The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

[feathermoon]

The midwest and Gulf Coast refineries have a very significant effect on one another. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Do you know where the Keystone XL is destined for?

No offense, but how complex is this? There is an oversupply in the Midwest coupled with low demand, buffering it from world oil prices. The XL will alleviate this oversupply, pumping oil south. This will raise prices in the Midwest. In this regard, the Xl will have a direct negative impact on the economy. Does this make sense? Do you know what we're talking about now?

More on this. See DrClapeyron's post as well.

Speaking of bought and paid for opinions, The Pembina Institute is very much on that list.

You mention 50+ years of oil sands drilling when, in fact, development has been occurring for 35-40 years, most of the footprint is associated with mining not drilling, and the low number for reclamation is a result of the fact that the mining is still ongoing (so why reclaim it?).

Indeed. It can be difficult some times to find information sources not tainted by a bad image or money. I commiserate with you (especially if you support the industry! I daresay not many independent researchers would have a confirmation bias towards it). I would personally LOVE to hear some good news research from a Oil & Gas funded source, provided its believable.

In this case, however, the numbers I mentioned would seem safe. In fact, as the area of drilling and mining increases, the area of reclamation will proportionally decrease. Not just because mining is ongoing, but because reclamation takes time. Tailings ponds can take decades to settle alone for beginning reclamation, from what I've read, besides whether they are fully reclaimable anyway!

Mining in the Athabasca region began in 1967. Given that mining seems to be the more extreme of the extraction methods, I feel this was hardly a point worth making.


Yep, still seems like it'd be in the U.S.'s best interest to not move this project forward to me.

 

[feathermoon]

@feathermoon,
Many of your considerations seem to me to be thoughtful and well researched. But I think they generally run contrary to the status quo. So, I predict that this thread will be locked soon. Anyway, it seems that pretty much anything that can be said about it, pro and con, has been said. The bottom line, imho, is that it will go through sometime following the November elections. That is, it's inevitable. So, there's no point in debating the merits, or lack, of it.

While I'm inclined to agree with you considering part will be built anyway already. Even if the project is only delayed, that still benefits us. The longer we get from the recession before gas prices shoot up another 20-30 cents the better.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/117832183.html?source=error

U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through.

Bad news for already rising food prices in the midst of our recovery, no?

 

[WhoWee]

While there is an excess supply in the Midwest, exporting the excess won't make a large impact on global markets. Economies of scale and whatnot (or even being offset by reduced production in other locales).

Can you please support (specifically) how pumping oil through the XL pipeline will increase both gasoline prices in the midwest and fuel in America (if you intended those to be separate). Your argument is still not clear - at least not to me.

 

[WhoWee]

We have an update.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-28/transcanada-to-build-texas-segment-of-keystone-xl-pipeline.html

"TransCanada Corp. will proceed with building a $2.3 billion segment of its Keystone XL oil pipeline from Oklahoma to the Texas coast so that it isn’t delayed by U.S. approval for the rest of the line.

The company, based in Calgary, expects the segment to begin carrying crude from the Cushing, Oklahoma, storage hub to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast as soon as mid-year 2013, according to a statement today. TransCanada is separating the Cushing line from its application to President Barack Obama for approval of a Keystone expansion that will bring crude into the U.S. from Canada’s oil sands"

 

[Topher925]

Can you please support (specifically) how pumping oil through the XL pipeline will increase both gasoline prices in the midwest and fuel in America (if you intended those to be separate). Your argument is still not clear - at least not to me.

Its not really the piping of oil through the pipeline that will raise prices, its the displacement of over supplied and therefore discounted Canadian heavy crude oil produced at the refineries on the gulf coast. This issue is stated in the original 2008 application for the pipeline.

Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.

http://stopbigoilripoffs.com/documents/keystone-xl-pipeline-application-section-3-supply-and-markets/at_download/file

 

[WhoWee]

Its not really the piping of oil through the pipeline that will raise prices, its the displacement of over supplied and therefore discounted Canadian heavy crude oil produced at the refineries on the gulf coast. This issue is stated in the original 2008 application for the pipeline.


http://stopbigoilripoffs.com/documents/keystone-xl-pipeline-application-section-3-supply-and-markets/at_download/file

A pipeline will clearly increase revenues in Canada - no argument. But this will also increase the supply available for refining. Why will an increased supply increase the refined (gasoline and/or fuel) price?

