Skip to comments.Both sides turn up the heat in final pipeline hearing
Posted on 10/07/2011 4:36:20 PM PDT by jazusamo
Administration decision due on $7 billion project
A final public hearing on the proposed $7 billion Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline on Friday turned into a heated and often testy battle, filled with boos and cheers for speakers who traveled from across the country to testify.
Protesters gathered outside the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center early in the morning, and then flooded into the hearing room, where a number of them pleaded with the State Department to reconsider its support for the pipeline. Supporters, which include both business and labor groups, say the project will provide needed energy from a reliable ally, reduce the nations reliance of overseas suppliers, and create thousands of new construction and maintenance jobs. Critics say the economic benefits are overstated and that the project bisecting the nations midsection will wreak environmental havoc on sensitive lands along its path.
The State Department, which must approve the proposal as the pipeline originates across the border in Canada, appears to be leaning toward approval despite a series of increasingly passionate public hearings in recent weeks, both in Washington and in the field, on the Keystone pipeline. Opponents say lobbying by TransCanada and U.S. energy interests has tilted the debate in favor of approval, a charge the State Department has rejected.
State Department officials will now review the public comments, and wrap up a 90-day review period in mid-November. Then, it will issue its final decision to the White House in December. President Obama has faced pressure from environmental groups, including a series of protests outside the White House, as the decision day has neared.
At Fridays packed hearing, Robin Mann, director of Sierra Club, an environmental group, said she had come all the way from Pennsylvannia to make her voice heard...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
White House will never let this happen.
It’s my undestanding it’s being piped to the refineries in Texas for our use.
Yeah, let’s waste more billions on solar panels and windmills that don’t work and damage the landscape way more than this pipeline ever will.
what do you mean taxpayer’s expense? evidence please.
Why? There's already refineries in the south. How does refining and shipping separated product help, or how is it cost-effective?
Exactly! The enviro nuts consider any energy not renewable energy taboo but renewable energy is horribly inefficient and costs way more.
Once again, you reveal your ignorance.
The refined products will be consumed in the US of A. We no longer export finished product, except under special circumstances (i.e., under contract, in exchange for crude from Mexico, bunker fuel for ships returning to foreign ports).
All the distributive pipelines in the US market originate on the Gulf Coast, where the refineries are. In order to distribute from northern refineries, a whole new set of distributive pipelines would need to be built.
You can generally count on businesses to make the most efficient economic decisions. Whether you agree with them or not.
If you do not know what depreciation/and depletion is, it is to late for me to explain it to you.
I've noticed that the squirrels two streets North are predominantly black this year, but on this side of the bisection they are gray. In other years they've been red here, gray there, or white there and black here.
Oh the humanity.
Who are these econuts who imagine a pipeline bisects anything. For the most part it's going to be 30 feet deep in the ground!
There's already a substantial pipeline into the area. This is an ADDITIONAL PIPELINE.
The great advantage is this will pipe the oil to EXISTING year round refineries.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
You realize that there is some profit derived by the refiner--why shouldn't it be in the U. S.? And, there's a pretty good transportation infrastructure centered around Oklahoma. Isn't that more centrally located than the Canadian field for distribution around the U. S.? And why build refineries up there if they exist here?
Now, if my assumptions are wrong, and the pipeline will cause some problems, tell me about it, and I'll reconsider my take on the situation.
We don't need more Chicom interests in our country, or Canada! Americans who want to give stuff to the Chicoms should be investigated closely and punished appropriately.
There is nothing wrong with building new refriners, just south of the border is there. At least they would not be shutting down and running up price everytime a storm hits the gulf.
I think it’s more an issue of where the refineries are, and the difficulty in getting any new refineries built.
Refineries are expensive, and new ones are hard to get past the environmentalists. And yes, it would be nice if the Gulf weather didn't affect our oil supply as much as it does--but is it worth the cost to duplicate or replace it? And given the predictable opposition, how long would it take?
The OIL comes from Canada. There is no depletion allowance for foreign origin oil. This stuff simply has no well head taxes or tax breaks in the American tax system.
It blows my mind that there is even a question of approving construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The oil sands will be developed one way or another. The U.S. will keep using oil for decades. Doesnt it make more sense to import oil from Canada than from repressive, autocratic nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? (And for those who conflate being anti-pipeline with a belief that Peak Oil is around the corner what better reason could there be to secure strategic supplies of crude?)
A lot less time than the legal battle, that will start shortly. Matter. Of fact I think the nature crowd file their first case a few days ago. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/groups-sue-to-block-construction-of-keystone-xl_n_996075.html
Cost of the pipe line, is probably 100 times that of a refinery. That is cost effective. So which is the most cost effective. Building a refinery in the north, are a ten years legal fight, and stealing thousands of peoples property by eminent domain.
