Skip to comments.State Dept. report favors U.S.-Canada oil pipeline
Posted on 08/27/2011 7:53:47 AM PDT by thackney
The State Department today removed a major roadblock to a planned $7 billion oil pipeline from western Canada to the Texas coast in a report that says the project is unlikely to cause significant environmental problems during construction or operation.
The thousand-page report on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline says no significant problems have emerged since a similar report was issued last year.
Calgary-based TransCanada wants to build a massive pipeline to carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas. The pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. Supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
(Excerpt) Read more at fuelfix.com ...
It took a thousand page report to say that, having been approved last year, it’s still OK last year?
How long does it take to produce a thousand page report? A year? Do we now need another thousand page report to say that since this report was written, nothing has changed on the environmental front?
I’ll bet the Chinese would take less than three seconds to agree to take that gas.
This is oil, but all your points still apply.
The State department is a bunch of Imbeciles,Headed by a world class Pinko Jackazz.
What would it cost to build the pipeline and maintain it?
What would it cost to build a refinery in Alberta and do the refining there?
Refineries also produce other products besides transportation fuel. Our local refineries have other pipelines then to deliver products like propane & ethane to chemical plants.
They also produce residual oil or petroleum coke. We have existing transportation systems and/or local markets to handle those as well.
- - - - -
Or you could just extend one pipeline to send the crude oil/bitumen to existing refineries and spend a lot less money while using the existing systems and replacing imported oil from overseas.
The “refineries in Texas” are already operating at or near capacity, aren’t they?
But much of the Crude Oil refined in the US comes from overseas. The idea is to replace that oil from places like OPEC with Canadian Oil. The Gulf Coast, including Texas, imports a lot of oil from overseas to supply the nation's oil.
You ask if it would be cheaper to build the refinery in Canada. The answer is no. You would have to build even more pipelines for the products, plus build the refinery.
Instead of that, we can just build the oil pipeline, and import less oil from OPEC.
We should be using oil from our own oil sands just a few miles from Texas... INSTEAD of oil from Canada...
Thanks, so it’s a replacement issue rahter than additional supply issue. I’m good with that. Also, I agree about refinery building expense. (Someone else posted that question.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.