# Is There ANY Reason To Build Keystone?



## fantasymaker

Ok So Im seeing all these comments about how We HAVE to build the keystone pipeline.
Gotta get canadian oil , free trade, NAFTA,Etc.
Then I get to reading about railroads and how much coal they cary.
It hits me....:smack
Why cant trains carry Oil? Its been done in the past. They are already in place,etc.


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> Ok So Im seeing all these comments about how We HAVE to build the keystone pipeline.
> Gotta get canadian oil , free trade, NAFTA,Etc.
> Then I get to reading about railroads and how much coal they cary.
> It hits me....:smack
> Why cant trains carry Oil? Its been done in the past. They are already in place,etc.


Trains can carry oil but KeystoneXL won't be piping oil, it will be piping dilbit which I believe has to be kept hot and pressurized for transportation. I don't know if train containers have the necessary containment and capability of keeping dilbit pressurized and hot during transportation. Even if they did though, it would be 2 or 3 times more costly to transport either the solid or diluted form by rail than by pressurized, heated pipeline. The dilbit first has to be heated up to 165 degrees and injected with liquid gas. The heated pipeline has to be pressurized to 1,600 psi to allow for a steady speed of approximately 5 mph and that will allow for the transportation of the equivalent of approximately 1 million barrels per day.

.


----------



## fantasymaker

Yep no problem for the rail lines to handle that.
Where did you get those 2 or 3 times more costly thing?


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> Where did you get those 2 or 3 times more costly thing?


From a bunch of different websites that have information about processing and transporting dilbit. You can Google dilbit or bitumen transportation methods and costs to find out more.


.


----------



## ryanthomas

1600 PSI? No way anything could go wrong there.


----------



## sevenmmm

I think the Texas/Oklahoma oil refineries need that pipeline to include a more stable supply. I also think they will declare all or some of the oil as Free Trade Zone status to bypass US taxation for their products shipped abroad.. If this is the plan, US gasoline buyers will get nothing whatsoever out of the deal.

All to the detriment of the midwest refineries.


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> Yep no problem for the rail lines to handle that.


Just out of curiosity, how do the train containers keep the hot pressurized contents circulating around in motion inside each container to prevent the precipitation of solids settling to the bottoms of the containers?

.


----------



## zant

ryanthomas said:


> 1600 PSI? No way anything could go wrong there.


Be afraid,be very afraid......these type pipelines are and have been circulating around the country for years....1000s and 1000s of miles of them....The sky is falling!!!:smack


----------



## arabian knight

zant said:


> Be afraid,be very afraid......these type pipelines are and have been circulating around the country for years....1000s and 1000s of miles of them....The sky is falling!!!:smack


Ya really.
YES there is a Reason for building it, a Huge reason. Money.
It takes Money Added Money to each and every barrel of Crude to be Trucked.
And a Pipeline would not raise that at least 40 cents added to a gallon of gas.
You want to get that crude to its destination as quickly and as cheaply as possibly. And that pipeline, alone with the 100's and I mean 100's of thousands of MILES other pipelines that are built across the USA.


----------



## TNHermit

Part of the reason we don't have the pipeline is Buffet owns the rail roads.  probably doesn't mean anything though:grumble:


----------



## Ozarks Tom

OP, can you give some LEGITIMENT reasons not to build it? Even if the estimated 20,000 jobs only turn out to be half that, that's still a lot of good paying construction jobs when we need them. Also, the continued operation and maintenance of the finished pipeline provides income to hundreds at the minimum.


----------



## arabian knight

Well I do believe most of those above that 10K mark up to 20K, are the support businesses and all the surrounding ones that will add workers because of the added workers in the area.
One can not just look at the hard count just the pipeline itself, one muster look at all the surrounding businesses that will also benefit.


----------



## sevenmmm




----------



## sevenmmm




----------



## sevenmmm




----------



## sevenmmm




----------



## sevenmmm

There are literally hundred of pictures, but I think the message is clear and the science is settled.


----------



## TNHermit

you show 4 pictures from around the whole D world (Russia, UK) and say its settled. Hardly. 
Why don't you link them. show me where the hundreds are


----------



## arabian knight

Ah that is just the tactic from some that are from the green generation. 
They go and find vids from all over, and those have happened years and years ago and is not what is happening in the real world now, or certainly not in the United States.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

TH, shhh, don't disturb him while he's trolling.

Where have we heard that "science is settled" before?


----------



## ryanthomas

zant said:


> Be afraid,be very afraid......these type pipelines are and have been circulating around the country for years....1000s and 1000s of miles of them....The sky is falling!!!:smack


Are the pipelines we have 1600 PSI? Serious question, since I know nothing about this stuff. No need to be a smart ass.


----------



## sevenmmm

Here is the link. *sigh*

Oil pipeline leak pictures

Of course, there are many other reasons not to allow the Canadians to transport their oil across our country...


----------



## Tobster

It is a good thing all those trains carrying hazardous material are never involved in any sort of mishap.


----------



## sevenmmm

zant said:


> Be afraid,be very afraid......these type pipelines are and have been circulating around the country for years....1000s and 1000s of miles of them....The sky is falling!!!:smack


This is a very old psycho technique developed in the beginnings of our political system. The term used is binary opposition. It works like this: reduce the argument to two extreme positions then work to denounce and ridicule your opposition. Gang up on anyone who dare opposes and break them down until they either give up or choose what you believe.

No. We are not afraid. No, the sky is not falling. 

The system as it is serves this country well forcing the Canadians to service the refineries in the Midwest. The only reason it is being pushed in Washington is because of the tremendous amount of campaign contributions the Texas-based oil refineries are paying to mostly Republicans but also some Democrats.


----------



## TNHermit

sevenmmm said:


> Here is the link. *sigh*
> 
> Oil pipeline leak pictures
> 
> Of course, there are many other reasons not to allow the Canadians to transport their oil across our country...


So your obviously with someone. Green Peace. How old are the pics? I have an oil spill by the garage. Dam Blackberries grwoing up in it. How much oil runs into the ocean naturally at Santa Barbara every day.

And I know teh pics are old because if there was a leak in the Alaska Pipeline your Boy Owe would have his SS news media all over it.


----------



## Allen W

ryanthomas said:


> Are the pipelines we have 1600 PSI? Serious question, since I know nothing about this stuff. No need to be a smart ass.


Most of them are way below that.


----------



## Shrek

fantasymaker said:


> Ok So Im seeing all these comments about how We HAVE to build the keystone pipeline.
> Gotta get canadian oil , free trade, NAFTA,Etc.
> Then I get to reading about railroads and how much coal they cary.
> It hits me....:smack
> Why cant trains carry Oil? Its been done in the past. They are already in place,etc.


I used the same arguement over our breakfast discussion a few weeks ago by telling my table mates I could "install a 8 foot diameter pipeline within 24 hours and maybe even have two or three up and running along different routes if the Canadians could keep up with the supply demand" and then said we train haul coal . Why not train haul Canadian oil since the tank cars and tracks are already there?


----------



## arabian knight

Sure and then unload BACK into a pipeline that goes to the refinery. Why not KEEP the oil inside a Pipeline to begin with? 
Then at the refinery it just has to be redirected into the different storage tanks, and then into the refining process ALL contained inside a PIPELINES.
And ya a train derailment, and then there is a nice way more of not only a huge oil spill, but a HUGE Fire to go along with it. 
NO keep it Confined, and Contained inside a PIPE, and keep it flowing all the way to the refinery.


----------



## texican

fantasymaker said:


> Ok So Im seeing all these comments about how We HAVE to build the keystone pipeline.
> Gotta get canadian oil , free trade, NAFTA,Etc.
> Then I get to reading about railroads and how much coal they cary.
> It hits me....:smack
> Why cant trains carry Oil? Its been done in the past. They are already in place,etc.


It's true, railroads use to carry crude oil.... a billion or so barrels left E Tx on railroad tankers, during WWII. Pipelines are hundreds of times easier, and cheaper.

There is a reason you don't see millions of people traveling on busses anymore... it's quicker and cheaper to fly.

Canada is a friendly nation. Mexico, too, for the most part... other nations we get our life giving juice from, not so much..

Coal could be sent via pipeline too, except for one little problem.... the amount of water required to slurry the coal.... coal exporting states (WY, MT) don't have any spare water to speak of.

I'm sure Buffett would love to transport all that oil on railroad tankers... Of course, it'd take an endless stream of railroad cars to transport that much oil... which ain't gonna happen.


----------



## texican

ryanthomas said:


> Are the pipelines we have 1600 PSI? Serious question, since I know nothing about this stuff. No need to be a smart ass.


