Is The Keystone Pipeline Dead?

[bobabode]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcanada-asks-us-to-suspend-review-of-keystone-pipeline-permit/2015/11/02/1dac3c12-81c0-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

TransCanada asks for a suspension of it's pipeline permit.

[Boreas]

Depends on who the next president is. Really, Bernie's the only person running who can b e trusted to block it.

[Tom Joad]

As long as there is money to be made, it will never be dead.

[finnbow]

As long as there is money to be made, it will never be dead.

And because of dropping oil prices, the pipeline isn't profitable.

[Rajoo]

And because of dropping oil prices, the pipeline isn't profitable.

Let's not forget that the profits go to Trans Canada. Only money to be made by US is construction, lease and ongoing maintenance.

[donquixote99]

And the buying and selling and refining of the oil...and derivative contracts....

[Pio1980]

Probably graveyard dead until price of oil substantially rises.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[MrPots]

And because of dropping oil prices, the pipeline isn't profitable.

So after they confiscated (stole) all that land via eminent domain...it's a no go?

[Tom Joad]

And because of dropping oil prices, the pipeline isn't profitable.

You expect that to last?

[finnbow]

You expect that to last?

Maybe, maybe not. However, without some degree of certainty, those making the investments won't be too hot on investing in the pipeline. That said, the Keystone pipeline is a red herring for both sides. The Dems call it a singular cause for ruining the earth's environment and the GOP says it will single-handedly cause full employment and energy independence. Neither is true.

[Rajoo]

Keystone pipeline is a very high risk for scant rewards only benefiting Canada in the long run. A spill can become an environmental disaster for the states the pipeline is running through.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png

[Oerets]

Delaying tactics for now, awaiting a little election in a year for a favorable result before moving on.

Like others have noted as long as they continue producing the Tar Sands there will always be a want for the pipe line.



Barney

[bobabode]

The Prez tells TransCanada to pound sand today. :cool:

[MrPots]

He can do this because it's intrastate?

[bobabode]

He can do this because it's intrastate?

Since it crosses an international border, the State dept has final say.

[Boreas]

Misdirection.

Don't look at what I'm about to do with TPP. Look at what I just did with Keystone XL!

[finnbow]

I think the Post has it right when it says:

President Obama rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Friday, ending an unseemly political dispute marked by activist hysteria, GOP hyperbole, presidential weakness and a general incapability of various sides to see the policy question for what it was: a mundane infrastructure approval that didn’t pose a high threat to the environment but also didn’t promise much economic development. The politicization of this regulatory decision, and the consequent warping of the issue to the point that it was described in existential terms, was a national embarrassment, reflecting poorly on the United States’ capability to treat parties equitably under law and regulation...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-disappointing-but-long-awaited-decision-on-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/2015/11/06/2f28b586-84bf-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html

It seems to me that if it makes economic sense to exploit this resource in Canada, it will find its way to market via trucks and/or trains, both considerably more risky to the environment than a new pipeline. I hope environmentalists are thrilled with their symbolic victory that will result in this oil getting to market in a way that is more environmentally detrimental while precluding the creation of a number of construction and service industry jobs. I guess this is what happens when you let vocal activists unduly influence government actions.

[merrylander]

Also pure hypocrisy as we cause as much water pollution here with fraking as does the tarsands. Also the biggest players in the tarsands are American and European oil companies.

It could also have had a leg added to carry the North Dakota crude but now that also will go by rail. If the Canadians are smart they will not allow American oil trains on their lines or they could see another Lac Megantic.

[Rajoo]

I disagree Rob. Our oil consumption is continuing to diminish and I predict that electric cars/self driving cars are in our near future, especially in metropolitan areas. So why take a risk? If our demand for oil goes up, we can always revisit this resource. Chances are that due to depressed crude oil prices, it is not economically viable to transport via rail. Canada can also institute better safety standards for their rail freight system/tracks.

PS: I am truly surprised by the number of Nissan Leaf EV's on I-680 that I use to commute daily. Tesla's too but that's not an affordable car but is locally made.

[MrPots]

Since it crosses an international border, the State dept has final say.

Thank you.

[bobabode]

Thank you.

No problemo, Pots.

[merrylander]

I disagree Rob. Our oil consumption is continuing to diminish and I predict that electric cars/self driving cars are in our near future, especially in metropolitan areas. So why take a risk? If our demand for oil goes up, we can always revisit this resource. Chances are that due to depressed crude oil prices, it is not economically viable to transport via rail. Canada can also institute better safety standards for their rail freight system/tracks.

PS: I am truly surprised by the number of Nissan Leaf EV's on I-680 that I use to commute daily. Tesla's too but that's not an affordable car but is locally made.

It was an American owned and operated train (allowed onto Canadian tracks) that destroyed the center of Lac Megantic in Quebec. Recent rait accidents have all been inside the U.S. Having traveled bt train in both countries I find the tracks are in better shape in Canada. Economics aside they are still shipping oil by train, especially from North Dakota.

Having worked with computers since 1963 the idea of a self driving car scares the chit out of me.:eek:

[Rajoo]

It was an American owned and operated train (allowed onto Canadian tracks) that destroyed the center of Lac Megantic in Quebec. Recent rait accidents have all been inside the U.S. Having traveled bt train in both countries I find the tracks are in better shape in Canada. Economics aside they are still shipping oil by train, especially from North Dakota.

