Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

j-mac · Jan 26, 2012

tecoyah said:
Ok, I wont tell you that as it would be a false statement. My point was simply that by attempting to force a decision that was clearly not yet ready to be made, based on ongoing impact studies, state dept. requirements, and public outcry...the "Opposition" tried to overstep, if not bypass the requirements for approval. Honestly, I do not see where Obama had any choice in the matter...and probably got kinda pissed off too, as would anyone who was being bullied.

Please change your lean to 'progressive' because independent is as transparently false as your line here. Look, this pipeline has been studied now longer than it took us to win WWII. Are you kidding me? There are now, at this moment many pipelines already traversing over the aqua fur, in the Sand Hills region and have operated with no problem. This is stall tactic plain and simple. But, I don't think it will be til after the election. In fact, how much do you wanna bet, that Obama comes out in Sept. and all of the sudden cites pressure from repubs, and signs to go ahead, then turns and uses it in his election....What a putz this guy is.

You talk about delegating, what has this President done on his own in the past three years? Nothing I can see.

j-mac

sharon · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Ahh, ahhh, ahhh..........you can't change your facts in midstream.

You originally said Canada PRODUCES 2.5 million barrels per YEAR.

Now you are switching to EXPORTING 2.2 million barrels per DAY, which is correct.

Your production figure does not appear that it includes tar sand bitumen, which contributes almost 800,000 barrels a day. Canadian oil production in 2011 was over 2.9 million barrels per day, NOT including the bitumen.

Yes, including bitumen. NEB - Pricing - Crude Oil and Petroleum Products - The Canadian Industry

Look..

They are producing some 300,000 barrels more than my old data, but they import crude from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and West Africa.. some from Nigeria.. Then they EXPORT 64% of total.

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

sharon said:
Yes, including bitumen. NEB - Pricing - Crude Oil and Petroleum Products - The Canadian Industry

Look..

They are producing some 300,000 barrels more than my old data, but they import crude from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and West Africa.. some from Nigeria.. Then they EXPORT 64% of total.

Not according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Their figures indicate that 2.828 million barrels of conventional oil and 1.616 million barrels of oil bitumen were ACTUALLY produced in 2010.

http://www.capp.ca/forecast/Pages/default.aspx#SFZVxNyTcLJA

sangha · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Not according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Their figures indicate that 2.828 million barrels of conventional oil and 1.616 million barrels of oil bitumen were ACTUALLY produced in 2010.

Canadian Crude Oil Forecast and Market Outlook - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Umm, sharon said Cananda produces about 2.8 bpd (in 2010):

sharon said:
Canada produced about 2.8 million bpd in 2010

And now you're citing the same # to prove that she's wrong? :lol:

Gill said:
2.828 million barrels of conventional oil ...were ACTUALLY produced in 2010.

sharon · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Ahh, ahhh, ahhh..........you can't change your facts in midstream.

You originally said Canada PRODUCES 2.5 million barrels per YEAR.

Now you are switching to EXPORTING 2.2 million barrels per DAY, which is correct.

Your production figure does not appear that it includes tar sand bitumen, which contributes almost 800,000 barrels a day. Canadian oil production in 2011 was over 2.9 million barrels per day, NOT including the bitumen.

"Year" was a typing error on my part.. They export 64% of their total production and import little over 1 million barrels per day from OPEC..

In other words Canada is upside down because of their NAFTA obligations.

Canada now produces MORE tar sands than conventional oil... that's why our US (Mid West) refineries geared up to refine those tar sands in 2007 and 2008.

MoSurveyor · Jan 26, 2012

j-mac said:
There are now, at this moment many pipelines already traversing over the aqua fur, in the Sand Hills region and have operated with no problem.

The aquifer, yes, the Sand Hills region, no. Look at the pipeline maps, there's a huge hole (no pipelines) in north central Nebraska.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Nebraska as a state has the right to decide where they want the thing to go. If TransCan wanted this to be as smooth and easy as possible they should have talked to the states along the route before filing, what turned out to be, a bogus route that cost US money to review. It's no one's fault but their own.

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

sangha said:
Umm, sharon said Cananda produces about 2.8 bpd (in 2010):

And now you're citing the same # to prove that she's wrong? :lol:

Did you learn how to add in the first grade ???

2.828 mbd of conventional

PLUS

1.616 mbd of bitumen oil

:lamo

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
The aquifer, yes, the Sand Hills region, no.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Nebraska as a state has the right to decide where they want the thing to go. If TransCan wanted this to be as smooth and easy as possible they should have talked to the states along the route before filing, what turned out to be, a bogus route that cost US money to review. It's no one's fault but their own.

Nebraska negotiated with TransCanada last November and the pipeline was moved east of the aquifer and the Sand Hills, so this is now a moot point.

sharon · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Ahh, ahhh, ahhh..........you can't change your facts in midstream.

You originally said Canada PRODUCES 2.5 million barrels per YEAR.

Now you are switching to EXPORTING 2.2 million barrels per DAY, which is correct.

Your production figure does not appear that it includes tar sand bitumen, which contributes almost 800,000 barrels a day. Canadian oil production in 2011 was over 2.9 million barrels per day, NOT including the bitumen.

Canada NOW produces more bitumen than conventional oil..

Try this:

North Sea decline has forced eastern Canada to increasingly rely on Algeria, Angola and Iraq to fill the gap, all countries with political stability risks.

Hughes’ analysis of the drop in export capacity of key “safe suppliers” fits nicely with the work of Jeff Brown, Robert Hirsch, Jeff Rubin, and Paul Stevens, all of whom have addressed the impending threat of oil export decline. Hughes’ analysis appears to be unique insofar as he has applied the export decline syndrome to the energy security of a specific import-dependent region.

In the case of eastern Canada, there is the obvious solution of supplying this region from western Canada. Hughes examines this and other options, and points out certain complications, including the decline in crude production in Atlantic Canada, the lack of pipeline infrastructure from western Canada to Atlantic Canada, and Canada’s commitment to exporting crude oil to the United States under the terms of the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Other import-dependent regions are facing similar problems and would do well to undertake a similar analysis of their own supply of imports, how their supply sources may be changing, and the prognosis for future long-term import supply.

Meanwhile, the overriding warning is clear: we cannot all be importers.

Review of "Eastern Canadian crude oil supply and its implications for regional energy security" | Energy Bulletin

MoSurveyor · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Nebraska negotiated with TransCanada last November and the pipeline was moved east of the aquifer and the Sand Hills, so this is now a moot point.

Except that 500 miles of new routing now has to be reviewed and approved. That takes time. Sure, we're not waiting on Nebraska anymore but they're part of the reason it's taking so long.

People are screaming because it took Uncle Sam 3 years to review a 1500 mile project but it took the State of Nebraska the same three years to look at a map and decide they couldn't live with it. Now that Nebraska is finally happy (though I still don't think it's set in stone yet) everyone expects Uncle Sam to get 500 miles done in three months. :roll:

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Except that 500 miles of new routing now has to be reviewed and approved. That takes time. Sure, we're not waiting on Nebraska anymore but they're part of the reason it's taking so long.

People are screaming because it took Uncle Sam 3 years to review a 1500 mile project but it took the State of Nebraska the same three years to look at a map and decide they couldn't live with it. Now that Nebraska is finally happy (though I still don't think it's set in stone yet) everyone expects Uncle Sam to get 500 miles done in three months. :roll:

TransCanada is now considering building the pipeline in the U.S., but not crossing the Canadian border. That way, Obama and the State Department cannot deny its construction.

By the time the U.S.portion is completed, the border crossing construction will be approved, or even better, Obama will be voted out.

sangha · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Did you learn how to add in the first grade ???

2.828 mbd of conventional

PLUS

1.616 mbd of bitumen oil

:lamo

She already said that she wasn't including bitumen oil

MoSurveyor · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
TransCanada is now considering building the pipeline in the U.S., but not crossing the Canadian border. That way, Obama and the State Department cannot deny its construction.

By the time the U.S.portion is completed, the border crossing construction will be approved,

I'm surprised they haven't started the OK-TX pipeline already. Everyone knows it needs to be done - with companies lining up to use it now - so why they're dragging their feet I'll never know.

I have nothing against XL at all but I also don't see the urgency.

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

sangha said:
She already said that she wasn't including bitumen oil

Like she did in this post ???

sharon said:
Yes, including bitumen. NEB - Pricing - Crude Oil and Petroleum Products - The Canadian Industry

Look..

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I'm surprised they haven't started the OK-TX pipeline already. Everyone knows it needs to be done - with companies lining up to use it now - so why they're dragging their feet I'll never know.

I wouldn't be surprised if they started it soon. They were probably hoping to get approval on the entire project first.

sharon · Jan 26, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I'm surprised they haven't started the OK-TX pipeline already. Everyone knows it needs to be done - with companies lining up to use it now - so why they're dragging their feet I'll never know.

The game is changing.

"What's occurring is a rebalancing of the world oil supply," says Daniel Yergin, energy historian and author of The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. He says Brazil's newly produced offshore oil, which he calls "presalt" because it's beneath a thick layer of salt, will further tip the scales.

The US is using less and producing more.. Saudi is selling more to China and Canadians are beginning to think they should be looking to China as a buyer. The Keystone XL may be a quick fix tht will just as quickly become redundant.

j-mac · Jan 26, 2012

sharon said:
The game is changing.

"What's occurring is a rebalancing of the world oil supply," says Daniel Yergin, energy historian and author of The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. He says Brazil's newly produced offshore oil, which he calls "presalt" because it's beneath a thick layer of salt, will further tip the scales.