 

[Topher925]

A pipeline will clearly increase revenues in Canada - no argument. But this will also increase the supply available for refining. Why will an increased supply increase the refined (gasoline and/or fuel) price?

The current Canadian crude oil being refined is over supplied, so in order to move it, its discounted. The fuel from these refineries is also sold domestically here in the US (the midwest). The pipeline would supply tar sands oil to these refineries displacing the discounted Canadian crude oil, thereby eliminating this discounted fuel from the US market. All of the fuel from the Keystone pipeline produced from those refineries, which may be over supplied as well, could be manufactured at a lower or discounted cost as you suggest (I don't know, but I would assume so). However, that fuel will NOT be sold domestically in the US.

In a nutshell, your taking away discounted fuel for the US, and giving it to some other country.

 

[Evo]

The Seaway Pipeline is being purged for reverse flow set to begin early this summer. Reversing the pipeline will bring oil from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast of America. This is being done because the price of WTI is $20 below Brent and other world spot market prices.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/21/pipeline-operatiions-seaway-idUSL2E8DL5M520120221

This article explains the impact on pricing in more detail.

Right now, the United States has a big glut of crude oil sitting in the middle of the country, and no easy way to move it. The combination of surging production from Canada's tar sands and North Dakota's Bakken region has overwhelmed the existing pipelines to the Gulf of Mexico, where it would ordinarily be refined and shipped onto the global market. As a result, the price of American and Canadian crude oil is trading at a steep discount to varieties from elsewhere in the world. After all, with fewer potential customers, oil buyers can dictate friendlier prices. West Texas Intermediate, which is traditionally considered a benchmark variety of crude used to price other types, is selling for about $106 a barrel. But according to Oil Price Information Service analyst Tom Kloza, oil from North Dakota has recently been selling for around $83 a barrel. Canadian crude has been trading for even less.

That good fortune might soon be coming to an end, however. Owners of the Seaway pipeline are planning to reverse it's flow in June, which will allow it to begin shipping 150,000 barrels of oil a day from Cushing Oklahoma, where most of that Canadian and North Dakotan crude is currently sitting, to the gulf. Eventually, it will be able to ship 400,000 barrels a day. If the new pipeline capacity can ease all those backed up supplies, it means prices will rise.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dis-united-states-gas-prices-182602059.html

 

[WhoWee]

The current Canadian crude oil being refined is over supplied, so in order to move it, its discounted. The fuel from these refineries is also sold domestically here in the US (the midwest). The pipeline would supply tar sands oil to these refineries displacing the discounted Canadian crude oil, thereby eliminating this discounted fuel from the US market. All of the fuel from the Keystone pipeline produced from those refineries, which may be over supplied as well, could be manufactured at a lower or discounted cost as you suggest (I don't know, but I would assume so). However, that fuel will NOT be sold domestically in the US.

In a nutshell, your taking away discounted fuel for the US, and giving it to some other country.

Let's assume everything you've posted is correct. What will happen when the world supply is increased with Canadian oil?

 

[WhoWee]

This article explains the impact on pricing in more detail.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dis-united-states-gas-prices-182602059.html

This is why I suggested we need new refining capacity around the Great Lakes.

 

[Topher925]

Let's assume everything you've posted is correct. What will happen when the world supply is increased with Canadian oil?

Thats a simple question with a very complicated answer. My speculation is that global fuel prices would remain roughly the same or have a slight decrease on average.

This is why I suggested we need new refining capacity around the Great Lakes.

This is why I suggest we don't add any new refining capacity around the Great Lakes. I've seen enough pollution and mutated fish from growing up on Lake Erie. I don't need to see Lake Michigan and Superior succumb to the same fate.

 

[mheslep]

With modern standards, it may be that displacing a lot of farm run off with a refinery or two might be an improvement.

 

[WhoWee]

Thats a simple question with a very complicated answer. My speculation is that global fuel prices would remain roughly the same or have a slight decrease on average.

At some point, a continuous increase in the world supply with a constant demand (decreasing due to fuel efficiency and alternatives and offset by increased consumption in Asia) - will result in lower prices.

 

[mheslep]

A reference to *world* supply then should be compared to world demand. Even if North American demand is constant Chinese and other third world demand for oil is going to increase for some time yet.

