That Pipeline

[JohnnySavage]

What is the argument against it?
Why does it go all the way to the Gulf?
Why doesn't Canada build a refinery nearer the source?
Why can't it go to Illinois where there is already excess refining capacity?


Addendum: iMan said one of my posts was 'hogwash' and his words are hurtful.

 

[Dazzle1]

The argument against is that environemntalist are against all forms of energy except solar and wind.

It's not only building the refinary but refiaries are also put near the coast for shipping.

Why here because Canada and most American thought that we would be the major customer. but Obama is too stupid to realize the advanatages.

Since he and queen michelle use our money to pay for their travel.

 

[JohnnySavage]

C-Span just said it has to do with the sulfur content and that the gulf refineries have the capability to remove the sulfur so the end product can be used in the US.

I reckon in the long run it's cheaper to pipeline the oil/sand to the gulf than the end product(s) to the market by truck (if it were refined somewhere else). That's counterintuitive though.

 

[unregistered]

 

[trysail]

What is the argument against it?

There is no rational argument against it. It is utterly insane for the U.S. not to allow this pipeline. Somebody is going to consume the Canadian Athabaskan petroleum— if it's not us, it'll be China or India or whoever Canada sells to. In essence, as long as the U.S. imports petroleum, what possible sense does it make for us to import petroleum that's been exported from Canada and then brought into the U.S. via a third party? That's positively nuts.

Why does it go all the way to the Gulf?

It goes to Cushing, Oklahoma which is the delivery point for NYMEX oil future contract settlements. Cushing, Oklahoma is basically one ginormous tank farm and is currently drowning in petroleum inventories. This is partially a result of the fact that the existing Canadian production has nowhere else to go and has backed up in Cushing. That fact is partially reflected in the historic anomaly of the price discrepancy between WTI and Brent petroleum prices. The gap was partially the result of the shutdown of Libyan production and that's why the WTI-Brent differential has narrowed recently.

Cushing is the center/hub of the U.S. pipeline system. U.S. refining capacity is concentrated in the Gulf Coast region for historic reasons. The possible reversal of the Seaway pipeline is another indicator of changes in U.S. petroleum logistics.

Also see: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=36749353&postcount=74

​

Why doesn't Canada build a refinery nearer the source?

There's already existing refining capacity. It makes no economic, business, financial or common sense to build additional capacity.

Why can't it go to Illinois where there is already excess refining capacity?

Effectively, it will. Cushing is the hub of the U.S. domestic pipeline system. Crude delivered to Cushing ends up all over the Midwest and Gulf Coast.

Addendum: iMan said one of my posts was 'hogwash' and his words are hurtful.

We know how sensitive you are. Many of us try to accomodate you.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You stretched my screen.

 

[phrodeau]

Sounds like a shovel-ready project.

Imagine when it's completed. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.

 

[trysail]

Sorry 'bout your screen, Johnny. The pressure of time and my interest in efficiency precludes re-sizing.


This is where the Athabaskan petroleum will go if the U.S. continues to behave like an idiot. Canada is tired of dealing with the dopes in the U.S.; they'll probably build a West Coast export pipeline anyway.

http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/project-at-a-glance/

 

[JohnnySavage]

Sounds like a shovel-ready project.

Imagine when it's completed. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.

You can say that about any infrastructure project. Or even any major construction project. In the mean time, it would employ not only the people building the pipeline, but those providing supplies and services. Eventually, it would provide local employment for those operating and maintaining it.

 

[koalabear]

The Oblamer admin is against any permanent jobs. If the sheep get jobs and money they may revolt.

 

[coastal-boy]

It won't do shit. Nothing but very dirty oil. But hey...let them build it. Republicans buy shit everyday so there is a market.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It won't do shit. Nothing but very dirty oil. But hey...let them build it. Republicans buy shit everyday so there is a market.

But if Canada is going to build it as depicted in Trysails picture above, why would it be better there, than here? Seemingly, the environment in the PNW is much more sensitive than the environment in the Gulf where there are already a lot of refineries.

Speaking of it's terminus I mean.

 

[thør]

Didn't the Chinese just buy up a chunk of the oil sands business? Time for a pipeline to Vancouver?

 

[koalabear]

Didn't the Chinese just buy up a chunk of the oil sands business? Time for a pipeline to Vancouver?

China is quietly buying up lots of things. They now own most rare earth mineral deposits in the world.

 

[islandman]

Poppycock!

 

[koalabear]

Poppycock!

Moody Blues.

 

[thør]

China is quietly buying up lots of things.

I dunno about quietly........

One or two large US construction companies are due to be bought up so revenue from the US can be increased.

 

[koalabear]

I dunno about quietly........

One or two large US construction companies are due to be bought up so revenue from the US can be increased.

China doing defense contracting will be cool.

 

[Disgustipated]

What does it matter? It pisses off the ten hairy people in Frisco at the core of the Obama enviro-wacko constituency. That's all that needs to be known about this issue.

Who the fuck are the "ten hairy people"?

 

[islandman]

Who the fuck are the "ten hairy people"?

Tree-hugging hippies.

 

[trysail]

Note the date.
February 14, 2011

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133698850/why-is-gas-cheaper-in-middle-u-s-thank-canada


Why Is Gas Cheaper In Midwest? Thank Canada
by Jeff Brady

Gasoline prices have been on the rise for months now. As the economy improves, demand has gone up. But aside from that, something unusual is happening with gasoline prices in the U.S. this winter: Prices are rising faster on the East and West Coasts than they are in the middle of the country.

Since September, a gallon of regular gas in New York state has gone up 59 cents. In Colorado, it's increased only 25 cents. Some of that increase is because of different tax rates in the two states, but the bulk of it is due to bargain-priced oil coming in from Canada.

When you think "foreign oil," the Middle East probably comes to mind. But Canada actually is the No. 1 supplier of foreign oil to the United States. The amount of oil Canada delivers to this country is growing, thanks in large part to the Alberta oil sands.

A Bottleneck
Despite protests from environmentalists, Canada's oil sands business is booming. Much of that crude heads into the U.S. through a network of pipelines. But pipeline construction hasn't kept up and a bottleneck has developed in Cushing, Okla.

"Because there are no pipes going south from Cushing to Houston, the oil backs up there and as inventories build, prices go down," says Philip Verleger, an oil market analyst and professor at the University of Calgary.


That means crude in the middle of the country is selling for about $15 a barrel less than it would on the world market. Verleger says you can see that reflected at gas pumps in the middle of the country.

"Consumers in Colorado, consumers in Illinois, consumers in Minnesota should all be sending thank you notes to the province of Alberta," says Verleger, who lives in Colorado. "We're benefiting from the increased supply in Alberta because it can't make its way to the Gulf Coast."

Glenda Walden of Lakewood, Colo., recently filled up her 2001 Honda Civic for $2.99 a gallon — about 25 cents more than she paid in September.

In New York, the increase has been more than twice that. But that's cold comfort for Mark Fox of Denver, who spent $75 dollars on gas for his sport utility vehicle.

"That's what they cap you at [on] the credit card — so can't even fill up anymore, but we do what we can," he said. "It's tough, though."

Still, when he finds out why he's getting a better deal than a New Yorker, Fox shows his appreciation: "Thank you, Canada!"

Pipeline Problems
What's been a boon for some U.S. drivers is considered a problem by Canadian oil companies. They don't like selling their oil at a discount. So the firm TransCanada has proposed a new pipeline that would make it easier to relieve that bottleneck in Oklahoma and get oil down to the Gulf Coast, where it would fetch higher prices.

"We, as a company, submitted our application for this proposed pipeline back in 2008 to the U.S. Department of State," says Terry Cunha, a TransCanada spokesman. "And we're continuing to wait for a decision."

The State Department must issue what's called a "presidential permit" for the project because it crosses an international boundary. The department says it's still gathering information about things such as the environmental effects of the pipeline.

Meanwhile, an increasing supply of Canadian oil continues to flow into the U.S., says Verleger, the oil market analyst.

"If the new pipeline is not approved, Alberta has a serious problem of what to do with the crude," Verleger says.

Companies in Alberta and Oklahoma are building more oil tanks, hoping storage will relieve the surplus. But until there are more ways for Canada's oil to get to the broader market, drivers in the middle of the country will continue to benefit.

 

[Peregrinator]

Only the very dumbest kind of asshole doesn't see the problem with thinking like this:

 

[JohnnySavage]

Only the very dumbest kind of asshole doesn't see the problem with thinking like this:

That's just a position you are taking to feel better about yourself. The fact is, the pipeline is going to be built. Environmentally, it doesn't matter if it's inside our borders or a few miles north - which nullifies the environmental argument and makes it one of economics. Economically, it seems to me that we should be part of the deal rather than standing on the sidelines bitching about China.

 

[islandman]

It's good for Canada, it's good for the U.S.

Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Peregrinator]

That's just a position you are taking to feel better about yourself. The fact is, the pipeline is going to be built. Environmentally, it doesn't matter if it's inside our borders or a few miles north - which nullifies the environmental argument and makes it one of economics. Economically, it seems to me that we should be part of the deal rather than standing on the sidelines bitching about China.

Well, no, not really. At least if that's the reason I'm taking that position, I was unaware of it and it didn't have any effect on how I feel about myself.

The entire discussion is occurring because people think that way. "It's going to be built" because people think that way. The fact is that continued use of petrochemicals for energy is bad for everyone. The short-sighted view, whether it's being taken by the Chinese, the US, or the Canadians or all three, is that we just have to have all that cheap energy right now. Otherwise how could we do stuff like run our leaf blowers and air conditioners?

Here's an interesting fact-check on the jobs it would create: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rtisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html