgraded.

 

[edward]

My point was that it isn't synthetic crude at that point, it is dilbit. It only becomes synthetic crude after it is upgraded.

Got it.

 

[mege]

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.

1) You misunderstood what I said, but I'll address your (strawman) point directly: Read the page before your quote:

The production of crude in the U.S. continues to decline, and imports will increase due to rising demand by U.S. refineries combined with declining domestic supply. Traditional supply sources of heavy crude for the USGC, such as Mexico and Venezuela, are declining and some USGC refiners are diversifying their supply sources by obtaining access to Western Canadian crude.

Maybe I missed where 'the Gulf Coast refineries' aren't part of the US any more? They have the capability and capacity to refine the raw material from the tarsands (the actual numbers are given in that report).

2) As I referenced (in the 9/26/11 CBC article regarding protests): the cofounder of greenpeace was impressed with the reclamation and supported the tarsands development. From an American policy perspective, though, this is irrelevant because the development of the tarsands isn't contingent of the keystone XL pipeline - it will happen anyhow.

 

[SixNein]

As I've said previously, there is a demand for crude oil. The demand is great enough that the oil sands are now economically produce. The same goes for shale gas, tight oil and other unconventional sources of hydrocarbons. Peak Oil clearly illustrates this process of shifting to more and more unconventional sources.

The focus here should not be how "terrible" they are but how to best mitigate the inevitable impacts of developing the oil sands. They are going to be produced, so how do we best address that fact? The provincial and federal government have developed and continue to develop regulations and other tools to offset production. Should this not be where minds come to focus in order to determine how to improve or expand on those tools?

I agree with you here.

 

[Jack21222]

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?

President Obama has nothing to do with my post that you responded to, nor is President Obama relevant to this thread. Please try to stay on topic and don't throw out red herrings.

I was stating my personal opinions on the pipeline, and contrary to what you may think, I don't take orders from President Obama.

Why you think President Obama's reasons matter to me at all is a source of great confusion to me.

 

[mheslep]

How do you imagine holding a meaningful discussion on the politics portion of the Keystone pipeline by omitting any reference to the man who canceled it?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Got it.

I agree with you here.

Thanks, gents. Good discussion for the most part here and it would be interesting to see how perspectives evolve.

To be completely honest, I think these things (Keystone XL and Northern Gateway) would meet with similar opposition, but in a different form, if the crude being transported through them was from conventional sources rather than oil sands. What I mean is that I think there is more than just GHG and other environmental issues being considered and those other issues are what is really at play. That's really all I'll touch on as it sounds "tinfoil hat"-like and I don;t want to mire the discussion in unsubstantiated claims.

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama has nothing to do with my post that you responded to, nor is President Obama relevant to this thread. Please try to stay on topic and don't throw out red herrings.

I was stating my personal opinions on the pipeline, and contrary to what you may think, I don't take orders from President Obama.

Why you think President Obama's reasons matter to me at all is a source of great confusion to me.

Wasn't your post discussing CO2?

Again, this is the OP: my bold
"The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone else absolutely furious and dumbfounded about this? I know its typical of corporate america and government to put money for the wealthy ahead of the well being of everyone else on the planet, but come on. To believe that the Keystone pipeline would not be a complete ecological disaster one would have to be arrogant, delusional, or just insane. I know its a long way from passing but the shear fact that this bill was even resurrected shows how corrupt and arrogant the republican party is.

The actions that Obama has taken against this bill alone guarantees my vote for him for re-election. I don't agree with everything his does but I'm with him and the rest of the democrats 100% on this issue. I just can't understand why everyone else isn't.
The House of Representatives passed an energy bill on Thursday that would wrest control of a permit for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline away from President Barack Obama, who has put the project on hold.

The bill, part of a broader House Republican effort to fund highways and infrastructure projects, would also expand offshore oil drilling and open up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-k...020608235.html"[/I]

Where is the red herring on my part?

 

[SixNein]

How do you imagine holding a meaningful discussion on the politics portion of the Keystone pipeline by omitting any reference to the man who canceled it?

Why don't we go straight to the source then:

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline

 

[SixNein]

Thanks, gents. Good discussion for the most part here and it would be interesting to see how perspectives evolve.

