The Keystone Pipeline Project

[jacksunny 741]

So basically, the Keystone Pipeline is a "bullet line" that brings crude oil from Canada to different market hubs in the US. It has been completed, but now people are debating over the proposed extension which will make a different pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. It will then extend the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas and Houston, Texas.

The environmental impact of this has been said to be very little (unless there is a leak, which is unlikely as pipelines are inspected and monitored) and it will provide many jobs both here in Alberta and in the US.

Yet many people are still against it. So what is your say?

I personally am for it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

As a Canadian who is interested in supporting our neighbor to the south, I am for it. All this screaming the U.S. is mostly due to ignorant "environmentalists" who haven't the faintest notion of the benefits nor the amount of risk control that is being set up for this new extension of an existing pipeline. They also have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to current oil sands production techniques. In short, the opposition is fuller bull. They should be more worried about frakking in local oil fields.

  Edited October 26, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Halen Of Dania 350]

I have no opinion on this cause I don't live Anywhere near this pipeline but I can feel for the residents that have to deal with the risk of a pipeline spill every single morning when they get up. I don't know why we can't just negotiate with the canadians a new and sensible solution though that may cost money but it would be worth a try am I right??. And also by the way you can't argue that the oil companies don't have money to build a pipeline from canada to the gulf shores in texas cause they seem to hagle enough with the government why would It be any diffrent now??

  Edited October 26, 2011 by halenbyname  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The northern expansion would be useless unless it serves new areas. At the moment, it seems to be a shortcut. Also, doesn't Texas produce a ton of oil already? If oil companies are paying, by all means expand but neither north american government can afford it.

[jacksunny 741]

The northern expansion would be useless unless it serves new areas. At the moment, it seems to be a shortcut.

The purpose of that expansion is so they can start shipping down more oil than they could with just the one pipeline. It is supposed to greatly increase production.

[hamsterTK 93]

Right now Cushing, OK is a bottleneck and that already causes the price of some oil commodities to do strange things. A pipeline from there to the gulf is probably good news.

  Edited October 27, 2011 by hamsterTK  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Has Texas ran out of oil already?

[hym 358]

Major benefits of the Keystone Pipeline:

• Jobs for both Americans and Canadians, with Canada getting a sustained economic boost.
  
• Reliance on oil from undesirable sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Venezuela diminishes, which increases stability in the oil markets.
  
• Should the Wyoming oil field ever be developed, there are more options for how to tie the pipeline into the rest of the network.
  
• Should a pipeline be built to connect the West Texas oil fields to the Gulf Coast refineries, this provides a natural tie-in point.
  
• For the purposes of prices at the pump, this will allow more Americans access to cheaper gas.
  
• We might get more serious about upgrading our outdated refineries with more modern facilities.
  

Minor disadvantages of the Keystone Pipeline:

• Cheaper gas prices will slow demand for hybrid and electric vehicles somewhat.
  
• Our dependance on Canadian oil will go up. (Though last I heard, Canada wasn't prone to random acts of human atrocities or international subterfuge like some earlier nations I mentioned.)
  

You'll notice that I listed no major disadvantages to this pipeline. That is because there aren't any major disadvantages.

...I can feel for the residents that have to deal with the risk of a pipeline spill every single morning when they get up.

I live in the fall out zone of America's most powerful nuclear reactor, within the shadow of one of the world's largest chemical facilities (which processes chemicals so deadly that if they ever get airborne, they could wipe out 5 million people or more), inside the contamination zone of biohazard research facilities that work with diseases that could kill everyone in the Western Hemisphere, and more. I have been in the exposure zone of an ammonia release and I have been within a few hundred feet of a cyanide processing facility as an emergency evacuation was called. I currently work in a refinery that processes hydrogen sulfide (which is every bit as toxic as cyanide), I have recently been assigned a project in an area of the refinery with a known risk for hydrogen sulfide leaks, and when I'm not doing that, I'm often working around electrical equipment with enough voltage to boil my blood inside my veins, reduce me to a liquid or gas vapor, blow me to pieces, or send multi-hundred pound circuit breakers literally flying at me. I've been living with this stuff for over 20 years and I have yet to wake up one morning and worry about any of it. Any average person who gets up in the morning worried about a pipeline spill needs a serious reality adjustment.

