Keystone pipeline

[sitarro]

Wow......the osama administration is now agreeing with Mitt Romney on the Keystone Pipeline......interesting. I guess all of you assholes that voted for osama because he was against the pipeline will have to bend way the fuck over backwards to restate your case.


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds - ABC News


The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.
The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama’s desk for final consideration.
“The approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S.,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
The State Department, which conducted the study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, also suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.
The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed. It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”
Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.
The release of the draft report reignited debate over climate change and President Obama’s pledge to do something about it.
Environmental activists have been lobbying Obama hard to block the plan — some recently chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest. Many environmental groups see rejection of the pipeline as a litmus test for whether Obama intends to fulfill his pledge from the second inaugural.

 

[Oldguy]

Your memory is a little short. Obama TEMPORARILY halted construction of that portion of the pipeline which crosses Nebraska because the GOP House insisted the very report you're reading now be produced within 60 days. The President wasn't willing to risk endangering sensitive ecological formations, so he temporarily stopped construction to give enough time for a decent, well-studied report to be made.

Of course, the GOP starting blathering about how "Obama hates the pipeline," etc, when in fact, he's always not only supported the pipeline but has gone on with construction on other parts of it.

Now, you come around seeking to re-write history and say Obama suddenly agrees with Mitt!

Do you people even know HOW to be honest?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Obama seen the light an' now he gonna get us independent of foreign oil...

US edges closer to approving pipeline
Sun, Mar 03, 2013 - IMPACTS WEIGHED: A report said the oil pipeline would have a lesser environmental impact than using rail, trucks or barges, irking environmentalists who oppose the plan

The US Department of State on Friday raised no major objections to the Keystone XL (KXL) oil pipeline and said other options to get the oil from Canada to US gulf coast refineries are worse for climate change. The latest environmental review stops short of recommending approval of the project, but the review gives the administration of US President Barack Obama political cover if it chooses to endorse the pipeline in spite of opposition from many Democrats and environmental groups. State department approval of the 2,735km pipeline is needed because it crosses a US border.

The lengthy report says Canadian tar sands are likely to be developed, regardless of whether the US approves Keystone XL, which would carry oil from western Canada to refineries in Texas. The pipeline would also travel through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. The report acknowledges that development of tar sands in Alberta would create greenhouse gases but makes clear that other methods to transport the oil — including rail, trucks and barges — also pose a risk to the environment.

The US Department of State was required to conduct a new environmental analysis after the pipeline’s operator, Calgary-based TransCanada, changed the project’s route though Nebraska. The Obama administration blocked the project last year because of concerns that the original route would have jeopardized environmentally sensitive land in the Sand Hills region. The administration later approved a southern section of the pipeline, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Texas coast, as part of what Obama has called an “all of the above” energy policy that embraces a wide range of sources, from oil and gas to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.

The pipeline plan has become a flashpoint in the US debate over climate change. Republicans and business and labor groups have urged the Obama administration to approve the pipeline as a source of much-needed jobs and a step toward North American energy independence. Environmental groups have been pressuring the president to reject the pipeline, saying it would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill. Industry groups and Republicans hailed the report, saying the Obama administration was moving closer to approving Keystone XL, which has been under consideration since 2008.

MORE

See also:

State Department: No Major Environmental Impact From Keystone Pipeline
March 01, 2013 - A U.S. State Department study says a new proposed route for the Canada-to-Texas Keystone oil pipeline would have no significant impact on the environment, but did not recommend whether it should be built.

The 2,000 page report Friday on a new route for the pipeline said if TransCanada, the company that will build the pipeline, follows all regulations, there would be no major additional risks to the environment. The State Department says it will hold off making a recommendation on whether the project should go forward until after a 45-day public comment period.

The Obama administration rejected an earlier proposed route for the pipeline because it would have gone through the environmentally-sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. The proposed 2,700-kilometer-long pipeline would carry more than 800,000 barrels extracted from the "oil sands" of Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast.

Environmentalists want to stop the project, saying the process of extracting the Canadian oil is much dirtier than regular crude. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the State Department report had numerous flaws. It says the report avoids the significant implications the project would have on the environment.

Source

 

[LeftofLeft]

Science is Political

 

[Dubya]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Obama seen the light an' now he gonna get us independent of foreign oil...

US edges closer to approving pipeline
Sun, Mar 03, 2013 - IMPACTS WEIGHED: A report said the oil pipeline would have a lesser environmental impact than using rail, trucks or barges, irking environmentalists who oppose the plan

The US Department of State on Friday raised no major objections to the Keystone XL (KXL) oil pipeline and said other options to get the oil from Canada to US gulf coast refineries are worse for climate change. The latest environmental review stops short of recommending approval of the project, but the review gives the administration of US President Barack Obama political cover if it chooses to endorse the pipeline in spite of opposition from many Democrats and environmental groups. State department approval of the 2,735km pipeline is needed because it crosses a US border.

The lengthy report says Canadian tar sands are likely to be developed, regardless of whether the US approves Keystone XL, which would carry oil from western Canada to refineries in Texas. The pipeline would also travel through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. The report acknowledges that development of tar sands in Alberta would create greenhouse gases but makes clear that other methods to transport the oil — including rail, trucks and barges — also pose a risk to the environment.

The US Department of State was required to conduct a new environmental analysis after the pipeline’s operator, Calgary-based TransCanada, changed the project’s route though Nebraska. The Obama administration blocked the project last year because of concerns that the original route would have jeopardized environmentally sensitive land in the Sand Hills region. The administration later approved a southern section of the pipeline, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Texas coast, as part of what Obama has called an “all of the above” energy policy that embraces a wide range of sources, from oil and gas to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.

The pipeline plan has become a flashpoint in the US debate over climate change. Republicans and business and labor groups have urged the Obama administration to approve the pipeline as a source of much-needed jobs and a step toward North American energy independence. Environmental groups have been pressuring the president to reject the pipeline, saying it would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill. Industry groups and Republicans hailed the report, saying the Obama administration was moving closer to approving Keystone XL, which has been under consideration since 2008.

MORE

Did Canada become a new state?

 

[Dubya]

Wow......the osama administration is now agreeing with Mitt Romney on the Keystone Pipeline......interesting. I guess all of you assholes that voted for osama because he was against the pipeline will have to bend way the fuck over backwards to restate your case.


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds - ABC News


The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.
The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama’s desk for final consideration.
“The approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S.,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
The State Department, which conducted the study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, also suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.
The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed. It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”
Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.
The release of the draft report reignited debate over climate change and President Obama’s pledge to do something about it.
Environmental activists have been lobbying Obama hard to block the plan — some recently chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest. Many environmental groups see rejection of the pipeline as a litmus test for whether Obama intends to fulfill his pledge from the second inaugural.

Boner is on record lying his ass off about how the Keystone pipeline was held up for 4 years.

That's not what the record says and the Keystone pipeline has been operational since 2010.

Operating since 2010, the original Keystone Pipeline System is an 3,461-kilometre (2,151 mi) pipeline delivering Canadian crude oil to U.S. Midwest markets and Cushing, Oklahoma. In Canada, the first phase of Keystone involved the conversion of approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of existing 36-inch (910 mm) natural gas pipeline in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to crude oil pipeline service. It also included approximately 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline, 16 pump stations and the Keystone Hardisty Terminal.[5]

The U.S. portion of the Keystone Pipeline included 1,744 kilometres (1,084 mi) of new, 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois.[5] The pipeline has a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).[6] It also involved construction of 23 pump stations and delivery facilities at Wood River and Patoka, Illinois. In 2011, the second phase of Keystone included a 480-kilometre (298 mi) extension from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma and 11 new pump stations to increase the capacity of the pipeline from 435,000 to 591,000 barrels per day (69,200 to 94,000 m3/d).[5]

Additional phases (three and four) have been in construction or discussion since 2011. If completed, the Keystone XL would add 510,000 barrels per day (81,000 m3/d) increasing the total capacity up to 1.1 million barrels per day (170×103 m3/d).[7]

The original Keystone Pipeline cost US$5.2 billion with the Keystone XL expansion slated to cost approximately US$7 billion. The Keystone XL was expected to be completed by 2012–2013, however construction has been overcome by events.[7]

Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr. H.]

