Keystone Pipeline

[none]

I really don't know that much about the Keystone Pipeline at all, but I do think I know a little bit about it.
It is my understanding that Canada wants to export it's oil through the pipeline to refineries in Texas.
I thought that oil from Canada would be exported from the gulf area and not refined but I guess it might be refined in the US for US consumption, but I am not sure.
And, I have heard some stories about job creation and job sustainability but I just don't see that as legitimate.
If the pipeline is built properly there shouldn't be a need for any jobs to be associated with it because it would be trouble free, what I am seeing is that nobody really thinks it is going to be trouble free and there would then be the need for a workforce. I don't trust the oil industry to not have environmental catastrophes and this pipeline looks like a disaster waiting to happen..
So if they need a workforce to maintain it then how can they assure that it won't contaminate the environment if the pipeline is not trouble free?
And then there is the fact that the arctic is going to melt and Canada can export from there in addition to exporting south with the pipeline or singularly exporting from the arctic.
And there has only been 2 refineries built in the last twenty years that I know of, wouldn't that be an indication we don't need more refineries and more output from refineries.

so basically 1) Is the oil from Canada intended for export from the US or are we going to use it domestically 2) How many jobs are needed to maintain a trouble free refinery if it is indeed trouble free 3) How is it not a disaster in the making 4) Exporting through the arctic seems to negate any long term need for the pipeline 5) If not building refineries is an indication that we don't need more refined oil why are importing oil we don't need?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Don't they already have a bunch of pipelines, and this particular one just got political?

 

[NobleSavage]

I'm going to take a crack at your questions. First, look at this map (It is a simplification):



From the Midwest to the Gulf Coast there are a bunch of refineries. More will be refined and used in the US than exported. The American refineries will be big winners. Much of the oil from Canada gets to the US by rail, which is more dangerous than a pipeline.

 

[Axulus]

The oil is going to get transported one way or another. They are currently transporting it by train. You do realize that train accidents happen and are more frequent than pipeline leaks? They are also talking about building their own pipeline straight to a port for export to China if we don't give it permission.

 

[Ford]

You do realize that train accidents happen and are more frequent than pipeline leaks?

Yes, and I think we're all keen to avoid the train accident that wiped out Kansas.


Sorry, but this idea that the proponents of the Keystone project are doing it to prevent environmental disasters is just daft. Spills are the least of their concerns.

 

[Axulus]

You do realize that train accidents happen and are more frequent than pipeline leaks?

Yes, and I think we're all keen to avoid the train accident that wiped out Kansas.


Sorry, but this idea that the proponents of the Keystone project are doing it to prevent environmental disasters is just daft. Spills are the least of their concerns.

But we aren't talking about the proponents of the pipeline but rather the opponents, who supposedly have environmental issues at the top of their concern list. None doesn't seem to be a proponent and he specifically brought up environmental concerns.

 

[NobleSavage]

Don't they already have a bunch of pipelines, and this particular one just got political?

Yes. The Keystone is over half built and there are a many other pipelines.

 

[NobleSavage]

You do realize that train accidents happen and are more frequent than pipeline leaks?

Yes, and I think we're all keen to avoid the train accident that wiped out Kansas.


Sorry, but this idea that the proponents of the Keystone project are doing it to prevent environmental disasters is just daft. Spills are the least of their concerns.

I'm sure that enormous lawsuits because of spills are one of their concerns.

 

[Ford]

Yes, and I think we're all keen to avoid the train accident that wiped out Kansas.


Sorry, but this idea that the proponents of the Keystone project are doing it to prevent environmental disasters is just daft. Spills are the least of their concerns.

I'm sure that enormous lawsuits because of spills are one of their concerns.

Oh I'm sure it is one of their concerns, but like steroid abuse in baseball or the threat of SEC fines in finance it isn't on the front page for these companies.

 

[TV and credit cards]

To ensure the least damage is done to the environment, I think the goal should be not to need the oil in the first place. Beyond that, if the US doesn't need it, let Canada sent it over to the left on their own property. There are landowners that do not want this on their property. It's tough to fight a utility easement as it is considered for the good of the public or in the public interest or some such shit. But, the question remains, how many utility easements are necessary? This one seems to be more of a convenience and lees of a necessity only being built out to benefit US refiners.

Go ride a bike.

 

[NobleSavage]

I'm sure that enormous lawsuits because of spills are one of their concerns.

Oh I'm sure it is one of their concerns, but like steroid abuse in baseball or the threat of SEC fines in finance it isn't on the front page for these companies.

Remember Deepwater Horizon?

