Keystone pipeline rejected by Senate

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on November 18, 2014 - 5:49pm

Just curious, what are the arguments against this project?

I thought any effort to move away from Middle East oil dependency would be a good thing for the U.S...

Haven't really been following all the pros/cons of this...

-------------------------------

Meanwhile, unrelated...Don't drink that tap water in CA...Ouch!

3 Billion gallons of fracking wastewater pumped into CA aquafiers...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-17...

Submitted by spdrun on November 18, 2014 - 5:59pm.

Oil as energy is so last century. We should be moving to nuclear, hydro, and renewables for energy, not digging for dead dinos.

Besides, whether they admit it or not Keystone XL is primarily an EXPORT pipeline. I mean -- why build it from Canada to the Gulf?

Anyway, I suspect that this will be revisited after the new Congresspeople are seated in 2015.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on November 18, 2014 - 6:02pm.

I don't think SD has to worry too much about the fracking issue.

But whatever the argument against the pine-line the point is moot because the GOP will just pass it next year anyway.

But the whole low oil price thing is just to put Russia on the ropes anyway (Gold as well).

I think it is very likely most cars will not be running on Gas in 15-20 years (or get somewhere north of 50 MPG).

We really really won't need Oil as much as we used to in 15-20 years is the thing, so it is kind of a waste really.

Submitted by spdrun on November 18, 2014 - 6:12pm.

I think low oil price is a combination of:
(1) The Saudis messing with Russia and I.S. at the behest of the US
(2) Japan, Europe, and China having economic problems, lowering demand
(3) End of QE reducing speculative activity

Submitted by CA renter on November 19, 2014 - 4:32am.

The fracking pollution is incredible. People need to hang for that; they need to be held fully responsible for bringing potable water into those areas for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.

As for Keystone, I think the major objections are related to environmental concerns. There are some who contend that we have no obligation to risk oil spills and violate some property rights for Canada's sake (the main beneficiary).

Here's some info:

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/...

Submitted by spdrun on November 19, 2014 - 6:52am.

^^^ This. (Though hanging is too good. Life in maximum security general population for nice white-collar Wall-Street boys would be more appropriate)

Submitted by livinincali on November 19, 2014 - 7:55am.

spdrun wrote:
Oil as energy is so last century. We should be moving to nuclear, hydro, and renewables for energy, not digging for dead dinos.

Besides, whether they admit it or not Keystone XL is primarily an EXPORT pipeline. I mean -- why build it from Canada to the Gulf?

Anyway, I suspect that this will be revisited after the new Congresspeople are seated in 2015.

You do realize that most of the US refining facilities reside near the gulf. Want to know why? Well those big oil tankers that import our oil typically are unloaded in the gulf and it makes a lot of sense to have your refineries close to your crude import facilities. Could it be used for export, yeah sure, but that's not why they want to transport it to the gulf.

Nuclear is the only other real option and most that oppose Keystone oppose Nuclear as well. We should be developing Thorium Nuclear but we aren't because that would take leadership and innovation from Washington that isn't there.

The problem is most people don't have the education and knowledge to make an informed decision of energy technology. Most people don't under thermodynamics. A gallon of gasoline is relatively stable, lightweight and has quite a bit of energy content. No lithium ion battery is even close in terms of energy density. Without running the math I don't know that's it's thermodynamically possible to get 50 mpg in a 3000+ lb vehicle. Can we even build an engine that is that much more efficient.

If we convert to an electric vehicle fleet where does the electricity come from. Are we going to cover the Mohave desert with solar thermal farms? Are we going to build hundreds of new Natural Gas power stations? Are we going to build new nuclear power stations? That stuff needs to be in the works soon if we're actually going to get there in the next 10 years and I don't see it.

Submitted by Hobie on November 19, 2014 - 8:13am.

Nailed it livinincali! Thorium is the answer. On so many levels. The real pisser is even if the nuke industry pulled their heads out and started an aggressive education campaign the enviros will throw up tons of roadblocks effectively stopping any production for decades. Sad, really.

Submitted by spdrun on November 19, 2014 - 8:25am.

livinincali: exactly right about thorium.

As far as energy storage tech: you're forgetting about hydrogen, either to power an internal combustion engine, or to run fuel cells. You're also supposing that we need most cars/trucks to have a range of > 100 miles. We already have electric vehicles essentially with unlimited range: trains.

If we offload most goods and medium-distance personal transport onto highly automated trains, and have vehicle rental easily available at the endpoints (think Zipcar), we could make do with 100 mile range electric cars.