Whiting Refinery Modernization Project
Today, BP is investing several billion dollars in Northwest Indiana to modernize its Whiting Refinery for the processing of heavier crudes. The modernization is essential to the long-term viability of the refinery, and includes well over a billion dollars in environmental improvements.
project will provide for greater energy security in the
Midwest, as conventional supplies of the lighter crudes
diminish, and are replaced by heavier crudes.
With this in mind, the project involves repositioning Whiting
to be able to run heavier sour crude oil. It involves a new
crude distillation unit, a 100kbd coker, world scale
hydrotreating and sulphur recovery, and improvements
I might ad that the oilsands will be exploited and production will be increased if this pipeline is built or not. If the US doesn’t want the oil a pipeline will be built over the mountains to the west coast. The oil will be loaded into tankers and sold to the Chicoms.
Do you have some references for that? Obviously, the relative cost matters. Without any specific knowledge of my own, I would have though the pipeline cheaper.
You’re absolutely right, the Chicoms can’t wait to get their hands on it.
I guess that is a bad thing too.
Interesting--I didn't know that. It's not "100 times" though. I suppose there are ancillary costs and delays. I'll consider what you've said, but without knowing the rest of the story (refinery construction, who would have the expertise to own and build it, the rest of the transportation story) I can't really form a fully informed opinion. But, you've given me something to think about and look into, as I assumed the pipeline would just be a lot cheaper.
It’s been awhile since I studied engineering economics and industrial engineering as an undergrad...refresh my memory.
what does that have to do with a project “at tax payers expense”? Is the pipe privately owned or not?
Listen up buddy, I like your posts on this thread. I don’t know if I agree with everything you say, but i do want you to keep talking.
btw, its starting to sound to me like you are in favor of building new refineries in north america. I like that idea. In fact, I’ve been wondering out loud why we don’t build a refinery in north dakota...along with all the other ancillaries that go with a refinery...as in hydro cracking and such.
Lots of jobs. lots of national security. lots of american know how and independence. Sure, maybe some ass*holes in DC and wallstreet won’t get as big a bonus on their stocks, but do I need to quantify my regrets on that to you?
You need to get into this discussion pronto, thackney!
This is not at tax payer expense.
They are not asking for tax breaks, just permission to spend their money and go to work.
Nonsense. You use the same refinery and refine North Americal petroleum instead of crude oil from OPEC.
There is no change in volume required, just a change in a more reliable and friendly source.
I do not grasp the need of the pipe line at all.. and bringing the Chinese into it is stupid as well, hell they will make the pipe no matter what.
So they are going to give up the depreciation, I had no ideal.
More nonsense. And you are forgeting if you built refineries in North Dakota for this, you would have to also build product pipelines as well. Either case requires building pipelines.
What tax break are you claiming would be used for crude oil / bitumen pipeline that would not be applied to a new refinery and refined product pipelines?
Let me cue you into a little known fact nowadays...
In america, nearly all steel production is derived from recycled scrap metal. You cannot get high grade cast iron anymore that is american origin...or wrought iron of high grade. These products require iron ore in large quantities and a process that is not friendly to the environmental gods of the hippy lefties.
Maybe this pipeline requires steel of such a grade that general run of the mill scrap is not sufficient for procurement...just a possibility that popped into my mind.
I just want to make sure all parties understand...
I did not intend for this to be me and thackney against whodat. I brought thackney into this fray so that me and whodat could battle against thackney as allies(on this matter only). I do not have very good memories of past grudges and i have no idea if I have a grudge against either of you. Even when I get abusive on FR I do not remember who it was I was abusive with or who was abusive to me. that is my way on FR. whatever happens on a thread, stays on that thread...as far as i’m concerned.
I just want to engage in a spirited debate. thackney appears to be up to the challenge of taking on two adversaries. So lets do it.
thackney makes good points about the existing ancillaries in texas though. there is more to petroleum processing than refinement...then there is the issue of distribution of those petro-chemicals.
I am of the mindset that “if you build it, they will come”. But I have no technical proof.
This new oil pipeline goes from western Canada to the US Midwest and then south to the Gulf for several reasons. It gives Canada a market for the vast amounts of oil in its oil sand area. It goes to the Midwest and Gulf because existing US refineries are located there to refine this type of heavy crude. The Gulf refineries are available as Chavez of Venezuela stopped send similar heavy crude up because he hates the US. Little of the refined product would leave the US as we want it and the price is right.
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.