XL Oil Pipeline

[realbrown1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-would-the-keystone-pipeline-affect-oil-and-gas-prices/
Some critics contend that the pipeline could cause gas prices to rise, especially in the Midwest.That's because the oil that would be transported is not intended for American consumers. Rather, the Canadian oil currently sent to refineries in Illinois, Ohio and elsewhere in the Midwest would end up being diverted to Keystone, chiefly for export to markets overseas.


Play VIDEO
Senate Democrats end block on Keystone XL vote
"Midwest drivers would be hardest hit because the region currently imports more than half of its oil for refining from Canada," according to Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit public interest group. "Increases at the pump could range from 25 cents to 40 cents a gallon, depending on how regional refineries respond to paying $20 to $30 more per 42-gallon barrel for Canadian crude oil."

A 2011 report by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute projected that the Keystone's rerouting of oil from the Midwest would end up costing the region up to $4 billion in higher gas prices, which it said would "suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs."

Could cause gas prices to rise in the midwest, while 100% chance of lowering worldwide oil prices.

Keep missing that last part, don't you?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Could cause gas prices to rise in the midwest, while 100% chance of lowering worldwide oil prices.

Keep missing that last part, don't you?

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/533981/low-oil-prices-mean-keystone-pipeline-makes-no-sense/
If prices stay in the low $50 range, “the necessity for Keystone XL may disappear,” says Pete Howard, the president emeritus of the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary, Alberta. “We’ve got rail [transportation] right now as a safety valve, and if we build up rail capacity to carry three-quarters of a million barrels, that pretty much takes up all the projects that are under construction right now.”

Last summer, rail capacity handled 240,000 barrels daily, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers projects that rail capacity will grow to 700,000 barrels per day by 2016.

Oil prices today stand around $50 a barrel, a plunge of more than 50 percent since last summer due to a glut of production, including from the United States. Saudi Arabia’s recent decision to not scale back production has also softened demand.

Canada holds the world’s largest known reserves of bitumen, a tar-like form of petroleum, in underground sands in the province of Alberta. Recovering this oil is done in two basic ways: washing the sands with hot water and chemicals, or injecting steam through horizontal shafts underground. Both processes are more costly than traditional oil drilling, and emit more greenhouse gases (see “Canada’s Oil Sands on the Verge of a Boom Again”).

Right now there are at least 20 oil sands projects under construction in Alberta that are due to come online between now and the end of 2017. Regardless of oil prices, they will be finished because much of the capital expenditure is already sunk. However, Howard adds, “by this time next year, if the oil price hasn’t moved back upwards, the next stream of projects will start to be delayed.”

Last year, a London-based think tank, Carbon Tracker Initiative, issued a report carrying even more conservative predictions. It said oil prices would need to be at $95 per barrel or higher for 92 percent of Canada’s tar sands production to make economic sense.

Keep missing the whole concept, don't you?

 

[realbrown1]

Keep missing the whole concept, don't you?

If you think the price of oil will stay about $50 a barrel, well you would be just a troll.

Oil will go back up. It is a certainty.

 

[Babagounj]

Do you think obuma would veto the pipeline if it's name was LGBT ?

 

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

If you think the price of oil will stay about $50 a barrel, well you would be just a troll.

Oil will go back up. It is a certainty.

At the time when Germans are testing cars that run on Salt water all that Republicans can talk is oil ...

If Canadians think Tar sands are safe they should build pipeline straight through Ottawa

 

[oldngray]

 

[bottomups]

There is already an existing pipeline starting and ending where the proposal is for the new one. Why not use what you got?

 

[realbrown1]

At the time when Germans are testing cars that run on Salt water all that Republicans can talk is oil ...

If Canadians think Tar sands are safe they should build pipeline straight through Ottawa

Canadian tar sands oil is safe. Only super left wing ultra (not in my back yard) eviromentalists say different.

And why Ottawa? They need that oil to get to the gulf refineries because those refineries are designed to process the type of oil Canadian tar sands produces.

 

[realbrown1]

There is already an existing pipeline starting and ending where the proposal is for the new one. Why not use what you got?

Existing pipeline can't handle the amount of oil Canada is capable, but not yet producing.
In other words, twice the pipes, twice the amount of oil they can send.

 

[The Other Side]

Let's see ;
The refineries would continue to operate , their workers would still have jobs , and the local economy would continue to grow .
Exporting the fuels will require ships , those ships need a crew , supplies , and docks .
So the harbors will need to be upgraded , the roads will need to be improved , and people hired to make everything run smoothly .

And this makes the idea of a pipeline bad ?

Ya, cause none of it is true.

The network of ships is already chock full of idle ships, the output of XL's crude is already factored into production on the coast. There is NO growth of infrastructure because of XL.

Thats just the kind of B.S. right wing hacks throw out to the dummies willing to believe it.

TOS.

 

[Sportello]

Do any of you understand why XL was vetoed?

It's not about a pipeline, but about a treaty that favors one company over another. A non American company that wants eminent domain rights over our citizens.

Honestly...

 

[bbsam]

Existing pipeline can't handle the amount of oil Canada is capable, but not yet producing.
In other words, twice the pipes, twice the amount of oil they can send.

So why doesn't Canada just build refineries?

 

[oldngray]

So why doesn't Canada just build refineries?

Maybe you should ask ricky.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe you should ask ricky.

Do you have an answer?

 

[oldngray]

Do you have an answer?

No. I'm not an expert on Canadian policies.

 

[bbsam]

No. I'm not an expert on Canadian policies.

Any idea why we don't build them in North Dakota or Iowa?

 

[oldngray]

Any idea why we don't build them in North Dakota or Iowa?

Because they usually need to be near a sea port.

 

[bbsam]

Because they usually need to be near a sea port.

Because it's not for local use but for the global market?

 

[oldngray]

Because it's not for local use but for the global market?

Whether it is for domestic or international use it is always a global market so it only makes sense to plan ahead and have access to tankers. Also, refineries on the coast can process imported crude oil too.

 

[bbsam]

Whether it is for domestic or international use it is always a global market so it only makes sense to plan ahead and have access to tankers. Also, refineries on the coast can process imported crude oil too.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary transport especially if between the US, Canada, and Mexico the US demand could be met.