Keystone XL pipeline - why the fuss?

[cabri]

high speed rail is a boon doggle, money pit except for high density travel areas.

CA is a perfect example of waste.

You have to look at the passenger air miles between points to determine if it is effective.

Very few places outside of along the east coast or west toward chicagohave those numbers.

I don't get your point, here. At first you call it a boondoggle and California a waste...then you say it only makes sense in places like the east coast, Chicago....and California, where they are all currently being planned.

So, which is it?

Boondoggle.

CA does not have the passenger traffic between South and North to justify the cost to tax payers compared to the airlines.

The east coast has the passenger traffic as has been shown from DC through Philly/NYC and Boston both by air and by rail.

The problem there is the existing system can not handle HSR and the land is not available to lay HSR tracks without serious eminent domain fights which will drive up the costs considerably.

To try for HSR in the NE corridor, they would have to do the equivalent of single lane highway construction to properly prepare the new bed for HSR.

 

[K1052]

Boondoggle.

CA does not have the passenger traffic between South and North to justify the cost to tax payers compared to the airlines.

The east coast has the passenger traffic as has been shown from DC through Philly/NYC and Boston both by air and by rail.

The problem there is the existing system can not handle HSR and the land is not available to lay HSR tracks without serious eminent domain fights which will drive up the costs considerably.

To try for HSR in the NE corridor, they would have to do the equivalent of single lane highway construction to properly prepare the new bed for HSR.

If my memory serves we're talking in the neighborhood of 12 million air trips per year between north/south locations...or roughly the ridership of the NEC services at present. The region is forcast to grow considerably prior to CAHSR coming online. As someone who does the SFO-LAX hop a dozen times a year or so I would most definitely be taking the train instead if it was an option.

 

[senseamp]

California is growing, and needs new infrastructure. Simply building more freeways and airports is not the answer.

 

[Vic]

Those are jobs that presently do not exist.

You mean the temporary construction jobs that will serve to displace permanent railroad jobs?

 

[sportage]

Well its coming. The vote. Obama's veto.

But what is more important are the pending court challenges by the Native American Indians located in the Dakota's. Indians with treaties. Treaties that give the Native American Indians legal rights over the US government concerning the land this pipeline is buried under.
Well at least, that is what the court will decide.

http://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/u...a-Keystone-Pipeline-System-Map-2014-02-25.pdf

Looking at the pipeline route, notice it starts in Canada and ends at the Gulf.
No American refinery will see, let alone process one drop of this Canadian oil.
And again looking at the map, this Canadian oil will not lower our cost of gas at the pump by one single penny.
And after the line is buried, not one American job will be needed concerning the pipeline.
Well maybe one or two guys at the end point, at the Gulf, loading the Canadian oil onto the tankers.

What is scary, if the line ruptures or leaks at any point, guess who will be cleaning up the mess. And guess who will be paying for cleaning up the mess?
Mr and Mrs US tax payer.

So job creation? Yeah maybe. For clean-up.

Why don't we instead build a pipeline from Mexico to middle America for illegals to crawl thru? Save all that running thru the desert and climbing over border fences.
At least the end result would be cheap labor to pick the fruit, nanny the kids, and landscape our yards.
Now that would be true job creation we can believe in.
And make more logic than building the Canadians an American pipeline.
Did I miss something?
When did we, America, become so cooperative with the Canadians?
Forget about Obama... I want to see John Boehners's birth certificate !!!
Could old JB possibly be... oh what... an... "Canadian"?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's all good, should the Keystone pipeline bill be shot down Canada will be build a pipeline to their east coast and ship the oil to the US gulf coast by tankers. Instead American workers building/maintaining a pipeline it will be workers from Canucklestan.

 

[feralkid]

The arguments against building the Keystone XL pipeline are weak sauce based almost entirely on symbolic rather then practical considerations. There are no arguments against the pipeline that aren't political.

Actually, it is the opposite.

The arguments against it are, economic and environmental.

The proponents' arguments about securing our petroleum supply and providing jobs are simply symbolic, not based in actual fact.

 

[glenn1]

Actually, it is the opposite.

The arguments against it are, economic and environmental.

The proponents' arguments about securing our petroleum supply and providing jobs are simply symbolic, not based in actual fact.

Either way, thanks environmentalists for delaying the pipeline. You've ensured the product got shipped via rail which is orders of magntitude more likely to spill *and* helped me and other 1%ers make big profits on our railroad stocks like CSX the last few years while not impacting the level of extraction of oil sands from Alberta one bit.