The pipeline going by a compressor on my place, is running around 700psi. Compressors are needed on older wells, because the wellhead pressure is so low. Shale gas wells don't need compression, as they can be over a 1000psi at the wellhead.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

naturelover said:


> Just out of curiosity, *how* do the train containers keep the hot pressurized contents circulating around in motion inside each container to prevent the precipitation of solids settling to the bottoms of the containers?
> 
> .


They don't


----------



## emdeengee

Keystone will be built. I don't think there is anyone in Canada who still does not yield to the inevitable. The environment has no chance against the Koch Brothers. Gateway probably won't be built. Just too much opposition by the First Nation's people and much of the route would be on their land. The Harper Goverment announced this week that they are also looking to enlarge the current pipeline, the Transmountain Pipeline, that already runs from Edmonton to Vancouver and branches into Washington state. 

Kinder Morgan plans $5B pipeline expansion to Vancouver - Business - CBC News


----------



## naturelover

Em, I think that's more sensible.

.


----------



## naturelover

Map of Canadian pipelines in USA. Click on map to enlarge.


 MAP

.


----------



## fantasymaker

So then in short the only reason to build a pipeline is so that a canadian pipeline company will make more money?


----------



## sevenmmm

TNHermit said:


> So your obviously with someone. Green Peace. How old are the pics? I have an oil spill by the garage. Dam Blackberries grwoing up in it. How much oil runs into the ocean naturally at Santa Barbara every day.
> 
> And I know teh pics are old because if there was a leak in the Alaska Pipeline your Boy Owe would have his SS news media all over it.


No. Not with any group. I even let my RENEW Wisconsin membership lapse.

It doesn't matter how old any picture is or where the pipeline is. The point is oil pipelines do leak and it is an ugly picture. 

I don't want that pipeline for numerous reasons (I have already posted my points), and you want that pipeline because why?

US oil pipeline leaks


----------



## tinknal

fantasymaker said:


> So then in short the only reason to build a pipeline is so that a canadian pipeline company will make more money?


American construction workers (you know, families) will make more money.

American refinery workers (you know, families) will make more money.

American workers (you know, families) all along the route will have permanent jobs maintaining and monitoring the pipeline will make more money. 

Landowners (you know, families) who sell ROW will make more money.

Miners who produce the steel (you know, families) for the pipeline and the construction equipment will make more money.

Factory workers (you know, families) who turn that steel into pipe, and graders, and excavators, and trucks will make more money. 

More taxes will be collected. More money will flow through the economy. It's not rocket surgery.


----------



## tinknal

sevenmmm said:


> It doesn't matter how old any picture is or where the pipeline is. The point is oil pipelines do leak and it is an ugly picture.


And tankers sink. Would you think that a leak in a land based pipeline would be worse than a supertanker running aground in the Pacific?

This oil will be transported, processed, and used. The only question is how and by whom.


----------



## TNHermit

sevenmmm said:


> No. Not with any group. I even let my RENEW Wisconsin membership lapse.
> 
> It doesn't matter how old any picture is or where the pipeline is. The point is oil pipelines do leak and it is an ugly picture.
> 
> I don't want that pipeline for numerous reasons (I have already posted my points), and you want that pipeline because why?
> ]



i want the pipline for the simple reason it was put there for us to use. Everything in life requires work and risk.

Nobody in their right mind wether they believe in god or no can believe that oil is in the ground just to slosh around for eternity. But I 'm sure if you work hard you can figure out a way to tell us that the earths crust will collapse if the oil isn't there and it lubricates the shifting fault line


----------



## zant

How many people will die today because
1.They are in a motor vehicle
2.They were given the wrong drugs/care by a doctor
3.etc,etc,etc
Life is a risk...anything made or designed by man can fail at anytime.....so lets abandon fossil fuels-transportation,etc,etc.....or we couls just accept certain risks in life and have a strong,free nation...NNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW


----------



## ryanthomas

zant said:


> How many people will die today because
> 1.They are in a motor vehicle
> 2.They were given the wrong drugs/care by a doctor
> 3.etc,etc,etc
> Life is a risk...anything made or designed by man can fail at anytime.....so lets abandon fossil fuels-transportation,etc,etc.....or we couls just accept certain risks in life and have a strong,free nation...NNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW


Abandoning fossil fuels and "just accepting the risks" are not the only options. How about *weighing* the risks and the costs against the benefits?


----------



## TNHermit

sevenmmm said:


> No. Not with any group. I even let my RENEW Wisconsin membership lapse.
> 
> It doesn't matter how old any picture is or where the pipeline is. The point is oil pipelines do leak and it is an ugly picture.
> 
> I don't want that pipeline for numerous reasons (I have already posted my points), and you want that pipeline because why?


you didn't answer my question about Santa Barbara. how many thousand gallon a year naturally flow into the sea ??



ryanthomas said:


> Abandoning fossil fuels and "just accepting the risks" are not the only options. How about *weighing* the risks and the costs against the benefits?


This is 60 year old arguments. And it still doesn't WORK Period. Its not cost effective nor can it give out the power required. My son worked on the windmills in CA for years. They are not good. And now many are shut down because of the BIRDS.

Did you ever think that the reason we keep finding oil is the fact that there is enough to keep us going till wind,solar can actually work. Maybe if they spent as much time working on it as they do swindling people and political crap it could work.

Feel free to price me setup for my shop to run the tools and include paypack


----------



## ryanthomas

TNHermit said:


> This is 60 year old arguments. And it still doesn't WORK Period. Its not cost effective nor can it give out the power required. My son worked on the windmills in CA for years. They are not good. And now many are shut down because of the BIRDS.
> 
> Did you ever think that the reason we keep finding oil is the fact that there is enough to keep us going till wind,solar can actually work. Maybe if they spent as much time working on it as they do swindling people and political crap it could work.
> 
> Feel free to price me setup for my shop to run the tools and include paypack


What the  are you talking about? When did I make any arguments about wind and solar?


----------



## emdeengee

fantasymaker said:


> So then in short the only reason to build a pipeline is so that a canadian pipeline company will make more money?


 It is not the only reason but it sure is a profitable one. Or do you think they are doing it for free or just to be an altruistic company? This is big, big business and after years of concentrating on only one market Canada is actively seeking trade agreements with many countries on many continents. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada warned business not to be complacent and content with one market that has no trouble in saying no or changing rules when it suits. Canada sells 99% of its oil to the US and will continue to do so - but probably at world prices soon - but that 1% and the new finds are up for grabs to other markets.


----------



## TNHermit

ryanthomas said:


> What the  are you talking about? When did I make any arguments about wind and solar?


Maybe I read it wrong but reads to me like you want to abandon fossil fuels and accept the risks of non fossil fuels. Those would be solar and wind as they are the most popular.
If not then I blame it on my glasses


----------



## arabian knight

TNHermit said:


> you didn't answer my question about Santa Barbara. how many thousand gallon a year naturally flow into the sea ??


 I wonder how many know the true reason their are over 3,000 oil rigs in the Gulf???
The bed rock has been cracked Millions of years ago when that huge meteor spliced in a took out the Dinos~!
Makes it much much easier for oil drillers to get through those NATUAL CRACKS at the ocean floor, WHICH BTW also Leaks and flows HUGE amount of oil directly into the Gulf. Hmmm can't stop THAT now can we?


----------



## emdeengee

sevenmmm said:


> No. Not with any group. I even let my RENEW Wisconsin membership lapse.
> 
> It doesn't matter how old any picture is or where the pipeline is. The point is oil pipelines do leak and it is an ugly picture.
> 
> I don't want that pipeline for numerous reasons (I have already posted my points), and you want that pipeline because why?
> 
> US oil pipeline leaks


Everything you have posted is 100% correct. There are pipeline leaks all the time. Big and small. Horrible environmental disasters taking place at home and in other countries but this news is barely mentioned - if at all. Pipelines can be built much safer but that would double the costs and neither the companies or governments are willing. Sooner or later there will be a major disaster - either through an accident, a malfunction or a terrorist activity. Six bombs over the last 2 years on the EnCana pipeline in Northern British Columbia. But nothing is going to stop the oil juggernaut. 30 % of the energy produced and used in the US is already from "clean" sources so this will continue to expand as the price and scarcity of oil increases. Meanwhile Canada is going to cash in - wherever the market is available.


----------



## ryanthomas

TNHermit said:


> Maybe I read it wrong but reads to me like you want to abandon fossil fuels and accept the risks of non fossil fuels. Those would be solar and wind as they are the most popular.
> If not then I blame it on my glasses


Yeah, you definitely read that wrong.