I don't know why we can't just negotiate with the canadians a new and sensible solution though that may cost money but it would be worth a try am I right??.

Like what? Pipelines are the cheapest and safest way to transport petroleum.

As for the costs, it is only worth trying if there is an economic benefit to it. As I said earlier in a different thread, sooner or later, it becomes necessary to put a price on human life, and determine whether it makes sense to risk some people's lives for the betterment of others.

Also, doesn't Texas produce a ton of oil already?

Define "a ton." Texas used to be the chief supplier of US petroleum demands, but that was several decades ago. Today, the oil fields in west Texas still produce oil, and West Texas Intermediate is still the US benchmark oil, but production is not what it used to be. Additionally, there are no major pipelines connecting the West Texas oilfields to the major Texas and Louisiana refineries, so there is no cheap way to get it to the refineries. The major oil companies and refiners have expressed interest in building pipelines out to western Texas, but they need assurances that West Texas Intermediate will remain significantly cheaper than Brent crude oil for the next few decades.

If oil companies are paying, by all means expand but neither north american government can afford it.

Both the US and Canada could afford to pay for this out of pocket change. The entire Keystone XL project is expected to cost about $7 billion.

[sneakeypete 16]

I have to admit i love how they are calling what is in all honesty a new pipeline an "extension". Otherwise, build the dam thing. Even if Texas was producing oil at the rate of its glory days, it probably wouldn't be enough (after all, way more people there now. Also, correct me if i am wrong but this is a crude oil pipeline is it not? doesn't matter what the local consumption of the oil is anyway if that is the case and it is efficient to ship processed fuel a fair sort of distance

[Finkle 14]

@hym, that's a very good point about the extremist that blow up the pipe lines in Canada.

Did anyone mention that the environmentalist angle is a aquifer that lies under where said pipe line is to be put... to that I say what about the pipe line that are all ready in the area.

Is this pipe line to be above or below....

nice little picture of the pipe lines in America

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This whole thing has been studied to death, and full environmental work has been done. The screaming and shouting is a little late out the gate, considering that what is up for grabs now is final approval. Some political hacks are making hay while the gas prices go through the roof. Follow the money and see whose paying the protesters.

  Edited October 27, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Duke87 1,070]

One could make the argument that that $7 billion would be better spent on renewable energy.

Problem with that argument is that $7 billion worth of windmills or solar panels would mean less energy than $7 billion worth of oil pipeline.

Don't get me wrong, the future is ultimately going to be in renewable sources, but fossil fuels are still plentiful enough and renewable technology is still nascent enough that the economics for such a shift aren't really there yet.

So, I see nothing wrong with building another pipeine. Yeah, it's not "sustainable" long term, but since when do we design anything to last forever? Like it or not, there are still decades of significant oil consumption ahead of us. The pipeline will see plenty of use over its expected useful lifespan.

[hym 358]

One could make the argument that that $7 billion would be better spent on renewable energy.

Considering TransCanada is a private firm, albeit publicly traded, and is offering to build the pipeline entirely out of its own pocket, I think the whole "we could use this money better on renewable energy" argument has no room in this discussion.

Don't get me wrong, the future is ultimately going to be in renewable sources, but fossil fuels are still plentiful enough and renewable technology is still nascent enough that the economics for such a shift aren't really there yet.

This is something that people don't get. We are still nowhere ready to make the transition to a "clean energy" economy, or whatever people want to call it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Quite correct, Hym. The best source of free energy is insolation, and we don't do much of a job capturing it. Solar cells are inefficient, reflecting sunlight on to a steam generator is no better than burning coal as far as capturing energy is concerned. It has the same losses as any steam plant.