<Borat voice> High five! </Borat voice>

 

[fskimospy]

Either way, thanks environmentalists for delaying the pipeline. You've ensured the product got shipped via rail which is orders of magntitude more likely to spill *and* helped me and other 1%ers make big profits on our railroad stocks like CSX the last few years while not impacting the level of extraction of oil sands from Alberta one bit.

<Borat voice> High five! </Borat voice>

Of course it impacts the level of extraction from oil sands.

Transporting the oil by rail is more expensive than having the pipeline, otherwise they wouldn't want to build it in the first place. Pricier transportation means higher overall costs for oil sands production, means less demand for it and fewer projects there that are economically viable at a given price of oil.

 

[Svnla]

Here is my take (from my research)

Against - the oil comes from the tar sand, therefore it it more heavy, more corrosive --> the pipes more than likely to rust/punture (allegelly) --> oil spill onto some of the largest fresh water aquifers .

For - jobs, and jobs. Help US to become oil producer/exporter --> more jobs and less dependence on outside (less friendly) oil.

Mary Landreu (D) and Bill Cassidy (R) - both policiticans from Lousiana are running for the Senate seat and both of them are falling over themselves to see who can brag more about this project in the run off election in a few weeks.

 

[DrPizza]

I think I asked this before, and can't remember the answer.

Why build a pipeline to Texas? Why not build some refineries right there, then distribute the gasoline and other products throughout the country from there? As far as protecting our nation's long term interests, wouldn't having refineries scattered about the country be a bit better than all the refineries being in one general area?

Or, is the purpose of the pipeline to make it easier for these companies to refine then *export* the product. In other words, the pipeline through our country is to benefit them, not our own citizens? And, in the grand scheme of things, especially if you compare to the other pipelines, building it is simply temporary jobs; maintaining it isn't that many jobs.

 

[dphantom]

I think I asked this before, and can't remember the answer.

Why build a pipeline to Texas? Why not build some refineries right there, then distribute the gasoline and other products throughout the country from there? As far as protecting our nation's long term interests, wouldn't having refineries scattered about the country be a bit better than all the refineries being in one general area?

Or, is the purpose of the pipeline to make it easier for these companies to refine then *export* the product. In other words, the pipeline through our country is to benefit them, not our own citizens? And, in the grand scheme of things, especially if you compare to the other pipelines, building it is simply temporary jobs; maintaining it isn't that many jobs.

Building new refineries is more difficult than getting Keystone XL approved. That would be ideal of course but viewing current economic and political considerations, I do not see any new refinery being built.

And then there are the gas pipelines that might also need to be constructed if a new refinery was to be built. Transportation of the refined products would need to take place somehow and that infrastructure is not in place either. Certainly trucking and rail could work, but they are more expensive and far more dangerous than a pipeline.

 

[HomerJS]

...

 

[HomerJS]

Here is my take (from my research)

Against - the oil comes from the tar sand, therefore it it more heavy, more corrosive --> the pipes more than likely to rust/punture (allegelly) --> oil spill onto some of the largest fresh water aquifers .

For - jobs, and jobs. Help US to become oil producer/exporter --> more jobs and less dependence on outside (less friendly) oil.

Mary Landreu (D) and Bill Cassidy (R) - both policiticans from Lousiana are running for the Senate seat and both of them are falling over themselves to see who can brag more about this project in the run off election in a few weeks.

On your "for" isn't Canada the producer and exporter? Also that oil goes on the open market so no benefits to our dependence.

As for the jobs

The State Department estimates the construction phase would create about 42,000 direct and indirect jobs and generate about $2 billion in earnings in the U.S. Opponents dispute some of those numbers. One thing is clear: Once construction is finished in about two years, the pipeline would create only about 50 new permanent jobs.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

 

[Svnla]

On your "for" isn't Canada the producer and exporter? Also that oil goes on the open market so no benefits to our dependence.

As for the jobs


http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

You do know that there are oil and gas in US, right? Like North and South Dakota, Montana, right? Google "Bakken shale" for more educatiion.

Also, we have Eagle Ford and Barnett Shales in Texas and Haynesville Shale in Louisiana just to name a few. I haven't mention Marcellus and Woodford.


Jobs = http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/

 

[cubby1223]

I heard another argument made recently, that excess capacity in the Keystone pipeline can be used to transport the products coming out of North Dakota. And that frees up the rail system (less pollution), which currently is overloaded slowing down agriculture shipments. Though not knowledged enough to verify it, am taking a Senator's word on that.

Sorry, it's a no-brainer to build it.

The oil will be dug up. The oil will be transported. The oil will be refined. The oil will be sold. The only difference is who has a say in the operation. If the oil transports through a pipeline in the U.S., the U.S. absolutely has a say in the operation.

