Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 10:59:43

ROCKMAN wrote:S - Actually with the completion of the Dakota Access PL we'll probably see a net loss of pipeline construction jobs this year.


You don't think there be any jobs involved in building the newly approved Keystone XL pipeline?

Image
Who's going to drive the trucks and bulldozers and cranes and who's going to the do the engineering and surveying and who's gonna work at the restaurants to feed the crews and who's gonna make and sell the pipeline and supports and nuts and bolts and welding and all the construction gear and who makes the work uniforms and work shoes and gloves?

No Jobs will be created to do those things ? Really?

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20614
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 12:17:46

P - "You don't think there be any jobs involved in building the newly approved Keystone XL pipeline?" Time will tell but I suspect TransCanada won't get enough subscriptions to build the line anytime soon. Just my rough guess but there may be 10% to 20% excess transport capacity today. TransCanada might consider offering a very low tariff but the existing haulers (pipelines and trains) have already recovered a lot of their investments...some maybe all of it. Those companies could easily underbid KXL and still make a nice profit since they are now dealing only with maintenance and operating costs whereas TransCanada has to recover $billions of capex before it could see $1 of profit.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Midnight Oil » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 13:30:36

Nowhere has the world seen such colossal environmental destruction as is being wreaked on Alberta. At one point the province even went so far as to consider a scientist’s idea of nuking its underbelly to get at the tar sands. Stupid to the Last Drop looks at the increasingly violent geopolitical forces that are gathering as the world’s gas and oil dwindle and the Age of Oil begins its inevitable slide towards oblivion. As Canadians deplete their energy reserves, selling them off to Americans at bargain-basement prices, no thought is given to conservation or the long-term needs of the nation

Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care
William Marsden

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=92dmgx0b5SY
Midnight Oil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:48:37

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 26 Mar 2017, 11:11:54

Midnight Oil wrote:At one point the province even went so far as to consider a scientist’s idea of nuking its underbelly to get at the tar sands.


Is that an example of "Fake News"?

Midnight Oil wrote: As Canadians deplete their energy reserves, selling them off to Americans at bargain-basement prices, no thought is given to conservation or the long-term needs of the nation


Yes, PM Trudeau just applauded the Keystone Pipeline XL deal. If you don't like the way Trudeau and the Liberals are running Canada then have the courage to criticize them directly. Its inaccurate to blame all Canadians for the policies of Trudeau and his political party.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20614
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 26 Mar 2017, 11:14:17

ROCKMAN wrote:P - "You don't think there be any jobs involved in building the newly approved Keystone XL pipeline?" Time will tell but I suspect TransCanada won't get enough subscriptions to build the line anytime soon. Just my rough guess but there may be 10% to 20% excess transport capacity today. TransCanada might consider offering a very low tariff but the existing haulers (pipelines and trains) have already recovered a lot of their investments...some maybe all of it. Those companies could easily underbid KXL and still make a nice profit since they are now dealing only with maintenance and operating costs whereas TransCanada has to recover $billions of capex before it could see $1 of profit.


Good point.

After all the protests and the multibillion dollar lawsuit Transcanada filed over Obama's blockage of the pipeline I never considered the possibility that they will flip flop and not even built it. --- Lets see what happens, i.e. You may be right.

However, since the current oil glut isn't going to last forever, and a company like TransCanada has to plan for the long term, there still may be motive for them to build the Pipeline in spite of the current glutted oil market if Transcanada believes the oil markets will be firmer a few years down the road.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20614
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Midnight Oil » Sun 26 Mar 2017, 13:37:48

, to some extent, is a doomsday scenario of the eventual demise of Alberta through the over exploitation of its oil and gas resources. To a degree this is a warranted prognosis. Much of Alberta's resources are environmentally difficult to extract compared to oil in Arab countries. The extraction methods are environmentally invasive; the tar sands around Fort McMurray and natural gas in southeastern Alberta are the prime examples used in this book.

