...extract the crude and get it to market that they didn't build all the infrastructure necessary to stabilize the crude to remove the "light ends." Combine that with the DOT-111 cars and "boom goes the dynamite."
Compare "Wild West" North Dakota to Texas (not the most environmentally-friendly state) where companies spent hundreds of millions to build facilities to stabilize their crude. Tip o' the hat to Rachel Maddow who originally informed me of this.Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually agree with him on this.
What really galls me as I listen to him run his mouth is him trying to take credit for increased US production and lower gas prices when in fact he has done everything in his power to keep oil companies from drilling here at home.
That said, the Keystone Pipeline is a boondoggle that benefits the Canucks, doesn't lower gas prices a penny, and could create an environmental mess on our soil rather than in Canada where this toxic waste comes from.
If there were some huge long term economic benefit to the pipeline it "might" be worth the environmental risk, but the fact is the pipeline just isn't worth the risk. Canadian oil is some dirty nasty stuff. Let them build their own refineries if it's such wonderful idea.
Obama might not be able to stand up to Putin, or the Iranians, but at least he has mustered enough balls to stand up to the Canadians, Good for him. The Keystone Pipeline was a very bad idea for this country, the Republicans were dead wrong on this one
I might have been a little more open to it if the oil was coming to our markets. However, everything I've read is that it would be shipped overseas. But, in the long term you're correct. The impact upon our environment is not worth it, even if the oil was coming to our markets.
The stuff will continue to come to the US via rail, and rail shipments may even increase.
Rail is a more dangerous way to move the oil. Sure a pipeline can spring a leak, but a derailment (which is more common) causes more damage is often spread over a wider area and is likely to be in a place that is more difficult to get to, and then that rail line is closed (for however long it take to clean up and repair the track) to other rail traffic carrying other goods.
Also Keystone already exists, it is the XL part/extension that is/was in question/dispute.
Thank you
50 = 5 ...there is still hope
At the current price of oil it's marginally profitable to ship the oil here at best. Why should we be propping up the Canadian Oil industry at the expense of our own. WTI is already selling at a 5% discount to Brent, which like the Canadian sludge is an inferior product. The Keystone Pipeline only punishes American producers, adds a few thousand short terms, while subsidizing the Canadian oil industry, all while negatively impacting our own environment.
If the Canucks want to export their oil, let them invest the billions of dollars to build their own refineries and spoil their own environment, not ours.
I have taken Obama to task for getting punked by the French in protecting French oil supply by helping to take down Qadaffi. This time he got it right, I think he might have gotten it right for many of the wrong reasons, but the main thing is, he got it right.
that I'm in favor of XL or importing Canadian oil sands. However it will continue to be imported and in a less safe, less cost effective and less efficient way....rail and truck.
As for WTI vs Brent While WTI has a slightly higher API (39.5 give or take) and Brent is about 38, and WTI is a bit sweeter than Brent I would not say Brent is like the Canadian oil sands which has an API in the mid to low 30's (I think) and some grades may be lower and not sure of the sulfur content.
I do wonder how much gasoline they get out of a bbl of oil sands compared to WTI and Brent
As for obama the only reason he canned XL is he will keep getting blow jobs from the environmentalist's and he is so fucking desperate for his legacy.
Thank you
Don't you just love the smell of WTI in the morning
Given the right refinery configuration (ie a lot of conversion via coking and cracking), nearly the same. PBF just announced they were buying the ExxonMobil Torrance refinery and they say it makes 70% gasoline out of a 16 api gravity crude slate.
GAG, I am sure you know that while obviously more oil of almost any type on the market weakens the price for every barrel, the heavy Canadian is not normally an alternative for light crudes in a given refinery. The heavy Canadian competes with heavv crude like Venz BCF, 13, 15, 17, and Maya and too a far less degree Saudi heavy (28 API).
IMHO, the right answer is Keystone XL plus lifting the export ban - that gets all crudes on the same, world wide market, basis, and allows US sophisticated refineries access to the right crudes for them.
If the heavy Canadian crude does end up flowing to the world via another direction, the pressure on the US light crudes will remain.
They use everything but the squeal, or in the case of oil, everything but the smell. (which I happen to love BTW as it smells like money to me)
The Canadian oil will flow, or at least it will as long as it's profitable to produce, and right now it's a marginal proposition at best with or without the Keystone Pipeline.
His justification was environmentally based, i.e. allowing Keystone pipeline would create more pollution. He also stated this low grade oil needs to stay in the ground. Obviously that's not going to happen, at least at some point, certainly when oil prices rise again. And for now the pollution levels both here and abroad will be higher instead of lower.
GAG you just can't cram 40 api crude into a refinery built for 20 api crude...or vice versa, or at least you won't like your product slate if you do
Keystone has nothing to do with bringing oil to the US. It's perpose it to transport the Alberta Tar Sands oil to Gulf Coast Ports for export to China or elsewhere. The US will see see little benifit, but the US will have the greatest risk of an accident.
no keystone has everything to do with bring Canadian heavy to Gulf Coast refiners replacing what they get vvia rail/barge, and also backing out heavy crude imports from other places. The link allows you to see who is importing what (including crude oil) from where into which state and which Padd and also what api gravity and sulfur the crude oil is. There are ample heavy sour crude oil barrels being imported from place other than Canada today and to think those would come in while keystone barrels would go out is silly.
"DOT-111s have been in service in North America for several decades and were designed to carry liquids such as corn syrup. When involved in derailments, the tank cars are prone to puncture and spill their contents. As crude production in the United States has surged exponentially in recent years, these outdated rail cars have been used to transport the crude oil throughout the country. When these tank cars are involved in accidents while carrying highly volatile and toxic liquids such as crude oil, they have high tendency to spill oil and explode.
The U.S. and Canadian official accident investigators recognized decades ago that the DOT-111s were unsafe for carrying hazardous materials, finding that the chance of a “breach” (i.e., loss of contents, potentially leading to an explosion) is over 50% in some derailment scenarios. U.S. and Canadian safety investigators have repeatedly found that DOT-111s are unsafe and recommended that they not be used for explosive or hazardous materials, including crude oil."
I also have no issue with us building more pipelines to safely and efficiently transporting American oil, but I do have to side with you tree hugging liberal where it comes to moving 800,000 BOPD of that nasty Canadian oil, endangering our environment while offering no real benefits to American citizens or even American companies except for the big refineries who will most likely save a few pennies a gallon that they most certainly won't pass along to consumers while American producers have their crude oil log jammed in Cushing, creating the fucked up situation where American producers are getting screwed, the American public is getting screwed and Big Oil and the Canucks are the only ones reaping the benefits.
...extract the crude and get it to market that they didn't build all the infrastructure necessary to stabilize the crude to remove the "light ends." Combine that with the DOT-111 cars and "boom goes the dynamite."
Compare "Wild West" North Dakota to Texas (not the most environmentally-friendly state) where companies spent hundreds of millions to build facilities to stabilize their crude.
Tip o' the hat to Rachel Maddow who originally informed me of this.
Contrary to Texas not being "environmentally friendly" the Texas Railroad Commission has been riding herd on the Texas oil industry since the late 1800's, and it one of the toughest agencies of it's kind in the country, and I have had field operations at one time or another in almost half the states so I can speak from first hand experience.
North Dakota is the Wild West in comparison and both you and Maddow are right about the relative lack of oversight up there.
From what I understand they've been shipping it by rail through Canada and the U.S. Rail is a less efficient method and is also less safe. Rail cars could be manufactured to be safer but I estimate the cost of the pipeline would be less than manufacturing enough safer rail cars, and they still wouldn't be as safe as the pipeline.
Not that I blame you but I suspect your motives are a bit more personal.