Bloomberg reports that Canadians have come up with an all-Canadian route to get oil-sands crude from Alberta to a refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick that will give Canada access, via supertanker, to the same Louisiana and Texas refineries Keystone was meant to supply. The pipeline, built by Energy East, will cost $10.7 billion and could be up and running by 2018. Its 4,600-kilometer path, taking advantage of a vast length of existing and underused natural gas pipeline, would wend through six provinces and four time zones. "It would be Keystone on steroids, more than twice as long and carrying a third more crude," writes Bloomberg. "And if you’re a fed-up Canadian, like Prime Minister Stephen Harper, there’s a bonus: Obama can’t do a single thing about it." So confident is TransCanada Corp., the chief backer of both Keystone and Energy East, of success that Alex Pourbaix, the executive in charge, spoke of the cross-Canada line as virtually a done deal. “With one project,” Energy East will give Alberta’s oil sands not only an outlet to “eastern Canadian markets but to global markets,” says Pourbaix. “And we’ve done so at scale, with a 1.1 million barrel per day pipeline, which will go a long way to removing the specter of those big differentials for many years to come.”
The pipeline will also prove a blow to environmentalists who have made central to the anti-Keystone arguments the concept that if Keystone can be stopped, most of that polluting heavy crude will stay in the ground. With 168 billion proven barrels of oil, though, Canada’s oil sands represent the third-largest oil reserves in the world, and that oil is likely to find its way to shore one way or another. “It’s always been clear that denying it or slowing Keystone wasn’t going to stop the flow of Canadian oil,” says Michael Levi. What Energy East means for the Keystone XL pipeline remains to be seen. “Maybe this will be a wake up call to President Obama and U.S. policymakers to say ‘Hmmm we’re going to get shut out of not just the energy, but all those jobs that are going to go into building that pipeline. Now they are all going to go into Canada," says Aaron Task. “This is all about ‘You snooze, you lose.’”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @05:45PM
‘Hmmm we’re going to get shut out of not just the energy, but all those jobs that are going to go into building that pipeline. Now they are all going to go into Canada," says Aaron Task. “This is all about ‘You snooze, you lose.’”
A bunch of temporary jobs while better than nothing aren't much better than nothing. It isn't like building oil pipelines is a career with a future.
Besides, with oil already below $90/barrel, how long is keystone going to be profitable anyway? Are they even going to build any pipeline at all?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:01PM
The pipeline that currently ends in Oklahoma actually -does- have a net-positive effect on refined hydrocarbons available to the USA market--if, in the case of stuff that just gets burned, you want to call that positive.
If Keystone was allowed to be extended to the Gulf Coast, that refined petroleum then goes onto the world market.
(Supertankers can then easily take it anywhere the highest bidder is.)
Now, guess who is going to be the highest bidder.
Here, I'll give you a hint:
China Overtakes USA as World's Largest Economy [soylentnews.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 16 2014, @04:00AM
If Keystone was allowed to be extended to the Gulf Coast, that refined petroleum then goes onto the world market.
I fail to see why that is supposed to be a bad thing. It also means processing by US refineries which means permanent jobs in the US.
(Score: 2) by cwix on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:03PM
Loss of jobs my ass, there were going to be few permanent jobs from Keystone anyways.
Hell this is probably just an attempt to scare the US into going ahead and allowing Keystone.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:23PM
A friend of mine used to work on a natural gas pipeline. There were about 15-20 people at each pumping station of which there are hundreds. Plus the people who maintained the pipes driving around sampling and fixing things (these are not put in the ground and forget it lines). I dont think you realize the scale these pumps are. They are large building size. They alternate them so while one set is being rebuilt the others are running. As NG and oil are both corrosive.
Basically the whole idea with keystone not being built was to save the Canadian wilderness. Apparently the companies are going to do it anyway and just put it into tankers. That is not as cost effective. But it does give them the option to sell the crude to other countries instead of being locked into the Americans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:06PM
There are 11 pump houses on the 800 mile trans alaska pipeline. So your "hundreds" of pump houses line is full of shit. What pipeline did you work on, put your money where your mouth is.
There is no reason to risk things like the sand hills for that few jobs. Fuck Keystone, and fuck liars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:17PM
and fuck liars
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/compressorMap.html [eia.gov]
Yep only 10 compressor stations in the WHOLE of the US. I am such a 'liar'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:23PM
Those are compressor stations for natural gas. You said pump stations for crude. So yeah, liar it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:24PM
10 stations on one pipeline.
Keystone would be one pipeline.
How many compressor stations does a heavy oil pipeline need versus an NG pipeline?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:34PM
To answer my own question it looks like 27 pump stations in the US if keystone XL is built. [pipelineandgasjournal.com]
The trans-alaska pump stations employ between 10 and 25 people each [rigzone.com] so it is reasonable to assume the same or less for keystone.
