Keystone Pipeline evaluation

[ggr]

Bob Casey our supposedly green Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania votes Yes on the Keystone Pipeline. Direct from the Senator's "Energy and Environment" issues page:



So much for that I guess.

The canned response I got from his office after requesting justification was laughable. The first point was that Keystone was VITAL to securing our energy independence, the third cited a study showing we need not worry because the pipeline won't affect the rate of tar sands extraction. It's as if they think we're not paying attention.

Hey, he's dedicated to Pennsylvania, not any of the places the pipeline will go through!

 

[RichardC]

Connect the dots, and follow the money - it's the cost of being eligible for funding for the next election!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...obil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers

The biggest foreign lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.

You might expect the biggest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest non-Canadian lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/26/koch-brothers-889m-budget-2016-presidential-election

The Koch brothers’ political network plans to spend nearly $900m on the 2016 presidential election.Freedom Partners, a group that serves a central role in the political activities of the brothers Charles and David Koch, unveiled its plan to spend $889m in the upcoming election to donors at an annual meeting in California on Monday. That amount is nearly double what the Kochs’ network spent in the 2012 presidential election.

Is this system designed to provide the worst government money can buy?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Hey, he's dedicated to Pennsylvania, not any of the places the pipeline will go through!

He's dedicated to money and doing political favors apparently. Pennsylvanians see no benefit to running a pipeline from Alberta to LA.

 

[ggies07]

This is good news!

Shell pulls plug on long-delayed Alberta oil sands mine - The Globe and Mail

The global oil giant said on Monday it is withdrawing an application with federal regulators to build its Pierre River mine north of Fort McMurray, Alta., effectively killing a 200,000 barrel-a-day project that had been dormant for years.

 

[ggies07]

I seriously do not think Obama understands what he is talking about.

-He vetoes the bill
-talks about the dangers of the earth warming

BUT THEN:

- says he still hasn't decided on the "official" banning of the pipeline
- goes on to say one of the things they are doing is making cars with better gas mileage (makes no sense to still be thinking this way if he truly believes about the harmful future that we are heading into)

He reeks of politics and it's driving me insane!!! You either get it or you don't and it's either one way or the other! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh!

[video]http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530414/obama-tar-sands-climate&utm_content=buffer41036&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_cam paign=buffer[/video]

 

[rtz]

How in the world does the prez have any say at all about a pipeline? Guess he just wants his buddy Warren Buffett to haul it all on the BNSF instead. Same oil! Jimmy Carter is smiling right now.

 

[jerry33]

The more expensive the oil, the sooner people will realize it's not the way to go and the sooner they will seek alternatives. I don't really care who banns the pipeline as long as it's banned.

 

[flankspeed8]

The more expensive the oil, the sooner people will realize it's not the way to go and the sooner they will seek alternatives. I don't really care who banns the pipeline as long as it's banned.

because banning a pipeline is going to ensure that oil is never recovered? No, it will just cost more energy use getting it to the end consumer wherever they may be. China? India?

 

[nwdiver]

because banning a pipeline is going to ensure that oil is never recovered? No, it will just cost more energy use getting it to the end consumer wherever they may be. China? India?

.... that's jerry33s point... more energy = more $$$ = fewer customers = more oil stays where it is => no pipeline = good thing for everyone...

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I seriously do not think Obama understands what he is talking about.

-He vetoes the bill
-talks about the dangers of the earth warming

BUT THEN:

- says he still hasn't decided on the "official" banning of the pipeline
- goes on to say one of the things they are doing is making cars with better gas mileage (makes no sense to still be thinking this way if he truly believes about the harmful future that we are heading into)

He reeks of politics and it's driving me insane!!! You either get it or you don't and it's either one way or the other! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh!

[video]http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530414/obama-tar-sands-climate&utm_content=buffer41036&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_cam paign=buffer[/video]

Obama is savvy enough to understand the global nature of the oil market and doesn't really care whether or not Keystone is built. This is simply his largest trump card and he will hold it until his last major piece of legislation needs a few more votes to pass the House.

Once tax overhaul and spending cuts are back on the table in form of something similar to the Gang of Six Plan that was scuttled in the House, you will see Obama put Keystone back on the table. It's been pretty clear that he's not truly opposed to the pipeline, he's been willing to drill pretty much anywhere since the start and oil production is skyrocketing.

 

[Robert.Boston]

How in the world does the prez have any say at all about a pipeline? Guess he just wants his buddy Warren Buffett to haul it all on the BNSF instead. Same oil! Jimmy Carter is smiling right now.

The law is that any energy infrastructure crossing an international boundary requires a Presidential Permit. Law also requires that any major federal action have an Environmental Impact Assessment. The POTUS is just following the laws written by Congress.

