Obama drags his feet on Keystone XL, again

[laughing dog]

I did. I posted the exact quote where you said that.

That is more handwaving. Either produce the evidence or please stop making up claims about my posts that you cannot substantiate.

That's what's called a "genetic fallacy". What does them being "pro-market" or "conservative" have to do with assessment of different methods of transport of hydrocarbons?

No, it is called recognizing potential bias.

In any case, do you have any source(s) that contradict this, even if it is from a 'hardcore anti-market progressive "thinktank"', or are you just blowing smoke?

Certainly no more or less than you are.

Yes I brought up the pipeline where Keystone XL first applied for approval in 2008. That's 6 years ago, not 4 as you claimed. No need to study the pipeline before it has been proposed as it has been proposed quite a while ago.

In other words, no.

If they are not necessary why delay the approval this long? At this time, it's obviously political foot-dragging and has been for quite a while.

As I have written repeatedly, because it is not unreasonable to cautious. What don't you understand about the words in bold.?

The point is that even many Democrats are in favor of the pipeline. And those are by and large the same Democrats whose survival in 2014 is crucial for Democratic control of Senate. Thus, approving the pipeline is not just good policy but also good politics.

Many Democrats were in favor of invading Iraq, so I fail to see how that is somehow a convincing argument.

 

[Derec]

That is more handwaving. Either produce the evidence or please stop making up claims about my posts that you cannot substantiate.

I posted the evidence. Just because you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

No, it is called recognizing potential bias.

No, it's attacking the source without showing why that should result in bias in favor of one technical means of conveyance of crude oil. You also have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that would contradict the numbers I have provided. If you can show that contary to evidence I presented rail transport is safer than pipelines do so, or concede the point already. It's getting tiresome.

Certainly no more or less than you are.

I have posted evidence. You are merely doing the online version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you".

In other words, no.

In other words, there has been more than enough time.

As I have written repeatedly, because it is not unreasonable to cautious. What don't you understand about the words in bold.?

Caution was exercised all the way back in 2011 when the pipeline was rerouted around the Sand Hills region. That was years ago. This is no longer "being cautious", it's "dragging your feet for purely political reasons".

Many Democrats were in favor of invading Iraq, so I fail to see how that is somehow a convincing argument.

It points to large segments of president's own party not being with him on this issue.
Senate Democrats Weigh Vote Backing Keystone XL Too bad it's only a non-binding resolution they are seeking. But it shows increasing unrest over Obama's policy of needless delaying to placate the Left fringe of the party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But it shows increasing unrest over Obama's policy of needless delaying to placate the Left fringe of the party.

Wait... Obama is placating to me? Seriously? For once in his Administration? Appealing to the left wing of the party? Awesome!!!

This gives me the illusion that Obama gives a fuck about what I think.

 

[laughing dog]

I posted the evidence. Just because you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

No, you didn't. You have yet to demonstrate I made a NIMBY argument. When asked to provide evidence, you have evaded the question. At best, your claim is based on intellectual sloppiness. At worst, it is based on intellectual dishonesty.

No, it's attacking the source without showing why that should result in bias in favor of one technical means of conveyance of crude oil. You also have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that would contradict the numbers I have provided. If you can show that contary to evidence I presented rail transport is safer than pipelines do so, or concede the point already. It's getting tiresome.... [/.quote] I agree your unsubstantiated claims and illogical responses are tiresome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Uh huh!

Nuh uh!

Uh huh!

Nuh uh!

 

[Derec]

No, you didn't. You have yet to demonstrate I made a NIMBY argument. When asked to provide evidence, you have evaded the question. At best, your claim is based on intellectual sloppiness. At worst, it is based on intellectual dishonesty.

No. I copied and pasted where you said the same thing. Your evasiveness is evasive.

I agree your unsubstantiated claims and illogical responses are tiresome.

I provided a source showing pipelines being safer than rail or road transport. You did not engage with this evidence at all, but have dismissed the source as being "pro-market". You have neither provided any relevant reasons why this data should be distrusted nor have you provided any alternate source with different data or conclusions.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I copied and pasted where you said the same thing. Your evasiveness is evasive.

I never said that the people in the affected region had the right to deny the pipeline because it was in their "backyard". Backing caution in decision-making is reasonable and does not mean NIMBY. So your persistent claims to the contrary reflect either intellectual sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Derec]

I never said that the people in the affected region had the right to deny the pipeline because it was in their "backyard".

