Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not think Man is the Major Cause of Climate Change. Rather IMO it is just the natural cycle of earth to go through Warming and Cooling periods. Since, that they have Happend many times on Earth long before Mankind even Existed.
No--the adminstration is acting in response to the Nebraska general assembly calling a special session to set up regs dealing with where pipelines can be located. Evidently states have the right to control that process, but Nebraska never enacted legislation to create that process. They're doing it now, and they're going to force Keystone to move the pipe to a safer location. The state department has no choice to but to delay the project.
Most people in Nebraska aren't opposed to the pipeline--there's another keystone pipeline running along the eastern edge of the state. They just don't want the pipeline running through the sandhills directly over the Ogallala aquifer. Other pipes run over portions of the aquifer, but the soil type there is more like concrete and a spill would do minimal damage. The sandhills are deep sand covered with prairie grass--any type of spill would go directly into the ground water. There's no pipe or drilling in that region now for exactly that reason. The Ogallala aquifer provides the drinking water to 85% of the state, and all the water used for pivot irrigation and livestock there--if the aquifer is contaminated, it would make most of the state uninhabitable, and shut down it's largest industry--agriculture. Moving the pipeline east, near the existing one, is much safer.
I don't know where all of these big jobs numbers are coming from, but I've never heard more than 5,000 new jobs (or fewer) out of Nebraska news. That's why the R governor, congressional delegation, and state assembly are really skeptical about this--why should they let a for profit pipeline run through an area that could cause huge problems, when the state isn't getting a huge cost benefit from it.
Emotion and hyperbole yet again.
Your own experts have stated during hearings on this pipeling that the damage to the aquifer in a worst case scenario would be negligible if this pipe were to leak. The Sand Hills portion of the aquifer is on the downhill slope of the aquifer and water can't run up-hill to contaminate anything west of the pipe.
The existing pipeling is much older. The company satisfied every requirement made of it in designing and subequently building this pipeline to the most stringent requirements of ANY pipeline built to date.
I would submit Nebraska was not the concern of thought that resulted in the cancellation of this "done deal" but rather a political decision taken by a leader with a reputation for pandering. He's simply done it yet again.
The Keystone XL pipeline is an idea whose time has come. The $7 billion project would create over 100,000 jobs, pump 1.3 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, reduce the United States’ dependence on unethical oil from the Middle East, and make Canada into the fifth largest oil exporter in the world. A win-win on both sides of the border, ensuring energy security and employment for decades to come.
None of that is true.
You know, if you took a few courses in organic chemistry or petro-chemical engineering at your local university you might actually know enough about oil to discuss it rationally.
There is one, and only one possible way to reduce your dependence on the, um, "unethical oil from the Middle East" and that is to find a huge field of light sweet oil.
Niether Canada nor the US have light sweet oil. When the Middle East runs out of light sweet crude, you'll be getting your light sweet crude from Central Asia, and by that time, your many wars of conquest should have put you in a position to control Central Asia.
And then you can be dependent on, um, "unethical oil from Central Asia."
If there's anything unethical about the oil, that is 100% your doing. Well, actually 90% your doing and 10% British stupidity.
You're the one who put a dictator in power in Saudi Arabia, and you're the one who murdered King Faisal in cold blood, and murdered General Qasim in cold blood, and attempted to murder Prime Minister Massadeq three times in cold blood (and failed) and you're the one who tried to murder Nassar for the heinous crime of declaring neutrality.
And the freak puppet in Jordan you support, King Abdullah II, yeah, disbanding parliament is really democratic.
The Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ is not dependent on heavy sweet/our oils. You and O Canada! Have heavy sweet and heavy sour a-plenty. More than the whole world needs, fact.
The Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ needs a little intermediate sweet crude and intermediate sour crude. You and O Canada! have quite a lot of that actually, but Canada more than you.
But the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ will come to crashing halt without light sweet crude or light sour crude and you have practically none. If you want to keep the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢, then you will have to import light sweet crude and at least some light sour crude.
Sorry about your luck.
The little bit of light sour you got, Louisiana Sour, already peaked about 15 years ago. You'll be pumping it to the end of the century, but you don't use that for gasoline because sulfur redux costs a lot. It costs a lot. That's why diesel costs a lot, because you make a lot of diesel from East Texas Sour. You've been using Canadian heavy sweet and heavy sour for a few years now and that is why diesel prices have dropped. Heavy sour oil is dirt cheap, so the end price isn't as high as intermediate sour.