----------



## TNHermit

arabian knight said:


> I wonder how many know the true reason their are over 3,000 oil rigs in the Gulf???
> The bed rock has been cracked Millions of years ago when that huge meteor spliced in a took out the Dinos~!
> Makes it much much easier for oil drillers to get through those NATUAL CRACKS at the ocean floor, WHICH BTW also Leaks and flows HUGE amount of oil directly into the Gulf. Hmmm can't stop THAT now can we?


But how can that bee. Seems like I saw pictures of people swimming and surfing around there. guess the oil slick make good sun screen


----------



## texican

emdeengee said:


> Keystone will be built. I don't think there is anyone in Canada who still does not yield to the inevitable. The environment has no chance against the Koch Brothers.


Those Evil Koch Brothers (edited myself, as I realized I'd typed out a nasty pun)... using all of that oil for themselves, hoarding it in their basement... it's not like the human race depends upon crude oil for survival... IF all crude deliveries ceased instantaneously, civilization as we know it would disappear, within a month. America is addicted to oil (because oil is life.... our civilization exists because of oil)


fantasymaker said:


> So then in short the only reason to build a pipeline is so that a canadian pipeline company will make more money?


So true! Why else would they do it? This isn't a govt. operation, or non profit operation... although it would be neat if Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the ACLU [all of which I like and agree with, on most issues] tried to actually go out and produce some useful amounts of energy... ANY kind of energy... I don't work for free, doubt if anyone here (unless they're already stinking greedy rich) does either.



TNHermit said:


> Maybe I read it wrong but reads to me like you want to abandon fossil fuels and accept the risks of non fossil fuels. Those would be solar and wind as they are the most popular.
> If not then I blame it on my glasses


I could live without any and all petroleum products... however, I envision probably close to 95% of humanity disappearing from the planet, within a year... if all petroleum products ceased to exist.

It's always ok to rant and rave about the evils of oil and capitalism... just remember, most of us exist right now because of both. We could possibly live without capitalism, but most couldn't exist without oil.


----------



## naturelover

sevenmmm said:


> Of course, there are many other reasons not to allow the Canadians to transport their oil across our country...


I'm all ears. I want to learn what all these other reasons are to not let Canadians transport Canadian oil across the country.



fantasymaker said:


> So then in short the only reason to build a pipeline is so that a canadian pipeline company will make more money?


Well, it's not the only reason, as has already been explained. But even if money was the only reason what is your problem with that? Do you bear resentment against a Canadian company making money, and if so, why?

Has Canada become America's newest enemy?

.


----------



## TNHermit

naturelover said:


> I'm all ears. I want to learn what all these other reasons are to not let Canadians transport Canadian oil across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not the only reason, as has already been explained. But even if money was the only reason what is your problem with that? Do you bear resentment against a Canadian company making money, and if so, why?
> 
> Has Canada become America's newest enemy?
> 
> .



NO
The reason is it proves you are down in the dirty,greedy, slimy, child killing, not give a environmental wit,money grubbing, people usin, capitalists.

I think we should go back to horse and buggy days. lets see 350 million people 2 horses a piece for the buckboard that's 700 million horse. How many men would it take to keep up with that much Horse Spit. Just think of all the high paying jobs And a revival in the shovel and rake industry. Not to mentions all the fly spray that would be sold. Of course we would have 60,000 a year die from some disease from all that horse spit laying around that didn't get to in time. So that means big in crease in jobs in health and mortuary business. Looks like the way to a perfect recovery and full employment to me.

And lord knows i could use the business fixing wheels and buckboards and Conestoga wagons. Couldn't make them out of plastic cause that requires oil.

And oh Yea the leather industry. Harness for all that stuff. Yessir eeee lets get with it.

And then there is revival in the farm community. gotta have hay and oats. probably be a bunch of horses starve since we can't use tractors. And feedin 5-700 million horse might take a little time and we might not get all that hay and ots there on time. But that just revises the horse burying business. Its just endless the good that could come from all this


----------



## sevenmmm

naturelover said:


> I'm all ears. I want to learn what all these other reasons are to not let Canadians transport Canadian oil across the country.


1. The process of converting bitumen to refinery grade oil is expensive.
2. Causes extreme environmental damage.
3. Takes an incredible amount of energy.
4. Getting more to market will only serve to use it up faster.
5. Will allow the Canadians to by-pass the US market.
6. Oil pipelines leak and cause incredible life-hardships for the effected area.
7. They already have the pipe ready and will use chinese labor to build it.


----------



## tinknal

sevenmmm said:


> 1. The process of converting bitumen to refinery grade oil is expensive.
> *It is not your money It won't cost you a cent and will certainly save you money by putting more oil in the market, you know, that whole "supply and demand" thing most of us learned in 9th grade*
> 2. Causes extreme environmental damage.
> *This oil is going to be extracted and used no matter if the pipeline is built or not. The potential for environmental damage is far less if it is shipped by pipeline than if shipped by tanker*
> 3. Takes an incredible amount of energy.
> *It is energy. Use your head here.*
> 4. Getting more to market will only serve to use it up faster.
> *It's a world market. If someone wants it, someone will produce it*
> 5. Will allow the Canadians to by-pass the US market.
> *Not building the pipeline will divert the oil (and all those jobs) to China*
> 6. Oil pipelines leak and cause incredible life-hardships for the effected area.
> *See response to #2*
> 7. They already have the pipe ready and will use chinese labor to build it.
> *Cite please? This sounds like a bald faced lie to me.*


Respond.


----------



## Evons hubby

ryanthomas said:


> Abandoning fossil fuels and "just accepting the risks" are not the only options. How about *weighing* the risks and the costs against the benefits?


Ok... what are the problems with abandoning fossil fuels without developing alternative energy sources first? 

Mass starvation and anarchy. 

What are the problems with continuing the use of fossil fuels and developing them?

people prosper and continue to eat and mostly enjoy life in an orderly fashion.... but have to pay attention and clean up the occasional spill just like we have been doing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't


Of course they do. there are several types of systems already in use to keep liquid contents "stirred" in containers.


----------



## ryanthomas

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok... what are the problems with abandoning fossil fuels without developing alternative energy sources first?


I didn't say we should abandon fossil fuels. I don't think we should. I must have written that poorly, since two people have now misunderstood it.


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> Trains can carry oil but KeystoneXL won't be piping oil, it will be piping dilbit .


If we use trains to carry the oil we dont need Dilbit.
Simpler and cheeper.AND READY NOW!



sevenmmm said:


> I think the Texas/Oklahoma oil refineries need that pipeline to include a more stable supply. .


 See a red herring! They dont need a pipeline they need the oil. How it gets there is imaterial to them.



arabian knight said:


> Ya really.
> YES there is a Reason for building it, a Huge reason. Money.
> 
> You want to get that crude to its destination as quickly and as cheaply as possibly. .


Then we better put it on the train they are a lot faster than pipeline.


Ozarks Tom said:


> OP, can you give some LEGITIMENT reasons not to build it? Even if the estimated 20,000 jobs only turn out to be half that, that's still a lot of good paying construction jobs when we need them. Also, the continued operation and maintenance of the finished pipeline provides income to hundreds at the minimum.


Where do you get this from? All the stuff I ever see about pipelines tout how FEW workers they require.
Dont you think that if it gos by rail (or barge) That there will be jobs created there? just look at what the poweder river coal has done for employment.


----------



## fantasymaker

Shrek said:


> I used the same arguement over our breakfast discussion a few weeks ago by telling my table mates I could "install a 8 foot diameter pipeline within 24 hours and maybe even have two or three up and running along different routes if the Canadians could keep up with the supply demand" and then said we train haul coal . Why not train haul Canadian oil since the tank cars and tracks are already there?





arabian knight said:


> Sure and then unload BACK into a pipeline that goes to the refinery. Why not KEEP the oil inside a Pipeline to begin with?
> Then at the refinery it just has to be redirected into the different storage tanks, and then into the refining process ALL contained inside a PIPELINES.
> And ya a train derailment, and then there is a nice way more of not only a huge oil spill, but a HUGE Fire to go along with it.
> NO keep it Confined, and Contained inside a PIPE, and keep it flowing all the way to the refinery.


Because there isnt a pipeline to carry it . Besides a Railroad or barge wont require a seond pipeline for dilbit.
Again this is really a red herring . You see the oil never STAys in a pipeline. It runs out of the pipe into tanks again and agin. Running it into and out of a railcar or barge is pretty much the same thing. the oil just doesnt care.


texican said:


> It's true, railroads use to carry crude oil.... a billion or so barrels left E Tx on railroad tankers, during WWII. Pipelines are hundreds of times easier, and cheaper.
> 
> I'm sure Buffett would love to transport all that oil on railroad tankers... Of course, it'd take an endless stream of railroad cars to transport that much oil... which ain't gonna happen.


So first you say it HAS been done then you try to make us think we cant afford it cause it costs HUNDREDS of times more? 



tinknal said:


> American construction workers (you know, families) will make more money..