The rivers and water sheds are being chemically polluted. Indian communities north of Fort McMurray where the Athabasca flows are getting rare forms of cancer. Farmers in southeastern Alberta develop skin rashes and irritations because their water wells are becoming toxic from extraction of natural gas. The Alberta and Canadian governments are ignoring this. The energy companies are obfuscating. The Alberta government, ignoring the Kyoto Protocols, has given energy companies an environmental carte blanche to come in and shop. All for money and jobs - a good election platform. It makes one wonder what happens to people in less developed areas of the world where there are no environmental movements and human rights can be trampled. Even though the farmers and the Indians are suffering they are at least permitted an outlet and can voice some dissent - and their claims can be made to the governments.

Mr. Marsden is excellent at pointing out the problems of minority groups and small communities - Indians in Fort Chipewyan or dispersed farmers can do little to combat the forces of energy companies that are being backed up by the government.

https://www.amazon.com/Stupid-Last-Drop ... 0676979149

“[Marsden brings] a fresh pair of discerning eyes to an unusual series of nation-changing events. . . . [H]e confidently reports how an entire province is destroying itself, and then asks why no one in Canada ‘seems to care.’ . . . The biggest stupidities that Marsden discovers could and probably should shock any Canadian. . . . Yet Marsden’s unsettling exposé of careless decision-making sheds more needed light on some very dark corners in Alberta (and Canada). He has walked into a provincial boom-town, populated largely by arrogant and greedy males (Hells Angels with suits), and not flinched. Good on you, partner.” —Andrew Nikiforuk, The Globe and Mail

Read the Book
Midnight Oil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:48:37

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Cog » Sun 26 Mar 2017, 18:09:54

Want to be an ex-politician? Run on the platform of less jobs and an economic downturn.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9644
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 26 Mar 2017, 19:13:43

P - "there still may be motive for them to build the Pipeline" Just to beat you over the head for the fun of it...LOL. Motives don't play into building multi-$billion pipelines. It's done strictly on the basis of the economic model. And that model is based on a GUARENTTEED REVENUE STREAM. Pipeliners are not wildcatters...they tend to be the most conservative folks involved in the process. For one thing even successful pipelines take a lot longer to recover the investment compared to drilling a successful well. But the BIG DIFFERENCE: a pipeline can keep knocking out that same profit margin for 20 to 30 years...or longer. But the ROR might only be 6% or so.

So back to the "subscription phase". A sufficient number of oil (or NG) owners GUARENTEE shipping a set volume thru the line for a set period of time at a set price schedule. And it's not a just a promise or simple contract but financially backed contract. And since a producer might fall short they'll often have to back up the contract with futures contracts. And then there's the "subscription window": a set time period from the start date to a closing date when contracts have to be signed. And here's what happened to TransCanada: they had folks initially sign subscription contracts. But those contracts have a bail out clause: if the permits are not secured by a set date or construction doesn't start by a set date those contracts expire. So as the border crossing permit continued to be delayed the subscription closing date kept being extended. But companies have the option to not accept the new closing date. So as other transport options became available contracts were not renewed because companies signed subscriptions to other pipelines or railroads. Yes: the railroads and other pipelines were not going to invest hundreds of $millions expanding without guaranteed loads.

Trust me: the next step will be TransCanada advertising a new transcription phase. I'll keep a eye out for it. But given the existing excess capacity I won't be shocked to not see it happen anytime soon.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Midnight Oil » Mon 27 Mar 2017, 08:21:55

The expansion of the oil sands industry in Alberta has led to significant deforestation in Canada’s boreal forests, which store vast amounts of atmospheric carbon and are threatened by climate change. More than 2 million acres of boreal forest have been lost or degraded because of oil sands mining.

Destruction of carbon-dense forests such as the boreal is a major contributor to climate change because the carbon stored in tree trunks and roots will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere after trees are cut down.

Strip-mining the boreal to extract the tar sands and processing the oil makes the sands much more damaging to the climate than conventional oil.

“I believe the carbon intensity of extraction and processing for the oil sands is about double that of conventional oil,” Homer-Dixon said.

If all the oil sands were extracted in Alberta, the emissions would be equivalent to burning all the oil in Saudi Arabia — the world’s largest oil producer — and all the carbon contained in the oil would end up in the atmosphere, making climate change worse.

