Biden kills Keystone XL permit.... again

[LV426]

The safest way to transport oil - The Washington Postwww.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2015/02/20
Feb 20, 2015 — This is crazy. Oil pipelines are far safer and many times more efficient than shipping oil by rail. Even less-safe modes — truck or barge transport ...

There already is a pipeline that takes crude from Alberta to the US.

And it takes so much crude that it's oversupplied in the US.

So building a pipeline that takes crude from Alberta to the Gulf Coast is unnecessary for our energy needs.

There is no reason other than money for diverting shale to the USGC from the US Midwest.

 

[Sailor]

The safest way to transport oil - The Washington Postwww.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2015/02/20
Feb 20, 2015 — This is crazy. Oil pipelines are far safer and many times more efficient than shipping oil by rail. Even less-safe modes — truck or barge transport ...

That is absolutely correct. Not to mention how much less of a carbon and environmental footprint it has. So lets sum up what the democrats did. Killed thousands of high paying union jobs not to mention the peripheral businesses that supported it...and are adding immensely to the climate change they say they are trying to stop. democrats would show up to a house fire to put it out with a gas tanker, not a fire truck.

 

[Bigdog]

Distinct correlation.

You all promised that your tax cut would grow the economy, but one year after it, manufacturing shrank, and then a year after that, the economy entered a recession.

Correlation is NOT causation.

Right, they are a Canadian company that is building a Canadian pipeline to take Canadian shale to the Gulf Coast where they can sell it to China at a higher markup than they currently sell it to us.

And they haven't said how many of the 1,000 jobs this might create would be Canadian vs. American.

Traqnscanada does NOT own or sell oil.

TransCanada, in their permit application for KXL, stated the reason for it is so they can sell their shale for more than they currently sell it to us.

Transcanada does NOT own or sell oil.

Its not my prediction, it's TransCanada's:

“Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”

Currently, the oversupply discount is about 10-15 dollars below the global market price. With two pipelines, Alberta will be able to almost double production.

Canadian oil from the KXL will increase global supply, lowering the global price, and hurting Pootie's economy that you, Joe and Bernie love so effing much.

It also provides better energy security for the USA you hate so effing much.

 

[Bigdog]

OK, so you have homework, then...

Your homework assignment is to determine how many barrels of oil are lost every year from pipeline leaks vs. how many barrels of oil are lost every year from train accidents.

That's the only way to determine which is safer.

I gave you the most leftwing biased propaganda source I could find.

 

[LV426]

Correlation is NOT causation.

Well, if tax cuts then aren't responsible for the recession, then they're not responsible for economic growth.

raqnscanada does NOT own or sell oil

What does that have to do with why they're building it?

Currently, the oversupply discount is about 10-15 dollars below the global market price.

Cite this.

With two pipelines, Alberta will be able to almost double production.

They can produce now, and the pipeline will only divert the shale to the Gulf, where it can be sold for a higher price.

Canadian oil from the KXL will increase global supply, lowering the global price

NO IT WON'T.

TransCanada even said it won't in their permit application.

They said it would increase the pricing, and the only losers in that scenario would be US because we get a discount right now for the shale, you fucking moron.

It also provides better energy security for the USA you hate so effing much.

No it doesn't at all! It reduces our energy security because instead of the oil going to the Midwest where it's discounted, it's going to the Gulf Coast where it's not.

So we would end up paying more for less.

 

[LV426]

:I gave you the most leftwing biased propaganda source I could find.

No, you gave me an Op-Ed..

What you didn't do was the research necessary to know what you're talking about.

And you didn't do that research because you're lazy.

 

[Sailor]

I gave you the most leftwing biased propaganda source I could find.

Now you know why even the French hate American progressives.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I doubt you really believe that, here is a more realistic explanation.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Canada-Would-Rather-Export-Oil-Than-Refine-It.html

Like hell I don't. The article pretty much corroborated what I said. Without subsidies from the Canadian Government it's doubtful that coal sand oil would be viable in the North American domestic market at current global oil prices. There just currently isn't that great of a demand for high sulfur bitumen.

 

[Bigdog]

NO IT WON'T.

TransCanada even said it won't in their permit application.

They said it would increase the pricing, and the only losers in that scenario would be US because we get a discount right now for the shale, you fucking moron.

Wrong. That's not what they said.

 

[Bigdog]

Like hell I don't. The article pretty much corroborated what I said. Without subsidies from the Canadian Government it's doubtful that coal sand oil would be viable in the North American domestic market at current global oil prices. There just currently isn't that great of a demand for high sulfur bitumen.