Very few the pipeline built near here was built with a handfull of workers and few of them spoke english in the few days they were here.
ON THE OTHER HAND. Railroad maintence and upgrade people live here are from here and contribute to the econmy.



tinknal said:


> American refinery workers (you know, families) will make more money..


Red herring They make the same no mater how the oil gets there. IN FACT since rail or barge require a bit more complicated unloading there might be a VERY FEW more jobs created.



tinknal said:


> American workers (you know, families) all along the route will have permanent jobs maintaining and monitoring the pipeline will make more money. .


Very few workers on a pipleline LOTS more on a railroad.



tinknal said:


> Landowners (you know, families) who sell ROW will make more money..


But they dont make money at that. They are mearly compensated for the dimminished value of their land. On the other hand the few that sell to the railroads to increase their capacity Will do so of their own free will and likly make money.


tinknal said:


> Miners who produce the steel (you know, families) for the pipeline and the construction equipment will make more money..


As would the ones that make the steel for the railroads.


tinknal said:


> Factory workers (you know, families) who turn that steel into pipe, and graders, and excavators, and trucks will make more money. .


yes but not as much as those that build the equipment for the railroads.



tinknal said:


> More taxes will be collected. More money will flow through the economy. It's not rocket surgery.


Wrong simply wrong.


----------



## tinknal

Fantasy, (good name) you totally ignored my response to number 5, which destroys all the rest of your arguments. They fall like dominoes.


----------



## fantasymaker

TNHermit said:


> i want the pipline for the simple reason it was put there for us to use. Everything in life requires work and risk.
> Nobody in their right mind wether they believe in god or no can believe that oil is in the ground just to slosh around for eternity.


This thread isnt about weather we should use oil its about How to move it.



ryanthomas said:


> Abandoning fossil fuels and "just accepting the risks" are not the only options. How about *weighing* the risks and the costs against the benefits?


 Thats the point of the thread RIGHT ON!


emdeengee said:


> It is not the only reason but it sure is a profitable one. Or do you think they are doing it for free or just to be an altruistic company? This is big, big business and after years of concentrating on only one market Canada is actively seeking trade agreements with many countries on many continents. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada warned business not to be complacent and content with one market that has no trouble in saying no or changing rules when it suits. Canada sells 99% of its oil to the US and will continue to do so - but probably at world prices soon - but that 1% and the new finds are up for grabs to other markets.


Your right they are doing it so their company can make mone the question is "Is this best for the people in THE USA?
I think Canada has been hoodwinked to because they too seem to be caught up in the pipleline or no way feaver.


texican said:


> Those Evil Koch Brothers (edited myself, as I realized I'd typed out a nasty pun)... using all of that oil for themselves, hoarding it in their basement... it's not like the human race depends upon crude oil for survival... IF all crude deliveries ceased instantaneously, civilization as we know it would disappear, within a month. America is addicted to oil (because oil is life.... our civilization exists because of oil)
> So true! Why else would they do it? This isn't a govt. operation, or non profit operation... although it would be neat if Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the ACLU [all of which I like and agree with, on most issues] tried to actually go out and produce some useful amounts of energy... ANY kind of energy... I don't work for free, doubt if anyone here (unless they're already stinking greedy rich) does either.


Pay close attention here .its not about the oil its about the transportation.



naturelover said:


> I'm all ears. I want to learn what all these other reasons are to not let Canadians transport Canadian oil across the country..


 What you do up there is your business,I noticed you deleted the word "Our" in your quote. But I Dont see any reason to let canadians transport oil across MY country. beliveme Im sure a US company can do it one way or another.




naturelover said:


> Well, it's not the only reason, as has already been explained. But even if money was the only reason what is your problem with that? Do you bear resentment against a Canadian company making money, and if so, why?
> 
> Has Canada become America's newest enemy?


No problem with them making money in Canada but Its way wrong for them to try to FORCE people in this country to make them rich.


----------



## sevenmmm

tinknal said:


> Respond.


Certainly!

1. The process of converting bitumen to refinery grade oil is expensive.
_It is not your money It won't cost you a cent and will certainly save you money by putting more oil in the market, you know, that whole "supply and demand" thing most of us learned in 9th grade_
*Much of the capital is coming from the US. This capital would be better invested in this country creating jobs here*. 

2. Causes extreme environmental damage.
_This oil is going to be extracted and used no matter if the pipeline is built or not. The potential for environmental damage is far less if it is shipped by pipeline than if shipped by tanker_
*Starve it of another pipeline and this would slow down the process. The grandchildren of both Canadians and those living in the states will thank you profusely for saving some for them. Of course, those greedy for themselves only would be beside themselves for considering the Grandchildren.*


3. Takes an incredible amount of energy.
_It is energy. Use your head here._
*The natural gas they are using to heat the oil sand is a cleaner burning fuel. To burn natural gas and pollute much of the water supply in the process, then exhaust more poisonous gases in refining and burning the oil is just ridiculous at its core.*


4. Getting more to market will only serve to use it up faster.
_It's a world market. If someone wants it, someone will produce it_
*Indeed. Please refer back to answer #2.*

5. Will allow the Canadians to by-pass the US market.
_Not building the pipeline will divert the oil (and all those jobs) to China_
*Why don't they do THAT then?*


6. Oil pipelines leak and cause incredible life-hardships for the effected area.
_See response to #2_
*I am not willing to agree to more environmental damage.* 


7. They already have the pipe ready and will use chinese labor to build it.
_Cite please? This sounds like a bald faced lie to me._
*I am not a bald face liar, you have simply run out of ideas.*

Occupy Brookings (SD): TransCanada Already Stockpiling Pipe for Keystone XL in South Dakota

California turns to Chinese company, labor to build most of new Bay Bridge span | PRI.ORG


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> This thread isnt about weather we should use oil its about How to move it.
> 
> Pay close attention here .its not about the oil its about the transportation.
> 
> What you do up there is your business,I noticed you deleted the word "Our" in your quote. But I Dont see any reason to let canadians transport oil across MY country. beliveme Im sure a US company can do it one way or another.
> 
> No problem with them making money in Canada but Its way wrong for them to try to FORCE people in this country to make them rich.


Hmmm. That is all true. You make some valid points.

In 2011 America's top export to other countries was refined fuels - that's including refined fuels that it exported back to Canada (because Canada doesn't have the refining capacity that America has). In 2011 America's top import was crude oil (that it refined and then exported at a profit). America's top supplier of imported crude oil is Canada (99% of Canada's oil product is exported to America). Who is getting richer from Canada's oil - Canada or America?

Here's what I think. Personally I think Canada should just stop producing so much cheap crude oil for export. I think it should leave the tar sands alone and keep it in reserve for the future. I think Canada should start refining its own oil for itself instead of America refining it for Canada and exporting it back to Canada at a higher price. That way if Canada did it's own refining it would have what it needs just for itself and some to sell to other countries overseas at a higher profit and just bypass America as the middle man. 

I also think Canada should stop providing so much crude oil for America to import and refine to sell to other countries. America doesn't need Canada to be its top supplier of crude oil, there's lots of other places where America can get crude oil from.

Then nobody would have to worry about pipelines coming from Canada and going through America. Of course, neither country would prosper quite as much doing things that way, but prosperity isn't important, is it?

Does that all sound like a workable solution for you?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But I Dont see any reason to *let canadians transport oil across MY country*. beliveme Im sure a US company can do it one way or another.


Do you have *a better way* to get it from where it is to where it NEEDS to be?


----------



## tinknal

Seven I didn't doubt that the pipe was made. What does a pre-fab bridge in CA have to do with the pipeline though? Where is the Chinese labor?


----------



## po boy




----------



## sevenmmm

tinknal said:


> Seven I didn't doubt that the pipe was made. What does a pre-fab bridge in CA have to do with the pipeline though? Where is the Chinese labor?


Then I will counter to ask; Isn't the purpose of corporations to use the most efficient lowest cost labor available? 

Since this is mostly a Republican political issue, do you really think this will be set up for American Union labor?

And this is what this is really about. It has become a political issue, and even if it works against our best interests, some peeps would rather cover their eyes and ears and just parrot the party line. 

Republicans do not have to bow to their leadership because some group gives them money, you know.


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> Hmmm. That is all true. You make some valid points.
> 
> Then nobody would have to worry about pipelines coming from Canada and going through America. Of course, neither country would prosper quite as much doing things that way, but prosperity isn't important, is it?
> 
> Does that all sound like a workable solution for you?
> 
> .


The point is the pipeline thing is a red herring . The PIPELINE isnt really all that important Its the transpot that is. So why make a big deal abot building the pipeline when we could be doing it with the railroads or barges RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
I think somethings up. Someone is getting paid off.
I do agree with you ,I dont see why Canada isnt refineing more of its own oil and keeping more of its profits. That would certinly make a lot of sence.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you have *a better way* to get it from where it is to where it NEEDS to be?


Sure have a US company do it .
It looks like trains and barges would be better than a pipeline.


----------



## TNHermit

fantasymaker said:


> Sure have a US company do it .
> It looks like trains and barges would be better than a pipeline.


I can just see the enviros.libs.commies and newpapers after the first spill in the Mississippi and the utter horror for those down stream. Not to mentions the utter racism perpetrated on New Orleans


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course they do. there are several types of systems already in use to keep liquid contents "stirred" in containers.


 
This isn't "liquid" unless kept at extremely high temperatures and pressures


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Sure *have a US company do it* .
> It looks like* trains and barges would be better than a pipeline*.


If that were "better" they *would* do it that way.
US companies will do most of the refining and much of the pipeline construction.


----------



## Darren

fantasymaker said:


> The point is the pipeline thing is a red herring . The PIPELINE isnt really all that important Its the transpot that is. So why make a big deal abot building the pipeline when we could be doing it with the railroads or barges RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
> I think somethings up. Someone is getting paid off.
> I do agree with you ,I dont see why Canada isnt refineing more of its own oil and keeping more of its profits. That would certinly make a lot of sence.
> 
> 
> Sure have a US company do it .
> It looks like trains and barges would be better than a pipeline.


One of the issues today is the limitations of railroad transport. That has been the problem getting coal out of the Powder River Basin. As for barges, are you suggesting that we build a canal that far?

The primary benefit of Keystone is geopolticial. It provides a fast way to obtain a friendly source of oil for this country. It lowers the demand for Venzuelean oil and that decreases the amount of money that can be used by a regime that has started mischief in South America.

Anything that relies on North American sources of oil rather than imported oil reduces the leverage of foreign sources where money is being diverted for terrorism.

It seems the lessons of the oil embargo in the early 70's have been forgotten.


----------



## Aintlifegrand

Jobs that we need now.. it is just that simple.


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> The point is the pipeline thing is a red herring . The PIPELINE isnt really all that important Its the transpot that is. So why make a big deal abot building the pipeline when we could be doing it with the railroads or barges RIGHT THIS MINUTE?
> I think somethings up. Someone is getting paid off.
> I do agree with you ,I dont see why Canada isnt refineing more of its own oil and keeping more of its profits. That would certinly make a lot of sence.
> 
> 
> Sure have a US company do it .
> It looks like trains and barges would be better than a pipeline.


I think perhaps you don't keep up with the current news on this.

Railroads already have been transporting crude oil for years, with more getting online now to do same since the KeystoneXL was declined. However, it's not enough and there aren't enough tracks, trains and railcars in all of North America to accomplish the same quantity and quality of steady delivery that pipelines can deliver.

To move the same volume of Keystone XL oil into the U.S. market would take a train that was 25 miles long each and every day. According to Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration in the U.S., for every pipeline incident that takes place, there are 50 railway incidents. 

Railways transporting oil from Canada to America - Google

Now aside from that delivery of crude oil, you are still not clueing in to the fact that railcars and barges (bargeing is a silly idea, sorry, but that's just plain silly and dangerous) are not adequate to transport a million barrels a day of diluted bitumen. That is a highly volotile semi-solid product that must be maintained for days and weeks at high temperatures, contained under pressure of 1,600 psi and constant stirring in motion to prevent precipitation of solids. To date there is just no such mechanism invented and existing besides a specially built pipeline that can transport that product. If you are going to persist in this idea of yours then please produce evidence of such a mechanism that already exists to prove your point.

Please educate yourself on the vast differences between crude oil and bitumen and the methods that are presently used for extracting, transporting and refining them. And maybe you need to do some research on the treaties and economic partnerships that exist between Canada and USA before you go complaining further about Canada taking advantage and getting rich off USA.

.


----------



## tinknal

sevenmmm said:


> Then I will counter to ask; Isn't the purpose of corporations to use the most efficient lowest cost labor available?
> 
> Since this is mostly a Republican political issue, do you really think this will be set up for American Union labor?
> 
> And this is what this is really about. It has become a political issue, and even if it works against our best interests, some peeps would rather cover their eyes and ears and just parrot the party line.
> 
> Republicans do not have to bow to their leadership because some group gives them money, you know.


I'm not going to respond to your silly arguments anymore, it is a moot point. The pipeline _will_ be built and there is really nothing you can do to stop it. 

Obama even wants it, he just wants to wait until after the election to avoid cranking off the enviro-whackos.


----------



## fantasymaker

TNHermit said:


> I can just see the enviros.libs.commies and newpapers after the first spill in the Mississippi and the utter horror for those down stream. Not to mentions the utter racism perpetrated on New Orleans


We already transport oil by barge in the missippi.


Bearfootfarm said:


> This isn't "liquid" unless kept at extremely high temperatures and pressures


 Actaully we dont need to it oil can gel and we dont need the dilbit if its not in a pipeline.


Bearfootfarm said:


> If that were "better" they *would* do it that way.
> US companies will do most of the refining and much of the pipeline construction.


Life isnt like that pipeline people dont build railroads or advocate its use.
Those few jobs hardly equal the uge amount of wealth that the pipeline will earn.



Darren said:


> One of the issues today is the limitations of railroad transport. That has been the problem getting coal out of the Powder River Basin. .


The railroads dont seem to have a problem with that at all.


Darren said:


> As for barges, are you suggesting that we build a canal that far?.


Nope its already been built to Montana.


Darren said:


> The primary benefit of Keystone is geopolticial. It provides a fast way to obtain a friendly source of oil for this country. It lowers the demand for Venzuelean oil and that decreases the amount of money that can be used by a regime that has started mischief in South America.


If fast is the key load the trains that can start tomrrow!


Aintlifegrand said:


> Jobs that we need now.. it is just that simple.


see the above!


----------



## Guest

Why not Canada build its own refineries in their country and ship it from its own coasts, I thought I understood ours where at capacity and aging to boot. It will still end up in the world market as they intend a anyway. I'll admit this is not on my list of things I know much about, but I'm sure glad they aint puttin that through my area.


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> I think perhaps you don't keep up with the current news on this.
> 
> Railroads already have been transporting crude oil for years, with more getting online now to do same since the KeystoneXL was declined. However, it's not enough and there aren't enough tracks, trains and railcars in all of North America to accomplish the same quantity and quality of steady delivery that pipelines can deliver..


So lets get this straight they have been doing this but they cant? LOL your argument about the railroads not being able to keep up with the pipelines is a bait and switch You see they dont have to move the oil that flows in pipelines now Just the additional that would come from the tar sand.



naturelover said:


> To move the same volume of Keystone XL oil into the U.S. market would take a train that was 25 miles long each and every day. According to Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration in the U.S., for every pipeline incident that takes place, there are 50 railway incidents. .


 So thats it All it takes is 25 miles of trains a day?
Since the powder river coal basin produces75 miles of trains a day it really seems pretty doable.
As for the accident records you cite they sound a bit off. got the link?




naturelover said:


> Now aside from that delivery of crude oil, you are still not clueing in to the fact that railcars and barges (bargeing is a silly idea, sorry, but that's just plain silly and dangerous) are not adequate to transport a million barrels a day of diluted bitumen. That is a highly volotile semi-solid product that must be maintained for days and weeks at high temperatures, contained under pressure of 1,600 psi and constant stirring in motion to prevent precipitation of solids. To date there is just no such mechanism invented and existing besides a specially built pipeline that can transport that product. If you are going to persist in this idea of yours then please produce evidence of such a mechanism that already exists to prove your point..


 We dont need to move the dilbit if we dont use a pipeline SEE how much more effciant it is?


naturelover said:


> And maybe you need to do some research on the treaties and economic partnerships that exist between Canada and USA before you go complaining further about Canada taking advantage and getting rich off USA.


I have done a bit of reserch in to that very subject and have found canada really doesnt care to abide by their agreements.
Edit to add ;unless canada is to gain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Railroads already have been transporting *crude oil* for years





> So lets get this straight they have been doing this but they cant?


The new pipeline is NOT for "crude oil"
This product is more like asphalt than a liquid


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> I have done a bit of reserch in to that very subject and have found canada really doesnt care to abide by their agreements.


:shocked:

Aw man, you just well and truly hosed yourself now. With that very statement above you have just proven yourself hoisted by you own petard. 

If you had done any research you would never have started this topic in the first place. You really don't have a clue what you're going on about and you haven't done ANY research about any of this subject at all, have you?