Making Canada the world's largest exporter of oil is not a "win" situation for Canadians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Every post/thread/article about this has a different job number projection. Now it's up to 100 thousand??
Give it time. It will be 5 Million jobs soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
From what I've read about the sand extraction process in Canada, this is devastating to their environment.
It's like strip-mining except 50 times worse. It will destroy their environment and bankrupt the country. Petro-chemical sucks Capital (mostly cash and credit) right out of the market and there won't be any money to invest in manufacturing or other industries.
Then Canadians will end up with 10% perennial unemployment.
Watch what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
I would like to support the Keystone Project, but why not just drill the oil, it has much less environmental impact.
The operand is "tar sands."
Most oil sits in free-standing pools underneath shale deposits. This oil is in sand deposits. Think of an aquifer. That's what this is like. This is new oil geologically speaking. It hasn't had time for pressure to form shale, and during that process, which takes millions of years, the oil is forced out into pools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
For that matter, we could just drill our own - isn't independence what the liberals say they want?
You can't drill your own.
All oil is different. It is not the same. Heavy oil to you is totally useless. A 42 gallon barrel of heavy oil produces only 6 gallons of gasoline. If you use a variety of expensive processes, you can squeeze another 3 gallons out.
So at best you'd have 9 gallons of gasoline.
Intermediate crude yields between 11 to 19 gallons of gasoline per 42 gallon barrel.
Something like Illinois Intermediate will give you 13 gallons of gasoline, but West Texas Intermediate will give you 19 gallons per barrel.
Light oil will give you 22-25 gallons per barrel.
Here's where organic chemistry comes into play: very light oil only gives you 9-12 gallons per barrel. I mention that because you do have the Bakken Field and you're tearing up the Dakotas mostly so you can have Cymbalta, Valtrex and Tide. And Gillete Men's Body Wash. And Pantene Shampoo, and lots of other useless crap for the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢, but no gasoline.
The Bakken Fields will help you in your quest to maintain the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ at all costs, but won't do anything for your car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
You have to laugh. The environment impact statement put out by the US state department says 5-6,000 new jobs here--the rest must be for the Canadian portion.
It's a pipeline. I don't think people understand the concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes172
woo hoo oil is pushing 100 bucks in ovrnight trading..CLIMB BABY CLIMB...blame Obama
I'm not trying to embarrass you; you do that all by yourself.
Must be some kind of "Christian Math" where $89 = $100
It's heavy oil. The world is awash in heavy oil. The US has so much heavy oil it exports most of it, in part because the US does not have the refinery capacity for heavy oil, and heavy oil is useless to the US and the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
What I would like to see is this. Forget about shipping crude out of Alberta and build the refineries right there in the province. This would create all the jobs right here in Canada. It would also create a value added product to be sold rather than a raw material to be exported.
Look, this heavy oil. It is exported to China who the refines it for petro-chemical, mostly lubricants, jellies, naphtha, diesel and bunker fuel.
The coke residue is something China burns in its power plants in lieu of coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
The pipeline is lose-lose. The entire planet loses if this thing gets built, extracting oil from tar sands is the most environmentally destructive process known to man. When you have a large segment of the population that does not believe mankind is causing a warming planet (ignorance) and the most profitable industry on the planet (oil) with unlimited resources to spend on telling everyone what a great idea this is (propaganda) you get the simple mathematical equation I posted.
It is lose-lose, but not completely for the reasons you stated. The tar sands extraction process is grotesquely destructive, but humans are not causing the Planet to warm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover
Here is an article From the Houston Chronicle:
By delaying a decision on the $7 billion project, which is "shovel-ready" and would immediately produce an estimated 20,000 well-paying jobs in this country...
Temporary jobs only, and not all at once, and I would also point out that those jobs require a unique skill set that few in the population have.
An unemployed factory worker is not going to get hired, and neither is the mother of three who lost her job as human resource manager.
Those are mostly welders, heavy equipment operators, crane operators and other skilled jobs that require training, certification, licensing and experience.
Haliburton will be the one doing the work, because, well, that's what oil service companies do, build, maintain and repair oil and natural gas infrastructure.
I find it more than odd given the number of threads on this that no one has even mentioned Haliburton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover
Quote:
Many of those 20,000 jobs on the construction of the pipeline would have been filled by skilled union members. Eventually, the completed pipeline was expected to result in as many as 130,000 jobs, many of them on the upper Texas Coast, where the heavy oil would be refined into 700,000 barrels of oil daily.