Wind generators also are not very efficient converters of insolation nor are wave and tide motors. Even hydro-electric systems don't capture all the energy that is going by but only a fraction.

All our "clean" energy sources depend on sunlight in one way or another. Our best bet is Hydrogen fusion, and that is surely a long way off in spite of the Tokamak project. Meanwhile, if you want clean energy the best existing choice is nuclear fission, which, while clean of itself, produces some messy by products. Handling and ultimately refining of nuclear generator wastes should be higher on the agenda than just burying it in a relatively no-fault zone. (At least we've stopped dumping such stuff in the ocean!)

So, brothers and sisters, hang on to your principles of wanting clean energy, but don't hold your breath.

  Edited October 30, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[clarkjordan12345 108]

To be honest, I think it will do more good than harm. The US afterall is addicted to the stuff, so why not push the syringe in even further?

[blade2k5 1,523]

^ Quite correct, Hym. The best source of free energy is insolation, and we don't do much of a job capturing it. Solar cells are inefficient, reflecting sunlight on to a steam generator is no better than burning coal as far as capturing energy is concerned. It has the same losses as any steam plant.

I have two 1800 watt solar power generators that I sit outside and get free electricity, yup that's right, I'm completely off the power grid and have more than enough power to run the furnace, two fridges, two large freezers and the electronical devices in the house. What power I don't use is stored in a battery that comes with each solar power generator. Each one cost around $1700.00, about what I paid the power company every year.

This is the type of green energy this ignorant Gov't of ours should be promoting, but the idiot in the White House and his merry band cronies are just to ignorant to see that.

As for the pipeline, why not?

  Edited November 5, 2011 by blade2k5  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I have two 1800 watt solar power generators that I sit outside and get free electricity, yup that's right, I'm completely off the power grid and have more than enough power to run the furnace, two fridges, two large freezers and the electronical devices in the house. What power I don't use is stored in a battery that comes with each solar power generator. Each one cost around $1700.00, about what I paid the power company every year.

This is the type of green energy this ignorant Gov't of ours should be promoting, but the idiot in the White House and his merry band cronies are just to ignorant to see that.

As for the pipeline, why not?

Interesting anecdotal proof that you don't need the power company and its gigantic, expensive distribution network. Problem is, of course, that not everyone has the cash nor the space to place such a system. If you could get a government grant or interest free loan to do this, would you? Is the power company too big to fail?

[blade2k5 1,523]

I have two 1800 watt solar power generators that I sit outside and get free electricity, yup that's right, I'm completely off the power grid and have more than enough power to run the furnace, two fridges, two large freezers and the electronical devices in the house. What power I don't use is stored in a battery that comes with each solar power generator. Each one cost around $1700.00, about what I paid the power company every year.

This is the type of green energy this ignorant Gov't of ours should be promoting, but the idiot in the White House and his merry band cronies are just to ignorant to see that.

As for the pipeline, why not?

Interesting anecdotal proof that you don't need the power company and its gigantic, expensive distribution network. Problem is, of course, that not everyone has the cash nor the space to place such a system. If you could get a government grant or interest free loan to do this, would you? Is the power company too big to fail?

When you weigh the savings vs the cost of the unit, it's a no-brainer. I realize that not everyone could afford it, in fact I couldn't, but I went ahead and got them anyways because of the savings. In another 18 months, they will have paid themselves off with th savings from paying the electric company every month.

As far as power companies failing, let 'em. They're gouging the paying public anyways.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I have two 1800 watt solar power generators that I sit outside and get free electricity, yup that's right, I'm completely off the power grid and have more than enough power to run the furnace, two fridges, two large freezers and the electronical devices in the house. What power I don't use is stored in a battery that comes with each solar power generator. Each one cost around $1700.00, about what I paid the power company every year.

This is the type of green energy this ignorant Gov't of ours should be promoting, but the idiot in the White House and his merry band cronies are just to ignorant to see that.