Having worked with computers since 1963 the idea of a self driving car scares the chit out of me.:eek:

It's about time tracks got upgraded in this country. I travel by Amtrak occasionally and can attest to the poor track conditions and the snails pace trains have to travel.

As to self driving cars (I too am a techie) the technology is quite fascinating not to mention that it could be very beneficial in managing traffic. Accordion Effect, unnecessary lane changes etc. which contribute to traffic snarls can be theoretically eliminated. How well the on-board computers will perform will be determined by evolving technology rather than reliability of computers. For that matter installing redundant control systems will not be very expensive in this day and age.

Then again I am in the Tesla, Apple and Google arena and if these companies join hands (very likely), nothing will surprise me. Then again I am prejudiced and have high hopes for high tech. I truly believe that electric self driving cars are in our near future especially here in the Bay Area and probably in LA basin and Seattle.

[merrylander]

It is not the reliability of the computers but that of the folks writing the code that worries me.

Ha, the big thing out silicon valley way is AI. curious to see how they plan on replicating the Soul.

I see there were two more oil / ethanol train wrecks in Wisconsin, wonder how happy all those environmentalists are about that?

[bobabode]

Keystone pipeline is a very high risk for scant rewards only benefiting Canada in the long run. A spill can become an environmental disaster for the states the pipeline is running through.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png


Looking at this map, I don't get why TransCanada doesn't build their pipeline alongside the existing one and avoid the Ogallala aquifer altogether. :confused:

[merrylander]

I think if you were to find a link to the Athabaska tar sands you would find that Petro Canada has a very minor part in it, most of the companies are American and European. Now the greenies want an end to oil trains - what idiots.

Ah to hell with it all as I no longer give a damn about pipelines or much of anything else.

[Rajoo]

I think if you were to find a link to the Athabaska tar sands you would find that Petro Canada has a very minor part in it, most of the companies are American and European. Now the greenies want an end to oil trains - what idiots.

Ah to hell with it all as I no longer give a damn about pipelines or much of anything else.

Rob, future is in electric cars. Tesla is building a huge facility outside of Reno, NV specifically to build Li-ion batteries. With energy conversion rate of less than 50% with internal combustion engines and electric at 90%+, why invest money or resources in a resource whose demand is diminishing.

This is an emerging technology, extremely fuel efficient and negligible pollution except from the power generating plants.

[finnbow]

Rob, future is in electric cars. Tesla is building a huge facility outside of Reno, NV specifically to build Li-ion batteries. With energy conversion rate of less than 50% with internal combustion engines and electric at 90%+, why invest money or resources in a resource whose demand is diminishing.

This is an emerging technology, extremely fuel efficient and negligible pollution except from the power generating plants.

I think your analysis fails to account for the energy conversion efficiency for generating the electricity at the plant (~40% with oil or coal) and energy losses for transmission and distribution (~6%).

[Rajoo]

I think your analysis fails to account for the energy conversion efficiency for generating the electricity at the plant (~40% with oil or coal) and energy losses for transmission and distribution (~6%).

Thanks, I will look into it. But even if I use your 40% number this does not account downstream energy capture from waste streams. In internal combustion engines, wasted energy simply goes out the exhaust pipe and is dissipated by the radiator.

[Boreas]

Just as there is energy consumption in the generation of electricity, there is energy consumption in refining gasoline. The question is the overall "carbon footprint" of each set of processes.

Another consideration is in the use of clean renewable methods of power generation. If you have an electric car for which the electricity is generated by wind or solar, you have zero emissions at any point in the chain.

By the way, the "greenies" don't want to have the tar sands oil transported by rail instead of by pipeline. They want it left in the ground. The idea is to fight the use of this junk every step of the way.

[Rajoo]

http://www.teslamotors.com/gigafactory

I am not promoting Tesla Motors here, just the clean energy concept.

[finnbow]

Thanks, I will look into it. But even if I use your 40% number this does not account downstream energy capture from waste streams. In internal combustion engines, wasted energy simply goes out the exhaust pipe and is dissipated by the radiator.

... in exactly the same fashion that it goes up the smoke stack at a power plant.

[Rajoo]

... in exactly the same fashion that it goes up the smoke stack at a power plant.

This is where you and I disagree. Take a look at ocean freighters and how they capture every once of energy from burning diesel. There are multitude of capturing and converting waste energy.

If your theory is indeed true, why we wouldn't all of us have generators at home? We would not have to deal with transmission losses which is something you brought up.

[Pio1980]

Electrical power distribution appeals due to economy of scale and converteribility.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Boreas]

This is where you and I disagree. Take a look at ocean freighters and how they capture every once of energy from burning diesel. There are multitude of capturing and converting waste energy.

Diesels are the most efficient type of combustion engine and low RPM diesels, like marine diesels are the most efficient type. Even so, the thermal efficiency of the very best of these is only slightly greater than 50%.

[finnbow]

This is where you and I disagree. Take a look at ocean freighters and how they capture every once of energy from burning diesel. There are multitude of capturing and converting waste energy.

If your theory is indeed true, why we wouldn't all of us have generators at home? We would not have to deal with transmission losses which is something you brought up.

With coal and fuel oil having ~40% energy conversion efficiency for power generation, the excess energy is going somewhere other than friction losses. For the most part, it's going up the stack or in the coolant water outflow. In fact, if your efficiency is too high, you won't get proper flow out of the stack (i.e., hot air rises).