Here is the State Deparment brief on a very similar pipleine that it (and Obama) approved in 2009:

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

Similar in size, scope, purpose, and design... the Alberta Clipper pipeline crossed the international border, traversed a number of U.S. states, and terminated at U.S. refineries.

Both Obama and Hillary crowed at its accomplishments.

This from the State Department...

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

^THIS describes the Keystone XL to a "T".

The bullshit about aquifir pollution was a ruse. Fact is, Agriculture has been draining and polluting the Ogallala for decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/polluting-the-ogallala-aquifer.html?_r=0

 

[Mr. H.]

Wow......the osama administration is now agreeing with Mitt Romney on the Keystone Pipeline......interesting. I guess all of you assholes that voted for osama because he was against the pipeline will have to bend way the fuck over backwards to restate your case.


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds - ABC News


The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.
The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama’s desk for final consideration.
“The approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S.,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
The State Department, which conducted the study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, also suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.
The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed. It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”
Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.
The release of the draft report reignited debate over climate change and President Obama’s pledge to do something about it.
Environmental activists have been lobbying Obama hard to block the plan — some recently chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest. Many environmental groups see rejection of the pipeline as a litmus test for whether Obama intends to fulfill his pledge from the second inaugural.

Boner is on record lying his ass off about how the Keystone pipeline was held up for 4 years.

That's not what the record says and the Keystone pipeline has been operational since 2010.

Operating since 2010, the original Keystone Pipeline System is an 3,461-kilometre (2,151 mi) pipeline delivering Canadian crude oil to U.S. Midwest markets and Cushing, Oklahoma. In Canada, the first phase of Keystone involved the conversion of approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of existing 36-inch (910 mm) natural gas pipeline in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to crude oil pipeline service. It also included approximately 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline, 16 pump stations and the Keystone Hardisty Terminal.[5]

The U.S. portion of the Keystone Pipeline included 1,744 kilometres (1,084 mi) of new, 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois.[5] The pipeline has a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).[6] It also involved construction of 23 pump stations and delivery facilities at Wood River and Patoka, Illinois. In 2011, the second phase of Keystone included a 480-kilometre (298 mi) extension from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma and 11 new pump stations to increase the capacity of the pipeline from 435,000 to 591,000 barrels per day (69,200 to 94,000 m3/d).[5]

Additional phases (three and four) have been in construction or discussion since 2011. If completed, the Keystone XL would add 510,000 barrels per day (81,000 m3/d) increasing the total capacity up to 1.1 million barrels per day (170×103 m3/d).[7]

The original Keystone Pipeline cost US$5.2 billion with the Keystone XL expansion slated to cost approximately US$7 billion. The Keystone XL was expected to be completed by 2012–2013, however construction has been overcome by events.[7]

Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The disputed portions of this pipeline system are what is needed to complete an efficient throughput, which would alleviate localized bottlenecks of storage. Including, for example, Illinois oil procuction which is penalized $8.30 per barrel.

Localized markets are relenquishing inventories at a loss, due to inefficiencis of infrastructure. The Keystone XL portion alleviates this.

Take a nap Dubya, I'll handle it from here.

 

[S.J.]

He killed the pipeline deal to appease the environmentalists. They were threatening to cut off political donations for his re-election. Now that the election is over, he will feel free to screw them over.

 

[Mr. H.]

Chicago isn't just known for it's hot-dogs.

It's produced some fine weiners too.

 

[bucs90]

Obama just played the game better then numbnuts Romney did.

You guys need to realize that the 2 party nonsense is all a big game. A joke.

 

[Dubya]

Wow......the osama administration is now agreeing with Mitt Romney on the Keystone Pipeline......interesting. I guess all of you assholes that voted for osama because he was against the pipeline will have to bend way the fuck over backwards to restate your case.