And with the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline under construction, Canada seemed poised to do just that. Keystone XL would have carried crude oil from Alberta’s tar sands mines to refineries in Texas. From there, it would have been consumed in the U.S. or shipped to ports around the world
Midnight Oil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:48:37

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 27 Mar 2017, 09:06:42

"Keystone XL would have carried crude oil from Alberta’s tar sands mines to refineries in Texas. From there, it would have been consumed in the U.S. or shipped to ports around the world"

FYI: all the oil that would have been carried by KXL was carried from Alberta’s tar sands mines to refineries in Texas...as it continues today. From there it was consumed in the U.S. or shipped to ports around the world. The childish assumption that alternative transport methods weren't going to be developed was common several years ago. Rather ridiculous to see it repeated today given the record amount of oil sands imports.

Some are so invested in their erroneous positions it's impossible for them to accept the reality.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Midnight Oil » Mon 27 Mar 2017, 09:45:15

Photographer and pilot Alex MacLean wanted to learn more about the Keystone XL pipeline, which if approved will carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, so he decided to take pictures from above of the tar sands that will supply oil to the project.

What he found shocked him.

“The scale of the operation is staggering,” MacLean told The Huffington Post. It’s “mind-boggling,” he said, how expansive it is, and how much money is being poured into drilling and strip mining for the viscous petroleum product that will give the Keystone XL pipeline its oil.


Hot waste fills a tailing pond at the Suncor mining site in Alberta.
MacLean took photos from 1,000 feet above northern Alberta’s oil operations. The tar sands, more commonly referred to in Canada as the oil sands, are the world’s third-largest petroleum reserve and underlie an area roughly the size of Florida. While the Alberta government says only 3 percent of the area is suitable for strip mining, in which forest and bog “overburden” is stripped away, that still amounts to about 1,850 square miles — an area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

Flying above wilderness beauty punctuated by slick oil sheens and puffs of smoke from a refinery, “you realize how wasteful we are,” MacLean said
Midnight Oil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:48:37

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 12:31:53

Reuters - "Several environmental groups filed lawsuits against the Trump administration on Thursday to challenge its decision to approve construction of TransCanada Corp's controversial Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.".

Rather odd these same environmental groups did file lawsuits against President Obama's approval of permits to expand the capacity of the existing border crossing pipelines carrying oil sands production into the US. Permits that were critical to the effort that increased those imports to all time record levels. At the least you would have expected them to have protestors at the TransCanada southern KXL construction yard where President Obama praised its expansion and thus removing the choke point at Cushing OK that was impeding oil sands development.

And now they files a lawsuit against a new pipeline while the existing tranport system are 10% to 20% under utilized? IOW there more then sufficient capacity to import every bbl of oil sands production and then some. And with lower oil prices new Alberta projects are being delayed/suspended it may be many years before any new capacity is needed.

OTOH the probably have some lawyers doing it for free and gives them so new spin to help raise donations. After all they did such a great job delaying KXL and preventing so much of the "dirtiest oil on the planet" from being produced. LOL.

Maybe they'll be nice and send some of those donations to the Standing Rock tribe as an apology for causing the Dakota Access Pipe Line to be built as a result of the KXL delay. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 12:48:36

"...you realize how wasteful we are,” MacLean said" As wasteful as the aviation fuel he burned taking duplicates of hundreds of existing photos taken for years showing identical situations? Maybe he hasn't heard of the Internet? LOL.

He could have avoided generating that unnecessary GHG by buying this book: "A new book {2015} of aerial photographs, Beautiful Destruction, captures the awesome scale and devastating impact of Alberta's oil sands with stunning colours, contrasts and patterns."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... n-pictures

Well, maybe he sold those pictures so the additional GHG generation did produce a bit of a profit for him. Another "hero of the environment". LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Midnight Oil » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 20:27:46

Boy, did I strike a NERVE, sorry Rockman for causing so much PAIN...NOT
LOL
Midnight Oil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017, 15:48:37

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 04:00:03

Under the category of;
"Your organization could not get what it wanted through the Legislative process so it went through the Chief Executive. Then you lost an election and the Chief Executive of those opposing your POV took control and reversed the policy you wanted so you have no legal leg to stand on to get what you wanted."

This is always the hazard of using executive orders to try and do legislative decisions. If you go through the Legislature and get a law passed then it is very difficult for someone else to come along and undo that law with just a single election cycle. If you choose to use Executive Action however the decision can be reversed at any time for any reason by the chief executive whether you voted for them or not.

