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

Skip to comments.

TransCanada Corp. to begin construction of Keystone pipeline
The HIll ^ | 2/27/12 | Andrew Restuccia

Posted on 02/27/2012 9:41:01 AM PST by Nachum

TransCanada Corp. said Monday it plans to begin building a major portion of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline despite the Obama administration's decision to reject a key permit for the project.

The company told the State Department in a letter Monday that it will begin construction of a section of the pipeline that runs from Cushing, Okla., to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The stand-alone portion of the project, which TransCanada dubbed the Gulf Coast Project, will cost $2.3 billion and will be completed in mid-to-late 2013, according to the company. The project must still receive other regulatory approvals.

Separately, TransCanada said it will reapply "in the near future" for a permit that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to cross from Alberta, Canada, into the United States.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: construction; corp; energy; keystone; keystonexl; pipeline; transcanada
Hmmmm
1 posted on 02/27/2012 9:41:14 AM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

http://www.kltv.com/story/16601787/100-miles-of-pipeline-stored-in-e-texas-field


2 posted on 02/27/2012 9:44:51 AM PST by Western Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Western Phil

Somebody should tell Obama, this is what a shovel ready project looks like.


3 posted on 02/27/2012 9:47:59 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
TransCanada said it will reapply "in the near future" for a permit that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to cross from Alberta, Canada, into the United States

"Soon" meaning, 12:01 PM on January 20, 2013, I assume?

4 posted on 02/27/2012 9:50:19 AM PST by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Full text of TransCanada announcement:

TransCanada Set to Re-Apply for Keystone XL Permit Proceeding with Gulf Coast Project
http://www.transcanada.com/5966.html

Calgary, Alberta - February 27, 2012 - TransCanada Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TransCanada) announced today it has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State (DOS) informing the Department the company plans to file a Presidential Permit application (cross border permit) in the near future for the Keystone XL Project from the U.S./Canada border in Montana to Steele City, Nebraska. TransCanada would supplement that application with an alternative route in Nebraska as soon as that route is selected.

The company also informed the DOS that what had been the Cushing to U.S. Gulf Coast portion of the Keystone XL Project has its own independent value to the marketplace and will be constructed as a stand-alone Gulf Coast Project, not part of the Presidential Permit process. The approximate cost is US$2.3 billion and subject to regulatory approvals, we anticipate the Gulf Coast Project to be in service in mid to late 2013.

“Our application will include the already reviewed route in Montana and South Dakota,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “The over three year environmental review for Keystone XL completed last summer was the most comprehensive process ever for a cross border pipeline. Based on that work, we would expect our cross border permit should be processed expeditiously and a decision made once a new route in Nebraska is determined.”

TransCanada will continue to work collaboratively with the State of Nebraska on determining an alternative route for Keystone XL that avoids the Sandhills. TransCanada has been working on assessing the routing in Nebraska since November 2011, following the State Department’s notice to delay a decision on a Presidential Permit until an adjusted route that avoids the Sandhills was developed.

U.S. crude oil production has been growing significantly in States such as Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota and Montana. Producers do not have access to enough pipeline capacity to move this production to the large refining market at the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Gulf Coast Project will address this constraint.

“The Gulf Coast Project will transport growing supplies of U.S. crude oil to meet refinery demand in Texas,” added Girling. “Gulf Coast refineries can then access lower cost domestic production and avoid paying a premium to foreign oil producers. This would reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign crude and allow Americans to use more of the crude oil produced in their own country.”

Reapplying for the Keystone XL permit is supported by words used in President Obama’s statement January 18, 2012 when he said the denial of the permit was not based on the merits of the pipeline but rather on an imposed 60-day legislative timeline to make a decision on the project.

With respect to moving forward on an initiative like the Gulf Coast Project, President Obama stated: “In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security - including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico.”

