Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Dept. report favors U.S.-Canada oil pipeline
Fuel Fix ^ | August 26, 2011 | Associated Press

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; oil; oilsands; pipeline

1 posted on 08/27/2011 7:53:52 AM PDT by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


2 posted on 08/27/2011 8:04:31 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
to take that gas

This is oil, but all your points still apply.

Cheers.

3 posted on 08/27/2011 8:06:31 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

bump.


4 posted on 08/27/2011 8:08:22 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The State department is a bunch of Imbeciles,Headed by a world class Pinko Jackazz.


5 posted on 08/27/2011 8:15:02 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Carnival commie side show, started November 4 2008 ,A date that will live in Infamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
This is obama taking a big republican talking point on energy off the table before 2012 begins. Should have been done long ago.
6 posted on 08/27/2011 8:27:11 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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?


7 posted on 08/27/2011 8:31:21 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
So regardless of Obama’s decision to authorize the pipeline, the oil will likely be produced — which, if the President does not grant approval, means only that instead of the oil heading south to the United States, it will exit to China and other countries. A subsidiary of the China National Oil Company has already offered $2.1 billion to buy a Canadian oil sands producer in Calgary. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8594-will-oil-from-canadas-keystone-xl-pipeline-go-to-us-or-china
8 posted on 08/27/2011 8:32:14 AM PDT by radioone (Don't let the media pick our nominee. "Palin 2012")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
If you built the refinery(s) in Alberta for this oil, then you would need to build a pipeline to deliver the gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc.

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.

9 posted on 08/27/2011 8:44:08 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The “refineries in Texas” are already operating at or near capacity, aren’t they?


10 posted on 08/27/2011 8:55:05 AM PDT by SaxxonWoods (.....A man eventually wears the face he earns.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
The Keystone Pipeline delivers oil to more than Texas.

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.

11 posted on 08/27/2011 9:01:41 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Order of magnitude estimates: 700 kb/d pipeline, $7BB, 700 kb/d refinery, $15B plus the cost of products pipelines to move gasoline and diesel fuel to markets, about another $5B.
12 posted on 08/27/2011 9:04:59 AM PDT by LOC1 (Let's pick the best, not settle for a compromise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

We should be using oil from our own oil sands just a few miles from Texas... INSTEAD of oil from Canada...


13 posted on 08/27/2011 9:29:09 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.)


14 posted on 08/27/2011 1:42:02 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (.....A man eventually wears the face he earns.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson