[copious.abundance]

New pipelines set to hit U.S. Gulf with Canadian heavy crude

A new chapter in the North American oil revolution is about to open on the Texas coast, with two major pipelines poised this summer to deliver an unprecedented influx of heavy Canadian crude to U.S. refineries – and potentially beyond.

The anticipated startup of the Seaway Twin oil pipeline later this month will open the door for another 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) to flow from Cushing, Oklahoma, to oil tanks near Houston. A second line, Flanagan South, built at a cost of US$2.6-billion, will start pumping even more Canadian crude from Illinois to Oklahoma.

They are part of a wave of investment that is reshaping the domestic crude oil market, reversing the flow of oil that traditionally moved inland from the coast and increasingly replacing imports from long-time suppliers Mexico and Venezuela, whose heavy crudes face growing competition from Canada’s.

[Paulo1]

Good.

Today Canadian Fed Govt. set to rubber stamp approval for Northern Gateway.

Protests are ramping up, including recall initiative of BC Politicians much like the HST (Value Added Tax) was stopped after unilaterally imposed by BC politicians.

65% of BC residents oppose Northern Gateway pipeline.

First Nations behind LNG proposals, but coastal groups have vowed to stop any shipment of Bitumen from BC's rugged and remote north coast.

Kinder Morgan is still proceeding with application and 'selling' of its pipeline expansion through Burrard Inlet (Vancouver). It could triple exports which would bring 1-2 tankers per day through Juan De Fuca and southern Georgia Strait. (This is a pretty benign route compared to inlet probing northern tanker access....(think of Exxon Valdez vrs Cherry Pt. refinery or California's Martinez/Vellejo access and/or LA ports.

As a biased and parochial resident of BC coast, one who lives on a tidal influenced river, and a long-time west coast commercial float plane pilot who knows well the Northern Gateway proposed route, I fully welcome any initiative that takes the pressure off of insane proposals like Northern Gateway. NIMBY perhaps, but lets use the pipelines and faciliies that already exist as long as we are burning this stuff in our cars and fueling industries.

regards....Paulo

[westexas]

Meanwhile, combined net oil exports from the seven major net oil exporters in the Americas in 2004* fell from 5.9 mbpd in 2004 to 5.0 mbpd in 2012 (complete 2013 date not yet available).

*Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Trinidad & Tobago (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA)

[BobInget]

Two ironies strike a note here.
In a decade, optimistically two, all that oil sands product will literally drown those GOM refineries.
Not in oil, that would be too, too crude. Most costal GMO refineries are built just above current sea levels..
The more fuels these super refiners turn out, obviously, the more that will be burnt. Sea levels could, given perfect circumstances, rise exponentially.

The second irony? If B P and Exxon closed those refineries next week, sea waters will rise anyway.

Hurricane season begins next month. June 17 GOM water temps are three to six degrees F warmer then the 80 degree F pool at my gym. Yes, today the water off Key West is 86 F. July, August, September temps
are going to be off the charts. http://www.myfoxhurricane.com/custom/temps_gulf.html

[Kristen]

Here in MN they're allowing the pipeline to go to the docks of Lake Superior. They claim no new pipe will be made, it will be upgraded instead. Despite their insistence this won't end in disaster I don't think the boundary waters should be risked. It's beautiful up there and I go up there every summer on a backpack journey to unplug from society and see the stars at night. I'm so bummed they're allowing this!

[copious.abundance]

Meanwhile, combined net oil exports from the seven major net oil exporters in the Americas in 2004* fell from 5.9 mbpd in 2004 to 5.0 mbpd in 2012 (complete 2013 date not yet available).

*Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Trinidad & Tobago (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA)

It's always amusing watching the peakers increasingly cite 2nd, 3rd and 4th-tier statistics in order to maintain their illusion of imminent peak oil.

[ROCKMAN]

Kirsten - Just curious: do you use any hydrocarbons when you travel up there for your backpacking? And, of course, if they are saying there's zero chance of an oil spill they are absolutely wrong. Just as there isn't a zero chance of oil spills from thousands of miles of pipelines along the Gulf Coast. Pipelines that deliver oil to refineries so they can produce fuel that's shipped to the rest of the country...including you. Just asking: are you opposed to all oil pipelines or just the ones that don't directly benefit you?