 

[WhoWee]

A reference to *world* supply then should be compared to world demand. Even if North American demand is constant Chinese and other third world demand for oil is going to increase for some time yet.

Isn't world demand expected to decrease with green energy initiatives?

 

[Topher925]

Isn't world demand expected to decrease with green energy initiatives?

Which demand are you referring to? Total energy demand, no, most definitely not. Energy demand from fossil fuels, it depends on who you ask. Some say we are already at peak consumption for oil. I would disagree. The world has roughly 2 billion cars on the road and that numbers climbing with India and China developing infrastructure. You could argue that many of the 2 billion gasoline fueled cars will be replaced with electric cars in the near future (which I doubt they will) but even if they are those cars need to be recharged from some energy source.

Japan and Germany are in the process of shutting down all of their nuclear power plants and replacing that energy demand with coal. I believe China is still bringing on a coal fired power plant every week. So no, I don't think the demand is expected to decrease in the near future.

 

[gravenewworld]

Nothing more than a temporary band aid for a hemorrhage. OPEC could just cut back on oil production and prices would stay the same. Much of the increases for oil are due to deregulated oil trading markets that have gotten way out of hand. For 3 years, the CFTC hid the fact that the 2008 oil bubble prices were due in large part to manipulation by traders, the public should be outraged. They're now doing the same thing again, and nothing will change until the hammer comes down and we start really going after excessive speculation and start regulating again.

http://zfacts.com/p/35.html


Coincidence the rise in gas prices comes after 2000, which is when we did most of our deregulating? I think not. Demand is the lowest it has been since 1997.

Read more about ICE down in Atlanta here also:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/172797-the-global-oil-scam-50-times-bigger-than-madoff

 

[mheslep]

Isn't world demand expected to decrease with green energy initiatives?

Buy that I assume you mean more efficient end use and not 'green' production (e.g. solar, wind, etc)? In the developed world yes. In the developing world no energy demand is not going to decrease.*
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...region&tstart=730875600000&tend=1267333200000

*One caveat: the developing world will not have to follow the same wasteful path as the West did, as it can go directly to cell phones vs land lines, modern jet and car engines, combined cycle gas electric generation, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

If the world's supply of oil is increased - it (alone) should not increase prices - can we all agree on this point?

The second point is world demand - it is increasing and that will lead to higher prices - can we all agree on this point?

 

[mheslep]

...For 3 years, the CFTC hid the fact that the 2008 oil bubble prices were due in large part to manipulation by traders,
...

Coincidence the rise in gas prices comes after 2000, which is when we did most of our deregulating? ...

I scanned your links but say no mention of the CFTC hiding anything, nor that gasoline trading was deregulated after 2000. Are you referring to another source?

 

[gravenewworld]

I scanned your links but say no mention of the CFTC hiding anything, nor that gasoline trading was deregulated after 2000. Are you referring to another source?

ICE opened up in 2000. Before ICE opened, the typical American family spent 7% of their disposable incomes on food and fuel, after ICE it skyrocketed to 20% and continues to climb. ICE is unregulated and outside of US jurisdiction. It only takes a quick search to see who set up ICE: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BP, etc. 1999-2000 was also the year we deregulated derivatives trading via the Commodities Futures Modernization Act and the Financial Services Modernization Act. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=e802998a-8ee2-4808-9649-0d9730b75ea4

"This report clearly shows that in the summer of 2008 when gas prices spiked to more than $4 a gallon, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other speculators on Wall Street dominated the crude oil futures market causing tremendous damage to the entire economy," Sanders said. "The CFTC has kept this information hidden from the American public for nearly three years. That is an outrage.
The American people have a right to know exactly who caused gas prices to skyrocket in 2008 and who is causing them to spike today. The CFTC claims they need more data to impose speculative position limits as required by Dodd-Frank. That is laughable. The American people need action to bring down gas and oil prices and they need it now, which is why I have introduced legislation with eight co-sponsors to do just that."

Before anyone thinks supply and demand run oil, hell most commodity prices in general, they should first learn about ICE and the rampant excessive speculation that goes on within these unregulated trading avenues through which we're all being practically robbed. Emerging economies and more demand for gas do increase the price of oil, but the traders on ICE are probably the biggest culprits that are robbing the poor to make the rich even more rich. Senator Sanders seems to be a refreshing change and is at least trying to be a knight in shining armor for the regular American simply trying to get by.