As for the pipeline, why not?

Interesting anecdotal proof that you don't need the power company and its gigantic, expensive distribution network. Problem is, of course, that not everyone has the cash nor the space to place such a system. If you could get a government grant or interest free loan to do this, would you? Is the power company too big to fail?

When you weigh the savings vs the cost of the unit, it's a no-brainer. I realize that not everyone could afford it, in fact I couldn't, but I went ahead and got them anyways because of the savings. In another 18 months, they will have paid themselves off with th savings from paying the electric company every month.

As far as power companies failing, let 'em. They're gouging the paying public anyways.

they should never have deregulated the energy industries.

there are still only the few power companies that actualy do anything in terms of maintaining and installing the electric power infrastructure.all the rest are just billing companies who send you an electric bill and the utilitys are forced by regulations to sell thru them at cheaper rates.

[Duke87 1,070]

Problem is, of course, that not everyone has the cash nor the space to place such a system.

Or conditions that permit it. My parents have the cash and the space but their house is surrounded by trees... meaning that no matter where they put the panels they'd spend a majority of the day in the shade, and that they would be in jeopardy of getting damaged by branches falling from trees in a storm.

Many people also consider it simply not worth the hassle. Because, you know, you can't just buy solar panels and stick them on your roof. You have get an electrician who knows what he's doing to wire them up. You probably also have to get a permit for them and depending on where you live that may be rather easy or quite difficult. And then you have to take responsibility for them and maintain them.

Also worth considering is that the payback varies. Based on your numbers, blade2k5, I'm guessing you were paying the power company about 16 cents per kWh... most places in the US it's not that high. The average price in most of the country is below 10 cents per kWh. This changes the economics considerably.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Up here you can also purchase a fairly efficient wind generator for about $2,000 + cost of hooking it up. It is not an enormous pylon, but simply a unit that attaches to a small tower on your roof like a well-braced TV antenna (remember those?). In Ontario, if you generate excess power, you can sell it to the grid. The usual hook up is with a meter that runs in both directions. If the power company reads your meter and finds you have given more than you got, they pay you. The arrangement is quite simple.

This gives you the grid as backup, and considering the latitude here, solar panels are not very efficient at all. Insolation is spotty at best, but the wind pretty much always is with us. Of course if you are unconscionably wealthy, you can have some solar panels in this system as well.

One of the great economies that can be realized in a household is to use flash water heating. A demand heater is placed on the hot water supply, and only runs when the water is flowing. It can be electric or gas. Keeping a hot water tank at temperature all the time is expensive due to radiation losses, even if the tank is well insulated. This is a practical technology in use on yachts for years.

Meanwhile, back at the pipeline, it is to my advantage as a Canadian who will reap the benefits of the taxes and seniorage on oil exported to the U.S. to be in strong favour of anything that increases our sales. We love to sell raw materials to the U.S. and even go so far as to train a few brains and let them be drained off as well. What would the children of the U.S. do without that famous Canadian, W. Disney of fond remembrance?

[sneakeypete 16]

I did do some calculations based on it, and for a sunny place like Australia, the panels pay themselves back in 10 years (out of a lifetime of 20 years). So they're pretty much economical now if you have the space and location. (which we don't already have a solar hot water heater and a solar pool heater on our roof)

[blade2k5 1,523]

Problem is, of course, that not everyone has the cash nor the space to place such a system.

Or conditions that permit it. My parents have the cash and the space but their house is surrounded by trees... meaning that no matter where they put the panels they'd spend a majority of the day in the shade, and that they would be in jeopardy of getting damaged by branches falling from trees in a storm.

Many people also consider it simply not worth the hassle. Because, you know, you can't just buy solar panels and stick them on your roof. You have get an electrician who knows what he's doing to wire them up. You probably also have to get a permit for them and depending on where you live that may be rather easy or quite difficult. And then you have to take responsibility for them and maintain them.

