Tar Sands oil pipeline update

[Mookie]

Lotsa acreage in Nebraska - why right over two very important parts of the US? 

[Anonymous]

I can understand the concern about danger to the aquifer if oil is spilled in porus ground such as sand.  I don’t know if there is any way of protecting against that problem if a pipeline is run through the sand hills.  I don’t know if the sand there runs all the way down to the aquifer.  But it would seem to be impossible to guarantee that no leaks or spills will ocurr anywhere on a pipline.  If the sand hills were the only issue, I would think it prudent to slove the problem by re-routing around the sand hills.

 

However, when I listen to the advocacy opposing this pipeline, I hear far more objection than just the threat to the aquifer under the sand hills.  Here is a quote from the link I posted above celebrating a victory over killing the pipline: 

 

“The president explicitly noted climate change, along the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess.  There is no way, with an honest review, that a pipline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster.”

 

Therefore, I do not see how moving the oil by train instead of by pipeline will absolve the crime of "tapping the world’s second-largest pool of carbon."   I am sure that proposals to move the oil by train will face the same oppostion.

[samfp1943]

This Keystone XL Pipeline has certainly raised temperatures all over the place.

Today I listened to a guy; called in on Rush's (Limbaugh) Show. he said that he was a trucker, and rancher from Nebraska, he was reciting a laundry list of all things bad about this project.  You also have the posts above on this Thread referencing an environmental angle and how the environmentalists are saying they have surely killed this project.   I would bet that as much pipe has been laid to its current northern terminus, they will find another use for it(?)

 The major issues seem to be the placement of the pipeline route transiting the Sandhill region of Nebraska, and the Ogallala Basin Aquifer.

This link to the Pipeline is a Wikipedia link, admitted not a reputable  source, but it seems to have most of the elements to explain the working of this XL Project all FOUR Phases.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

and as the Sandhills Region of Nebraska is part, this link shows a map and history of the Area: http://nematode.unl.edu/halseyNEmap.htm

This link is to a map of the area of the Ogallala Aquifer:

http://www.hpwd.com/the_ogallala.asp

Bear in mind that there are already smaller pipelines that transit an are to the East of the proposed phase of the XL Project.  So this whole thing seems to have boiled in to  major political football.  Read and make your own judgements.

One thing about it. the railroads seem to be in a position to be a winner as they can connect the source with the   pipeline terminus to move the product as needed. As they are already doing in the source regions for this petroleum product.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Mookie - good ones ! 

tatans

  [snipped] . . . I'm hearing lots of talk here  about cancelling it and shipping the oil to Prince Rupert and marketing it to China, it would be cheaper to build and Canada would get a better price for the oil, . . .

    So the Keystone XL pipeline would have been more expensive than to Prince Rupert, and to a market with not as good a price as China ?  Something about those claims "doesn't compute", then . . . Perhaps the promoters should thank the US State Dept. for saving them from themselves and their bad deals ?!?   

- Paul North. 

[tatans]

Much ado about this pipeline, not being allowed across the U.S. I'm hearing lots of talk here  about cancelling it and shipping the oil to Prince Rupert and marketing it to China, it would be cheaper to build and Canada would get a better price for the oil, another concept brewing is not to ship any crude oil out of Canada unless it's refined, another good idea.

 The U.S. has now opened new exploration  leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

[Mookie]

Nebraska has been in a tizzy for quite some time over this.  Basically, we were told that this pipeline would happen and we couldn't stop it.  So the people started to make noise and we got attention.  We have pipelines over eastern NE, so we aren't anti-pipeline. 

But to build it right thru one-of-a kind Sandhills and then over the aquifer, which is another one-of-a-kind over many states, and be reassured that there will be no problems or they will be handled quickly and without problem to either of these sites......

Is this where they insert "trust me"? 

We keep hearing that oil by train is too expensive.  This is probably true because if there is a pipeline break, they won't do much more than token cleanup.  Just ask Louisiana. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

From that Reuters article, it looks like the alternate route through Canada will also face environmental opposition.  And even if either one was approved today, it would still be several years before the pipeline is completed enough so that the oil can flow through it.

In the meantime, railcars and terminals can be constructed and placed into service in a matter of months, and perhaps some short lengths of pipeline to fill gaps or create routing options, etc.  And once that capital has been invested ("sunk costs" or "stranded") into rail-based transport operations, why do that again - but for a pipeline instead - that then has even less of a service life left ? 

Rail won't be the cheapest, but it will be the most flexible.  Most importantly, it can start much sooner, and the oil price differential is big enough to cover the slightly higher costs.  If it were me, I'd take all of that action I could get today and make as much money off that differential by using rail as long as possible, and let the future oil transport take care of itself.  As Gen. Patton famously said: "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

- Paul North.       

[jclass]

Here's another report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A95E520111111?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

[Anonymous]

 

It sounds like the pipeline is dead:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/10/victory-weve-killed-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-oil-pipeline/

[samfp1943]

According to news reports this date the US State Department is witholding the cross-boarder permits  for the pipe line.

As well as, the Courts which have also ordered that the pipe line must avoid the route across Nebraska ,and reroute it around the Ogalala Aquifer, Which, apparently was noted is the source of water for some eight states )?)

Sounds as if the whole case is moving into the relm of the Federal Courts for resolution(?)

I think that the portions through Kansas have been completed, and it was finished to the Kansas-Nebraska Border area . It was building East of this area back in July and August, and was moving northward in a rapid manner.

[creepycrank]

There already some dedicated trains doing that right now.

[jclass]

Wouldn't it be fine if rail could grab that oil movement now that the pipeline has been blocked?  Probably too unstable an issue politically for rail to try.  Can't there be 10,000 ton tank trains with operations similar to coal trains?  I would think any derailment spill would cause limited damage.  Just don't like the idea of the oil going to Asia.  We shoot ourselves in the foot so often.