All the uncertainty of the pipeline politics have destabilized the price.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Like hell I don't. The article pretty much corroborated what I said. Without subsidies from the Canadian Government it's doubtful that coal sand oil would be viable in the North American domestic market at current global oil prices. There just currently isn't that great of a demand for high sulfur bitumen.

If there wasn't the demand then why would anyone want to build an $8 billion state of the art oil pipeline? You care to tell me what's currently going through phase 1 of the Keystone pipeline?

Anyway if that oil doesn't go by pipeline then it goes by train, so are you saying that's safer? I think the people of this town in Canada might disagree! Of course Warren Buffett owns the railway, so Biden is just paying him back for his campaign contributions.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...eystone-XL-permit-again&p=4220410#post4220410

 

[cancel2 2022]

.
Of course we all knew it wouldn't stop there, now you have Hanoi Jane, Leonardo diCaprio, Cher, Amy Schumer and other noted climate bullshitters demanding that the Dakota Access Pipeline be shut down. These people are just fucking insane.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...arris-to-shut-down-the-dakota-access-pipeline

 

[Mott the Hoople]

All the uncertainty of the pipeline politics have destabilized the price.

Oh you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. The bitumen product manufactured from tar sands has always been a low quality/low value petroleum product. That isn't even mentioning the serious environmental and pollution problems of producing bitumen from tar sands.

And you want to talk about expensive? I was directly involved in managing a small 1,000 gal spill of tar sands oil (bitumen) in Oklahoma....we generated $500k in revenue just that one small spill. The whole fucking area that was contaminated had to be excavated and all that spilled product and contaminated soil had to be incinerated for proper waste treatment. Mucho diniro!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If there wasn't the demand then why would anyone want to build an $8 billion state of the art oil pipeline? You care to tell me what's currently going through phase 1 of the Keystone pipeline?

Anyway if that oil doesn't go by pipeline then it goes by train, so are you saying that's safer? I think the people of this town in Canada might disagree! Of course Warren Buffett owns the railway, so Biden is just paying him back for his campaign contributions.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...eystone-XL-permit-again&p=4220410#post4220410

Because there is a market for bitumen in Asia....but you're missing the point. Why should the US take the huge environmental, health and safety and economic risk to benefit predominantly Canadian Oil Companies?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Because there is a market for bitumen in Asia....but you're missing the point. Why should the US take the huge environmental, health and safety and economic risk to benefit predominantly Canadian Oil Companies?

Ok so explain to me why they would send tar sands oil all the way to Texas for it then to go to Asia, I just don't buy that. Why won't you consider comparative risks, going by rail is far more likely to cause an accident yet you blithely ignore that. Let me ask you a question would you rather that the US goes back to importing oil rather than being independent of the Middle East?

 

[Trumpet]

Ok so explain to me why they would send tar sands oil all the way to Texas for it then to go to Asia, I just don't buy that. Why won't you consider comparative risks, going by rail is far more likely to cause an accident yet you blithely ignore that. Let me ask you a question would you rather that the US goes back to importing oil rather than being independent if the Middle East?

Lord of Cretins, why doesn't Canada refine the tar sands on their own soil, rather then shipping it here to refine, if they want to sell it to Asia??????????

 

[cancel2 2022]

so now we're down to $95 from $127? ... but the global is just over $50.

You want China to burn more coal. Good to know.

She's talking bollocks, it's crazy sending oil to the Gulf Coast only for it to be sent to Asia. Any tar sands oil would be sent through the new Trans Mountain pipeline which opens next year. Anyone that does a little research would know that but that blowhard just repeats bolloxs over and over!

https://globalnews.ca/news/7336917/trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion-on-budget/

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ok so explain to me why they would send tar sands oil all the way to Texas for it then to go to Asia, I just don't buy that. Why won't you consider comparative risks, going by rail is far more likely to cause an accident yet you blithely ignore that. Let me ask you a question would you rather that the US goes back to importing oil rather than being independent of the Middle East?

So why should the US take Canada's risk? The tar sands oil (bitumen) is being shipped by train across Canada to ports in Vancouver for shipment to Asia. It's not being shipped by train across the US. I'm sorry but for the US the cost/risk vs rewards are sketchy at best and not worth taking at worst.

Let me give you some of the reasons why I it has questionable viability. First Bitumen is a low quality product with high sulfur content.

To produce tar sand has to be excavated via open pit which creates lots of overburden that is hazardous waste for metals and VOC's. Treatment and disposal of the hazardous waste overburden is very costly.

The tar sands then has to be processed to remove the sand contaminant and processed into bitumen via a steam injection process. That adds cost.