Also worth considering is that the payback varies. Based on your numbers, blade2k5, I'm guessing you were paying the power company about 16 cents per kWh... most places in the US it's not that high. The average price in most of the country is below 10 cents per kWh. This changes the economics considerably.

First off, these solar generators don't go on the roof, they sit on the ground like a regular gas generator and can be easily moved around. As for getting it set up, all you have to do is plug it in using the same connection you use for a regular generator. Simple, easy and you don't need an electrician to hook it up if you already have a line for a generator. Since we had two such lines already in place, there was no extra cost. [We have two generators because of the two large freezers and two fridges we need to keep running no matter what. Can't have several hundred dollars worth of meat spoiling + plus our deer meat.]

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What's the difference between meat and deer meat, Blade? It all goes in the same pot?

[blade2k5 1,523]

What's the difference between meat and deer meat, Blade? It all goes in the same pot?

Where did I say there was a difference?

[jacksunny 741]

Sorry to interrupt your conversation on clean energy, just wanted to mention that the pipeline approval(in the US) has been put on hold. Congress has requested that the U.S. State Department’s inspector general review the proposed pipeline, particularly the environmental study, and see if it is in the best interest of the nation to build it. The final approval could now be sometime in late 2012.

TransCanada says they approve the review so those opposing the pipeline can be addressed.

You can view the full article here.

[hym 358]

^ Quite correct, Hym. The best source of free energy is insolation, and we don't do much of a job capturing it. Solar cells are inefficient, reflecting sunlight on to a steam generator is no better than burning coal as far as capturing energy is concerned. It has the same losses as any steam plant.

There is no doubt that solar energy is the ultimate source of free energy (the US could power itself for a day off the solar energy it receives in 40 minutes). The reason solar energy isn't viable is that we have failed miserably at all efforts to build a highly efficient solar cell. In fact, we have failed for so long that a lot of researchers are calling it quits on the idea of ever achieving a high efficiency solar cell. It has been said for decades that solar cells would become economical when they reached 50% efficiency. Even after decades of research, our most advanced solar arrays are only now in the 40% area, and the solar cells that would actually be economical for the average person are still running in the 10%-20% efficiency range.

Wind generators also are not very efficient converters of insolation nor are wave and tide motors. Even hydro-electric systems don't capture all the energy that is going by but only a fraction.

Wind generators, by definition, are not going to be efficient insolation converters. That is not what makes them valuable in the energy production spectrum. The conversion of solar energy into wind is going to happen regardless of whether we want to or not, and it's going to happen in a region that we cannot tap with photovoltaics. The value of wind generators is that it allows us to tap an otherwise untappable energy source.

As far as power companies failing, let 'em. They're gouging the paying public anyways.

This is one of those things that people say so long as the lights are on at their place. Once a storm comes through and rips up their home energy production system, they will be clamoring for someone to do something to get their power restored. It doesn't even have to be a storm that causes the power outage. Could just be a couple of really hot days with intense storms (and thick cloud cover that goes with it) that suddenly has you out of power. And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of how do you power important things like a large hospital complex.

Like it or not, having electric utilities is a must in our modern world. Even in a world where we all provide our own power, the ability to provide backup generation is a necessity.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ No doubt. Everything is going my way until my ox is gored.

[Larks2242 251]

I am so for this, we need less dependence on the oil in the middle east, if Canada is our new source so be it, i don't see anything wrong with buying it from Canada. I can't believe how there are now protests to "occupy" it, these people have gotten way out of hand, I hope they will not take down our countries businesses that is the last thing we need.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am so for this, we need less dependence on the oil in the middle east, if Canada is our new source so be it, i don't see anything wrong with buying it from Canada. I can't believe how there are now protests to "occupy" it, these people have gotten way out of hand, I hope they will not take down our countries businesses that is the last thing we need.

There is nothing new about Canada selling oil to the U.S. We've done it for years. If we don't get that pipeline, it will just cut down what you could have got. We have others waiting in the wings, most of them with really dirty, dangerous supertankers.