It is weird that they've already built 23 of them for keystone. I wonder if they have contingency plans to use them for something else?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:49PM
It is weird that they've already built 23 of them for keystone. I wonder if they have contingency plans to use them for something else?
They're probably a low cost component (if the "pump station" doesn't have any pipe or pumps!). Now the Keystone pipeline (or at least the segment of it that has the pump stations) is officially under construction which might have some rhetorical advantage in the negotiations over permits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:36PM
Basically the whole idea with keystone not being built was to save the Canadian wilderness.
No, that's just one of the ideas. Another one of the ideas is to simply raise the costs of getting the oil out of the ground so it is less economically attractive to burn it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:34PM
With the environment, obviously as long as it is the Canadian environment that might get jacked then it is OK because the Canadian wilderness doesn't count to the environmentalists /sarc but seriously there will be a lot less environmental complaining about this pipeline solely because it is in Canada.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @09:47PM
> Screwing with prices to favor a competing business or commodity is a lose-lose situation with FAIL all over it.
Since that's what we've been doing for oil since practically day one, the ship has sailed on that argument regardless if it is or is not just something you pulled out of your ass.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:45AM
> All that happens is I have less money at the end of the day.
Will that make you consider using other ways to get the same result? (better car, better house insulation...).
Making a smarter choice because you were cattle-prodded into it, might actually save you money in the long run. And it will help "democracies" reduce their needs to pander to oil autocrats, saving another lot of dough (that deficit thing is still ongoing, isn't it?)
(Score: 2) by hubie on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:04AM
I'm no expert on these things, but how does this lock them into the Americans? Oil operates on a global market. One of the misconceptions you hear a lot is how, for instance, if the US opened up all of Alaska for oil production, all that extra Alaskan oil would go to the US and every barrel that comes out of the ground is a barrel that doesn't need to come from Saudi Arabia. But it doesn't work that way; that extra Alaskan oil would go on the world market, which would make the global pot a little bit bigger and thus reduce the cost of oil a little bit, but it isn't this 1-for-1 deal that gets beat about politically.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:17AM
My issue with "Creates X Jobs" or "Will Cause Y Jobs Lost" is that it in no way speaks to the virtues of the activity in question.
For example, as John Maynard Keynes argued in the 1930's, you can create jobs by paying one set of people to stick dollar bills in the ground and paying a second set of people to dig them back up again. On the flip side, if you engage in some sort of police or treatment or educational campaign that reduces the demand for crack cocaine, numerous dealers, soldiers, traffickers, etc will lose their jobs.
Or a very relevant real-life example: In my state, in the depths of the recession, outside casino companies wanted a special constitutional amendment passed on the ballot to allow them to build casinos in that state. They managed to convince many unions, including a bricklayer union a buddy of mine was in, that this was going to involve construction of a brand new nice large building that would employ lots of bricklayers in the process. They put big signs up by the highway "Vote Yes, Creates XX,000 Jobs". And of course as soon as it was approved, the construction project was canceled (if it had ever existed) and only a tiny fraction of those jobs materialized. So now we have all the problems that tend to come with casinos (corruption, thefts, drain of the community's wealth into the hands of the far-away casino ownership, etc), without any of the supposed benefits.
So whenever a proposal says "This will create jobs!" I get suspicious.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:09PM
And if you’re a Canadian fed-up, with tools like Prime Minister Stephen Harper
FTFY!
Yes... i am Canadian. And i am fed-up with Harper.
Now...... go get me a beer, eh!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by ngarrang on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:24PM
They are recycling an existing natural gas pipeline, hooray for recycling. And this will be good for their sea port, as people are needed to operate equipment. BUT! Pipelines are significantly safer than ships, so we have the bad. Hooray for giving Obama and the greenie the middle finger, but boo when the first oil spills happen along the east coast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:24PM
Obama can’t do a single thing about it
Actually, by 2018, Obama will be long gone from gov't and on the $100k/night rubber chicken circuit.
...and I rather prefer that breaks in Canadian pipelines dump their poisons on Canadian farmland rather than the American Midwest.
when the first oil spills happen along the east coast
The US President can have the Coast Guard interdict any vessel and force it to reverse its course out of the territorial waters of the USA.
They can also stop it, board it, inspect it, and detain it for as long as that process takes.
The way a vessel could avoid this is to go further out to sea and skirt the territorial claims of the USA.
That will increase their costs.
...and with the ever-expanding claims of power by the USA's Imperial Presidency, it wouldn't surprise me to see the territorial waters expanded to 50 miles or 100 miles.