The US is using less and producing more.. Saudi is selling more to China and Canadians are beginning to think they should be looking to China as a buyer. The Keystone XL may be a quick fix tht will just as quickly become redundant.

The only reason the game is changing is because the US is committing suicide.

j-mac

sharon · Jan 26, 2012

j-mac said:
The only reason the game is changing is because the US is committing suicide.

j-mac

Well that was real thetrical, but has NOTHING to do with the facts.

Lord Tammerlain · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
Did you learn how to add in the first grade ???

2.828 mbd of conventional

PLUS

1.616 mbd of bitumen oil

:lamo

The article you posted states clearly pg 3 of http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=190838
for 2010 2.8 million barrels per day including oil sands. Oil sands alone 1.5 million per day.

Sharon was off by 300 000 you are off by 1.5 million

I think someone else needs to go to first grade for better reading skills

Gill · Jan 26, 2012

Lord Tammerlain said:
The article you posted states clearly pg 3 of http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=190838
for 2010 2.8 million barrels per day including oil sands. Oil sands alone 1.5 million per day.

Sharon was off by 300 000 you are off by 1.5 million

I think someone else needs to go to first grade for better reading skills

And someone needs to learn that you have to read past the first page of a report.

Try looking at the Appendix at the rear of the report. :doh

Lord Tammerlain · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
And someone needs to learn that you have to read past the first page of a report.

Try looking at the Appendix at the rear of the report. :doh

You mean like Appendix B.2 pg 29

Which clearly states

Total Canadian Oil Production of 2.828 million barrels per day

I think you will require the breakdown simplified to be able to understand. The 2.828 mpd includes

0.948 million barrels per day of conventional oil

and

1.470 million barrels per day of oil sands production

throw in

0.276 million barrels per day of oil produced in atlantic Canada along with condensate at 0.134 million barrels per day and somehow you come up with a magical number of 2.828 million barrels per day, rounded off to 2.8 million barrels, the exact number placed on page 3:doh:doh

I dont know but most articles if they have been proof read at all will have the data in the appendix support the data in other areas of the article

sharon · Jan 26, 2012

2011 Canadian Crude Oil Forecast and Market Outlook - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

This shows 2.9 million barrels from all sources.

2011 Canadian Crude Oil Forecast and Market Outlook

MoSurveyor · Jan 26, 2012

Gill said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they started it soon. They were probably hoping to get approval on the entire project first.

I thought the OK-TX line was a separate deal from the border-crossing section? I guess I need to google some more.

Gill · Jan 27, 2012

Lord Tammerlain said:
You mean like Appendix B.2 pg 29

Which clearly states

Total Canadian Oil Production of 2.828 million barrels per day

I think you will require the breakdown simplified to be able to understand. The 2.828 mpd includes

0.948 million barrels per day of conventional oil

and

1.470 million barrels per day of oil sands production

throw in

0.276 million barrels per day of oil produced in atlantic Canada along with condensate at 0.134 million barrels per day and somehow you come up with a magical number of 2.828 million barrels per day, rounded off to 2.8 million barrels, the exact number placed on page 3:doh:doh

I dont know but most articles if they have been proof read at all will have the data in the appendix support the data in other areas of the article

I guess I'll have to take you by your little hand and put your finger on the data. Yes, it says that oil production was 2.8 mbd. Directly below that number, AS I'VE BEEN POINTING OUT IN THE LAST 5 POSTS, is a figure for an additional 1.6 mbd of oil sands raw bitumen.

Guess you haven't figured out that you have to look at the bottom of a table of data to get the final total rather than pulling a number out of the middle.

Lord Tammerlain · Jan 27, 2012

Gill said:
I guess I'll have to take you by your little hand and put your finger on the data. Yes, it says that oil production was 2.8 mbd. Directly below that number, AS I'VE BEEN POINTING OUT IN THE LAST 5 POSTS, is a figure for an additional 1.6 mbd of oil sands raw bitumen.

Guess you haven't figured out that you have to look at the bottom of a table of data to get the final total rather than pulling a number out of the middle.

Fail again

I was waiting for you to say that

Perhaps someone other then myself should read the table of data fully and completely including the notes. Like this one

**Raw bitumen numbers are highlighted. The oil sands production numbers (as historically published) are a combination of upgraded crude oil and bitumen and therefore incorporate yield losses from
integrated upgrader projects. Production from off-site upgrading projects are included in the production numbers as bitumen

You see that note is highlighting the entire raw oil sands production, which is larger then the number in the table for oil sands production because it is the raw production and does not account for the loss's during upgrading, and as such is not avaliable for sale.

In the upgrading process they loss 146 thousand barrels of oil which takes the number from 1.616 mpd to 1.470 mbp

I suggest when you read things you read them fully, the notes typically are very important to understand what the table is stating, and by not reading and understanding it you misread the table, making an inaccurate assumption which caused you to believe Canada is producing 1.5 million barrels per day that it is not