Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

AdamT said:
To be honest, I don't know what they're comparing. They're talking about a decline in the labor participation rate that's neither attributable to retirement nor the bad economy. So what do they attribute it to? And why does taking that mystery drop into consideration make that rate more "real" than the actual rate?

If you want to get a good estimate of unemployment, compare 2010 data to 2000.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

The last column are the figures for Not in Labor Force. Since 2000 only had 4.0% unemployment and low unemployment for prior years, it isn't going to get much better than that. 2000 was a census years, so not only can the change for Not in Labor Force be calculated based on what they call 4% full employment, but the census data can be used to correct the difference in the amount of the population over 65. This give a good estimate of the people not counted in the unemployment statistic who will return to the labor force, when times are good.

The census also publishes data for yearly estimates, so the 2010 data can be updated to 2011 and minor monthly changes can be estimated, just based on changes of the 65 and over population, which are quite small.

The corrections are more accurate than the figures supplied by BLS. You can check how BLS U3 and U6 data compares and see how your calculated U6, based on 2000 stands up.

Gill · Feb 1, 2012

iguanaman said:
Mostly gasoline and ALL of it destined for export. We already export 400,000+ barrels of it a day. How much pollution from refining oil for other countries should we have? How many chlorinated hydrocarbon induced cancer deaths are OK with you so Canada can sell it's "dirty" oil to other countries? Let them take the risks on their soil.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.
The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is about twice the amount at the start of the year, and experts and industry insiders say the trend is here to stay.
The United States began exporting gas in late 2008. For decades prior, starting in 1960, the country used all the gas it produced here plus had to import gas from places in Europe.
But demand for gas has dropped nearly 10% in recent years. It went from a peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in 2007 to 8.8 million barrels today, according to the EIA.

I keep seeing claims that it will be exported, but have yet to see any credible proof offered. I've asked several others, now it's your turn.

AdamT · Feb 1, 2012

Gary said:
If you want to get a good estimate of unemployment, compare 2010 data to 2000.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

The last column are the figures for Not in Labor Force. Since 2000 only had 4.0% unemployment and low unemployment for prior years, it isn't going to get much better than that. 2000 was a census years, so not only can the change for Not in Labor Force be calculated based on what they call 4% full employment, but the census data can be used to correct the difference in the amount of the population over 65. This give a good estimate of the people not counted in the unemployment statistic who will return to the labor force, when times are good.

The census also publishes data for yearly estimates, so the 2010 data can be updated to 2011 and minor monthly changes can be estimated, just based on changes of the 65 and over population, which are quite small.

The corrections are more accurate than the figures supplied by BLS. You can check how BLS U3 and U6 data compares and see how your calculated U6, based on 2000 stands up.

That's actually not a very good comparison at all, as 2000 was right at the height of the dotcom bubble, which boosted the economy and employment.

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

iguanaman said:
Mostly gasoline and ALL of it destined for export. We already export 400,000+ barrels of it a day. How much pollution from refining oil for other countries should we have? How many chlorinated hydrocarbon induced cancer deaths are OK with you so Canada can sell it's "dirty" oil to other countries? Let them take the risks on their soil.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.
The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is about twice the amount at the start of the year, and experts and industry insiders say the trend is here to stay.
The United States began exporting gas in late 2008. For decades prior, starting in 1960, the country used all the gas it produced here plus had to import gas from places in Europe.
But demand for gas has dropped nearly 10% in recent years. It went from a peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in 2007 to 8.8 million barrels today, according to the EIA.

U.S. Imports & Exports

For the week of 1/27/12, the U.S. imported 214,000 of finished motor gasoline and exported 626,000, meaning we exported 412,000 more than we imported. The weekly reports for the import data go all the way back to 1994 and the reports for the export data go back to 2010.

Wake · Feb 1, 2012

Karl said:
The comment is self evident (there are two, actually). However, if I were trolling, you shouldn't bite on the hook

Hackery. Show how your comments are "self-evident." Only logical axioms are self-evident.

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

Axiom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

AdamT said:
That's actually not a very good comparison at all, as 2000 was right at the height of the dotcom bubble, which boosted the economy and employment.

I think it's a good comparison, because your looking for a time when people will be drawn out of the Not in Labor Force category. That's why I said, it won't get any better than that. The Fed will stop the economy and not allow unemployment to go lower than 4%.

The dot.com bubble was just a stock bubble and didn't have much of an affect the labor market. The loss of the money, after it bursted, is what affected the labor market.

I always called that time the so-called Bush recession, because it's the first time in history the NBER called a recession that didn't have three consecutive quarters of negative GDP. I think buying up those government bonds were giving the Fed problems with bank lending, because the government bonds are used for collateral. Greenspan is on record opposing paying off the national debt and so is Bush.

tecoyah · Feb 1, 2012

Gary said:
I think it's a good comparison, because your looking for a time when people will be drawn out of the Not in Labor Force category. That's why I said, it won't get any better than that. The Fed will stop the economy and not allow unemployment to go lower than 4%.