 

[ecarfan]

How in the world does the prez have any say at all about a pipeline? Guess he just wants his buddy Warren Buffett to haul it all on the BNSF instead. Same oil! Jimmy Carter is smiling right now.

According to US law the President does have the final say. He didn't make the law, he's just following it. Best to get the facts straight before posting.

 

[ggies07]

This could be excellent news for stopping the pipeline:

this week when new evidence emerged about the pipeline builder’s depth of knowledge of the serious corrosion with its existing Keystone pipeline system, and the lack of market demand for Keystone XL.

s a ‘root cause analysis’ of the serious corrosion problems discovered on its Keystone 1 pipeline after only two years in operation.
The report confirmed that the pipeline suffered at least six defects, including one spot where the pipeline had corroded 96.8 percent through the wall.

TransCanada's Self-Inflicted, Possibly Fatal Keystone XL BlunderBrendan DeMelle

 

[ggies07]

Welp, for those that haven't seen

- - - Updated - - -

We've won one battle! Let's keep it going!

 

[Canuck]

This is why Presidential elections do mean something. This and Supreme Court appointments.

Congratulations to all those who fought hard to stop this pipeline from being built.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

This is why Presidential elections do mean something. This and Supreme Court appointments.

Congratulations to all those who fought hard to stop this pipeline from being built.

To a degree. IMO Obama was perfectly willing to allow Keystone if it were a huge bargaining chip in a "grand bargain" deal with the House on spending and taxation. No coincidence that this announcement comes the week after he agreed to his last spending bill with Boehner.

Not a knock against Obama, just don't think he's really adamantly anti-pipeline per se.

 

[ggies07]

nm.

 

[adiggs]

My own guess is that this is as much of an economic decision as anything else. I don't mean on President Obama's part, but rather on the part of the system. Oil at current prices, and with the current evidence of over supply and continued pumping and storing of additional oil, suggests that $50 oil may be closer to the norm for the forseeable future, than $100 oil.

Here's a pretty good article talking about the different moving parts in the economics of tar sands oil extraction:
http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/tar-sands-bubble

If we accept the numbers in this article, the tar sands oil is about $75/barrel for break even or marginal profitability before transportation to the market with demand for that oil. That transportation is about $9 / barrel via pipeline, or $25/barrel via train. With $100/barrel oil, or a strong belief that the price dip down to $50 is temporary, then Keystone XL is worth spending lots of money on (for the oil company / producer and pipeline company) to make happen. In fact, the pipeline is the difference between the project being profitable and not. At $50 though, the pipeline only changes the quantity of money being pissed into the big gaping wounds in the soil.


The moment you recalculate what oil is going to be selling for longer term and decide that's $50 (or lower), then the economics of tar sands development is gone, whether the pipeline is built or not. The pipeline company knows that, and they make money only if oil is moving through the pipeline. They (pipeline company) can and do lay off that risk with guaranteed contracts. If you're the oil producer, are you ready to double down on what's looking like a bad investment already, by signing a guaranteed contact that adds another $9/barrel for some number of barrels every year starting at some point in the future, whether you actually have barrels to ship or not?

Somewhere in here, the money stops working out. And at that point, everybody involved is ready to let it go. Oil producers, oil pipeline company, politicians (no more donations / interest from the first two), etc..


My own guess is that if oil went back to $100 in 4 years and we have a more oil friendly president in office, then the plans will get dusted off and we'll be doing this again. These things don't seem to die, so much as go take a nap.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Although this is definitely a win for anyone who supports sane public policy, I find it a bit concerning that the size of the "debate" over Keystone has caused the public's attention to be almost entirely focused on Keystone, rather than the issue of new pipelines and the oil industry in general. Also, not enough attention is being given to Paris, and divestment of oil assets in general. :wink:


Also, I strongly suggest everyone watch these 2 videos.

This video should have far more than 172 views.

Panel Discussion: The Industrial History of Denial - YouTube

This video should have far more than 830 views.

Time to Wake Up: Exxon, RICO, and the Right-Wing Tempest - YouTube

 

[flankspeed8]

My own guess is that this is as much of an economic decision as anything else. I don't mean on President Obama's part, but rather on the part of the system. Oil at current prices, and with the current evidence of over supply and continued pumping and storing of additional oil, suggests that $50 oil may be closer to the norm for the forseeable future, than $100 oil.

I think you are spot on and agree with you. If the economic environment supported XL, I really think it would have been built and who knows, it may still be. Gas prices are low, and jobs are up right now. This undermines a large argument in favor of the pipeline. I guess all that oil will continue to be moved by train and truck, much less safe alternative.