There are all kinds of things a US President -could- do if he took it into his mind.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:42PM
The US exclusive economic zone [noaa.gov] has been 200 nautical miles since at least 1983.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:26PM
With the US mid-term elections a few weeks away, gift wrapping a last-minute "See? Jobs going overseas, and those environmental concerns you have aren't solved anyways!" soundbite to the party most likely to support The Thing You Want is a stroke of brilliance.
I firmly believe this is a bluff, but damn if it isn't a really GOOD bluff.
(Score: 1) by mathinker on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:37PM
> and those environmental concerns you have aren't solved anyways
As this long story unfolds, I become more and more convinced that we're eventually going to have to develop geoengineering techniques to limit the damage.
It's an investment which might, if humanity is very lucky, have returns in the far, far future, since terraforming is geoengineering.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:47PM
That's the spin anyway. But OTOH, it avoids oil spills on U.S. soil (the place the President is empowered and charged to protect), it forced recycling a natgas pipeline, and will still apply economic pressure against the tarsands (since the transport will be more expensive than it would be with keystone). It also wasn't that many jobs, most of which would have been very temporary.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @09:33PM
The delay of keystone hasn't stopped Oilsand oil from heading down south. It's just that instead of going in a pipe, it's going in thousands and thousands of old train cars.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:15PM
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 16 2014, @08:18AM
Why EXACTLY would we want it? From what I understand it isn't oil sands its TAR sands, which requires a LOT of processing and in its liquid form has sulfur up the ass so is unusable without heavy treatment. Why would we want this when we can buy South American oil that is...you know, actual OIL and has less sulfur and require less processing?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:32PM
Why EXACTLY would we want it?
We can turn it into things we want, like civilization.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 17 2014, @06:42AM
OMFG did you just attempt to break down a complex issue by comparing it to a fricking video game? Really? What's next, capitalism as explained by Bioshock? And just FYI but high sulfur oil is pretty much worthless without expensive sulfur removal, not for plastics, not for fuel, in fact that last article I saw had most of the tar sands oil ending up in China because they don't give a fuck about acid rain as long as they can get it cheap.
So again how EXACTLY does having a shitpile of tar that smells like assholes and causes acid rain good for America?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 17 2014, @10:30AM
OMFG did you just attempt to break down a complex issue by comparing it to a fricking video game?
What complex issue? Oil is valuable because we use it for valuable stuff. That's it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 17 2014, @12:51PM
Lots of things are hard or costly, but they get done anyway because even with the difficulty and cost they're worth doing.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday October 19 2014, @03:02AM
"Hey if Agent Orange was so dangerous, they wouldn't have made it right?" is that REALLY the argument you are gonna make? Just FYI the reason its profitable is that the Chinese government does not give a single fuck, not about dumping acid rain into the ocean, not about poisoning their people, not one single fuck to give.
but again we are NOT talking about China we were talking about AMERICA and you have yet to give us a single reason, just one, why a bunch of high sulfur tar sands, which again just FYI is illegal to sell as oil in the USA because it won't meet the emissions standards of ANY state with extreme processing which makes it MORE expensive that other alternative like SA oil, is "good for America"...lets hear it.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 19 2014, @05:49PM
"Hey if Agent Orange was so dangerous, they wouldn't have made it right?" is that REALLY the argument you are gonna make?
There you go. You answered your own questions.
but again we are NOT talking about China we were talking about AMERICA and you have yet to give us a single reason, just one, why a bunch of high sulfur tar sands, which again just FYI is illegal to sell as oil in the USA because it won't meet the emissions standards of ANY state with extreme processing which makes it MORE expensive that other alternative like SA oil, is "good for America"...lets hear it.
You do realize "extreme processing" is just not that expensive, right? And selling to China is just fine as a reason to extract oil from tar sands.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cmn32480 on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:59PM
If this is more than a bluff, frankly, it serves us Americans right. We waited and delayed and waited and delayed some more.
The current administration has "studied" this pipeline so much that they ought to be able to construct it at a molecular level by now.
The Canadiens have been sufficiently patient. At some point they basically have to say "F**k them. We are gonna do it anyway, with or without their participation."
Once again, the people who get screwed the most by this are the middle and lower classes who will continue to pay ever higher prices for gasoline, and lose whatever temporary and permanent jobs the pipeline would have provided.
Yay Obama and the Environmental lobbies! Way to look out for the greater good!
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:48PM
At some point they basically have to say "F**k them, sorry. We are gonna do it anyway, with or without their participation, eh?"
ftfy
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:03PM
My response to FP [soylentnews.org] covers your points.
People who, in any way, think of this as "American energy" are missing the point.
Petroleum is a GLOBAL market; that shit won't stay here.
You also need to find some photos/video of what's left over after tar sands operations.
What was pristine wilderness becomes A MOONSCAPE.
The amount of water it takes to extract this shit is outrageous and the energy it takes to heat that water makes the net gain looks ridiculous.