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds


Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds - ABC News


The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.
The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama’s desk for final consideration.
“The approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S.,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
The State Department, which conducted the study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, also suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.
The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed. It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”
Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.
The release of the draft report reignited debate over climate change and President Obama’s pledge to do something about it.
Environmental activists have been lobbying Obama hard to block the plan — some recently chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest. Many environmental groups see rejection of the pipeline as a litmus test for whether Obama intends to fulfill his pledge from the second inaugural.

Boner is on record lying his ass off about how the Keystone pipeline was held up for 4 years.

That's not what the record says and the Keystone pipeline has been operational since 2010.

Operating since 2010, the original Keystone Pipeline System is an 3,461-kilometre (2,151 mi) pipeline delivering Canadian crude oil to U.S. Midwest markets and Cushing, Oklahoma. In Canada, the first phase of Keystone involved the conversion of approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of existing 36-inch (910 mm) natural gas pipeline in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to crude oil pipeline service. It also included approximately 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline, 16 pump stations and the Keystone Hardisty Terminal.[5]

The U.S. portion of the Keystone Pipeline included 1,744 kilometres (1,084 mi) of new, 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois.[5] The pipeline has a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).[6] It also involved construction of 23 pump stations and delivery facilities at Wood River and Patoka, Illinois. In 2011, the second phase of Keystone included a 480-kilometre (298 mi) extension from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma and 11 new pump stations to increase the capacity of the pipeline from 435,000 to 591,000 barrels per day (69,200 to 94,000 m3/d).[5]

Additional phases (three and four) have been in construction or discussion since 2011. If completed, the Keystone XL would add 510,000 barrels per day (81,000 m3/d) increasing the total capacity up to 1.1 million barrels per day (170×103 m3/d).[7]

The original Keystone Pipeline cost US$5.2 billion with the Keystone XL expansion slated to cost approximately US$7 billion. The Keystone XL was expected to be completed by 2012–2013, however construction has been overcome by events.[7]

Source: Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The disputed portions of this pipeline system are what is needed to complete an efficient throughput, which would alleviate localized bottlenecks of storage. Including, for example, Illinois oil procuction which is penalized $8.30 per barrel.

Localized markets are relenquishing inventories at a loss, due to inefficiencis of infrastructure. The Keystone XL portion alleviates this.

Take a nap Dubya, I'll handle it from here.

All you have handled is your stupidity with both hands in your pants and you don't know more about the keystone pipeline project than I do.

Try this for basics! Why didn't they just follow the previous route? All the environmental studies and even the right of way was worked out, so why do they want to change what they did originally and how is this shortcut going to benefit the ultimate design?

The southern part of the Keystone XL project was approve two mouths after the request, so your point about bottlenecks has nothing to do with the disputed pipeline. The disputed pipeline doesn't go near Illinois.

Again, your point about the Keystone XL project eliminating inefficiencies of infrastructure makes you a liar, which seems to be the only thing a right-winger can do about any subject.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow......the osama administration is now agreeing with Mitt Romney on the Keystone Pipeline......interesting. I guess all of you assholes that voted for osama because he was against the pipeline will have to bend way the fuck over backwards to restate your case.

Yeah.....let's HEAR IT!! for......

...."conservative" Logic!!!!!!

"Western Canada is producing more crude oil than it knows what to do with. So guess where Eastern Canada is going to get crude oil from this summer? By ship from Texas."

 

[healthmyths]

Wow......the osama administration is now agreeing with Mitt Romney on the Keystone Pipeline......interesting. I guess all of you assholes that voted for osama because he was against the pipeline will have to bend way the fuck over backwards to restate your case.

Yeah.....let's HEAR IT!! for......

...."conservative" Logic!!!!!!

"Western Canada is producing more crude oil than it knows what to do with. So guess where Eastern Canada is going to get crude oil from this summer? By ship from Texas."

Prove it!

 

[healthmyths]

ALL the anti-pipeline-environmentalists have yet to answer this simple question:

If a one million barrel oil tanker travels one mile on the ocean how much oil would travel in one mile of the Keystone pipeline?

Another way of looking at it which has a better chance of damaging more environment 1 million barrels traveling one mile in an oil tanker,
or ______ barrels traveling one mile in a pipeline???