As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It's perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on November 19, 2014 - 9:26am.

I am actually banking on Skunkworks coming through on their fusion reactor.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/product...

They are really serious when they say fusion in 5 years.

Submitted by livinincali on November 19, 2014 - 10:01am.

spdrun wrote:

As far as energy storage tech: you're forgetting about hydrogen, either to power an internal combustion engine, or to run fuel cells. You're also supposing that we need most cars/trucks to have a range of > 100 miles. We already have electric vehicles essentially with unlimited range: trains.

Hydrogen doesn't exist as H2 in large quantities naturally in the world. It has to be extracted from H2O or more commonly CH4 (methane). Extracting it from H2O takes a lot of energy. Extracting it from CH4 produces CO2. Hydrogen fuel cells are decent but they aren't a panacea. It could work I just don't know if it's really that much better than compressed natural gas. Don't waste time with extracting the H2 and having to store it in a highly pressurized state when I can just use the CH4 in a lower pressurized state.

As for trains the long haul ones use diesel generators to generate the electricity. I know commuter trains back east mostly use electrified tracks, but most of that electricity is coming from fossil fuel power stations. If we're willing to go the nuclear route then going with electricity make more sense but uranium nuclear or even thorium nuclear would take years to build out in the current environment. You'd have to be planning/r&d it now if you want it online in 10 years.

Quote:

As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It's perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.

If you drive the prius right you can get 50 mpg or more but most people aren't that willing to drive 55-60 mph on the highway to get that mileage. I think the more realistic mileage is probably 40-45 mpg. So maybe we're close but is everybody ready to trade in their SUVs, sports cars, and trucks to drive priuses. I don't see a pickup truck or SUV getting anywhere close to 50 mpg in the next 10 years. The thermodynamics just don't seem to be there.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on November 19, 2014 - 12:36pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
I am actually banking on Skunkworks coming through on their fusion reactor.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/product...

They are really serious when they say fusion in 5 years.

I think once the proof of concept is proven, If I were made king of the world I would have this implemented ASAP world wide.

There is a lot of working hydrogen to liquid fuels converter Tech that could act as a stop gap until full electric would be available.

Submitted by spdrun on November 19, 2014 - 12:57pm.

livinincali:

Yes, I'm aware. Hydrogen is a STORAGE tech. Not a fuel. CH4 is a fuel. Hydrogen takes a bit more energy to extract than is garnered from using it in a fuel cell, but batteries have storage/charging losses as well.

As far as trains, there should be a national project to electrify all of the main freight routes. If the USSR could do it in the 50s and 60s after a major crippling war, we can do it more efficiently today.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on November 19, 2014 - 1:35pm.

Not to say that keystone xl should never be built.
But what is the economic necessity now? I just don't see it.

I think high speed train linking large population centers make more sense. And more light rail and public transport too.

Submitted by AN on November 19, 2014 - 4:25pm.

In the beginning, the objection to Keystone was because of the environment. However, how, it's more symbolic. That's because the oil from Canada are being shipped by train today instead of pipeline. Just because you prevent the pipeline doesn't mean that will stop the extraction oil from the oil sand. So, by objecting to Keystone, it's actually more damaging to the environment than building the pipeline. Since train are more prone to crash and spill oil than pipeline.

Submitted by UCGal on November 19, 2014 - 4:39pm.

My understanding is that the oil extracted from the Canadian tar sands will be refined in Texas. Then it will be put on ships and sent off to other countries. My understanding is that the US would not be end consumers.

One issue with the Keystone XL pipeline is that it puts the burden of cleanup, when it is eventually discontinued, on the land owner...not the oil industry. This is a potential economic nightmare for the land owners. And it's being done by imminent domain... farmers aren't being asked about the pipeline crossing their land. Think about how expensive it is to clean up former gas station sites... Or for anyone who's ever had an oil furnace - and had to replace the oil tank - it's an expensive, toxic process to clean up.

Currently the US is net exporting oil. Why do we need to transport oil obtained in Canada, across the US, to be shipped overseas?

Finally - it is not at all clear to me that this doesn't involve some kind of government subsidy or tax break. I'd rather see our tax dollars go elsewhere.

These are the reasons I'm cynical about the Keystone XL project.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on November 19, 2014 - 5:43pm.

Thanks UCGal

Just another bad Idea that will be pushed through congress come hell or high water to serve our corporate overlords LOL.

You have to laugh or go insane.