Next time, pick a newspaper that knows what's talking about.
You don't refine heavy oil into heavy oil, you process it. Those are processing facilities, not refineries. A processing facility removes the water and particulate matter as well as heavy metals like chromium, uranium, vanadium, nickel, and mercury from the oil.
What a stupid newspaper. I hope you don't actually pay for a subscription.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bily Lovec
Crude oil is sold on the world market, it will only be sold overseas if they get a higher price for it than the refineries on the gulf coast will pay. you *******s need to learn how the process works instead of making stupid statements on the internet.
Not necessarily. You don't have the refining capacity for heavy oil which is the reason the US exports California Heavy and Prudhoe Bay Heavy.
Your own experts have stated during hearings on this pipeling that the damage to the aquifer in a worst case scenario would be negligible if this pipe were to leak. The Sand Hills portion of the aquifer is on the downhill slope of the aquifer and water can't run up-hill to contaminate anything west of the pipe.
The existing pipeling is much older. The company satisfied every requirement made of it in designing and subequently building this pipeline to the most stringent requirements of ANY pipeline built to date.
I would submit Nebraska was not the concern of thought that resulted in the cancellation of this "done deal" but rather a political decision taken by a leader with a reputation for pandering. He's simply done it yet again.
I think you're the one being emotional about this, because I don't know how many more ways you can be told that it's not going to happen through the Sandhills. The state of Nebraska is going to force them to move it. The state department has no choice in the matter--the state has the right to approve the proposed path. The state legislature started an emergency session last week to put the laws and regs in place so that they have that authority--now that the state department has backed off, they aren't in crisis mode anymore, so they may wait to pass a bill next session when they have more time to get it right. The state department's decision to delay came after Governor Heineman told the Obama administration about the special session, and that they were going to fight the proposed path tooth and nail.
I don't know who paid off what idiot to give that area an environmental all clear for a pipeline--or if TransCanada's own people did the environmental assessment--but I don't think you understand that the water is just inches below the ground in the Sandhills. The Ogallala aquifer isn't an underground lake--the water is in deep sand. If the pipe is located in the Sandhills, the pipe would run through the sand and the water. The minute elected officials, nebraska scientists, and the public got wind of the proposed plan everyone went nuts--there's a reason why there's no pipe or drilling running through there now. It's common sense.
Keystone wants to put the pipe through the sandhills because it's the cheapest route for them to take--that's what this is all about. That's not Nebraska's problem. If they want a pipeline, they can pay to reroute it to a safer location.
EDIT--I forgot to add this. How many times do I have to keep telling you this--the existing pipeline runs along the eastern edge of the state in heavy, concrete like soil. It runs over a tiny portion of the aquifer, but the soil type there would minimize absorption, and damage to the ground water. It's safe because of it's location. Nebraska wants to move the pipeline next to the old one--in a safe location, rather than running it through the sandhills. Why is this so hard to understand?
I think you're the one being emotional about this, because I don't know how many more ways you can be told that it's not going to happen through the Sandhills. The state of Nebraska is going to force them to move it. The state department has no choice in the matter--the state has the right to approve the proposed path. The state legislature started an emergency session last week to put the laws and regs in place so that they have that authority--now that the state department has backed off, they aren't in crisis mode anymore, so they may wait to pass a bill next session when they have more time to get it right. The state department's decision to delay came after Governor Heineman told the Obama administration about the special session, and that they were going to fight the proposed path tooth and nail.
I don't know who paid off what idiot to give that area an environmental all clear for a pipeline--or if TransCanada's own people did the environmental assessment--but I don't think you understand that the water is just inches below the ground in the Sandhills. The Ogallala aquifer isn't an underground lake--the water is in deep sand. If the pipe is located in the Sandhills, the pipe would run through the sand and the water. The minute elected officials, nebraska scientists, and the public got wind of the proposed plan everyone went nuts--there's a reason why there's no pipe or drilling running through there now. It's common sense.
Keystone wants to put the pipe through the sandhills because it's the cheapest route for them to take--that's what this is all about. That's not Nebraska's problem. If they want a pipeline, they can pay to reroute it to a safer location.
EDIT--I forgot to add this. How many times do I have to keep telling you this--the existing pipeline runs along the eastern edge of the state in heavy, concrete like soil. It runs over a tiny portion of the aquifer, but the soil type there would minimize absorption, and damage to the ground water. It's safe because of it's location. Nebraska wants to move the pipeline next to the old one--in a safe location, rather than running it through the sandhills. Why is this so hard to understand?