The dot.com bubble was just a stock bubble and didn't have much of an affect the labor market. The loss of the money, after it bursted, is what affected the labor market.

I always called that time the so-called Bush recession, because it's the first time in history the NBER called a recession that didn't have three consecutive quarters of negative GDP. I think buying up those government bonds were giving the Fed problems with bank lending, because the government bonds are used for collateral. Greenspan is on record opposing paying off the national debt and so is Bush.

Please correct me if I am wrong (and I truly hope I am), but are you actually trying to place this recession on the guy who came AFTER Bush? If you can look at the mounds of Data explaining what led to this, and still pretend the guy in your Avatar did not contribute in a massive way to what we are trying to fix...Your opinion in the real world holds little value.

iguanaman · Feb 1, 2012

Gill said:
I keep seeing claims that it will be exported, but have yet to see any credible proof offered. I've asked several others, now it's your turn.

1. The Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline. The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline's route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivers enhances their capacity to do so.

2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation's top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline's capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

3. The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing, and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand, while technological advances have opened up new sources in the United States. Increasingly, U.S. refiners are turning to export.

These facts reveal the important truth that the Keystone XL pipeline would not in fact enhance U.S. energy security at all. The construction of Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil—rather, it will feed the growing trend of exporting refined products out of the United States, thereby doing nothing to enhance energy security or to stabilize oil prices or gasoline prices at the pump. If completed, it will successfully achieve a long-term objective of Canadian tar sands producers—to gain access to export markets.

The oil market is fundamentally global. The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil.

Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

tecoyah said:
Please correct me if I am wrong (and I truly hope I am), but are you actually trying to place this recession on the guy who came AFTER Bush? If you can look at the mounds of Data explaining what led to this, and still pretend the guy in your Avatar did not contribute in a massive way to what we are trying to fix...Your opinion in the real world holds little value.

I don't know what gave you that idea.

What I'm talking about is the reality that what is reported for unemployment is U3 unemployment and that number doesn't decrease rapidly, because people listed as Not in the Labor Force will eventually enter to the labor force and either be counted as working or not. I showed them how to correctly estimate how many in that category would return by comparing it to a time considered full employment and adjust it with census figures of people 65 and older.

The early blue is the so-called Bush recession:

Gill · Feb 1, 2012

iguanaman said:
1. The Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline. The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline's route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivers enhances their capacity to do so.

2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation's top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline's capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

3. The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing, and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand, while technological advances have opened up new sources in the United States. Increasingly, U.S. refiners are turning to export.

These facts reveal the important truth that the Keystone XL pipeline would not in fact enhance U.S. energy security at all. The construction of Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil—rather, it will feed the growing trend of exporting refined products out of the United States, thereby doing nothing to enhance energy security or to stabilize oil prices or gasoline prices at the pump. If completed, it will successfully achieve a long-term objective of Canadian tar sands producers—to gain access to export markets.

The oil market is fundamentally global. The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil.

Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

You obviously missed the part where I asked for a CREDIBLE source for your claims. Policy Innovations is a far left environmental organization and is obviously biased.

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

iguanaman said:
1. The Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline. The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline's route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivers enhances their capacity to do so.

2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation's top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline's capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

3. The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing, and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand, while technological advances have opened up new sources in the United States. Increasingly, U.S. refiners are turning to export.

These facts reveal the important truth that the Keystone XL pipeline would not in fact enhance U.S. energy security at all. The construction of Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil—rather, it will feed the growing trend of exporting refined products out of the United States, thereby doing nothing to enhance energy security or to stabilize oil prices or gasoline prices at the pump. If completed, it will successfully achieve a long-term objective of Canadian tar sands producers—to gain access to export markets.

The oil market is fundamentally global. The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil.

Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

There are a few things right and wrong with that assessment. We export final product, because we have the refining capacity and other places near us don't. It isn't like you fill a supertanker with gasoline and send it around the world. You fill a barge and send it along the coast or somewhere nearby. The question then becomes, where do you send it, if it's going to be exported? The it becomes unrefined material, if it's a long distance. There is a 0.860 million (max cap.) barrel per day(mbpd) Trans-Panama pipeline that Venezuela uses to supply the Pacific markets and it runs around 0.5 mbpd. It was built because of a lack of Panama Canal size tankers and used to bring Alaskan crude to east coast markets. Now, it's flowing the other way with Venezuelan crude. The only market in the world that makes sense in the near future is our market in North America and the Asian market in the Far East. If you wanted to ship oil to the Asian markets, you wouldn't take it to the Gulf.