[FoxV]

I fully welcome any initiative that takes the pressure off of insane proposals like Northern Gateway. NIMBY perhaps, but lets use the pipelines and faciliies that already exist as long as we are burning this stuff in our cars and fueling industries.

regards....Paulo

well we're doing our part over on this side of the country.

Nothing major has happened yet, but some work has been started on our section of the Energy East Pipeline.

Personally I hope somebody is keeping tabs on the numbers with all these new pipelines.
KeyStone XL: +700,000bpd
Nothern Gateway: +500,000bpd
Energy East: +1,100,000bpd

So Alberta currently produces 2.2Mbpd and they want to add 2.3Mbpd in additional pipeline in the next few years?

I see a lot of unused capacity in the near future.

[Kristen]

Rockman.

I am guilty of using hydrocarbons to get up there (it's a six hour drive from the city). I do consider pipelines in nature a damn shame regardless of the geographical location.

[Armageddon]

Meanwhile, combined net oil exports from the seven major net oil exporters in the Americas in 2004* fell from 5.9 mbpd in 2004 to 5.0 mbpd in 2012 (complete 2013 date not yet available).

*Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Trinidad & Tobago (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA)

It's always amusing watching the peakers increasingly cite 2nd, 3rd and 4th-tier statistics in order to maintain their illusion of imminent peak oil.

Are you denying conventional oil has peaked? You should be counting your lucky stars that fracking, shale and tar sands have bridged the gap momentarily. It has halted a complete collapse, but hasn't halted high prices, which is going to keep rising. There is no slack in the system. If ISIS takes any supply off line, you better buckle up son.

[ROCKMAN]

Kristen - So if I understand you correctly you consider "pipelines in nature a damn shame regardless of the geographical location." But you financially support (in your own tiny way) building those pipelines by burning hydrocarbons for an unnecessary trip to enjoy the great outdoors? So just like the vast majority of folks out there your poop doesn't stink? LOL. Welcome to the "Do as I say not as I do club". LOL.

Don't take offense at my teasing. Your stuck in the same predicament as just about everyone else: you don't want the environment or anyone's health put at unnecessary risk. But REQUIRE some level of risk to develop the fossil fuels you DEPEND UPON to maintain your lifestyle. I do feel sorry for folks who earnestly care about the environment. They produce GHG just like the folks who don't give a crap about the environment and thus suffer no remorse.

[WildRose]

Kristen - So if I understand you correctly you consider "pipelines in nature a damn shame regardless of the geographical location." But you financially support (in your own tiny way) building those pipelines by burning hydrocarbons for an unnecessary trip to enjoy the great outdoors? So just like the vast majority of folks out there your poop doesn't stink? LOL. Welcome to the "Do as I say not as I do club". LOL.

Don't take offense at my teasing. Your stuck in the same predicament as just about everyone else: you don't want the environment or anyone's health put at unnecessary risk. But REQUIRE some level of risk to develop the fossil fuels you DEPEND UPON to maintain your lifestyle. I do feel sorry for folks who earnestly care about the environment. They produce GHG just like the folks who don't give a crap about the environment and thus suffer no remorse.

Why does it have to be all or nothing, ROCKMAN? It's hard to live a circa-1900 lifestyle in 2014, in terms of energy usage, though some people are coming pretty close to it. Surely giving a sh*t about the size of one's footprint counts for something, as does knowing what we stand to lose? Having an appreciation of the natural world contributes to not wanting to crap all over it.

We could greatly reduce the amount of oil we use with a few initiatives - more renewable energy, better public transit, growth in local farming and processing, but instead we're going to do stupid things like increasing oil sands production three-fold by 2030 even though we don't know how to reduce the emissions we currently produce.

Carbon footprint is a measurable thing. We are not all equal in the rate that we use fossil fuels. It irks me, the insinuation that the person who uses energy carefully can be lumped into the same category as the highest energy users simply because we are all dependent on it to some degree.