I understand perfectly; emotion and hyperbole have won the day. You imply pay-offs and other methods by which Keystone and your government colluded to gain original compliance. Those are unfounded accusations made from, ONCE MORE; that's right; "emotion and hyperbole"! Are you getting this?
I don't give a rat's patoot about the pipeline and am not of the camp that believe the jobs numbers loss OR the end of the world if the stupid thing doesn't get built. I'm of the camp that would advise not selling a natural resource unrefined but rather sell a finished product.
I'm of the camp that is ONLY concerned with the green light having been given, funds committed, then a "chicken-****" politician, with questionable integrity, changes HIS mind to appease a voting base. This fiasco may have even been your leader-in-chief's strategy from the beginning to eventually award permission after being seen to appease opposition to the thing.
Who cares?
The oil will come out of the ground regardless and will get sold regardless. Who buys it is of no consequnce to me.
I understand perfectly; emotion and hyperbole have won the day. You imply pay-offs and other methods by which Keystone and your government colluded to gain original compliance. Those are unfounded accusations made from, ONCE MORE; that's right; "emotion and hyperbole"! Are you getting this?
I don't give a rat's patoot about the pipeline and am not of the camp that believe the jobs numbers loss OR the end of the world if the stupid thing doesn't get built. I'm of the camp that would advise not selling a natural resource unrefined but rather sell a finished product.
I'm of the camp that is ONLY concerned with the green light having been given, funds committed, then a "chicken-****" politician, with questionable integrity, changes HIS mind to appease a voting base. This fiasco may have even been your leader-in-chief's strategy from the beginning to eventually award permission after being seen to appease opposition to the thing.
Who cares?
The oil will come out of the ground regardless and will get sold regardless. Who buys it is of no consequnce to me.
I totally agree sell the Upgraded High added valued product over the Raw Product on the cheap.
I understand perfectly; emotion and hyperbole have won the day. You imply pay-offs and other methods by which Keystone and your government colluded to gain original compliance. Those are unfounded accusations made from, ONCE MORE; that's right; "emotion and hyperbole"! Are you getting this?
I don't give a rat's patoot about the pipeline and am not of the camp that believe the jobs numbers loss OR the end of the world if the stupid thing doesn't get built. I'm of the camp that would advise not selling a natural resource unrefined but rather sell a finished product.
I'm of the camp that is ONLY concerned with the green light having been given, funds committed, then a "chicken-****" politician, with questionable integrity, changes HIS mind to appease a voting base. This fiasco may have even been your leader-in-chief's strategy from the beginning to eventually award permission after being seen to appease opposition to the thing.
Who cares?
The oil will come out of the ground regardless and will get sold regardless. Who buys it is of no consequnce to me.
So what you're saying is that you're arguing with me, over and over, because the way this played out doesn't fit your world view? I'm no Obama fan, but the truth is the truth. Obama was point blank told that NE was going to block it, so to save face, they shifted into "review after the election mode." They have zero decision making power on how the line is sited--they only get to decide if they're going to build it at all. NE has the final say on location, and they're blocking the plan through the Sandhills. It all has to go back to the drawing board now. If you're saying that's an emotional response--not based on science--by every republican elected leader in the state, and a broad array of university and state geologists and soil scientists, then you're the one making that claim, not me.
You know, if you took a few courses in organic chemistry or petro-chemical engineering at your local university you might actually know enough about oil to discuss it rationally.
There is one, and only one possible way to reduce your dependence on the, um, "unethical oil from the Middle East" and that is to find a huge field of light sweet oil.
Niether Canada nor the US have light sweet oil. When the Middle East runs out of light sweet crude, you'll be getting your light sweet crude from Central Asia, and by that time, your many wars of conquest should have put you in a position to control Central Asia.
And then you can be dependent on, um, "unethical oil from Central Asia."
If there's anything unethical about the oil, that is 100% your doing. Well, actually 90% your doing and 10% British stupidity.
You're the one who put a dictator in power in Saudi Arabia, and you're the one who murdered King Faisal in cold blood, and murdered General Qasim in cold blood, and attempted to murder Prime Minister Massadeq three times in cold blood (and failed) and you're the one who tried to murder Nassar for the heinous crime of declaring neutrality.
And the freak puppet in Jordan you support, King Abdullah II, yeah, disbanding parliament is really democratic.
The Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ is not dependent on heavy sweet/our oils. You and O Canada! Have heavy sweet and heavy sour a-plenty. More than the whole world needs, fact.
The Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ needs a little intermediate sweet crude and intermediate sour crude. You and O Canada! have quite a lot of that actually, but Canada more than you.
But the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ will come to crashing halt without light sweet crude or light sour crude and you have practically none. If you want to keep the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢, then you will have to import light sweet crude and at least some light sour crude.
Sorry about your luck.
The little bit of light sour you got, Louisiana Sour, already peaked about 15 years ago. You'll be pumping it to the end of the century, but you don't use that for gasoline because sulfur redux costs a lot. It costs a lot. That's why diesel costs a lot, because you make a lot of diesel from East Texas Sour. You've been using Canadian heavy sweet and heavy sour for a few years now and that is why diesel prices have dropped. Heavy sour oil is dirt cheap, so the end price isn't as high as intermediate sour.
Making Canada the world's largest exporter of oil is not a "win" situation for Canadians.
Give it time. It will be 5 Million jobs soon enough.
It's like strip-mining except 50 times worse. It will destroy their environment and bankrupt the country. Petro-chemical sucks Capital (mostly cash and credit) right out of the market and there won't be any money to invest in manufacturing or other industries.
Then Canadians will end up with 10% perennial unemployment.
Watch what happens.
The operand is "tar sands."
Most oil sits in free-standing pools underneath shale deposits. This oil is in sand deposits. Think of an aquifer. That's what this is like. This is new oil geologically speaking. It hasn't had time for pressure to form shale, and during that process, which takes millions of years, the oil is forced out into pools.
You can't drill your own.
All oil is different. It is not the same. Heavy oil to you is totally useless. A 42 gallon barrel of heavy oil produces only 6 gallons of gasoline. If you use a variety of expensive processes, you can squeeze another 3 gallons out.
So at best you'd have 9 gallons of gasoline.
Intermediate crude yields between 11 to 19 gallons of gasoline per 42 gallon barrel.
Something like Illinois Intermediate will give you 13 gallons of gasoline, but West Texas Intermediate will give you 19 gallons per barrel.
Light oil will give you 22-25 gallons per barrel.
Here's where organic chemistry comes into play: very light oil only gives you 9-12 gallons per barrel. I mention that because you do have the Bakken Field and you're tearing up the Dakotas mostly so you can have Cymbalta, Valtrex and Tide. And Gillete Men's Body Wash. And Pantene Shampoo, and lots of other useless crap for the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢, but no gasoline.
The Bakken Fields will help you in your quest to maintain the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ at all costs, but won't do anything for your car.
It's a pipeline. I don't think people understand the concept.
I'm not trying to embarrass you; you do that all by yourself.
Must be some kind of "Christian Math" where $89 = $100
It's heavy oil. The world is awash in heavy oil. The US has so much heavy oil it exports most of it, in part because the US does not have the refinery capacity for heavy oil, and heavy oil is useless to the US and the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢.
Look, this heavy oil. It is exported to China who the refines it for petro-chemical, mostly lubricants, jellies, naphtha, diesel and bunker fuel.
The coke residue is something China burns in its power plants in lieu of coal.
It is lose-lose, but not completely for the reasons you stated. The tar sands extraction process is grotesquely destructive, but humans are not causing the Planet to warm.
Temporary jobs only, and not all at once, and I would also point out that those jobs require a unique skill set that few in the population have.
An unemployed factory worker is not going to get hired, and neither is the mother of three who lost her job as human resource manager.
Those are mostly welders, heavy equipment operators, crane operators and other skilled jobs that require training, certification, licensing and experience.
Haliburton will be the one doing the work, because, well, that's what oil service companies do, build, maintain and repair oil and natural gas infrastructure.
I find it more than odd given the number of threads on this that no one has even mentioned Haliburton.
Next time, pick a newspaper that knows what's talking about.
You don't refine heavy oil into heavy oil, you process it. Those are processing facilities, not refineries. A processing facility removes the water and particulate matter as well as heavy metals like chromium, uranium, vanadium, nickel, and mercury from the oil.
What a stupid newspaper. I hope you don't actually pay for a subscription.
Not necessarily. You don't have the refining capacity for heavy oil which is the reason the US exports California Heavy and Prudhoe Bay Heavy.
What an excellent post, it bears repeating, thanks for the info.!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