To be completely honest, I think these things (Keystone XL and Northern Gateway) would meet with similar opposition, but in a different form, if the crude being transported through them was from conventional sources rather than oil sands. What I mean is that I think there is more than just GHG and other environmental issues being considered and those other issues are what is really at play. That's really all I'll touch on as it sounds "tinfoil hat"-like and I don;t want to mire the discussion in unsubstantiated claims.

My largest concern is about the price of gas. Our economy is really dependent on cheap fuel, and these unconventional forms of production really signal the end of cheap gas. Yes, GHG is also a concern; however, I believe high gas prices have the potential to do more damage in my lifetime.

I think some people believe that price will go down with the "discovery" of these unconventional sources.

 

[russ_watters]

Why don't we go straight to the source then:

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline

While I'm sure many supporters of Obama believe he just needed more time and study to make his decision and many other supporters don't care as long as he axed it, I believe that this is the same stall/study, bury tactic Obama used to dodge debt reduction and shut down (probably illegally) the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

My largest concern is about the price of gas. Our economy is really dependent on cheap fuel, and these unconventional forms of production really signal the end of cheap gas. Yes, GHG is also a concern; however, I believe high gas prices have the potential to do more damage in my lifetime.

I think some people believe that price will go down with the "discovery" of these unconventional sources.

I agree that they will signal the end to cheap gas. The concept of why they do, however, is important to note. These unconventional resources are being sought after and produced, not because some big name companies or a federal/provincial government decided that it would be a good idea to spend more to get less and jack up the prices of crude, gas, etc... They are being sought after because conventional reserves are dwindling. Even on the conventional side, we have to drill more to produce the same (or less) as we did in the past; the return on energy is shrinking.

We've gone out and produced a great percentage of the "sweet spots" where you'd just stick a vertical well in the ground and let the crude flow. Now we are challenged to use methods to retrieve crude left behind in those sweet spots (with enhanced oil recovery techniques and waterflooding), or we need to drill the less attractive stuff found in shales, or as extremely viscous crude in the oil sands. All of these methods require advances in technology, more intensive drilling (or mining in some cases with the oil sands), greater and greater energy to extract what is left and higher crude prices in order to make them economically sound.

To try to contain my rambling in a sentence or two: It isn't the oil sands that are increasing prices; it is the dwindling supply of conventional reserves that are increasing prices for the most part. There, is of course market speculation and other factors that will influence pricing, but an overall upward trend is the result of having to spend more to meet demand.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

While I'm sure many supporters of Obama believe he just needed more time and study to make his decision and many other supporters don't care as long as he axed it, I believe that this is the same stall/study, bury tactic Obama used to dodge debt reduction and shut down (probably illegally) the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository.

Some would say that the Yucca site was on the table at all because of equally insiduous tactics. The topic is just as controversial, I'm sure, as the Keystone XL topic but I'm not sure if fairly broad and politically biased opinions will solve anything.

 

[SixNein]

I agree that they will signal the end to cheap gas. The concept of why they do, however, is important to note. These unconventional resources are being sought after and produced, not because some big name companies or a federal/provincial government decided that it would be a good idea to spend more to get less and jack up the prices of crude, gas, etc... They are being sought after because conventional reserves are dwindling. Even on the conventional side, we have to drill more to produce the same (or less) as we did in the past; the return on energy is shrinking.

We've gone out and produced a great percentage of the "sweet spots" where you'd just stick a vertical well in the ground and let the crude flow. Now we are challenged to use methods to retrieve crude left behind in those sweet spots (with enhanced oil recovery techniques and waterflooding), or we need to drill the less attractive stuff found in shales, or as extremely viscous crude in the oil sands. All of these methods require advances in technology, more intensive drilling (or mining in some cases with the oil sands), greater and greater energy to extract what is left and higher crude prices in order to make them economically sound.

To try to contain my rambling in a sentence or two: It isn't the oil sands that are increasing prices; it is the dwindling supply of conventional reserves that are increasing prices for the most part. There, is of course market speculation and other factors that will influence pricing, but an overall upward trend is the result of having to spend more to meet demand.