TransCanada’s commitment is to treat landowners with honesty, fairness and respect. The company has negotiated over 99 per cent of voluntarily easements in Texas and close to 100 per cent in Oklahoma. Easements make up the route of a pipeline and are similar to an easement for water, sewer and utility lines. Residents maintain ownership of the land and landowners receive a payment equal to or greater than the land’s market value.

Keystone XL remains in the national interest of the United States as it would allow Americans to move closer toward achieving energy security and create thousands of much needed jobs. Building the Gulf Coast Project would be a positive step in creating approximately 4,000 jobs. From an energy security standpoint, the U.S. consumes 15 million barrels of oil each day and imports 10 to 11 million - forecasts suggest this will not change for decades. The Keystone XL project offers Americans a choice of receiving Canadian and U.S. oil through this pipeline system or continuing to import crude oil from unstable places such as the Middle East and Venezuela that do not share American values.

The U.S. manufacturing sector would continue to experience the economic benefits of the project, as TransCanada has contracts with over 50 suppliers across in the U.S. Manufacturing locations for our equipment include: Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, Kansas and California. There are hundreds of additional suppliers sub-contracted through our suppliers for our material and equipment.


5 posted on 02/27/2012 9:57:16 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The states need to stand up to the fed on this and each state demand and pass the pipeline through.

Though I have always though they should just build a refinery in North/South dakota instead of the pipeline.


6 posted on 02/27/2012 10:02:07 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Excellent. Build it to within 50 yards of the Canadian/US border, and tell all the workers they will receive a 5,000 bonus when the project is completed. Let the workers know that Obama is keeping them from their bonus.


7 posted on 02/27/2012 10:03:56 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Though I have always though they should just build a refinery in North/South dakota instead of the pipeline.

And then we could fight over the Gasoline, Diesel, Jet Fuel pipelines while arguing over which existing refinery to shut down.

We already have a surplus of refinery capacity and existing products pipelines to markets.

8 posted on 02/27/2012 10:06:39 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Great! my friends in Cushing could use the work. the two refineries there have been shutterd for some 30 years.


9 posted on 02/27/2012 10:11:30 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Great! my friends in Cushing could use the work. the two refineries there have been shutterd for some 30 years.


10 posted on 02/27/2012 10:11:58 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

The XL Pipeline’s 500,000 BARRELS OF OIL PER DAY would surely put a damper on 0bama’s plans for $10/gal gas. Besides, it’s easier for him to launder the tax payer’s money through ‘green’ programs like Solyndra since that crowd is lefty just like him.


11 posted on 02/27/2012 10:13:21 AM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Soon could also mean November 4, 2012 even if the President elect is Obama. Then he will not need the Sierra Clubs money for his super pac anymore.

This is what I read months ago. It would pass after the election and Obama could say the pipeline was rerouted to avoid the environmentally sensitve areas of NE. This way everyone wins. Obama gets the cash he needs. The enviromentalists claim victory. The unions get a lot of new jobs buiding the pipeline. Obama then gets to claim he was instrumental in helping create 1000’s of new jobs.


12 posted on 02/27/2012 10:13:36 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney

What became of the proposed new refinery in Sioux Falls ?
DOA ?


13 posted on 02/27/2012 10:30:40 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

They are still trying, but I cannot help but wonder if they are not trying to hard at this point.

Refinery margins have gotten tighter in the US. Our refinery capacity already significantly exceeds current demand. So at this point, they are not trying to compete with imports but with another US refinery. It is a tough market to find economic stability until our demand grows back up significantly.


14 posted on 02/27/2012 10:49:03 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: thackney

It would seem that the nearest big target metro would be Mpls/Western WI.
Three refineries already pour their products into this market, not to mention 15 others coming up from the Group.


15 posted on 02/27/2012 12:17:29 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Obammy forgot one thing.....many pipelines alreay exist, approved by the EPA,etc etc.Once approved they cannot be recinded. If in Gov.specs and same approved lines are met they can add as many pipelines as they want along ANY route they want. Along any pipeline ther is a 150 ft easement,bought and paid for by the contractor and approved by the Govt. Let them twist in the wind..the law is on our side


16 posted on 02/27/2012 2:10:52 PM PST by VF-51vnv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VF-51vnv

They can create rules that put them out of service but they must be maintained to a certain standard by the owners.