 

[Dubya]

The disputed portions of this pipeline system are what is needed to complete an efficient throughput, which would alleviate localized bottlenecks of storage. Including, for example, Illinois oil procuction which is penalized $8.30 per barrel.

Localized markets are relenquishing inventories at a loss, due to inefficiencis of infrastructure. The Keystone XL portion alleviates this.

Take a nap Dubya, I'll handle it from here.

All you have handled is your stupidity with both hands in your pants and you don't know more about the keystone pipeline project than I do.

Try this for basics! Why didn't they just follow the previous route? All the environmental studies and even the right of way was worked out, so why do they want to change what they did originally and how is this shortcut going to benefit the ultimate design?

The southern part of the Keystone XL project was approve two mouths after the request, so your point about bottlenecks has nothing to do with the disputed pipeline. The disputed pipeline doesn't go near Illinois.

Again, your point about the Keystone XL project eliminating inefficiencies of infrastructure makes you a liar, which seems to be the only thing a right-winger can do about any subject.

You're fucking hopeless. Shaman isn't far behind. In fact, he seems to be in your ass.

They could follow the original route and be building that pipeline right now. They have plans to send that bitumen all the way to Philadephia and eventually export it, so why not just follow the original route? Your argument about throughput has been shot down. They are causing their own delays, because they want to take a shorter route.

I've studied the keystone pipeline production and the fact is it hasn't produced one drop of gasoline for the United States. As production of bitumen increased and was sent to the US, we exported gasoline from the gulf. I believe the US is targeting Venezuela refining of Iranian crude. Venezuela has much more refining capacity than the amount of crude it produces. I think our exporting gasoline is to rob part of the market for Venezuelan and Iranian product. Current exports of gasoline are 24.78 million gallons per day. Notice how they steadily increased until Jan 2012 and are now higher around the winter!

Weekly U.S. Exports of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)

You will also notice all those plans to get natural gas to the bitumen production. I believe they will eventually build crude refineries in that area and use solvent extraction. They will need large amounts of natural gas because they need the extra hydrogen in the hydrocarbons. The amount of hydrocarbons locked away in both Canadian and Venezuelan tar sands exceed all the known oil reserves in the world.

 

[Mr. H.]

Study this: "Alberta Clipper Pipeline".

Then tell me why we export tens of millions of metric tons of agricultural grains each year while we pay record prices for groceries. What's good for agriculture doesn't seem to be good for hydrocarbons, does it?

I've studied the hydrocarbon industries for 35 years. You are one stupid fuck. Sharpen your crayon.

 

[healthmyths]

I'm waiting for an environmentalist to answer which carries more oil in one mile???

 

[Mr. H.]

Tbe Keystone XL pipeline was fine where it stood originally.

The threat to land and water is not from crude oil or natural gas, but from agriculture itself...

Running Dry on the Great Plains

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/polluting-the-ogallala-aquifer.html?_r=0

 

[Dubya]

Study this: "Alberta Clipper Pipeline".

Then tell me why we export tens of millions of metric tons of agricultural grains each year while we pay record prices for groceries. What's good for agriculture doesn't seem to be good for hydrocarbons, does it?

I've studied the hydrocarbon industries for 35 years. You are one stupid fuck. Sharpen your crayon.

I've already studied it, fool!

Listen, Idiot, you didn't know about us exporting all that gasoline, so where did it come from? It couldn't have come from Canada, because the gulf refineries aren't connected to Canada.

They used to barge crude up the Mississippi and used a pipeline to feed those refineries in the mid-west. Since they can be supplied with bitumen and oil from North Dakota, the Texas refineries have too much gasoline from the gulf crude production and are exporting it. That pipeline heading north has had it's flow reversed and additional pipelines (the southern part of Keystone XL) are being built from Cushing, OK to the Texas refineries. OK has an oil glut.

Like you have been told, if they were in a hurry to build that northern part of the Keystone XL pipeline, they would just follow the old route. If the shortcut isn't approved, that's what they will do. The real issue is whether it's safe to build a pipeline across the Ogallala Aquifer, because the project is going to go forward whether they do it or not. There have been plans to export production in the both the Atlantic and Pacific. Canada is a safer foreign market, but it is still foreign and not domestic production.