The $8 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline will be argued in federal court in Great Falls on Wednesday as the Trump administration pushes forward with a project killed by former President Barack Obama.

Northern Plains Resource Council, Bold Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the government over its issuing of a permit for the project in March, following Trump’s November election win.

“Plaintiffs are not-for-profit organizations dedicated to protecting the environment, public health and the rural landowners and landscapes of the Great Plains,” the groups say in court filings.

They’re suing Thomas A. Shannon Jr., under secretary for political affairs for the State Department, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, arguing a permit for the pipeline was issued without sufficient environmental review in violation of federal laws.

A motion by the government to dismiss the case will be heard before District Judge Brian M. Morris.

“The main issue is whether or not the court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit,” said Doug Hayes, a senior attorney for the Sierra Club.

Issuing a presidential permit for an international crossing is an exercise of the president’s authority over foreign affairs and national security and therefore can't be reviewed, the government’s court filings say.

In March, Under Secretary Shannon issued the cross-border permit for the project.

That followed a presidential memorandum by Trump inviting TransCanada to re-submit its application to the State Department and directing the State Department to make a final decision in 60 days.

“Courts routinely defer to the executive branch’s exercise of its authority over foreign affairs and national security,” the Trump administration says in its court filings in support of dismissing the lawsuit.

Even if the plaintiffs had challenged an agency action, the court wouldn’t have jurisdiction because the law gives agencies certain discretion, the government says.

“In making this determination, the under secretary weighed a number of factors, including the project’s contribution to energy security, Canada’s role as a trading partner and ally, foreign policy implications, economic benefits and environmental and cultural impacts,” the government argues. “None of these factors is dictated by statute; indeed, there is no governing statute or any other meaningful standard for the court to apply to the review of the under secretary’s decision.”

The environmental groups say the court has jurisdiction.

“The State Department suggests that the more squarely an agency decision implicates our ‘national interest,’ the less power the public and courts should have to question it,” they write in court papers. “But that is not the judgment Congress has made.”

That keystone XL threatens so many people and resources and implicates our ‘broad national welfare,’ it’s up to the court to ensure that federal agencies comply with laws that require them to study and mitigate the environmental impacts, they argue.

Terry Cunha, a spokesman for developer TransCanada, which has intervened in the case on the side of the government, said the company has all the permits it needs to begin construction in the second half of 2018 except route approval in Nebraska from the Public Service Commission. The PSC has until Nov. 23 to make a decision, he said.

“Overall, we’ve clearly demonstrated the need of the project,” Cunha said.

The 36-inch crude oil pipeline would extend 1,204 miles from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Neb., and link up with existing pipelines to Gulf Coast refineries.

The 280-mile Montana portion of the project would extend across Phillips, Valley, McCone, Dawson and Fallon counties.

Hayes, the Sierra Club attorney, said the lawsuit was filed here because the project would cross the international border near Morgan in northeastern Montana.

In November 2015, citing threats to the climate and communities and natural areas, the Obama administration State Department denied TransCanada’s application for a cross-border presidential permit for the pipeline.

In denying the permit, it relied on an environmental impact statement completed in 2014.

The environmental groups filed suit March 30 in federal court in Great Falls after Trump revived the pipeline.

They contend in the lawsuit that the State Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued the permit.

The groups say that environmental study had grown stale, and was out of date by the time the Trump administration approved the permit.

Opponents of the pipeline say they’re planning to rally against it at the Civic Center in Great Falls prior to the federal court hearing.

A second lawsuit challenging the Keystone project also was filed by the Indigenous Environmental Network and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.

The two lawsuits have been consolidated and will be heard at the same time.


http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/ ... 751122001/
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14095
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 22:48:49

MO - Sorry for the very late reply... Missed your post:

"...sorry Rockman for causing so much PAIN...NOT". Sorry, buddy, you lost me. Pain??? I thought it was one of funniest foolishness I've run across in a long time. I would almost guess it was fake news posted just to embarrass the environmentalists. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 23:23:17

Tanada - So true about executive orders. DACA is a great example. The crappy MSM did its best to confuse the public about our current crappy POTUS. President Trump did not cancel DACA...it expired just as President Obama, our past crappy POTUS, had scheduled it to expire. What President Trump didn't do was extend it by presidential order as President Obama had in the past.

