Skip to main content

View Diary: Alberta Premier Says US Considering Climate Change in Keystone XL Pipeline Decision (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a carbon tax will not make their tar sands (3+ / 0-)

    any less dirty or mitigate their destructiveness.  That's where the double speak comes in

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:38:44 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And the irony comes in considering (0+ / 0-)

      that blocking Keystone will have absolutely no more effect than that, either.

      •  there comes a time when you have to say NO (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MJ via Chicago, Darryl House, raatz

        to further destruction of our planet. The pipeline is our opportunity to stop the  incremental  destruction. We are already possibly too late.

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:46:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In theory that sounds noble (0+ / 0-)

          in practice, it is meaningless - you yourself presented a diary a few days ago how the Tar sands oil was getting out with or without Keystone.

          In fact, the alternative - moving the oil by railroad is environmentally worse.  Again, that's ironic I suppose.

      •  Turning a supertanker takes time. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, beach babe in fl

        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

        by the fan man on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:51:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, therefore it's good to consider (0+ / 0-)

          what direction it is turning!

          •  Explain what happens with no XL pipeline (0+ / 0-)

            that makes it a non-issue. Certainly seems to be one for those looking to pump more tar sand crude.

            Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

            by the fan man on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:59:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The tarsands oil will be transported (0+ / 0-)

              by rail if the Keystone pipeline is not built. The Bakken has demonstrated empirically that that is viable, and it is already happening for tarsands oil (for example, Southern Pacific started transporting tarsands oil to Gulf Coast refineries that way earlier this year).

              So, from the POV that the tarsands will be developed either way, it is not an issue.

              But, from the POV that transport of rail is worse both from the amount of energy involved and safety, then it IS an issue - in the sense that a pipeline would be better on both accounts.

              Kinda like when PETA got horse slaughterhouses shut down in the USA and now - 3 or 4 years after they were successful in doing that - are  in favor of re-opening them.  Why? well simply because the alternative is even worse (e.g., horses starving to death or being slaughtered in Mexico under less humane conditions).

      •  This is pure hogwash. (3+ / 0-)

        Rail is not equal to pipeline. Not on volume, not on cost, not on availability.

        Without any new pipeline out of the Tar Sands, development of the resource will be slowed or curtailed.

        That is a fact, and the industry has said it themselves.

        Go check the price of dilbit crude in the midwest compared to sweet light crude in TX in case you had any doubt. Lack of a pipeline is costing the Alberta industry biilions of dollars.  And we are going to keep it that way.

        "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

        by oregonj on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:40:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not hogwash at all (0+ / 0-)

          Rail has enabled the Bakken oil field to be developed, faster than the Tarsands in the past two or three years in fact.

          And, as long as the Brent price is above the addition of

          1) capital costs for tar sands development (~$20/bbl)
          2) extraction costs (~$15-20/bbl)
          3) transportation costs (~$8/bbl by pipeline v. ~$30/bbl by rail)

          or - for the "High cost" rail scenario - above $70/bbl

          tar sand development will continue unabated.

          The only difference is where the profits will go - e.g., $40 to Big Oil if by pipeline and "only" $20/bbl if by rail (with the rest going to the railroads).

          Either way, extraction will continue at full pace.  The major differences are

          1) who amongst the 1%ers gets the most of the profits
          2) how much energy it takes to get the product to market (hint, in this regard pipelines are better, but rail provides more jobs . .. ).

          •  roadbeds are usually make with tar... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oregonj, raatz

            so if we can slow down tar sands extraction perhaps we can get rid of some of the roadbed troll roads no?

            Macca's Meatless Monday

            by VL Baker on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:37:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong. Not even close to "at full pace" (0+ / 0-)

            I am going to listen to the investment and industry analysts. Sorry about that RG.

            “The shortfall in take-away capacity is absolutely going to weigh on realized
            prices for the Canadian producers over the near term on both heavy and light
            oil… But especially heavy oil, which is at a pretty substantial discount to WTI
            right now … It’s a challenging market for Canadian upstream crude producers.”
            Chris Feltin, Analyst, Mac quarie Research.
            “And conditions are not improving — pointing to an even weaker first quarter as
            Canadian prices continue to weaken. ‘If this persists it really points to (the first
            quarter) as being a really, really ugly quarter for heavy oil producers…’”
            “But for the growth to continue, all the proposed export pipeline capacity
            and more will need to be built, and soon, according to CIBC World Markets
            institutional equity research executive director Andrew Potter. ‘Even if you
            build every single pipe that’s on the table right now...you’re still short pipeline
            capacity,’ he noted.”
            “Even if all the pipelines being planned were built, there would not be enough
            capacity to handle the growth that companies have laid out in their expansion
            plans. And Mr. Potter said there is “less than a 50-50 chance” that the two
            proposed pipelines through B.C. — Enbridge’s Inc.’s Northern Gateway and
            Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion — will be completed.”
            Andrew Pott er, Executive Directo r of Institution Equity Research,
            CIBC World Markets

            "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

            by oregonj on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:50:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Even though you opted not to include (0+ / 0-)

              links with those quotes, I was able to track down the entire articles, which pointed out that those conditions were projected to last a few months (e.g,. immaterial to the construction of pipelines, which take longer than that in any event).

              Here's a couple links describing longer term prospects for rail, and how that mode of transportation is rendering pipelines moot:

              Oil On the Tracks: How Rail Is Quietly Picking Up the Pipelines' Slack

              Oil Aboard! Tar Sands Industry Eyes Nexen Rail Alternative to Stalled Pipelines

              Of course, anyone can google something like "tar sands rail transport" and find out plenty more about this.

              •  What are you talking about????? (0+ / 0-)

                There is nothing "near-term" in his conclusions.  The analyst is saying that there would be enough dilbit production to fill ALL of the pipelines if they were built (2 through BC plus Keystone). And then you say that if none of these pipelines are built (while 300k bpd gets put on choo-choos) it will have no impact on tar sands development?  This must be a joke.

                "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

                by oregonj on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:34:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  In the Bakken rail transport (0+ / 0-)

                  has gone from zero to 340,000 bbl/day in less than 2 years.

                  And similar efforts are only now starting wrt rail (which has been stymied by the threat of pipeline over capacity.

                  Estimates are that up to 4 million bbl/day can/will be moved by rail.  IOW, plenty of capacity for the tarsands.

                  That's how ethanol is moved of course - about 2 million bbl/day - again over just a few years.

                  The kicker is that railroads have excess capacity due to declining coal shipments.  They can easily move the volume of crude oil in question.

            •  Something else that is interesting (0+ / 0-)

              is how the massively depressed current prices have not impeded production at all.

              Much like how fracked natural gas has caused prices in NA to crater, yet production of that continues unabated.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site