The main point is that we can drill for oil here all we want. It won't do much at all to stop oil bubbles from happening over and over and over again until we start clamping down hard on shadow derivatives markets that are making the prices for almost all commodities go up without regards to the laws of supply and demand.

 

[WhoWee]

Personally, after participating in this thread, I'm more convinced the only way to drop the price of gasoline in the US is to drill in North America and add refineries.

 

[Alfi]

Personally, after participating in this thread, I'm more convinced the only way to drop the price of gasoline in the US is to drill in North America and add refineries.

Self reliant and self producing. Go for it.
( ummm how does the phrase go ? ... Drill Baby Drill. )

No need any additional pipelines in that case.

 

[feathermoon]

At some point, a continuous increase in the world supply with a constant demand (decreasing due to fuel efficiency and alternatives and offset by increased consumption in Asia) - will result in lower prices.

By a penny or two/g, tops? You think the increase of 30 cents in the Midwest won't wholly offset that nation wide, when so much of our food is produced and shipped from the Midwest? Turn off your blinders buddy!

OPEC has already increased or decreased their own production to stabilize oil prices before. They don't like the 1-2 cent increase and even it may not happen (though I doubt they'd bother with such a small decrease.)

 

[feathermoon]

If the world's supply of oil is increased - it (alone) should not increase prices - can we all agree on this point?

The second point is world demand - it is increasing and that will lead to higher prices - can we all agree on this point?

Neither of these points you want us to agree on correlate to the original topic. You're burying the issue with unrelated posts.

 

[feathermoon]

Personally, after participating in this thread, I'm more convinced the only way to drop the price of gasoline in the US is to drill in North America and add refineries.

You haven't been reading the same topic then.

 

[WhoWee]

Neither of these points you want us to agree on correlate to the original topic. You're burying the issue with unrelated posts.

From the OP:
"I know its typical of corporate america and government to put money for the wealthy ahead of the well being of everyone else on the planet, but come on."

How would lower gas prices not benefit more people than just the wealthy?

 

[CaptFirePanda]

No offense, but how complex is this? There is an oversupply in the Midwest coupled with low demand, buffering it from world oil prices. The XL will alleviate this oversupply, pumping oil south. This will raise prices in the Midwest. In this regard, the Xl will have a direct negative impact on the economy. Does this make sense? Do you know what we're talking about now?

It's actually quite complex. The WTI/Brent differential can/will have huge impacts on US futures if it keeps spreading the way it is. The glut in the Midwest may pose a short-term gain in depressed gasoline prices, but overall it's going to hurt the economy more than it will benefit it.

As you'll see from other stuff the Doc has posted, reversing flow from Cushing out to the coast is the other solution to this problem. Keystone isn't even required (well, it is, but the Seaway reversal offsets things to a degree.

So, sure.. the blue collar argument is having to pay more to fuel their daily commutes. In the long run, however, it is a far more complex issue that prices at the pump.

By the way, your condescension isn't appreciated. My questions were legitimate questions because you seem to be looking at a rather small and short-term benefit from low WTI prices.

Indeed. It can be difficult some times to find information sources not tainted by a bad image or money. I commiserate with you (especially if you support the industry! I daresay not many independent researchers would have a confirmation bias towards it). I would personally LOVE to hear some good news research from a Oil & Gas funded source, provided its believable.

The confirmation bias goes both ways. My support goes so far as to present facts rather than the rhetoric or sensationalism that accompanies this sort of discussion. I would assume that if you are willing to believe Pembina reports, then you would categorically dismiss any information to the contrary.

In this case, however, the numbers I mentioned would seem safe. In fact, as the area of drilling and mining increases, the area of reclamation will proportionally decrease. Not just because mining is ongoing, but because reclamation takes time. Tailings ponds can take decades to settle alone for beginning reclamation, from what I've read, besides whether they are fully reclaimable anyway!

How would the numbers seem safe? If you are mining an area of ~40000 hectares why would it be reclaimed if it is still active? To report that it has not been reclaimed is misleading and pointless. Drying processes significantly speed up the process of recovering tailings, so decade long time frames are an exaggeration (3-5 years for earlier traditional settling methods). The idea of whether something can be fully reclaimed exists for every land disturbance, not just oil sands operations. Open pits, tailings, etc... associated with other activities have just as much impact and just as much reclamation potential as the oil sands.