Oh, and it also determines who gets to receive tax revenues on the transportation.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So does that 50 jobs include the refinery expansions to handle the new heavy oil source?

 

[Spungo]

Here you go:
http://www.infowars.com/democrats-who-oppose-keystone-xl-pipeline-own-shares-in-competing-companies/
( original snapshot)

Basically the railway guys want the traffic (can't find a great video with deeper explanation, just forgot where i saw it)

This. If pipelines don't exist, the oil must be transported by rail. The people trying to stop the pipeline are the people who own the railroads.

Serious question: why are people are trying to CREATE jobs? The role of an economy is to eliminate jobs. Why would we want thousands of people messing with trains just to transport oil? It would be better if the entire thing could be automated with zero people working on it.

I suggest we go back to manual traffic lights. We have millions of traffic lights in this country, so this would create millions of jobs. They could even be good paying jobs. $20/h starting plus health and pension.

We should also make computers illegal. The job I do today with a computer would take at least 10 people in 1950 without computers. I do the job of an engineer, several drafters, a secretary, a file clerk, a courier (letters were manually delivered before email existed), and maybe a few other things.

 

[DrPizza]

Building new refineries is more difficult than getting Keystone XL approved. That would be ideal of course but viewing current economic and political considerations, I do not see any new refinery being built.

And then there are the gas pipelines that might also need to be constructed if a new refinery was to be built. Transportation of the refined products would need to take place somehow and that infrastructure is not in place either. Certainly trucking and rail could work, but they are more expensive and far more dangerous than a pipeline.

Buuuuuut, aren't our refineries already operating at near capacity? At least, that's what the claim is. Because, when something happens at one refinery, "oh no! We can't make enough gasoline! We have to raise the prices because we don't have enough refinery capacity to cover for the refinery that's down."

 

[HomerJS]

You do know that there are oil and gas in US, right? Like North and South Dakota, Montana, right? Google "Bakken shale" for more educatiion.

Also, we have Eagle Ford and Barnett Shales in Texas and Haynesville Shale in Louisiana just to name a few. I haven't mention Marcellus and Woodford.


Jobs = http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/

Far as I recall KXL is built to get oil from Canada to the gulf for export. Don't remember any onramps in the US

 

[Londo_Jowo]

KXL ties into the existing pipeline at Steele City, Nebraska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

 

[Wreckem]

I heard another argument made recently, that excess capacity in the Keystone pipeline can be used to transport the products coming out of North Dakota. And that frees up the rail system (less pollution), which currently is overloaded slowing down agriculture shipments. Though not knowledged enough to verify it, am taking a Senator's word on that.

Sorry, it's a no-brainer to build it.

The oil will be dug up. The oil will be transported. The oil will be refined. The oil will be sold. The only difference is who has a say in the operation. If the oil transports through a pipeline in the U.S., the U.S. absolutely has a say in the operation.

Oh, and it also determines who gets to receive tax revenues on the transportation.

Keystone XL will handle a SMALL amount of US oil. All oil in said pipeline goes through a free trade zone port.

Keystone should have been allowed, but it is not the economic boon(for the US at least) some proponents would try and lead people to believe.

Keystone XL isn't the only pipeline either. The Alberta Clipper pipeline, a competitor to Keystone XL is well on its way to completion.

 

[Spungo]

Buuuuuut, aren't our refineries already operating at near capacity? At least, that's what the claim is. Because, when something happens at one refinery, "oh no! We can't make enough gasoline! We have to raise the prices because we don't have enough refinery capacity to cover for the refinery that's down."

Yes and no. The current laws prohibit the sale of crude oil. The way around this is to pass oil through a refinery without changing anything. It can then be counted as "refined" oil and exported.
If the government would repeal the law against exporting crude oil, the refineries would be well below capacity. The cost of refined gasoline might drop even though the price of WTI crude rises.

The US is a net importer of oil, but the US also exports a lot of "refined" oil because it can sold at a higher price in Europe:
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
WTI is the Texas price
Brent is the Europe price

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We have thousands and thousands and thousands of miles of pipelines in this country...I just don't get why is this particular one is considered a problem. Does it pose a relatively serious environmental impact that's well beyond the potential impact of other pipelines currently in existence?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Buuuuuut, aren't our refineries already operating at near capacity? At least, that's what the claim is. Because, when something happens at one refinery, "oh no! We can't make enough gasoline! We have to raise the prices because we don't have enough refinery capacity to cover for the refinery that's down."

Quite a few refineries in the US gulf are looking to expand, ExxonMobil Beaumont is one of them.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/...-reportedly-considering-massive-beaumont.html

Exxon reportedly considering massive Beaumont refinery expansion