Well that's what you wrote. Glad you didn't mean it though. Can we move on then?

Backing caution in decision-making is reasonable and does not mean NIMBY. So your persistent claims to the contrary reflect either intellectual sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty.

It's one thing to be cautious, it's another to delay without end even after concerns like rerouting the pipeline around Sand Hills have been addressed.

 

[laughing dog]

Well that's what you wrote. Glad you didn't mean it though. Can we move on then? [.quote[ No it is not what I wrote. And you persist in making the unsubstantiated claim. Whether it is due to intellectual sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty I do not know. But it should stop.

It's one thing to be cautious, it's another to delay without end even after concerns like rerouting the pipeline around Sand Hills have been addressed.

Apparently not to the satisfaction of those directly affected.

 

[Underseer]

Laughing Dog, the only "directly affected" who matter are oil company shareholders.

Why do you hate America? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[bleubird]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=84zIj_EdQdM
A bit emotional,but some good info.
One of the reasons Alaska may not pipe nat gas through Canada is the fear that it will be used to heat the not real oil to get it to market.

 

[SimpleDon]

Administration again delays Keystone pipeline decision

This pipeline should have been approves years ago. Instead, Obama administration is delaying a decision again, probably to after the midterm elections. Given how critical the Senate is and that the endangered Democrats support the pipeline I fear that he already decided to reject the pipeline but doesn't want to announce it before the elections.

That would be a big mistake. Pipeline transport is safer, cheaper and more energy efficient than rail. So rejecting the pipeline and having to haul the oil sands by rail will actually increase carbon emissions.
And even if ecomenatlists managed to shut down Canadian oil sands completely not even that will decrease emissions because there are other sources of oil sands like Orinoco Belt in Venezuela. Of course compared to Canada Venezuela is further away, has less strict environmental regulations and is rather unstable politically.

I built plants in Venezuela and didn't find their environmental laws to be less strict than ours, in fact I believe that we were given a choice of the laws and regulations that we followed, the US or the European ones. I can't say that one is stricter than the other. Since we were a German company we built the plant according to European standards. However, the local market was according to US building codes so we had a few problems but nothing that was insurmountable. And, no we didn't bribe anyone.

But I believe that the pipeline should be built. As you point out repeatedly the alternative, unit trains, is much riskier and less energy efficient.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the pipeline if approved was never built. The rational for the southern leg of the pipeline was to raise the price of oil, not to lower it. There was a glut of oil at the Cushing Junction in Oklahoma. The oil was stuck there, it couldn't go onto the world market and the price of the oil there was lower than world prices. The Southern leg was intended to solve the problem of the lower prices in Oklahoma by allowing crude oil to be pumped to the gulf coast of Texas where they could get the world price. But the administration agreed to allow a pipeline that carried crude oil to be pumped from the gulf coast to the junction to be reversed. This is much harder to do than it sounds but it is of course, much cheaper than a whole new pipeline. Reversing the pipeline had the desired affect and now all of the oil at the junction is at the world price. This section of Keystone XI isn't needed.

Oil from tar sand is a risky proposition. I have seen estimates from 60 to 100 dollars per barrel for the break even point for the oil.

 

[dismal]

But I wouldn't be surprised if the pipeline if approved was never built. The rational for the southern leg of the pipeline was to raise the price of oil, not to lower it. There was a glut of oil at the Cushing Junction in Oklahoma.

The point of a pipeline is always to move oil from where it's cheaper to where it's more expensive. And building one will tend to make it a little more expensive at the origin and a little cheaper at the destination.

As it turns out other pipelines were completed and there is no longer much of a glut at Cushing, and a considerable and growing glut in the US gulf coast. Unless they lift the crude oil export ban there won't be too much incentive to get additional crude there.

 

[Derec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=84zIj_EdQdM
A bit emotional,but some good info.

Bit emotional? Try wholly emotional. Being a photojournalist the tenor of the talk is "a large scale industrial operation is ugly, forests are pretty". He doesn't mention that the oil sands developments have a footprint that is only a very small fraction (current mining footprint is 0.02% of the total Boreal forest area according to this) or that the mining operators are required to reclaim the land after their operations are done. He doesn't mention that the "world's dirtiest oil" emits only 3% more CO₂ total than Gulf oil. He doesn't mention that oil sands deposits are so close to the surface than the Athabasca River is cutting right through the formation and that thus toxins have been leeched out into the river and the lake it flows into since long before any oil sands activity.

