• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

At today's prices, it's about $329 million dollars per day. Sounds like "much" to me.


Don't know, don't care.

Has nothing to do with the topic.

Canada imports about a million bpd from the North Sea, Algeria and Saudi Arabia because they don't have much pipeline capacity to eastern Canada.

Further, when you build a pipeline, you employ site engineers, soil engineers, surveyors, pipefitters, welders, heavy equipment operators etc.. but they don't remain at a given locations..
 
Canada imports about a million bpd from the North Sea, Algeria and Saudi Arabia because they don't have much pipeline capacity to eastern Canada.

Further, when you build a pipeline, you employ site engineers, soil engineers, surveyors, pipefitters, welders, heavy equipment operators etc.. but they don't remain at a given locations..

I'm convinced, based your posts, that you know very little about construction logistics and peripheral job creation. All you post is simple parroting from left wing environmental blogs and papers like the Cornell "study" that was bought and paid for by environmental groups to "find" what they wanted put out as some type of scientific finding.
 
I'm convinced, based your posts, that you know very little about construction logistics and peripheral job creation. All you post is simple parroting from left wing environmental blogs and papers like the Cornell "study" that was bought and paid for by environmental groups to "find" what they wanted put out as some type of scientific finding.

Really? Have you ever been around a pipeline constuction project?
 
I'm convinced, based your posts, that you know very little about construction logistics and peripheral job creation. All you post is simple parroting from left wing environmental blogs and papers like the Cornell "study" that was bought and paid for by environmental groups to "find" what they wanted put out as some type of scientific finding.

Sounds to me like Sharon knows a helluva lot more about the subject than you do. You sound like you're parroting whatever you read on Drudge or hear on Limbaugh.
 
Sounds to me like Sharon knows a helluva lot more about the subject than you do. You sound like you're parroting whatever you read on Drudge or hear on Limbaugh.

Its a lot more sophisticated than it used to be.

16oilsaud.583.jpg
 
Sounds to me like Sharon knows a helluva lot more about the subject than you do. You sound like you're parroting whatever you read on Drudge or hear on Limbaugh.

Really??? Haven't seen anything on Drudge about the pipeline lately and rarely listen to Rush.

Any more inane comments or are you considering actually contributing to the thread for a change ??

By the way, I'll put my 35 years of construction engineering experience up against hers any day.
 
Really??? Haven't seen anything on Drudge about the pipeline lately and rarely listen to Rush.

Any more inane comments or are you considering actually contributing to the thread for a change ??

By the way, I'll put my 35 years of construction engineering experience up against hers any day.

What sort of Construction engineering?
 
Actually, I got my information originally from Wikipedia. They got theirs from the CIA Factbook, a very reputable and accurate source. The Canadian daily production of 3.289 million BPD was from 2009.

Both agreed with the number I posted, so I went with it.

I'll stick to the number I posted.
Excellent, since it so devalues all your other posts and claims in this thread :mrgreen:

What has happened here, folks, is the risk in quoting a number that one does not understand. The CIA/Wikipedia figure includes many things other than simply "crude oil", such as:
"Note that oil production refers to the sum of barrels of crude oil extracted each day from drilling operations compounded with the equivalent production of natural gas liquids and refinery gains from domestic or imported petroleum prduction.[2]" (Wikipedia).

If we look at Canada - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) we see two figures for Canada (2009):
"Total Oil Production: 3.3 million BPD (production of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery process gain (loss))."
"Crude Oil Production: 2.6 million BPD (includes lease condensate)"

If we look at Canada - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) we see: "Of the 2.7 million bbl/d of crude produced in Canada in 2009, 1.35 million bbl/d of that derived from the oil sands of Alberta."

The moral of this story is, when quoting figures, be sure what they actually represent.
 
[...] By the way, I'll put my 35 years of construction engineering experience up against hers any day.
A debate is not a dick size contest, and I doubt anyone wants to volunteer to utilize the yardstick (or the micrometer, as the case may be) in order to determine the winner. Bottom line, it's the internet, you can be whatever you want to be... but to win an argument, you need a factual, rational post.

Not my dick is bigger than your dick (or the related logical fallacy of appeal to authority), which see all too often from some around here.
 