There is no method currently being used to extract hydrocarbons that is more wasteful.
That this is being done demonstrates that we truly have reached Peak Oil.
...and when they're done with that water, they just leave that poisoned stuff in giant ponds.
(Now it's somebody else's problem.)
Where I am, we are in severe drought.
Seeing this abuse of water supplies really pisses me off.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 15 2014, @09:03PM
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:04PM
You know the U.S. was not the intended customer for that oil, right?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:52AM
Yes, and it still is. The refineries that can process it are limited.
Anyone who talks about the stuff leaving the refinery is missing the point, it's at world market prices regardless of where the faucet is.
The Texas refineries are hoping it comes, pipe or boat.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday October 16 2014, @01:57AM
It is still planned that it goes to the Texas refineries. As you said, the refineries that can process it are limited.
Likewise, anyone who thought it would give us cheap gas in the U.S. again was missing the point.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 15 2014, @08:04PM
Once again, the people who get screwed the most by this are the middle and lower classes who will continue to pay ever higher prices for gasoline
Our dependence on foreign petroleum has declined since peaking in 2005. [eia.gov] The US exported 41,640 barrels a day in 2010. [wikipedia.org]
The US is also the world's #1 oil producer. [wikipedia.org]
And have you bought any gasoline lately? The price has been dropping since July, it's under $3 a gallon here. Average US price is about $3.30.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @09:17PM
I saw that headline the other day and almost posted that point to this thread previously.
Seeing your comment caused me to look it up again.
* Less commuting by car to work
* Using public transit more
* Fewer moving from central cities to suburbs
* Fewer are getting driver's licenses
* Walkable communities are becoming more popular
Additionally, more and more cities are becoming more bicycle-friendly.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Wednesday October 15 2014, @06:59PM
I'm okay with this plan. It appears that much of the pipeline is already existing, so deployment would be quicker.
If there are any spills or leaks, it won't be on American soil, so we won't have to deal with it.
There should be fewer brib....er, "political contributions", going to the Congresscritters, which is no big deal to me.
I'm not really seeing an issue here.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16 2014, @02:29AM
Yes, the pipeline exists. Someone's blowing smoke though with that done deal nonsense.
- There are some serious engineering challenges to reversing the flow direction in old pipes. Old pipes that weren't designed for the corrosive levels of diluted bitumen.
- A court case last spring gave significant voice to First Nations about major projects like this in their traditional territories. All of Canada is still coming to terms with what this court case means, but at some level there will have to be First Nations agreement.
- It's expensive to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands. The recent shenanigans with Saudi Arabia driving the OPEC price down and world crude prices falling below $85 / barrel is curtailing further exploration and expansion in the tar sands.
p.s.: Speaking as a Canadian: Fuck Harper! Someday the civilized world will look back on him and his neoliberal cronies with the same horror we now view Communism. Authoritarian anti-Democratic shitstains the lot.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 16 2014, @03:02AM
That's how I see anything oil related anymore. Solar and wind are very close to grid parity now and have been dropping like a rock for the past 10 years. Electric cars are getting close to the tipping point as well. The end is nigh for Big Oil.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Entropy on Thursday October 16 2014, @12:48PM
Solar payback(breakeven) is when I last calculated it(1-2 years ago) is about 15-years. The warranty on the products was about 25-years. That does not calculate for lesser yield as time goes on. The guy started talking about the "green" benefits to which i replied sorry--The ROI sucks.
We keep hearing about next generation 1/10th the cost solar panels, but they never seem to get here. The only benefit I've actually seen are micro-inverters which are really a step up from where we were ~10 years ago. 10 years ago the payback(breakeven) was around the 25-30 year mark, with the same 25 year warranty.
We were idiots to delay the keystone pipeline. I'd like some cheaper oil and oil not from the middle east..now someone else gets that oil...thanks.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Nygmus on Thursday October 16 2014, @07:01PM
I'd like to see how oil stacks up against solar/wind in the absence of the massive subsidies that the oil industry receives, and when forced to account for the serious negative externalities associated with oil use.
The equation would be much, much less favorable for oil's costs if that were the case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16 2014, @08:13PM
Not grid parity, but if you're willing to pay double, or triple, in good places, at the right time of day, wind and solar will be good enough to turn off the coal power plant for several hours per day.
However, fossil fuels can easily do things that wind and solar are bad at. If it gets very cold only a few times a year, and you need a powerful blast of heat then, renewables can't beat the low cost storage of coal or oil. If you need a compact energy source for air travel, or a muscle car, you need fossil fuels. If you want to make plastics, you need oil.
So, wind and solar will let us use less fossil fuel, but we will still need lots of fossil fuel. I think fossil fuels are undervalued, and should be taxed to their true value, to maximize efficient use.