Btw, pretty much anyone can be a TEDx speaker.

One of the reasons Alaska may not pipe nat gas through Canada is the fear that it will be used to heat the not real oil to get it to market.

Oh, the oil is real enough. It's just not conventional. Also, where do you get that? Do you have a link?

I built plants in Venezuela and didn't find their environmental laws to be less strict than ours, in fact I believe that we were given a choice of the laws and regulations that we followed, the US or the European ones. I can't say that one is stricter than the other. Since we were a German company we built the plant according to European standards. However, the local market was according to US building codes so we had a few problems but nothing that was insurmountable.

May I ask when you were working in Venezuela? From what you say it seems more an issue of company rules rather than Venezuelan law, and with increasing isolation under Chavez I doubt they much care about following "Yanqui" or European rules any longer.

But I believe that the pipeline should be built. As you point out repeatedly the alternative, unit trains, is much riskier and less energy efficient.

Exactly what I've been saying!

But I wouldn't be surprised if the pipeline if approved was never built.

I would be.

The rational for the southern leg of the pipeline was to raise the price of oil, not to lower it. There was a glut of oil at the Cushing Junction in Oklahoma. The oil was stuck there, it couldn't go onto the world market and the price of the oil there was lower than world prices. The Southern leg was intended to solve the problem of the lower prices in Oklahoma by allowing crude oil to be pumped to the gulf coast of Texas where they could get the world price.

I do not think this is a fair way to put this. If price in a region is artificially lower than elsewhere because some pipelines terminate there but there is no efficient way to move it from there, then it is logical to expand outbound capacity. Saying that the objective is to increase the price of oil makes it sound malicious (and that's exactly the way Keystone opponents have been misconstruing it).

Oil from tar sand is a risky proposition. I have seen estimates from 60 to 100 dollars per barrel for the break even point for the oil.

I don't think there is a chance of oil dipping significantly below 100 USD/bbl anytime soon. And of course, 60-100 is quite a spread and cost will tend to go down with improvements in technology and gains in experience.

 

[Derec]

Apparently not to the satisfaction of those directly affected.

You say it should stop, but this again sounds like you want to give a veto to NIMBYs.
But no matter, it turns out opposition among those "directly affected" is, much like the opposition nationwide, due to a loud minority.
Look at this article about Nebraska.
Highlights:
- 60% of Nebraskans support the pipeline
- 79% of all the NE landowners whose properties are crossed by the proposed pipeline route have agreed to it. All the landowners in states other than NE have also agreed to it.

 

[bleubird]

No i do not have a link.It was from a radio talk show early in the debate about the gas line.The point is moot now,as the gas line will not go through Canada.LNG in state is the plan now,sold on the Asian market.

 

[SimpleDon]

But I wouldn't be surprised if the pipeline if approved was never built. The rational for the southern leg of the pipeline was to raise the price of oil, not to lower it. There was a glut of oil at the Cushing Junction in Oklahoma.

The point of a pipeline is always to move oil from where it's cheaper to where it's more expensive. And building one will tend to make it a little more expensive at the origin and a little cheaper at the destination.

As it turns out other pipelines were completed and there is no longer much of a glut at Cushing, and a considerable and growing glut in the US gulf coast. Unless they lift the crude oil export ban there won't be too much incentive to get additional crude there.

Yes, of course. Pipelines are being built and modified all of the time. For some reason the word "Keystone XI" has become a cause now.

Refining the tar sands does require a refinery set up to do it. Those refineries are on the Gulf Coast, not at Cushing.

The crude oil export ban doesn't effect this discussion as long as the US is importing crude. In the long term it means that the US will import less crude. The crude oil glut at the gulf coast is sitting in tankers waiting offshore to unload. They are use to doing this, during the recession they were waiting for weeks to offload. The glut shows up as days that they have to wait.

All of this is good for the US. The price of oil is moving increasingly out of the control of OPEC. The US is producing more crude oil with the more expensive secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, including fracking. We are increasing our refining capacity, something that we were reluctant to do before, and our exports of finished products are continuing to increase.

The main reason that the US has increased crude oil production is because of the consistently higher price for the oil. It has allowed producers to invest in the expensive recovery methods like fracking to increase the recovery from existing wells.