Submitted by SK in CV on November 19, 2014 - 6:40pm.

spdrun wrote:
As far as 50+ mpg 3000+ lb cars, Prius is close to 3000 lb and gets about 50 mpg, no? Besides, with improved crash avoidance and CAD tech, who says that cars NEED to be over 3000 lb. It's perfectly possible to build a 4-door that weighs 2500 lb, think Honda Fit.

It doesn't seem we're really that far off. My car (Hyundai elantra) weighs 2700 lbs and I get 45 mpg freeway driving and 35 on city streets. Is a 20 to 25% increase out of the question?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on December 27, 2014 - 12:34am.

I admit, I'm surprised that gas prices keep dropping. How long with that last?

I think the momentum for approving the pipeline is evaporating fast.

A lot of people who supported the pipeline thought that the pipeline would bring more oil directly to us (although oil would enter the world market at world prices).

But now that US States are losing revenue, is there still political support for the pipeline?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/us/fal...

Submitted by svelte on December 29, 2014 - 12:05pm.

The real question is - where can we piggs put our money to best profit when oil prices begin to rise again?

Prices this low may last a month or a year, but they won't last forever.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-stupid...

Submitted by flu on December 29, 2014 - 9:27pm.

svelte wrote:
The real question is - where can we piggs put our money to best profit when oil prices begin to rise again?

Prices this low may last a month or a year, but they won't last forever.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-stupid-range-expert-140614930.html

I was thinking make the best way to profit from oil isn't so much trying to profit when oil prices rise, but profit while oil prices are low...

Here's my take.. Regardless of whether people want to admit it or not, lower gas prices does mean your average person has more discretionary income. For example, consider a person filling 16 gallons/week for an SUV saves $1/gallon....Times 52weeks, that's an extra $832/year. And that's just for one person. Probably more for a couple.. That's more than the previous stimulus given to people...And we know that the majority of the people in this country are going to spend it.

Also, I think airlines will do will, travel will pick up, and transportation will do well (Fedex and UPS probably will have fatter margins)....

Probably other things too....Haven't thought much of it.

Submitted by flu on December 29, 2014 - 9:28pm.

BTW: expect a 10-15 cents/gallon increase in gas in 2015 for CA....

We have this cap-and-trade policy for gasoline and diesel fuel

http://www.pe.com/articles/trade-756971-...

Submitted by svelte on December 29, 2014 - 9:37pm.

flu wrote:

That's more than the previous stimulus given to people...And we know that the majority of the people in this country are going to spend it.

Also, I think airlines will do will, travel will pick up, and transportation will do well (Fedex and UPS probably will have fatter margins)....
.

Hmmm. I like your thinking...I'm going to mull it over.

I have noticed oil company stocks haven't went down as much as I would have expected given recent oil prices, so they don't appear to be the best place to profit.

Submitted by utcsox on December 29, 2014 - 10:15pm.

svelte wrote:
The real question is - where can we piggs put our money to best profit when oil prices begin to rise again?

Prices this low may last a month or a year, but they won't last forever.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-stupid-range-expert-140614930.html

Mohamed El-Erian, former co-chief investment officer of Pimco, shared his view of low oil price in Bloomberg today:

"As costs fall for manufacturing and a wide range of other activities affected by energy costs, and as consumers spend less on gas and more on other things, many oil-importing nations will see a rise in gross domestic product. And this higher economic activity is likely to boost investment in new plants, equipment and labor, financed by corporate cash sitting on the sidelines."

Since U.S is a net oil-importing nation, the low-price of oil shall continue boost the growth.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...

Submitted by flu on December 29, 2014 - 10:37pm.

svelte wrote:
flu wrote:

That's more than the previous stimulus given to people...And we know that the majority of the people in this country are going to spend it.

Also, I think airlines will do will, travel will pick up, and transportation will do well (Fedex and UPS probably will have fatter margins)....
.

Hmmm. I like your thinking...I'm going to mull it over.

I have noticed oil company stocks haven't went down as much as I would have expected given recent oil prices, so they don't appear to be the best place to profit.

Oil refining should actually do pretty well imho. I expect that as gas prices goes down, consumption will go up...We'll see more escalades, surburbans, explorers, expeditions,sequioas....etc...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 13, 2017 - 3:48pm.

I'm surprised that Trump issued the EO without pressing Canada for money. It was a priority for conservative and liberal Canada although Trudeau is more of an environmentalist and he was glad Obama made the decision

In real estate, if you're giving an easement, you want to be paid. And paid a lot if you have the upper hand. The Trump EO seems like a giveaway to Canada with nothing for us.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.