Excellent, since it so devalues all your other posts and claims in this thread :mrgreen:

What has happened here, folks, is the risk in quoting a number that one does not understand. The CIA/Wikipedia figure includes many things other than simply "crude oil", such as:
"Note that oil production refers to the sum of barrels of crude oil extracted each day from drilling operations compounded with the equivalent production of natural gas liquids and refinery gains from domestic or imported petroleum prduction.[2]" (Wikipedia).

If we look at Canada - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) we see two figures for Canada (2009):
"Total Oil Production: 3.3 million BPD (production of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery process gain (loss))."
"Crude Oil Production: 2.6 million BPD (includes lease condensate)"

If we look at Canada - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) we see: "Of the 2.7 million bbl/d of crude produced in Canada in 2009, 1.35 million bbl/d of that derived from the oil sands of Alberta."

The moral of this story is, when quoting figures, be sure what they actually represent.

Well done...........
 
If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?
 
A debate is not a dick size contest, and I doubt anyone wants to volunteer to utilize the yardstick (or the micrometer, as the case may be) in order to determine the winner. Bottom line, it's the internet, you can be whatever you want to be... but to win an argument, you need a factual, rational post.

Not my dick is bigger than your dick (or the related logical fallacy of appeal to authority), which see all too often from some around here.

Then he shouldn't have asked. Take it up with AdamT.

And yours is definitely not bigger.
 
If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?

Because this export pipeline takes advantage of NAFTA and the Free Trade Zone in Texas..
 
If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?
Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.
 
Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.

Impossible? You've been reading too many right-wing blogs.

We are shutting down oil refineries, because there is too much capacity and existing refineries can produce much more product than they do. The need for additional refineries is a right-wing lie started during the last boom in oil prices. The source to look for is the Weekly Energy Report.

weekly energy report - Bing

U.S. Weekly Inputs & Utilization

Originally Posted by radcen
If the oil that will flow through the pipeline is really intended for us, then why not just build the pipeline to the Canadian/US border and let us take it from there? Why is the pipeline going to a gulf port?

That would be impossible, unless Prof. Peabody would lend us his WABAC Machine. The project that was rejected for future study was the Keystone XL project. The Keystone Pipeline already exists.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen ("dilbit") from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the United States, which include refineries in Illinois, Cushing oil distribution hub in Oklahoma, and proposed connections to refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas. It consists of the operational "Keystone Pipeline" (Phase 1) and "Keystone-Cushing Extension" (Phase 2), and two proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion segments. After the Keystone XL pipeline segments are completed, American crude oil would enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana and Cushing, Oklahoma.[1]

The Keystone XL has faced lawsuits from oil refineries and criticism from environmentalists and some members of the United States Congress. The U.S. Department of State in 2010 extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest, and in November, 2011, President Obama postponed the decision until 2013. On November 30, Senate Republicans introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.[2]

Keystone Pipeline

TransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005. In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating that 'the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector'.[3] However, the National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[4] On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[5]

On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[6] However, on June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[7] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[8] The pipeline became operational in June 2010.[9]

Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purple are the existing Keystone pipelines. The reason they want to go to the gulf is because that's where many of the oil refineries are in Texas.

Keystone-XL-Pipeline~~element38.jpg
 
Because the regulations are so bad, it makes it almost impossible to build a new refinery.

Right

So instead of building a refinery in Alberta which would be less enviromentally damaging then the strip mining done for some oil sand production, and would easily pass environmental regulations, they will instead build two pipelines one to ship raw crude to the US, and the other to ship diluent back to Canada at a cost of billions (more then building a new refinery)
 
Right

So instead of building a refinery in Alberta which would be less enviromentally damaging then the strip mining done for some oil sand production, and would easily pass environmental regulations, they will instead build two pipelines one to ship raw crude to the US, and the other to ship diluent back to Canada at a cost of billions (more then building a new refinery)

Our refineries in the Mid West ramped up to process this Canadian slugde and the Keystone SL will by pass them to go to the Free Trade Zones in Texas.

A pipeline will cost 7 billion.. a refinery will cost 5 billion.
 
Impossible? You've been reading too many right-wing blogs.

We are shutting down oil refineries, because there is too much capacity and existing refineries can produce much more product than they do. The need for additional refineries is a right-wing lie started during the last boom in oil prices. The source to look for is the Weekly Energy Report.

weekly energy report - Bing

U.S. Weekly Inputs & Utilization

You sure about that or are you repeating a left wing lie ???