That’s what happended to the two refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma.

That is my understanding of how it works. But, I like your exploitnation.


17 posted on 02/27/2012 2:15:45 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VF-51vnv
If in Gov.specs and same approved lines are met they can add as many pipelines as they want along ANY route they want. Along any pipeline ther is a 150 ft easement,bought and paid for by the contractor and approved by the Govt. Let them twist in the wind..the law is on our side

I have worked pipeline engineering and construction on and off for many years. There is not automatic approval of twinning or other running of parallel lines for the same pipeline. Each construction and operation permits has the requirements.

In general, it goes through easier for a parallel line of the same service. But new environmental impact studies have to be done. Not all areas have 150 foot easements, I've seen as small as 50' in places.

18 posted on 02/29/2012 5:25:59 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thackney
If you ever seen the GOVT specs...land owned by the Govt...constructed for the Govt...run by the Govt (by contractor)and overseen by the Govt. You might want to change your opinion. Worked at the SPR for 11 years..only environmental studies to be done is IF we go outside existing pipeline routes and/or boundaries. The Govt,unfortunately, has its fingers in everything. I know I used to be an auditor. Not fun but necessary.
19 posted on 03/01/2012 1:17:32 PM PST by VF-51vnv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VF-51vnv

Can you name me one government owned/operated crude oil pipeline outside of the the SPR system?

I cannot help but believe the Government sets the rules a little different for itself versus private companies.


20 posted on 03/01/2012 1:37:59 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VF-51vnv

Here is an example of the pipeline work I experienced.

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Availability/Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report for the Proposed Kern River 2003 Expansion Project
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2002/06/26/02-16109/kern-river-gas-transmission-company-notice-of-availabilitycompletion-of-the-final-environmental#p-7

The final EIS/EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California:

Show citation box 634.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline adjacent to KRGT’s existing pipeline in Wyoming (Lincoln and Uinta Counties), Utah (Summit, Morgan, Salt Lake, Utah, Juab, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington Counties), Nevada (Lincoln and Clark Counties), and California (San Bernardino County);

Show citation box 82.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline adjacent to the portion of KRGT’s existing pipeline that it jointly owns with Mojave Pipeline Company in California (San Bernardino and Kern Counties);

etc


21 posted on 03/01/2012 1:47:12 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thackney
That's the problem with the GOV. The specs, regulations and operational requirements,very few contractors will bid on the contract for operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Trust me on this one.....the SPR pipelines EXCEEDS anyones expectations or assumptions.I worked there for 9 years,without going in to details,the spider web of pipelines,whether owned,leased, or rented by day for transfers will blow your mind. Problem is SPR full draw down will last only 28 days or less.
22 posted on 04/09/2012 11:52:24 AM PDT by VF-51vnv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thackney
That's the problem with the GOV. The specs, regulations and operational requirements,very few contractors will bid on the contract for operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Trust me on this one.....the SPR pipelines EXCEEDS anyones expectations or assumptions.I worked there for 9 years,without going in to details,the spider web of pipelines,whether owned,leased, or rented by day for transfers will blow your mind. Problem is SPR full draw down will last only 28 days or less.
23 posted on 04/09/2012 11:54:18 AM PDT by VF-51vnv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VF-51vnv
Problem is SPR full draw down will last only 28 days or less.

Where do you get that? The SPR is holding about 700 million barrels and can only be withdrawn at 4.4 MMBPD.

24 posted on 04/09/2012 11:59:23 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thackney

what I can’t and won’t tell you is there is certain percentage of the stored oil that no one will touch.Check out Peru shipments


25 posted on 07/26/2012 12:17:39 PM PDT by VF-51vnv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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