Tar sands have heavy hydrocarbons, 20 carbons for pariffns, while fuels are in the 7 to 8 carbon range. The logical thing to do is to crack the large hydrocarbons into the fuel carbon range and use the solvents to extract the hydrocarbons, instead of mining them. Saturated hydrocarbons, like we use, usually have three carbons on the ends and two in the middle, so extra hydrogen is required to optimize production of fuel range hydrocarbons. This can be accomplished by using light hydrocarbons, like those in natural gas, mostly 1 and 2 carbon. Canada has tar sands equal to the known world reserves of crude oil and so does Venezuela. A cracking and alkylation facility isn't as sophisticated as an oil refinery and building them on site and using solvent extraction is the logical thing to do with tar sands.

I see future plans to bring natural gas from Alaska, that is presently just pumped back into the ground and exploit Canadian resources, because the proposed natural gas pipelines ends, where the tar sands begins. I see future plans to build pipelines to the Pacific and Atlantic and to service the North American market.

Karl · Feb 1, 2012

Gill said:
You obviously missed the part where I asked for a CREDIBLE source for your claims. Policy Innovations is a far left environmental organization and is obviously biased.

This should make it clear to everyone what you're doing with your time when you try to have a rational discussion with the right -- wasting it.

Karl · Feb 1, 2012

Gill said:
So, it is your opinion that the news releases from the governor of Nebraska's office as well as the news release from TransCanada are incorrect ???? [....]

At this point in the thread, TransCanada's "20,000 jobs" claim has been clearly debunked. Yet, as we see above, some have missed that boat.

So, Gill, it is not anyone's opinion that TransCanada issues incorrect news releases, it is fact.

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

Karl said:
This should make it clear to everyone what you're doing with your time when you try to have a rational discussion with the right -- wasting it.

I discuss thing with the right, but it isn't like I'm trying to convince them. It isn't a waste of time to take what they say and refute it. There are others who haven't made up their minds or who are interested in hearing opposing views. We should be encouraging the stupidity of the right and not rebuke those who demonstate it. They are doing us a favor.

Karl · Feb 1, 2012

Gary said:
I discuss thing with the right, but it isn't like I'm trying to convince them. It isn't a waste of time to take what they say and refute it. [...]

Agreed. My point is that it is often useless to talk to them. I did not mean to imply it was worthless to talk at them

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

Karl said:
Agreed. My point is that it is often useless to talk to them. I did not mean to imply it was worthless to talk at them

If every word was Ritalin, it wouldn't penetrate the right-wing brain.

AdamT · Feb 1, 2012

Gary said:
I think it's a good comparison, because your looking for a time when people will be drawn out of the Not in Labor Force category. That's why I said, it won't get any better than that. The Fed will stop the economy and not allow unemployment to go lower than 4%.

The dot.com bubble was just a stock bubble and didn't have much of an affect the labor market. The loss of the money, after it bursted, is what affected the labor market.

I always called that time the so-called Bush recession, because it's the first time in history the NBER called a recession that didn't have three consecutive quarters of negative GDP. I think buying up those government bonds were giving the Fed problems with bank lending, because the government bonds are used for collateral. Greenspan is on record opposing paying off the national debt and so is Bush.

Okay, I didn't understand why you picked '00, but that makes some sense.

People forget that the Bush tax cuts were justified to the public on the basis of projected budget surpluses. What on earth was the government going to do with all that excess cash?! Pay down the debt? Hah!

iguanaman · Feb 1, 2012

Gill said:
You obviously missed the part where I asked for a CREDIBLE source for your claims. Policy Innovations is a far left environmental organization and is obviously biased.

The source (in bold) was VALERO, are you saying they lied to their investors about their plans for that oil? Someone should report them to the SEC....I think that's a felony.
It really doesn't matter to you if the oil is all going to be exported, or that the pipeline for tar sand oil is far more dangerous then a normal crude line, or that it really won't lower prices for us a nickle either. What matters is that global big oil companies want it, so it must be good for us.....somehow. If we all think like that we won't find another source of energy until we use every expensive drop thay can squeeze out of the ground and US.

Gary · Feb 1, 2012

AdamT said:
Okay, I didn't understand why you picked '00, but that makes some sense.

People forget that the Bush tax cuts were justified to the public on the basis of projected budget surpluses. What on earth was the government going to do with all that excess cash?! Pay down the debt? Hah!

They also forget the libertarian Greenspan didn't want the national debt paid down, because the Federal Reserve uses Treasuries as collateral for banks borrowing from it. I guess you can be against the Fed as a libertarian, if you don't work for it. Greenspan kept warning about "irrational exuberance" and when no one listened, he raised interest rates to pop the dot.com bubble and slow the economy. They also forget Bush managed to spend all that money, including two wars and had no jobs creation in his first term.