Though oil refinery productivity in the United States has been improving, the number of operating refineries has been dropping steadily. In 1982, the earliest year for which the Energy Information Administration has data, there were 301 operable refineries in the U.S., and they produced about 17.9 million barrels of oil per day. Today there are only 149 refineries, but they're producing 17.4 million barrels – less than in 1982, but more than any year since then. The increase in efficiency is impressive, but it's not enough to meet demand: U.S. oil consumption is 20.7 million barrels per day. Refinery capacity isn't the only factor in the price of gasoline, and according to the EIA it's not the most important one either (that would be the cost of crude oil), but it's certainly a contributor.

Existing refineries have been running at or near full capacity since the mid-1990s, but are failing to meet daily consumption demands. Yet there hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976. Why? Several factors: Building a refinery is expensive, there are a lot of environmental restrictions on where and how they can be built and nobody wants to live near one. One company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has been trying to construct a refinery in the Southwest since 1998. Getting a permit to build took seven years, and the company twice changed the plant's proposed location because of environmental restrictions and land disputes. The refinery is projected to have a $3.7 billion total price tag. The EIA recorded per-barrel profits of $5.29 in 2006; at that rate, the 150,000-barrel-per-day refinery would need to operate for almost 13 years before its profits outweighed the cost of building it.

In short, the reason for not adding more refineries is straightforward: It's hard, and it's expensive. The reason that we have so few in the first place is more complicated. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a surplus of refining capacity. Then, over the course of two decades, half of the plants shut down. In 2001, Oregon senator Ron Wyden presented to Congress a report arguing that these closings were calculated choices intended to increase oil company profits. Fewer refineries means less product in circulation, which means a lower supply-to-demand ratio and more profit. Wyden's report cites internal memos from the oil industry implying that this reduction was a deliberate attempt to curtail profit losses.

FactCheck.org : U.S. Oil Refining Capability
 
Last edited:
Impossible? You've been reading too many right-wing blogs.

We are shutting down oil refineries, because there is too much capacity and existing refineries can produce much more product than they do. The need for additional refineries is a right-wing lie started during the last boom in oil prices. The source to look for is the Weekly Energy Report.

weekly energy report - Bing

U.S. Weekly Inputs & Utilization



That would be impossible, unless Prof. Peabody would lend us his WABAC Machine. The project that was rejected for future study was the Keystone XL project. The Keystone Pipeline already exists.



Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purple are the existing Keystone pipelines. The reason they want to go to the gulf is because that's where many of the oil refineries are in Texas.

Keystone-XL-Pipeline~~element38.jpg

That's great news that the US is now energy independent. Perhaps there need be no more screw-ups like Solyndra and the US can go with what it has.

There was far too much crony capitalism going on in the energy industry, as well as many others, but this oil independence going well into the foreseeable future will go a long way go a long way in returning America to its former greatness.
 
You sure about that or are you repeating a left wing lie ???



FactCheck.org : U.S. Oil Refining Capability

Your fact check is three years old -- when oil use was considerably higher than it is now. Last year our number one export was what? Refined fuel. As the current figures Gary posted show, we presently have about 15% excess capacity, even though we are exporting a **** ton of refined product.
 
Your fact check is three years old -- when oil use was considerably higher than it is now. Last year our number one export was what? Refined fuel. As the current figures Gary posted show, we presently have about 15% excess capacity, even though we are exporting a **** ton of refined product.

Ahhh, so you believe the recession will continue resulting in continued depressed oil usage ?? You might be correct if Obama gets reelected.

Oil is a major export of Canada too, but they also import almost as much.
 
Ahhh, so you believe the recession will continue resulting in continued depressed oil usage ?? You might be correct if Obama gets reelected.

Oil is a major export of Canada too, but they also import almost as much.

I think that our reduced consumption isn't entirely the result of the recession, though it certainly accounts for a lot of it. It also has to do with more efficient cars and trucks and other energy saving measures. And with CAFE standards rising, that should help offset increased demand from the rebounding economy. But the bottom line is that we need to reduce our reliance on oil -- not increase our capacity to use more.
 
Back
Top Bottom