Mining in the Athabasca region began in 1967. Given that mining seems to be the more extreme of the extraction methods, I feel this was hardly a point worth making.

What point exactly? The point that you cannot reclaim active mining operations?

Yep, still seems like it'd be in the U.S.'s best interest to not move this project forward to me.

Like I've mentioned above, it certainly is within the best interests of the US to do something about the Midwest glut. With Keystone XL delayed, the industry has obviously found other ways around this problem.

 

[mheslep]

Personally, after participating in this thread, I'm more convinced the only way to drop the price of gasoline in the US is to drill in North America and add refineries.

And/or use less. Supply and Demand. One or the other must impact the US price given liquid fuel does not quite yet flow immediately around the globe unimpeded to the highest bidder. By the same measure there's a limit on how much US behavior can impact gasoline price because China and India are out there.

 

[WhoWee]

And/or use less. Supply and Demand. One or the other must impact the US price given liquid fuel does not quite yet flow immediately around the globe unimpeded to the highest bidder. By the same measure there's a limit on how much US behavior can impact gasoline price because China and India are out there.

Back in 2006, NPR agreed with you.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365439

"What about long-term fixes?

They're the same: increase supply and decrease demand. But in the long term, we have more opportunities to do this, by developing new oil fields, building new refineries, replacing gas guzzlers with gas sippers, and searching for alternative fuels."

 

[Topher925]

Personally, after participating in this thread, I'm more convinced the only way to drop the price of gasoline in the US is to drill in North America and add refineries.

OK, but who said that we need to drop the price of gasoline, or even want to?

From the OP:
"I know its typical of corporate america and government to put money for the wealthy ahead of the well being of everyone else on the planet, but come on."

How would lower gas prices not benefit more people than just the wealthy?

And this was taken WAAAYYYY out of context. By the well being of everyone on the planet I was referring to the health of the environment, not american's check books.

 

[WhoWee]

OK, but who said that we need to drop the price of gasoline, or even want to?

And this was taken WAAAYYYY out of context. By the well being of everyone on the planet I was referring to the health of the environment, not american's check books.

I thought there were 3 reasons Americans supported the pipeline - 1.) lower gas prices, 2.) jobs, and 3.) energy independence from the ME?

 

[Evo]

I thought there were 3 reasons Americans supported the pipeline - 1.) lower gas prices, 2.) jobs, and 3.) energy independence from the ME?

Can you link to the studies that support those ideas?

 

[Topher925]

I thought there were 3 reasons Americans supported the pipeline - 1.) lower gas prices, 2.) jobs, and 3.) energy independence from the ME?

OK, that's nice, but I do NOT support the Keystone pipeline!

And as has been being discussed in this thread, the Keystone pipeline project has been accused of - 1) increasing gas prices, 2) producing not many jobs at all, and 3) would not do diddly squat from providing energy independence from the ME (ALL the oil would be exported form the US)

 

[WhoWee]

Can you link to the studies that support those ideas?

What other possible reasons would Americans want the pipeline - other than lower prices, jobs, and energy independence? These have been the expectations discussed in the media.

Jobs were anticipated:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline/story?id=15387980

Lower gas prices are/were anticipated:
http://www.speaker.gov/Blog/?postid=281784

This touches on an expectation of lower prices and energy independence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/keystone-xl-obama-critics_n_1305569.html

"With retail gasoline prices on a path to top $4 a gallon soon and possibly touch $5 if political tensions with oil-producing Iran get worse by midyear, voter frustration with Obama likely will rise - with or without Keystone being built.

"Delaying the Keystone XL pipeline is not the reason gasoline prices have been going up, and moving forward on a variant of Keystone will not bring them down," said Michael Levi, an energy analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations. "When it comes to today's gas prices, the Keystone fight is a sideshow," he said.

As Democrats in Congress perked up over the TransCanada announcement, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski went to the floor of the Senate to squash any celebration. She complained that in her home state, the Trans Alaska Pipeline was only "half full" with oil because Democrats had blocked new drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as some offshore drilling projects.

Obama is countering that there are no easy answers to rising energy prices and that "drill baby drill," a policy of expanded domestic oil exploration advocated by Republicans, will not end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

But that "is a big communications challenge for him" at a time when the cost of filling the gas tank is rapidly escalating, said the senior Senate Democratic aide."