I don't think there's any point to discussing anything further with someone like you. I think you were just trolling trying to start a fight with people. :hand:

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you had done any research you would never have started this topic in the first place


Touche!!!


----------



## fantasymaker

:hijacked:



naturelover said:


> :shocked:
> 
> Aw man, you just well and truly hosed yourself now. With that very statement above you have just proven yourself hoisted by you own petard. .


Nature lover I belive you and I have debated how Canada wont live up to their agreements before. Its not particularly relavant to this discussion anyway.



naturelover said:


> :If you had done any research you would never have started this topic in the first place. You really don't have a clue what you're going on about and you haven't done ANY research about any of this subject at all, have you?
> 
> I don't think there's any point to discussing anything further with someone like you. I think you were just trolling trying to start a fight with people. :hand:
> 
> .


LOL So If I know something about one topic its trolling to discuss another? Do I have to be the world expert on something to ask a question about it?
I know something about Canada keeping its agreements. I know somethings about transportation. As We discussed this topic I learned more and reserched points that were brought up. Isnt that One of the points of these forums?
BTW nature lover you both informed me of things I didnt know and inspired me to reserch more deeply in to other topics.


----------



## Hollowdweller

I think Keystone can be safely built. I will cost the companies more money to do it and they will try to build it the cheapest way possible but I think it can be safely built.

However I do not think that it should be build unless the oil companies actually pay the people whose land it crosses and get their OK. 

Since it is a private for profit venture I feel like them taking peoples land for it via emminent domain is wrong. The companies stand to make billions off the gas produced the people whose land is used for the pipeline should not be shorted in renumerations.


----------



## fantasymaker

Hollowdweller said:


> I think Keystone can be safely built. I will cost the companies more money to do it and they will try to build it the cheapest way possible but I think it can be safely built.
> 
> However I do not think that it should be build unless the oil companies actually pay the people whose land it crosses and get their OK.
> 
> Since it is a private for profit venture I feel like them taking peoples land for it via emminent domain is wrong. The companies stand to make billions off the gas produced the people whose land is used for the pipeline should not be shorted in renumerations.


 WOW thats been my point EXACTLY!
There a ARE other ways to move the oil. The pipeline dosent HAVE to be built. So past that its just a matter of pipeline companies makeing a profit at the expence of those other ways.
The government has no business chosing or even aiding someone to be the winners in this venture.


----------



## Truckinguy

Well, then, lets transport the oil by truck and give the trucking industry a boost. Think of all the industries that would benefit from trucking, new truck and trailer sales, parts, mechanics, truck stops and restaurants, road repair crews, trucks pay a lot of road taxes and of course the D.O.T. would have to build more scales and hire more inspectors. Oh, and don't forget the increase in demand for diesel due to the higher number of trucks on the road increasing the demand for, you guessed it, crude oil! Win, win! Lol!


----------



## wr

fantasymaker, what agreements do you feel Canada has not honored?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There a ARE other ways to move the* oil*.


You keep repeating that.

The pipeline will not be carrying "*OIL"*



> Before 1980, most produced *bitumen* was transported by truck, but *trucking is seasonally restricted and relatively inefficient and expensive* compared to pipeline transport. However, bitumen in its undiluted state is too viscous and dense to be transported by pipeline


----------



## Darren

Advocating rail transport ignores the additional infrstructure that will be required. The tie plants in WV would love to sell more railroad ties. It keep the loggers busy cutting forests down and the truckers who haul the creosoted ties busy.

The railroad had major problems getting the unit trains into and out of the Powder River Basin. That's probably been resolved by now. Except now expanding rail lines all the way to the refineries near the Gulf of Mexico isn't going to be simple or fast.

Meanwhile we keep importing 9 to 12 million barrels of oil a day with the largest supplier being Saudi Arabia. Who in turn capitalizes on that need to keep our armed forces nearby as their personal protectors.

The next time you wonder about the cost of keeping aircraft carriers and their supports in a constant rotation to protect the Saudis, consider that the Keystone pipeline is not a backyard issue.


----------



## naturelover

Darren said:


> *Meanwhile we keep importing 9 to 12 million barrels of oil a day with the largest supplier being Saudi Arabia.* Who in turn capitalizes on that need to keep our armed forces nearby as their personal protectors.
> 
> The next time you wonder about the cost of keeping aircraft carriers and their supports in a constant rotation to protect the Saudis, consider that the Keystone pipeline is not a backyard issue.


If you're referring to crude oil then that statement is incorrect. Canada is the top supplier of oil to USA and has been for years - nearly twice as much as what is supplied by Saudia Arabia.

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries​ 
*September 2011 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2011*​ 
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in September 2011 has been released and it shows that three countries exported more than 1,000 thousand barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in September while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were: ​ 
Canada (2,324 thousand barrels per day), 
Saudi Arabia (1,465 thousand barrels per day), 
Mexico (1,099 thousand barrels per day), 
Venezuela (759 thousand barrels per day) and 
Nigeria (529 thousand barrels per day). ​ 
The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were ​ 
Colombia (510 thousand barrels per day), 
Iraq (403 thousand barrels per day), 
Ecuador (299 thousand barrels per day), 
Angola (283 thousand barrels per day) and 
Russia (275 thousand barrels per day). ​ 
Total crude oil imports averaged 9,006 thousand barrels per day in September, which is a decrease of (16) thousand barrels per day from August 2011. ​ 
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day........... continued .......​ 

From July 2010​ 
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/100726/top-7-us-oil-importers​ 
BOSTON &#8212; The United States consumes more oil than any other country in the world: 18.7 million barrels of oil per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) short-term energy outlook.

To satisfy that demand, the United States imports 9 to 12 million barrels of oil per day.

Canada reigns as the United States' leading oil supplier, exporting some 707,316,000 barrels of oil per year (1,938,000 barrels per day) &#8212; a whopping 99 percent of its annual oil exports, according to the EIA.

Canada's exports to the United States are worth more than $37 billion and account for 16 percent of the total trade between the two countries, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Statistics. Canada holds the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. And 95 percent of this oil is in sand deposits in Alberta, which makes the oil extraction process difficult. 

.​


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep repeating that.
> 
> The pipeline will not be carrying "*OIL"*


Oil is just a general term Often the deposits in question are called Oil Sands or Oil shale due to the ability to refine oil from the bitumen.



Darren said:


> Advocating rail transport ignores the additional infrstructure that will be required. The tie plants in WV would love to sell more railroad ties. It keep the loggers busy cutting forests down and the truckers who haul the creosoted ties busy.
> 
> The railroad had major problems getting the unit trains into and out of the Powder River Basin. That's probably been resolved by now. Except now expanding rail lines all the way to the refineries near the Gulf of Mexico isn't going to be simple or fast.
> .


 The rails are in place now so what could be quicker? Yes as things go along Im sure the rails would be upgraded but surely thats a much faster option than building a entirely new pipeline?

Im not ignoreing the work needed for the railroad just wonder why options OTHER than the pipeline are not being concidered?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Oil is just a general term* Often the deposits in question are called Oil Sands or Oil shale due to the ability to refine oil from the bitumen


I realize that

What YOU don't seem to realize is it doesn't FLOW like "oil", and can NOT be transported as easily as "oil", which is WHY they need a *specific pipeline *



> just wonder why options OTHER than the pipeline are not being concidered?


Because they *won't work *


----------



## fantasymaker

Truckinguy said:


> Well, then, lets transport the oil by truck and give the trucking industry a boost. Think of all the industries that would benefit from trucking, new truck and trailer sales, parts, mechanics, truck stops and restaurants, road repair crews, trucks pay a lot of road taxes and of course the D.O.T. would have to build more scales and hire more inspectors. Oh, and don't forget the increase in demand for diesel due to the higher number of trucks on the road increasing the demand for, you guessed it, crude oil! Win, win! Lol!


Trucking Is my bread and butter while I would think there might be some transport that way I wonder about the economics of it.
On the other hand with a few rule changes from the states the situation might be more competitive.
Why should the austrailian truckers get to have ALL the Road Train fun!


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize that
> 
> What YOU don't seem to realize is it doesn't FLOW like "oil", and can NOT be transported as easily as "oil", which is WHY they need a *specific pipeline *
> 
> 
> 
> Because they *won't work *


But doesnt that argue even more for Rail and Barge? Both are transportation forms with a long history of handling simular substances?
Why wont they work? They have worked before what would stop them from working again?


----------



## Darren

Are you aware that much of the pipeline has already been built and is being used?

"The Keystone pipeline network carries oil from Canada into the United States. There are several existing segments of the pipeline, extending south from Alberta, Canada and across the U.S./Canada border to terminals in Illinois, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Segments of this pipeline network have been carrying oil into the United States since 2010.

