Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday November 15 2014, @11:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the totally-still-alive dept.

Tim Mullaney reports at CNBC that as Congress rushes to approve the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline, it is questionable whether or not the controversial pipeline will make as much of a difference as proponents expect. The so-called "heavy oil" extracted from sand in Alberta, which the proposed pipeline would carry to Nebraska, en route to refineries on the Gulf Coast, will cost between $85 and $110 to produce[PDF] , depending on which drilling technology is used, according to a report in July by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, a nonprofit whose work is often cited by Keystone proponents. But crude oil futures now hover near four-year lows as sustained concerns over a glut in world markets continued to weigh heavily on prices and oil ministers from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait resisted calls to lower production to prevent further price declines. CERI' s analysis squares with the views of other experts, who have pointed to low prices as a sign that economic facts, at least for now, don't match political rhetoric coming from Washington, where Keystone has been a goal for both Republicans and for Senate Democrats from oil-producing states. "Anything not under construction [is] at risk of being delayed or canceled altogether," says Dinara Millington.

The situation is broadly similar to that faced by an earlier proposal to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwest says energy economist Chris Lafakis. After being approved by then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2007, the pipeline was never built, because newly discovered supplies of gas in the Lower 48 states pushed gas prices down by about two-thirds. "If oil were to stay as cheap as it is right now," says Lafakis, "you might very well get that Palin pipeline scenario."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday November 16 2014, @12:20AM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Sunday November 16 2014, @12:20AM (#116285) Journal

    Democrats overstate the environmental impact, which is probably better and safer than by train shipment, Republicans overstate the amount of jobs that would be created and the need for a pipeline at all.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday November 16 2014, @12:47PM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday November 16 2014, @12:47PM (#116382) Homepage
    You recognise leaks on trains quicker than you recognise leaks in pipes.
    It's true in Russia/Kazakhstan, I see no reason for it not to be true in the US.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Sunday November 16 2014, @01:38PM

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday November 16 2014, @01:38PM (#116398) Homepage
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

      Oh, my, and those are just the ones that people could be bother to type in to wikipedia. Nice to see how many of the fuel companies have done their best to cover up such failures, committing fraud in the process.

      And there are some gems there - guess what happened next here: ``venting gas in a "routine procedure" — during a lightning storm ...''
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves