Thread: Keystone Oil Pipeline

I've been reading a lot on the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas and I'm having a hard time with a couple things.

Firstly, I cannot seem to find a story about the pipeline that is not dramatized or politicized with a clear motivation to either per- or dissuade me from approval of such a project. I'm primarily interested in a breakdown of the number and kinds of jobs created as well as their expected duration, the costs/profits for our country (not simply oil companies), potential hazards, and the environmental ramifications. Yet, all I seem to get are people spouting off about how it is good or evil.

Secondly, I'm not particularly interested in politics as I find the whole process mostly counterproductive. What are the political ramifications of proceeding with such a project or denying it? Is this pipeline really even that important? I've heard suggestions that President Obama's entire environmental legacy rests upon this decision.

My stance on oil is one of trying to ween a person off a dangerous substance. I don't have a problem with rising gas prices driving development of more efficient engines or new fuel research. Personally, I think our number one energy priority should STILL be a more efficient grid. A cyclic power delivery layout that leads to fewer, smaller power losses which can be located, isolated, and repaired more quickly. I just don't view importing more oil from sands projects which are already fairly inefficient to be a front burner topic.

So, does anyone have the patience to explain some of this to me without the garbage faux media outlets polluting (no pun intended) the issue with biased reporting?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Is this pipeline really even that important?

Excellent question, I don't believe it is. I guess the fuss is partially fueled ...er, funded?... by competing companies: Others have alternative plans to move the oil through BC (highly politicized demonstrators here too), so we could be watching pawns played to sabotage one vision or another.

Think wiki at present does a pretty good job of laying out the subject.

supporters:
-oil companies making a buck
-conservatives who think the US needs the oil to maintain economic independent
-states who look forwards to the increased building and pipeline maintenance jobs
-oil shale companies for Canada and US who'll be able to use the pipeline

Opponent:
-oil producing nations outside North America, who see loss of influence as the oil floods global markets
-environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.

Right, and 5/6 of those players have their nemesis, because "not to the Gulf" effectively means "to the Pacific". How can Northern Gateway derail Keystone? Add a third player to the fray, Kinder Morgan/Enron, whom explicitly promote a Vancouver/Seattle destination on the basis theirs bypasses opposition in the US.

If true Morgan/Enron probably have a bridge to sell us as well. There are coal shipping projects being canceled left and right around Seattle--the people are hotly against them.

The Keystone pipeline is a good thing. We need oil at reasonable prices.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

The Keystone pipeline is a good thing. We need oil at reasonable prices.

I disagree with the last part. I think a spike in prices is a great way to facilitate change and conservation of the resource.

What we really need is more responsible petroleum use, not simply cheaper petroleum.

So far everything that has come on line in the past 25 years, which is allot of new oil, has NOT decreased the prices of oil anywhere except in socialist countries.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

So far everything that has come on line in the past 25 years, which is allot of new oil, has NOT decreased the prices of oil anywhere except in socialist countries.

I find the notion that the pipeline will significantly decrease prices to be dubious at best.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

The Keystone pipeline is a good thing. We need oil at reasonable prices.

Oil is a global commodity. The effect of the pipeline would reduce prices by only a couple pennies per gallon.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Opponent:
-environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.

Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.

You may also be interested in the oil-sands in Canada? Though I imagine you're already aware. I'll be impressed when Keystone makes a pipeline for beer.

As a Canadian who grew up in an oil town, who worked in the oil industry, and who knows a number of people who work in the oil industry... I can say without a doubt I am rather ashamed to not the answer to this one. But, as I understand things, the USA has started looking into Fracking - and Fracking is showing some promising results, especially in terms of oil quality. What does that mean for Alberta? Alberta is kind of worried because the USA is Canada's biggest buyer of oil, and Canada doesn't exactly have any oversea markets. I think Keystone is a jump to try and ensure a continued American market for a while longer. What I do know is that Alberta isn't taking any chances, a pipeline to Quebec is being refurbished to accommodate oil for refining (Which was traditionally a thing that the States did for us), and also to ensure an ability to ship to Europe. I've also heard some talk about a pipeline going out West for Japan. Granted, whether any of this is sensational fluff, or not, cannot be said. I do know that one of the more hysterical concerns was that the States will become entirely self-sufficient in oil production.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Opponent:
-environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.

Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.

Is It? Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube For some reason, I'm thinking trains are the safest way to transport oil.

The Keystone pipeline travels through agricultural land, important aquifers, and fisheries if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how this could possibly be considered safe when there have been several failures of pipelines that I have seen.

After all this time, I still fail to see the value of this pipeline.

how, exactly, do you suppose the Dakota oil is now transported?
It is estimate that with fracking, we have increased our "known" reserves many times over.

Silly stuff, really, most of the "keystone" pipeline already exists.

Bakkan oil production will increase many times over within a decade or 2 and need more pipelines running to those oil fields.
Much of it's natural gas is burned off at the well heads-------and much of the oil is now trucked to pipelines---
It seems stupid and wastefull to not connect to these fields with gas and oil pipelines to stop the silly wasteful trucking and flaring of the gas-----both of which add to global atmospheric forcing with no benefit to anyone.
imho-----anyone trying to impeed infrstructure build out is playing a game that ain't in anyone else's best interest.
It seems a decision to either optomize a resource, or waste much of it with silly stupid posturing.

of course, i would prefer that we build another refinery in the Dakotas, and divert the oil there.
or, expand the capacity of the extant refinery, for many reasons, not the least of which is the expected rise in sea levels, and the concept that if refined there, the likelyhood of it leaving our shores for markets overseas is diminished------------
or, build gas fired electricity production plants, and couple that energy with the ever growing windfarm's electricity production, and take it to where we could replace coal fired plants.

counterpoint:
As a lad I had the pleasure of an aunt and uncle's old 40 acre pasture which had a natural spring and the beginnings of a forest(my uncle had plowed up furrows to catch seeds from a nearby forest, and it was producing an extension of that forest on his land). Returning there as an adult(post army) I found that there was a high voltage powerline with massive towers where once I had played----the construction of which had filled in the pond and spring, and replaced a little slice of heaven with energy transportation uglyness.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Opponent:
-environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.

Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.

Is It? Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube For some reason, I'm thinking trains are the safest way to transport oil.

One story about a pipeline leaking is supposed to mean something? Ever hear of train derailments?

Also, what about the environmental impact of the inherent inefficiency of transporting oil via train as opposed to by pipeline? Clearly it requires many times more energy to transport oil by train than by pipe. It's like comparing bottled water to tap water.

Just an FYI, there have been more than 1 pipeline leaks recently. My concern arose as I heard multiple reports of breaks and leaks, not because I reacted to one news story.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Just an FYI, there have been more than 1 pipeline leaks recently. My concern arose as I heard multiple reports of breaks and leaks, not because I reacted to one news story.

Of course there have been multiple pipeline leaks, it's an imperfect world. But a story about any particular leak doesn't tell us much about what method of transport is safest. This table gives a good picture:

You're barking up the wrong tree. I was just clarifying that my post wasn't created based upon one incident.

That graph also means very little if it does not include the severity of the spill or the cost of cleanup.

Build a atomic breeder reactor, produce hydrogen from water, send that in tankers or pipe lines to wherever needed. That way you produce energy, don't ever pollute except for minor amounts of radioactive waste which can be properly disposed of and create a new clean energy source that can never ever run out.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Opponent:
-environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.

Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.

Is It? Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube For some reason, I'm thinking trains are the safest way to transport oil.

One story about a pipeline leaking is supposed to mean something? Ever hear of train derailments?

Also, what about the environmental impact of the inherent inefficiency of transporting oil via train as opposed to by pipeline? Clearly it requires many times more energy to transport oil by train than by pipe. It's like comparing bottled water to tap water.

To be fair, madanthonwayne, I was commenting on your claim that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil - what does that have to do with efficiency? I'd argue that trains, however more inefficient, are indeed safer because of the volume of the spills. 19 000 barrels of water and oil from the Mayflower incident - Exxon hasn't commented on how much of it is oil, and how much of it is water - which is an estimate of 798 000 gallons. 30 000 gallon train spill in Minnesota. Like Flick said - your graph doesn't mean anything if it does not account for the volume, cost, and severity of the spills. I think if all pipeline spills and all train spills were accounted for, pipeline spills would be responsible for more spilled oil. I think pipelines are more convenient than trains, but they aren't necessarily safer.