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 nation’s 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 nation’s 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 it’s 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 Friday’s 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 ...
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.
Also, the Canadian oil company will pay for the construction and later service on the pipeline, not US taxpayers. The construction will use American employes as will the service jobs. The pipe will be bought from American mills as much as possible. It will be a shot in the arm for our economy.
Whodat makes some very valid points!
The cost of a double walled pipeline to the gulf coast is enormous.
The cost of permits to refine heavy oil in the upper states, then actually build refineries and the ancillary power plants, is also enormous.
Then, the added cost of piping numerous grades of volatile refined product from the upper states to the US/Canadian markets is also enormous, needing more permits than the pumping of raw crude.
Yet an upper states infrastructure of refineries, able to process a full pipeline of product, actually makes it difficult to sell the refined product on the world markets, as it’s so distant from ports, keeping it for North American consumption. And, the Canadians would more directly benefit from product originating within its borders, piped back to Canada.
Whodat may have just saved the snaildarter from extinction, but on economics, his thoughts have lots of merit for further study.
If you build refinery for the oil / bitumen in North Dakota or Montana, you will also need to build product pipelines because there isn’t sufficient demand for the products in that area.
You would still have the exact same issues you are complaining about.
We do not have a double walled pipeline in the US and there is not one plan anywhere. I have been on the design team of several pipeline new builds and expansions.
We add pipeline sleeves for locations like road crossing where it is required but never a whole pipeline.
Keep in mind while refineries mainly produce gasoline and diesel, they also produce a lot of other byproducts as well. That is why most of the industries chemical plants are near by the refinery centers.
Also, refineries take in more than just crude oil. In a modern refinery, units like hydrotreaters and hydrocrackers. In areas like Houston, it may be more economical for refineries to tie into the existing hydrogen pipeline and buy it, rather than build their own hydrogen production unit.
Refineries also produce produce products like residuum, petroleum coke, sulfur. These have to reach their markets as well and that isn't in North Dakota. While we have refinery capacity, but are using it to refine oil from OPEC nations, it makes far more economic sense to add a single pipeline to reach more of the refineries, than build entirely new refinery and have to transport multiple products through different pipelines while also adding more expensive rail traffic to move the products that will not flow through pipelines.
They are not. I worked with the preliminary design and estimation for the Ute Indian Tribe in North Eastern Utah of the Uinta Basin.
Due to the content of the oil, the primary output of this refinery would be wax. All the same EPA requirements were still in place and part of the planing for equipment and costs estimates.
Tens of billions? Hundreds of Billions?
I wish you could show me just one of those.
Thanks for your well informed posts.
Thanks for your clarification, but I think that some of what you said, I also said.
You: “than build entirely new refinery and have to transport multiple products through different pipelines while also adding more expensive rail traffic to move the products that will not flow through pipelines.”
Me: “Then, the added cost of piping numerous grades of volatile refined product from the upper states to the US/Canadian markets is also enormous, needing more permits than the pumping of raw crude.
So, I believe that we agree.
But, everything is a tradeoff, which I continue to believe that experts - such as yourself - may wish to explore.
I was not aware that there is no double wall piping on our petro infrastructure. I had thought that the Alaskan Prudhoe pipeline was double jacketed to ensure that the crude temperature could be controlled to retain viscosity. At ITT Grinnell, we used to make miles upon miles of double wall pipe per year at our Kentucky and North Carolina facilities back in the early ‘80’s. I had thought that it was for the petro industry, as well as our nuclear customers. My bad.
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.