Since this is nominally a new forum I should have mentioned that I own a very small oil well in North Texas, all that remains of a farm that was owed by my family for 140 years. Also that I worked for more than thirty years building heavy industrial plants all over the world primarily in the mineral and mining processing business. Adjust your consideration of any possible bias and knowledge on my part accordingly if you must.

 

[dismal]

But I wouldn't be surprised if the pipeline if approved was never built. The rational for the southern leg of the pipeline was to raise the price of oil, not to lower it. There was a glut of oil at the Cushing Junction in Oklahoma.

The point of a pipeline is always to move oil from where it's cheaper to where it's more expensive. And building one will tend to make it a little more expensive at the origin and a little cheaper at the destination.

As it turns out other pipelines were completed and there is no longer much of a glut at Cushing, and a considerable and growing glut in the US gulf coast. Unless they lift the crude oil export ban there won't be too much incentive to get additional crude there.

Yes, of course. Pipelines are being built and modified all of the time. For some reason the word "Keystone XI" has become a cause now.

Refining the tar sands does require a refinery set up to do it. Those refineries are on the Gulf Coast, not at Cushing.

Yes and no. They can produce a variety of different products from the tar sands. They can do in situ upgrading, export bitumen, etc. The refineries on the USGC are not specifically set up to run tar sands crude (it would be more accurate to say they are set up to run Mexican and Venezuelan heavies...) but the relevance is it is a very deep refining market so whatever makes it there can be blended into looking more traditional and/or found a good home.

The crude oil export ban doesn't effect this discussion as long as the US is importing crude. In the long term it means that the US will import less crude. The crude oil glut at the gulf coast is sitting in tankers waiting offshore to unload. They are use to doing this, during the recession they were waiting for weeks to offload. The glut shows up as days that they have to wait.

The basic problem is the surge of crudes being produced in the US are not a good fit for the US refinery base. Too light and too sweet. The US refiners have spent a lot of money to be able to handle heavy sour barrels (from places like Venezuela and Mexico). We are just starting to hit the point where we have backed out most of the light sweet imports. What would happen barring the crude oil export ban is that we'd import heavy barrels and export light sweet barrels to places that have less sophisticated refining.

All of this is good for the US. The price of oil is moving increasingly out of the control of OPEC. The US is producing more crude oil with the more expensive secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, including fracking. We are increasing our refining capacity, something that we were reluctant to do before, and our exports of finished products are continuing to increase.

Actually demand for refined products in the US is falling so there's not a lot of incentive to add refining capacity. You do see some efforts aimed at profiting from the changing dynamics described above.

Oddly enough you can't export crude but you can export refined products, so there is some incentive to do the least possible refining to a barrel just so it qualifies for export. Several project underway to do just this. It's silly and inefficient from a societal standpoint but makes perfect sense under the existing laws. Until they change.

 

[SimpleDon]

....

I built plants in Venezuela and didn't find their environmental laws to be less strict than ours, in fact I believe that we were given a choice of the laws and regulations that we followed, the US or the European ones. I can't say that one is stricter than the other. Since we were a German company we built the plant according to European standards. However, the local market was according to US building codes so we had a few problems but nothing that was insurmountable.

May I ask when you were working in Venezuela? From what you say it seems more an issue of company rules rather than Venezuelan law, and with increasing isolation under Chavez I doubt they much care about following "Yanqui" or European rules any longer.

Personally I last worked in Venezuela in the 1970's, in a cement plant in Carabobo. But I bid projects there up until relations between the US and Venezuela soured after the Bush administration interfered in the presidential election in Venezuela in the 2000's. Then any potential work there was handled by my company from our main office in Germany, as they handle any work in Cuba, for example. It is possible that the requirements for following US or European environmental standards were a requirement of the companies involved.

But why do you think that Venezuela wouldn't impose environmental standards? They are imposed for the benefit of the people of the country. I have built plants all over the world including in the PRC and North Korea. I don't recall anywhere that didn't impose environmental standards along the lines that I said, except that the Asian countries tended to select the US standards or the Japanese ones.

I will admit that overall the US standards are the strictest but it is only by a small margin and the gap between the US and the Europeans and the Japanese is closing. We tended to supply equipment capable of meeting the US standards because we source out of the US and it is not worth the effort to re-engineer to to meet the lower the lower standards.