In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments[25][26][27] but further legal proceedings not expected to conclude until 2014 are ongoing to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[28][29] As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.[30]

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

That's definitely not a slap on the wrist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The oil is going to get transported one way or another. They are currently transporting it by train. You do realize that train accidents happen and are more frequent than pipeline leaks? They are also talking about building their own pipeline straight to a port for export to China if we don't give it permission.

Except that there's way less chance of that getting built than Keystone getting built.

By the time it gets through all the various approval processes and opposition, we'll be getting to China by using one of our old, obsolete star cruisers as a relay station for a teleportation beam.

 

[none]

But we aren't talking about the proponents of the pipeline but rather the opponents, who supposedly have environmental issues at the top of their concern list. None doesn't seem to be a proponent and he specifically brought up environmental concerns.

The rumor is it is a job creator.
The implication is long term, why would a trouble free pipeline be a job creator? and I am not talking about one guy at a computer terminal.

 

[none]

and it seems if fines are levied against the refineries and oil production companies they just pass the cost onto the consumer, a tax paying consumer.
yet it is like pulling teeth to get the lobbyists to see the benefit of tighter regulation ( safety ) when they can milk profit off the top of a fine through a sales percentage.
but that is whole different issue, not necessarily related to the OP. but I thought I'd bring it up do to some peoples concerns.

 

[Axulus]

But we aren't talking about the proponents of the pipeline but rather the opponents, who supposedly have environmental issues at the top of their concern list. None doesn't seem to be a proponent and he specifically brought up environmental concerns.

The rumor is it is a job creator.
The implication is long term, why would a trouble free pipeline be a job creator? and I am not talking about one guy at a computer terminal.

Don't accept rumors for face value. The facts are that it will help our refineries by giving them a new supply option, lower our reliance on Venezuelan and other US unfriendly sources of oil, coming from Canada instead, lower Canada's reliance on transporting the oil by train which is more costly and more dangerous/accident prone than modern pipes, provide a few long-term jobs (monitoring the pipeline, inspecting it, and the occasional maintenance), and a good number of short-term construction jobs.

 

[Axulus]

and it seems if fines are levied against the refineries and oil production companies they just pass the cost onto the consumer, a tax paying consumer.
yet it is like pulling teeth to get the lobbyists to see the benefit of tighter regulation ( safety ) when they can milk profit off the top of a fine through a sales percentage.
but that is whole different issue, not necessarily related to the OP. but I thought I'd bring it up do to some peoples concerns.

They can't pass the cost onto the consumer. No single company has that level of market power in this particular market. It is a worldwide commodity with dozens of competing suppliers. Any attempt to increase price more than the market price will immediately see customers purchase from other suppliers.

Not even the once mighty OPEC is able to do much about price these days.

 

[Ford]

Oh I'm sure it is one of their concerns, but like steroid abuse in baseball or the threat of SEC fines in finance it isn't on the front page for these companies.

Remember Deepwater Horizon?

In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments[25][26][27] but further legal proceedings not expected to conclude until 2014 are ongoing to determine payouts and fines under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[28][29] As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.[30]

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

That's definitely not a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps moving forward some companies will be more vigilant, but the point is that spill and subsequent liability might have been prevented if they'd considered such drastic consequences possible, and worked harder to prevent them.


They're good at closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.

 

[Axulus]

This is what happens when pipeline transport is not an available option.

 

[OLDMAN]

The rumor is it is a job creator.
The implication is long term, why would a trouble free pipeline be a job creator? and I am not talking about one guy at a computer terminal.

Don't accept rumors for face value. The facts are that it will help our refineries by giving them a new supply option, lower our reliance on Venezuelan and other US unfriendly sources of oil, coming from Canada instead, lower Canada's reliance on transporting the oil by train which is more costly and more dangerous/accident prone than modern pipes, provide a few long-term jobs (monitoring the pipeline, inspecting it, and the occasional maintenance), and a good number of short-term construction jobs.

People seem to forget or are ignorant (the president) that the oil has to be extracted from the sand. This requires dump trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, entire emulsion factories, snowplows, pickup trucks, housing, food...and on it goes. All these things create jobs in Canada and the US. Plus the jobs in the refineries and in both building ocean going tankers and sailing them. But then I suppose there will be jobs lost in the munitions factory...because there are no Ayatollahs to bomb in Alberta.

 

[Ford]

This is what happens when pipeline transport is not an available option.

Nice chart, but some context would be useful.

Did these incidents involve oil which was previously transported by pipeline and if so, why was the transport switched to rail?

If these incidents are the result of increase volume, then isn't it incumbent upon the rail transporters to explain why they can't maintain the previously low level of incidents?


As it stands, your chart indicates not a nightmare scenario where pipelines are not available, but that something pretty drastic has changed in the previously safe rail transport industry.