What the POTUS did was ask ICE to not persue deportation of the DACA kids while Congress develops a LAW that would deal fairly with. What "fairly" means is yet to be seen. But according to CNN a bill will be presented to the House in the next week or two.

And folks in the know predict it will be a true bipartisan document: it will piss off some conservatives as much as many liberals. In some form or another it will allow the DACA kids to remain. But the bill will likely contain a funding measure for the "wall" or what actual enhancement for border security they come up with.

And it will need D votes to replace R votes that want to get rid of the kids. And it will need R votes to replace D votes that don't want to spend money on border security. And thus the problem for the D's: if they don't help pass a PERMANENT CONGRESSIONAL LAW to help the DACA kids they'll lose the right to remain in the country. The D's will certain raise a sh*t storm about other aspects of the bill but at the end of the day they'll have just one option: pass a law to protect the DACA kids or defeat it and see them deported. Same problem for the R's that never liked DACA: help pass a PERMANENT CONGRESSIONAL LAW that funds enhanced border protection or hand the liberals a win on that issue. A vote that would not sit well with much of their constituency.

But that's if the House and Senate can actually craft such a bill that would box in the extremes of both parties. Hopefully for the sake of the DACA kids they will.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 15 Oct 2017, 13:36:27

And back to the thread's subject: pipelines carrying oil. After all the relentless daily news about the Dakota Access Pipeline now nothing. It has been carrying Bakken oil since June. It's estimated that it is saving about $3/bbl over rail transport.

And Keystone XL? From 10 Oct 2017: "Attorneys for the Trump administration said a federal judge has no authority to second-guess a presidential permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline as they seek to stop a lawsuit that would block the project."

"Attorneys for the Trump administration said a federal judge has no authority to second-guess a presidential permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline as they seek to stop a lawsuit that would block the project.

Conservation groups...asked U.S. District Judge Brian Morris to revoke its permit.

Government attorneys said in their motion to throw out the case that Morris can’t interfere because the Constitution gives Trump authority over matters of foreign affairs and national security."

But: "A TransCanada executive in August raised doubts about Keystone’s prospects and said the Calgary-based company would decide later this year about whether to start construction."

"TransCanada last week cancelled plans for a pipeline that would have carried crude from Alberta to New Brunswick on the Atlantic coast."

Part of the economic justification for KXL was to also haul Bakken oil. The same Bakken oil that the DAP is now hauling. The lack of the northern leg of KXL has not inhibited the export of a single bbl of Canadian oil to the US.

The whole story:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cou ... tion-says/
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 15 Oct 2017, 19:58:58

I reckon the crux of the matter will be if TransCanada thinks the price will stay high enough for Athabaska sands production to increase. If Alberta starts producing more they will need additional capacity, if they don’t then not mch point building another pipeline.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4149
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby toolpush » Mon 16 Oct 2017, 00:02:01

The most sensible thing to me would be to build the Keystone pipeline to the Bakken region, then run it over to the 1.2 mmb/d Calpine pipeline and have it reversed, taking heavy crude direct to the LOOP and has established distribution networks to a wide range of heavy oil capable refineries, currently poorly connected to Canadian crude.

This would avoid the environmental problems in Nebraska.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mara ... SKCN0XP2QS

Marathon CEO: Capline pipeline reversal likely when oil prices recover
Kristen Hays
3 MIN READ
HOUSTON (Reuters) - The nation’s largest crude pipeline likely will be reversed to move heavy Canadian crude south to Louisiana after oil prices recover from the deepest rout in a generation, Marathon Petroleum Corp Chief Executive Gary Heminger said on Thursday.

“It will probably be the latter part of this decade before that happens, but we have a great asset here that will be reversed someday,” he said in an interview after the company’s quarterly earnings call.

Marathon operates the 1.2 million barrels per day, Louisiana-to-Illinois Capline pipeline, once a major artery to deliver imports and Gulf of Mexico crude to the U.S. Midwest.
toolpush
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 08:49:16

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: transientearthling and 19 guests