How much damage do you think this will do to the world economy? We've already seen some demand destruction. America is particularly vulnerable to this imo. One could argue that the price of gas was a factor in our economic downturn.

 

[russ_watters]

Some would say that the Yucca site was on the table at all because of equally insiduous tactics. The topic is just as controversial, I'm sure, as the Keystone XL topic but I'm not sure if fairly broad and politically biased opinions will solve anything.

There is little controversy in the scientific and engineering communities over nuclear power in general or wast or the Yucca project in particular. In addition, the law designating Yucca as our waste storage site was purposely made difficult to overturn in order to keep it from being used as a political football fifteen years ago. This law is still in effect, hence the apparent illegality of the Obama administration's actions. This is a political football for Obama and some Democrats, not for Republicans. He brought it up.

Obama closed the Yucca facility and said he'd study the issue. He appointed a committee to study it and they did. So where's his new nuclear waste policy? Well, just like with his debt commission, he ignored the study when it was published. Dealing with the nuclear waste issue was not his goal: finding a way to bury debate over his actions was.

For Keystone, I see the same tactics. I don't believe for a second that Obama's decision to delay a decision until 2013 was just coincidental to the fact that he is up for election in 2012. Remember, there was nothing for the government to study - all they had to do was review an application. And the application comes with a report. It doesn't take two years to review a report and application. If the application/report were insufficient/flawed, then they should have rejected it for those reasons, asking them to resubmit (which had already happened once). Instead, Obama basically just said he wasn't going to look at it until after being re-elected.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, the record indicates the application was filed in 2008.

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open

"TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone) filed an application in 2008 for a Presidential Permit with the Department of State to build and operate the Keystone XL Project."

I'm surprised it wasn't stuffed into the Stimulus Bill.

 

[feathermoon]

1) You misunderstood what I said, but I'll address your (strawman) point directly: Read the page before your quote:

Maybe I missed where 'the Gulf Coast refineries' aren't part of the US any more? They have the capability and capacity to refine the raw material from the tarsands (the actual numbers are given in that report).

2) As I referenced (in the 9/26/11 CBC article regarding protests): the cofounder of greenpeace was impressed with the reclamation and supported the tarsands development. From an American policy perspective, though, this is irrelevant because the development of the tarsands isn't contingent of the keystone XL pipeline - it will happen anyhow.

1.) You said the tarsands would benefit the U.S. if the XL was built, I showed how the XL being built would raise gasoline prices in the midwest. I don't know even know what you're talking about with the Gulf Coast refineries for.

2.) I won't speak much on the issue of Dr. Moore, everyone is entitled to their (bought and sold) opinions. I will say that's evidence of nothing. One guy who receives paychecks from the papermill industry to be a anthropogenic climate change denier says that nonnative scrub is equal or greater to pristine boreal forest? That's a JOKE.

Read this study if you're interested in the reclamation. In 50+ years of oil sands drilling, 0.2% of all land used is officially considered reclaimed for the public.

 

[feathermoon]

I wonder how economic=right for so many. Economic for whom? The company doing the drilling, when profits are higher than costs? How does this translate to the value of land to the rest of the world over the next 150 years as [if] it recovers (biotic recovery models can show forests taking hundreds of years to stabalize)?

Is the risk included in the valuation (remember how the Valdez spill resulted in mass suicides, billions in economic damages, and occurred in waters easier to navigate than the ones tankers would be in if the Northern Gateway pipeline was built)?

I cited a few issues in my last post which were unmentioned since. Here's another topic for discussion.

Deadly toxins are found in highest concentrations near oil sands upgraders.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207151335.htm

 

[feathermoon]

My largest concern is about the price of gas. Our economy is really dependent on cheap fuel, and these unconventional forms of production really signal the end of cheap gas. Yes, GHG is also a concern; however, I believe high gas prices have the potential to do more damage in my lifetime.

I think some people believe that price will go down with the "discovery" of these unconventional sources.

The pipeline will raise the price of fuel in America. Maximum drilling would not do anything to lower the price of fuel for decades, and then only by cents. Perhaps you should be more concerned with higher efficiency standards lowering demand for oil, which actually may put a dent in gasoline prices?