AdamT · Feb 1, 2012

Gary said:
They also forget the libertarian Greenspan didn't want the national debt paid down, because the Federal Reserve uses Treasuries as collateral for banks borrowing from it. I guess you can be against the Fed as a libertarian, if you don't work for it. Greenspan kept warning about "irrational exuberance" and when no one listened, he raised interest rates to pop the dot.com bubble and slow the economy. They also forget Bush managed to spend all that money, including two wars and had no jobs creation in his first term.

That, and the majority of the job creation in his second term was in the financial and housing sectors, i.e. an illusion.

Gary · Feb 2, 2012

Gill said:
You obviously missed the part where I asked for a CREDIBLE source for your claims. Policy Innovations is a far left environmental organization and is obviously biased.

Here's the weekly export report for gasoline:

Weekly U.S. Exports of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Here's the weekly import report for gasoline:

Weekly U.S. Imports of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)

The gasoline export report only goes back to the 1st week of Jun, 2010, where we exported 155,000 barrels per day. In fact, we exported the same amount for 10 straight weeks and who knows what we exported before the report begins.

Once the Keystone pipeline was completed and supplying those refineries in the plains, our exports increased. On the 2nd, 3rd and 4th week of Jan, 2012, we exported 626,000 barrels per day of gasoline.

It used to be those gulf refineries supplied the plains area via the Mississippi and now they are exporting the gasoline to the Carribean market. The Keystone Pipeline only has a Maximum discharge of 0.59 Mbbl/d and you will notice it was routed through the oil discoveries in North Dakota and across the Canadian border.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has two phases:

Phase 3

This phase, known as Cushing MarketLink, is part of the Keystone XL pipeline. This proposed phase would start from Cushing, Oklahoma where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would expand 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.[1] Also proposed is an approximate 47 miles (76 km) previous pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas to the Houston, Texas area.[1][34]

Domestic oil producers in the USA are pushing for this phase so the glut of oil can be distributed out of the large oil tank farms and distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma. On November 16, 2011, Enbridge announced it is buying ConocoPhillips' 50% interest in the Seaway pipeline that flows from the Gulf of Mexico to the Cushing hub. In cooperation with Enterprise Products Partners LP it plans to reverse the Seaway pipeline so that an oversupply of oil at Cushing could reach the Gulf.[35] This project will replace the earlier proposed alternative Wrangler pipeline project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.[35][36] However, according to industries, the Seaway line alone is not enough for oil transportation to the Gulf Coast.[37]

Phase 4

This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline and would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada as the main pipeline.[10] The Canadian section would consist of 529 kilometres (329 mi) of new pipeline.[12] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana and travel through Baker, Montana where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[1] This phase has generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the top of the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska.[38]

Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, they want to take a direct route and not follow the old route.

In my opinion, the oil companies are taking the Carribean market away from Venezuela crude and it's obvious, they are already at or near the capacity of the existing Keystone Pipeline. There are other pipeline proposals to relieve the oil glut in Cushing, Oklahoma, but the interest is to add more Canadian tar sands to the gulf refineries. These pipelines don't have the capacity to supply enough exports to drive down worldwide crude prices, but they could hurt the Venezuelan market.

Gill · Feb 2, 2012

Karl said:
This should make it clear to everyone what you're doing with your time when you try to have a rational discussion with the right -- wasting it.

I'll save your post for the next time you complain about someone's source.

Gill · Feb 2, 2012

Karl said:
At this point in the thread, TransCanada's "20,000 jobs" claim has been clearly debunked. Yet, as we see above, some have missed that boat.

So, Gill, it is not anyone's opinion that TransCanada issues incorrect news releases, it is fact.

Gotcha........ because you don't trust TransCanada as a source, you also don't believe the Governor's office or the dozens of other sources for this information ???

Why the hell do you think the State Department declared that a new review of the pipeline was needed ????? The State Department had already approved the pipeline route though the Sand Hills area !!! Do you also not believe the State Department ????

The ignorance of some posts in astounding.............and THAT'S A FACT !

Gill · Feb 2, 2012

iguanaman said:
The source (in bold) was VALERO, are you saying they lied to their investors about their plans for that oil? Someone should report them to the SEC....I think that's a felony.
It really doesn't matter to you if the oil is all going to be exported, or that the pipeline for tar sand oil is far more dangerous then a normal crude line, or that it really won't lower prices for us a nickle either. What matters is that global big oil companies want it, so it must be good for us.....somehow. If we all think like that we won't find another source of energy until we use every expensive drop thay can squeeze out of the ground and US.

And yet your link is only to a liberal environmental group called Policy Innovations. Did you mistype the link or fail to put a link to Valero claiming what you think ??

I think, and I believe most Americans agree, that the more oil on the market, the better for all of us. Obama will be hammered on this for the next 10 months.

Gill · Feb 2, 2012

Gary said:
In my opinion,

We can stop here, because that's all you have.

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Illusionary