I have a friend here who is Venezuelan and who use to work for the nationalized oil company. I will ask him. In our position if the specifications said to follow certain standards we had no choice but to do it. It is possible that companies inside Venezuela get by routinely with violating the environmental standards.

Venezuela is isolated from the US but not the rest of the world. Their main problem isn't isolation but a difficulty suppliers have getting paid! Vendors are reluctant to supply equipment when they aren't paid for it. The Venezuelans blame it on currency restrictions but we suspect that this is only an excuse to not pay. The currency controls are aimed at preventing capital flight. We had to insist on a letter of credit from a US or European bank, which is not an ironclad guarantee of payment, or even prepayment.

I don't know if you have heard, Chavez is dead.

But I believe that the pipeline should be built. As you point out repeatedly the alternative, unit trains, is much riskier and less energy efficient.

Exactly what I've been saying!

But I wouldn't be surprised if the pipeline if approved was never built.

I would be.

The rational for the southern leg of the pipeline was to raise the price of oil, not to lower it. There was a glut of oil at the Cushing Junction in Oklahoma. The oil was stuck there, it couldn't go onto the world market and the price of the oil there was lower than world prices. The Southern leg was intended to solve the problem of the lower prices in Oklahoma by allowing crude oil to be pumped to the gulf coast of Texas where they could get the world price.

I do not think this is a fair way to put this. If price in a region is artificially lower than elsewhere because some pipelines terminate there but there is no efficient way to move it from there, then it is logical to expand outbound capacity. Saying that the objective is to increase the price of oil makes it sound malicious (and that's exactly the way Keystone opponents have been misconstruing it).

I know that they misconstrue a lot, but we are all friends here, right? And it is the truth that corporations are interested in higher prices, not lower ones. Since they reversed the pipeline the prices paid at the junction have risen to the world prices. Along with gasoline prices in the midwest of the US. Without a drop of oil being pumped to Baytown or Texas City.

Oil from tar sand is a risky proposition. I have seen estimates from 60 to 100 dollars per barrel for the break even point for the oil.

I don't think there is a chance of oil dipping significantly below 100 USD/bbl anytime soon. And of course, 60-100 is quite a spread and cost will tend to go down with improvements in technology and gains in experience.

I agree with that, but more importantly the Canadian company, TransCanadian or something like that, agrees with it. I am not recommending that you buy stock in the company. At the current price of oil their profit margin is low. The Saudis cost of bringing in oil is only about $3 a barrel, a company with costs of $60 to $100 a barrel is exposed to high risk from new discoveries or advancements in recovery technology.

 

[SimpleDon]

The basic problem is the surge of crudes being produced in the US are not a good fit for the US refinery base. Too light and too sweet. The US refiners have spent a lot of money to be able to handle heavy sour barrels (from places like Venezuela and Mexico). We are just starting to hit the point where we have backed out most of the light sweet imports. What would happen barring the crude oil export ban is that we'd import heavy barrels and export light sweet barrels to places that have less sophisticated refining.

....

Actually demand for refined products in the US is falling so there's not a lot of incentive to add refining capacity. You do see some efforts aimed at profiting from the changing dynamics described above.

Oddly enough you can't export crude but you can export refined products, so there is some incentive to do the least possible refining to a barrel just so it qualifies for export. Several project underway to do just this. It's silly and inefficient from a societal standpoint but makes perfect sense under the existing laws. Until they change.

You are a hard person to agree with apparently. You tend to argue with anyone, even the people who agree with you. Why is this? A troubled childhood? You are so use to being wrong that you can't stand it the few times that you are right? (This is meant as a joke by the way.)

This is exactly what I said. I agree with you 100%. The refineries for sweet light oil are in Cushing. The refiners that handle heavier oils are on the Gulf Coast. Yes, no refinery is able to refine 100% bitumen. But the refineries that handle the heavier crudes on the Gulf Coast can mix it with the ones that they run until there is enough of it to justify conversion.

Yes, the restrictions against exporting crude are silly. But the restrictions codified promises that the oil industry made to not export any crude other than North Slope and California crude. The industry shouldn't have promised this.

Exports of finished petroleum products has tripled since the recession. It was virtually nothing before the recession. It is mainly in light fuel oils, diesel oil and home heating oil, and the jet fuels that are a mixture of kerosene and gasoline.