The Bitumen product then has to be mixed with a diluent (ussually petroleum distillates) or it will be to viscous to transport via pipeline. That adds cost.

Even with the addition of diluents the bitumen is still too viscous to transport via pipeline thus the pipeline has to be heated. That adds cost. Also, if the heating of the pipeline fails and the bitumen becomes to viscous to flow that can cause back up pressure that will burst the pipeline. How do you assure the reliability of such a heating system in a 2,000+ mile pipeline?

The pipeline has to go all the way to the Gulf Coast because existing pipelines at existing refinaries flow in the opposite direction that the Keystone pipeline would flow. Which is an obvious distribution bottleneck problem.

Once reaching the refinary the bitumen has to be further processed to remove high sulfur content and other undesirable contaminants. That adds cost.

Then the bitumen has to be further refined into usable oil grade products. That adds cost.

So from Coal Sands, to Bitumen to Oil Product makes it expensive to produce and thus has a limited market unless crude oil prices for Brent Grade Oil are upwards to $100 a barrel.

And that's not even really going into the ecological, environmental and hazardous materials management issues involved.

Trust me on this. If the product being transported was sweet light crude oil, instead of bitumen, then this permitting issue would have been completed a long time ago.

 

[cancel2 2022]

So why should the US take Canada's risk? The tar sands oil (bitumen) is being shipped by train across Canada to ports in Vancouver for shipment to Asia. It's not being shipped by train across the US. I'm sorry but for the US the cost/risk vs rewards are sketchy at best and not worth taking at worst.

Let me give you some of the reasons why I it has questionable viability. First Bitumen is a low quality product with high sulfur content.

To produce tar sand has to be excavated via open pit which creates lots of overburden that is hazardous waste for metals and VOC's. Treatment and disposal of the hazardous waste overburden is very costly.

The tar sands then has to be processed to remove the sand contaminant and processed into bitumen via a steam injection process. That adds cost.

The Bitumen product then has to be mixed with a diluent (usually petroleum distillates) or it will be to viscous to transport via pipeline. That adds cost.

Even with the addition of diluents the bitumen is still too viscous to transport via pipeline thus the pipeline has to be heated. That adds cost. Also, if the heating of the pipeline fails and the bitumen becomes to viscous to flow that can cause back up pressure that will burst the pipeline. How do you assure the reliability of such a heating system in a 2,000+ mile pipeline?

The pipeline has to go all the way to the Gulf Coast because existing pipelines at existing refinaries flow in the opposite direction that the Keystone pipeline would flow. Which is an obvious distribution bottleneck problem.

Once reaching the refinary the bitumen has to be further processed to remove high sulfur content and other undesirable contaminants. That adds cost.

Then the bitumen has to be further refined into usable oil grade products. That adds cost.

So from Coal Sands, to Bitumen to Oil Product makes it expensive to produce and thus has a limited market unless crude oil prices for Brent Grade Oil are upwards to $100 a barrel.

And that's not even really going into the ecological, environmental and hazardous materials management issues involved.

Trust me on this. If the product being transported was sweet light crude oil, instead of bitumen, then this permitting issue would have been completed a long time ago.

You need to upgrade your knowledge, there is already a pipeline going from Canada to Texas, didn't you see the map? Three phases have already been completed and in operation, didn't you know that? Oh and from next year will be the Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver.

As for the oil not being sweet crude, you're wrong it is, companies like Syncrude produce 350,000 barrels a day of low sulphur distillate, bet you didn't know that either. They don't send bitumen through pipelines they send light sweet crude oil to refineries in Canada and the US.

So tell me why the Dems want to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline as well? It's pure political posturing, isn't it?

Syncrude operates the largest oil sands crude oil production facility in the world and produces over 13 percent of Canada's total oil requirements.
image-inline | To do this, Syncrude mines oil sand from a surface mine, extracts the raw oil, or bitumen, from the sand using steam and hot water, and upgrades it into crude oil by fluid coking, hydroprocessing, hydrotreating and reblending. The final product, called Syncrude Sweet Blend, is sent down a pipeline to three Edmonton area refineries and to pipeline terminals which ship it to refineries in Canada and the United States.

https://www.engineering.com/story/syncrude

https://www.syncrude.ca/2021/02/05/managing-energy-use-to-lower-greenhouse-gases/

 

[Trumpet]

You need to update your knowledge Mott, let me help you! Oh and from next year will be the Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver. There is already a pipeline going from Canada to Texas, didn't you see the map? Three phases have already been completed and in operation, didn't you know that?

Thank you Lord of Cretins for setting us straight.