Keystone Pipeline

[Brian4Liberty]

Supposedly, the tar sands oil is much harder to push through the pipes, and it may erode the pipes from the inside. How much energy will it take to pipe the oil across the country?

 

[erowe1]

Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.

If stands to be that profitable, I bet they could.

But that's a good point. How much of this is all about eminent domain?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

 

[erowe1]

and then trucking the gasoline back.

I imagine that there would end up being more trucking of the gasoline to America if the refinery were in Canada than there will be trucking it to Canada from a refinery in Texas.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

i had a farm and i know i would not want it going thru my land .

there is no way this is going to help america except for the short time jobs to build it . once the oil ( if thats what people call it ) gets to texas refinery the products will be shipped over seas .

the price we pay for gasoline will go up at least 50c a gallon because the refineries will be doing the tar sands then shiping it overseas .

if it was such a great deal for america why don't they build refineries up north .

more than anything i want america to get off arab oil and getting gi's killed over it . natural gas is our only near term answer .

Yep, one of the major reasons that the oil companies push the pipeline "solution" is so that they can export refined products out of the country via the Texas ports. CEOs have publicly stated that it is a big problem that oil in the US is too cheap, and it needs to be exported so that they can drive the price up.

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I imagine that there would end up being more trucking of the gasoline to America if the refinery were in Canada than there will be trucking it to Canada from a refinery in Texas.

It's about refining the oil closer to where it is used. One huge central refining hub in Texas requires more trucking of gasoline. Adding regional refineries cuts down on distance to pipe oil and distance to truck gasoline. There are already plenty of pipelines. Oil does not have to be solely refined in either Canada or Texas.

The Keystone XL is just a new express pipeline extension from Canada to Texas.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Some of the currently existing pipelines:

The planned Keystone XL Express:

 

[erowe1]

It's about refining the oil closer to where it is used. One huge central refining hub in Texas requires more trucking of gasoline. Adding regional refineries cuts down on distance to pipe oil and distance to truck gasoline. There are already plenty of pipelines. Oil does not have to be solely refined in either Canada or Texas.

The Keystone XL is just a new express pipeline extension from Canada to Texas.

But the company must stand to profit from this pipeline, or at least they're willing to bet that they will. If that's the business model that they want to put their own money on, why should the government tell them that some other one is better.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Yep, one of the major reasons that the oil companies push the pipeline "solution" is so that they can export refined products out of the country via the Texas ports. CEOs have publicly stated that it is a big problem that oil in the US is too cheap, and it needs to be exported so that they can drive the price up.

I would rather see refineries built closer to the source.

 

[erowe1]

I would rather see refineries built closer to the source.

Why?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you consider Canada tar sands to be "local oil"? Tar sands oil requires lots of refining and the places to do that are mostly in Texas and Louisiana so they want to build a pipeline all the way from Canada down to there- instead of either building a refinery closer or using trains to transport the oil. Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.

This isn't really about what I think. I didn't say I agreed with them.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Why?

Transportation of oil from point A to point B is a problem. The distance is very large- all the way across the US. Why not reduce the distance from Point A to Point B and save seizing lands to build a pipe between the two? Does that not make good sense?

 

[erowe1]

Transportation of oil from point A to point B is a problem. The distance is very large- all the way across the US. Why not reduce the distance from Point A to Point B and save seizing lands to build a pipe between the two? Does that not make good sense?

Who am I to say which way makes good sense? And who are you? The shareholders in this company have their money at stake in this gamble. I don't.

Let free actors in the market decide the way to get oil from A to B that is most profitable for them. Don't try to centrally manage as if you know which way is better.

What you're saying sounds kinda like the people who think there's some economic or environmental advantage of buying locally grown produce over something shipped from far away.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

But the company must stand to profit from this pipeline, or at least they're willing to bet that they will. If that's the business model that they want to put their own money on, why should the government tell them that some other one is better.

Except the government is already very involved in the whole process. Eminent domain being the worst example, and who knows what other government incentives are involved. Government often makes inefficient or downright stupid things "profitable". Why should the MIC (and the oil companies) not push for wars? It's profitable for them. Get paid to destroy a city and rebuild it. Double profit. New oil fields and pipelines. Nothing says Eminent Domain like toppling a government so that you can build a pipeline through an area.

 

[erowe1]

Except the government is already very involved in the whole process. Eminent domain being the worst example, and who knows what other government incentives are involved. Government often makes inefficient or downright stupid things "profitable". Why should the MIC (and the oil companies) not push for wars? It's profitable for them. Get paid to destroy a city and rebuild it. Double profit. New oil fields and pipelines. Nothing says Eminent Domain like toppling a government so that you can build a pipeline through an area.

Right. But this isn't about a war. It's about not requiring a company to get permits from the government to build an oil pipeline that it wants to build.

I'm with you on eminent domain.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Who am I to say which way makes good sense? And who are you? The shareholders in this company have their money at stake in this gamble. I don't.

Let free actors in the market decide the way to get oil from A to B that is most profitable for them. Don't try to centrally manage as if you know which way is better.

What you're saying sounds kinda like the people who think there's some economic or environmental advantage of buying locally grown produce over something shipped from far away.

I was not telling anybody which is best. Just expressing my opinion so relax. Have a bagel.

But without government involvement, the pipeline would not be built. They could not get enough continuous land at a cheap enough price to make it cost effective. In a free market, it would not happen. They would use trains and trucks (like they currently do) instead.

An oil refinery costs about the same as the current estimates of buiding the pipeline- about $5 billion. The refinery would have the benefit of not disrputing people across the country and have lower transportation costs into the future.

 

[torchbearer]

I was not telling anybody which is best. Just expressing my opinion so relax. Have a bagel.

But without government involvement, the pipeline would not be built. They could not get enough continuous land at a cheap enough price to make it cost effective. In a free market, it would not happen. They would use trains and trucks (like they currently do) instead.

An oil refinery costs about the same as the current estimates of buiding the pipeline- about $5 billion. The refinery would have the benefit of not disrputing people across the country and have lower transportation costs into the future.

I'd say in the free market, the refinery would be built by the source, as the pipeline would not be economically feasible.
then the refined products could be shipped to their destination.

 

[erowe1]

I was not telling anybody which is best. Just expressing my opinion so relax. Have a bagel.

I'm relaxed. But I still don't get what you're saying. Were you not saying that you support Obama in stopping them from building it? Or were you just saying that, in your expert opinion, you think they're making a bad investment, but they should still be allowed to make it?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Which is why most of the refineries we have are where they are- closer to the oil sources.