A new extension of the pipeline, called the Keystone XL pipeline, would expand the reach of the Keystone pipeline network by adding a segment from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast of Texas. The Keystone XL pipeline would also carve out a new route from Alberta to Nebraska. This extension would total over 1,700 miles of new pipeline."

Keystone Pipeline - What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline


----------



## naturelover

Darren said:


> Are you aware that much of the pipeline has already been built and is being used?
> 
> Keystone Pipeline - What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline


In post #34 I posted the interactive map and link that shows ALL the Canada pipelines, those that are functioning now and those that are proposed - but I don't think he looked at it. Here it is again.

CBC.ca - Interactive - Canada's Pipeline Network

Click on the map to see the large version showing all of Canada and America.

 MAP

.


----------



## fantasymaker

Darren said:


> Are you aware that much of the pipeline has already been built and is being used?


 I took a look at the site you linked at first I was wondering "wow whats the big enviromental deal " since it does look like they just want to add another little bit from Oklahoma south.
But then I looked closer and what they are really talking is adding a new line starting in Canada running all the way to the gulf and useing a small segment already built in Kansas and oklahoma.
So Id say nope most of the pipeline HASNT been built.
But I see no reason they cant use what they already have.


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> But doesnt that argue even more for Rail and Barge? Both are transportation forms with a long history of handling simular substances?
> Why wont they work? They have worked before what would stop them from working again?


Oh God give me patience, this just makes me want to cry.:sob:



There is nothing stopping them from transporting oil.

They cannot be used for transporting diluted bitumen.

Period. 

It's already been explained to you why.

.


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> Oh God give me patience, this just makes me want to cry.:sob:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing stopping them from transporting oil.
> 
> They cannot be used for transporting diluted bitumen.
> 
> Period.
> 
> It's already been explained to you why.
> 
> .


 Why would we WANT to transport Diluted bitumen?

And no noone has explained to me why the cant be used for transporting either Dilbit or bitumen.


----------



## fantasymaker

So far the only reason Ive seen for the pipeline was presented by AK


arabian knight said:


> Ya really.
> YES there is a Reason for building it, a Huge reason. Money..


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But doesnt that argue even more for Rail and Barge? Both are transportation forms with a long history of handling simular substances?
> *Why wont they work?* They have worked before what would stop them from working again?


The fact that you keep asking the* same question* shows you really haven't done any research on this, even though many have tried to explain it to you.

There's no point in repeating it all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

naturelover said:


> Oh God give me patience, this just makes me want to cry.:sob:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing stopping them from transporting oil.
> 
> They cannot be used for transporting* diluted bitumen*.
> 
> Period.
> 
> It's already been explained to you why.
> 
> .


He doesn't really want to know evidently


----------



## Bearfootfarm

fantasymaker said:


> *Why would we WANT to transport Diluted bitumen?*


*To get it from* *where it is, in Canada, to the REFINERY, in Texas*
*Think about it a while*



> And no *noone has explained to me why* the cant be used for transporting either Dilbit or bitumen


LOL

You just refuse to READ the explanations since you've been told more than once, with links and pictures


----------



## ryanthomas

> *Shipped by rail, bitumen does not have to be diluted*, he added.
> 
> "In fact, it's better if you don't because there's no point. Not having to dilute bitumen with diluent makes transport safer because, in the case of a break or crack, it won't escape into the environment. At ambient temperature it doesn't flow," said Meyer.
> 
> Rail shipments of bitumen use existing infrastructure, avoiding the necessity of getting permits and approvals that proposed pipelines such as Northern Gateway and Keystone XL are going through, he said.
> 
> Rail also offers less risk, as much of the capital has already been spent and it does not require 20-year take-or-pay commitments or $10-billion investments. Infrastructure commitments would likely consist of $5-million or $10-million terminals, he said.
> 
> A scalable transportation option, rail lowers the risk of project development, he said. Steam assisted gravity drainage producers run the risk of having fields that don't perform to expectations while having already built pipelines. That risk does not exist with the rail system. "You scale into what you need."
> 
> Rail also offers security, he said. If something goes wrong with a pipeline and there is an interruption, producers have no alternative mode of shipment. Meyer suggested they use rail as part of their portfolio by having some component of their production moved on rail so that they can "dial it up or dial it down depending on market demand."


Oil companies climb aboard potential alternative to pipelines


----------



## naturelover

Non-diluted bitumen (in its solid asphalt form) has been getting transported by rail and trucks and barges for many decades already and probably always will continue to be transported that way. Just not shipped in the quantities that diluted bitumen in pipelines delivers and not to be refined into bulk quantities of oils. There are many other uses for asphalt in its solid form.

.


----------



## ryanthomas

From the same link I posted above:


> Trains have capacity for about 60,000 barrels of bitumen and do not need to run full. Shippers only pay for what they use when they use it. According to CN, five trains can take the equivalent of a 400,000-barrel-per-day pipeline.


Obviously the railroad is going to promote using their services, but is what they're saying false?


----------



## naturelover

If they're transporting raw bitumen cold without the condensate mixed in then I'd think they could accomodate that amount quite easily, so I don't think what they're saying is false.

The article said that Connacher's transport of dilbit (the 30/70 mix) is in it's early stages. I'd be interested to see what kind of tanks they've developed for carrying that in and I tried to find info and pictures about that but haven't found any.

.


----------



## haypoint

The pipeline will help Canada, but not the USA.
The USA is currently the world's largest EXPORTER of gasoline. The USA Oil Industry is operating in the World Market. 
Canada could build their own refineries and sell their gasoline on the World Market. But the Rocky Mountians create a physical barrier. Plus, Canada would be left with the waste products from refining this oil sand slurry.

So, Canada would be glad to give USA the environmental risk of a pipeline. The potential Terriorist Target of a largge high pressure oil line. Plus, let us dispose of the waste products. 

In order for the price of gasoline to drop in the USA, the price that every other country is paying would have to drop. Demand in China and India is growing. So, production needs to jump beyond their increasing needs, our own increasing needs and the increased use that cheaper gasoline would create in other countries. Yet still not outpace the capacity of the Refineries in this country. I won't bet on that happening.

But if gasoline prices drop because of increased supply of Canada's oil sands slurry, the supply of crude oil from other sources must continue to increase. 

While the oil we get from the Middle East is important, it is only 7% of what we use. Most of our oil already comes from Canada, plus we get a lot from Mexico. But we still get most of our oil from right here in the USA. So when oil jumps to $100 a barrel, stop cursing the Arabs. Those Texas billionairs are raking it in, too. So if oil supply increased from the pipeline, it is likely the Oil Barons right here in the USA would shut down some pumps to hold the price of oil at record highs. If not, the price would drop and China would would be right there to buy up the supply of cheaper oil.

I guess the point is that any movement of the price of gasoline or the price of crude oil, has to overcome World supply and demand. An extra pipeline cutting through this country, connecting Canada's oil sands to Canada's refinery in Texas provides Canada easy access to the World Market. But not much else.

Honey, the neighbor wants to drain his septic through our yard and he says he'll hire me to dig the ditch. You know I could use a digging job......


----------



## wr

haypoint, if you take a look at the map that naturelover posted, you'll see that we have pipelines across the mountians so it can't be that much of a barrier.


----------



## arabian knight

There is no reason NOT to built it, but a whole lot of reasons TO built the pipeline.
Like keeping the price of oil DOWN.
When trucked it adds 40 cents to that barrel, when PIPED it is in a continuous flow, and keeps that 40 cents from getting added to the price. Why not KEEP it in a pipeline from start to finish. That is those most economical way to do things. Why pipe it out, then transfer it either to tanker or rail car, then BACK into a pipeline? 
KEEP it contained in a pipeline only makes the best economical sense and is the best way to keep a constant flow to the refinery.


----------



## haypoint

wr said:


> haypoint, if you take a look at the map that naturelover posted, you'll see that we have pipelines across the mountians so it can't be that much of a barrier.


Heated pipeline, pressurized to handle oil sands? Price?

Better that they pipe through the USA than risk bespoiling Canada. Every day, hundreds of semi loads of garbage cross into Michigan from Canada because they don't want to bury their own garbage. Their rules are too tight, or ours are too loose.
If they ship through the USA, they get it to their refinery in Texas at a good port . If they pipe it to the Pacific, do they have a refinery there. Perhaps China would fill a freighter with oil and by the time they got to China, it would be refined. China wouldn't have a problem dropping the waste into the ocean.


----------



## haypoint

arabian knight said:


> There is no reason NOT to built it, but a whole lot of reasons TO built the pipeline.
> Like keeping the price of oil DOWN.
> When trucked it adds 40 cents to that barrel, when PIPED it is in a continuous flow, and keeps that 40 cents from getting added to the price. Why not KEEP it in a pipeline from start to finish. That is those most economical way to do things. Why pipe it out, then transfer it either to tanker or rail car, then BACK into a pipeline?
> KEEP it contained in a pipeline only makes the best economical sense and is the best way to keep a constant flow to the refinery.


Your reasons for cost containment are valid. But as we sit on record high gasoline prices and record high Oil Company profits, what are the chances that lower costs for the oil compaany will result in lower gasoline prices for us? As I said before, any lowering in the price of gasoline will result in increased demand in the rest of the world. That demand will push the price back up.


----------



## arabian knight

*The Myth that the US will Soon Become an Oil Exporter*


> Countries trade crude oil and oil products back and forth. When all of these transactions are netted out, is the US close to becoming a &#8220;net&#8221; oil exporter?
> 
> With the recent increase in oil production (perhaps even exceeding that of Russia on a &#8220;barrels-per-day&#8221; basis), a person might think that US oil production problems are behind us. If we look at the data, though, it is very clear that the US is still a long way from becoming a net oil exporter.
> 
> There are several reasons for confusion. One is the fact that excess refinery capacity can lead to the ability to export both gasoline and diesel, even though the United States continues to import large amounts of crude oil. Another is that tight oil (extracted through &#8220;fracking&#8221 is growing from a small base, but can&#8217;t necessarily ramp up very far, very quickly. Another source of confusion is with respect to how different types of liquids should be combined for comparison purposes.


The Myth that the US will Soon Become an Oil Exporter | Our Finite World


----------



## haypoint

arabian knight said:


> *The Myth that the US will Soon Become an Oil Exporter*
> 
> The Myth that the US will Soon Become an Oil Exporter | Our Finite World


The USA is currently the worlds largest EXPORTER of gasoline. Perhaps of all petro fuel. More gasoline than we can pump into our cars hasn't dropped the price any, so I don't see how more oil will.
As soon as the price of oil drops, the oil companies in the USA will start turning off pumps.


----------



## arabian knight

haypoint said:


> The USA is currently the worlds largest EXPORTER of gasoline. Perhaps of all petro fuel. More gasoline than we can pump into our cars hasn't dropped the price any, so I don't see how more oil will.
> As soon as the price of oil drops, the oil companies in the USA will start turning off pumps.


Hmmmm seems like you did not read this or just skipped over it thinking you know the facts. 
* it is very clear that the US is still a long way from becoming a net oil exporter.*


----------



## arabian knight

Gee and everywhere I look it says CANADA is the largest. Hmmmm



> Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day.
> The US is note even Mentioned as a large importer.


 NOW how could THAT be? I read post here stays the US is the TOP exporter. This was written just a few months ago. And the US sure hasn't had that much change to exporting oil. Sure we export oil we HAVE to because of the stupid epa rulers that say we MNUST have 18 Different Blends of Gasoline. We MUST Exporter oil and IMPORT Refined gasoline to satisfy the green folks and their epa mandates for so many Blends.
That is what skews a lot of data and a lot of data coming from the liberal side of things. 

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> record high Oil Company profits


That gets tossed out a lot, but profit MARGINS are not that high

The "record profits" are due to RECORD* VOLUME* in sales


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> That gets tossed out a lot, but profit MARGINS are not that high
> 
> The "record profits" are due to RECORD* VOLUME* in sales


Correct. The margins stay the same LOW lower then most companies. Just a few % points in margin, so they HAVE to make huge amounts to make a go of it. Some only look at the profits, without even trying to look at what it took to make that amount, because of the low margins they are working with.


----------



## Paumon

haypoint said:


> An extra pipeline cutting through this country, connecting Canada's oil sands to Canada's refinery in Texas provides Canada easy access to the World Market.





haypoint said:


> If they ship through the USA, they get it to their refinery in Texas at a good port .


I was not aware that Canada had any refineries anywhere in USA. What is the name of Canada's refinery in Texas?

Here is a list of all the refineries in Texas. Which one is the Canadian refinery?

List of oil refineries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Baytown Refinery (ExxonMobil), Baytown 560,640 bbl/d (89,135 m3/d)
Big Spring Refinery (Alon USA), Big Spring 61,000 bbl/d (9,700 m3/d)
Beaumont Refinery (ExxonMobil), Beaumont 348,500 bbl/d (55,410 m3/d)
Borger Refinery (ConocoPhillips/Cenovus), Borger 146,000 bbl/d (23,200 m3/d)
Corpus Christi Complex (Flint Hills Resources), Corpus Christi 288,000 bbl/d (45,800 m3/d)
Corpus Christi Refinery (Citgo), Corpus Christi 156,000 bbl/d (24,800 m3/d)
Corpus Christi West Refinery (Valero), Corpus Christi 142,000 bbl/d (22,600 m3/d)
Corpus Christi East Refinery (Valero), Corpus Christi 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)
Deer Park Refinery (Shell Oil Company), Deer Park 333,700 bbl/d (53,050 m3/d)
El Paso Refinery (Western Refining), El Paso 120,000 bbl/d (19,000 m3/d)
Houston Refinery (Lyondell), Houston 270,200 bbl/d (42,960 m3/d)
Houston Refinery (Valero), Houston 83,000 bbl/d (13,200 m3/d)
Independent Refinery (Stratnor), Houston 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
McKee Refinery (Valero), Sunray 158,300 bbl/d (25,170 m3/d)
Nixon Refinery (Blue Dolphin) Nixon, Texas 15,000 bbl/d (2,400 m3/d)
Pasadena Refinery (Petrobras), Pasadena 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Port Arthur Refinery (Total), Port Arthur 174,000 bbl/d (27,700 m3/d)
Port Arthur Refinery (Motiva Enterprises), Port Arthur 285,000 bbl/d (45,300 m3/d)
Port Arthur Refinery (Valero), Port Arthur 325,000 bbl/d (51,700 m3/d)
Penreco (Calumet Penreco LLC), Houston
San Antonio Refinery (NuStar Energy), San Antonio 10,300 bbl/d (1,640 m3/d)
South Hampton Refinery Arabian American Development, Silsbee, Texas 6,000 bbl/d (950 m3/d)
Sweeny Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Sweeny 229,000 bbl/d (36,400 m3/d)
Texas City Refinery (BP), Texas City 460,000 bbl/d (73,000 m3/d)
Texas City Refinery (Marathon Petroleum Company), Texas City 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
Texas City Refinery (Valero), Texas City 210,000 bbl/d (33,000 m3/d)
Three Rivers Refinery (Valero), Three Rivers 90,000 bbl/d (14,000 m3/d)
Tyler Refinery (Delek Refining Ltd.), Tyler 62,000 bbl/d (9,900 m3/d)


----------



## Paumon

haypoint said:


> If they pipe it to the Pacific, do they have a refinery there.


Nothing capable of refining bitumen. There are only 2 oil refineries in all of British Columbia and only 1 of them is capable of refining heavy oils but it has no capability to refine diluted bitumen. That is the Burnaby Refinery which is owned by Chevron, an American owned corporation. 

The other refinery is a small refinery in Prince George which only refines light oils. It is owned by Husky Energy, a Canadian owned public company.


----------



## haypoint

arabian knight said:


> Gee and everywhere I look it says CANADA is the largest. Hmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> NOW how could THAT be? I read post here stays the US is the TOP exporter. This was written just a few months ago. And the US sure hasn't had that much change to exporting oil. Sure we export oil we HAVE to because of the stupid epa rulers that say we MNUST have 18 Different Blends of Gasoline. We MUST Exporter oil and IMPORT Refined gasoline to satisfy the green folks and their epa mandates for so many Blends.
> That is what skews a lot of data and a lot of data coming from the liberal side of things.
> 
> ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html


When the USA and Canada are each exporting nearly 3,000,000 barrels a day of gasoline, you are going to yell foul on a measly 192,000 barrels? Sorry, 6% is 6% I guess:stars:.


----------



## naturelover

Paumon said:


> I was not aware that Canada had any refineries anywhere in USA. What is the name of Canada's refinery in Texas?
> 
> Here is a list of all the refineries in Texas. Which one is the Canadian refinery?
> 
> ...........


I believe Haypoint was mistaken and I don't think you'll get an answer from him. 

It's my understanding that Canada does not have any refineries in Texas or any other state in USA or in any other country.

.


----------



## Farmerwilly2

I suppose you ship oil by pipe for the same reason you get your water that way, it's cheaper. 

I'd say that folks that don't want oil should quit using it and leave what there is for us that do.


----------



## haypoint

naturelover said:


> I believe Haypoint was mistaken and I don't think you'll get an answer from him.
> 
> It's my understanding that Canada does not have any refineries in Texas or any other state in USA or in any other country.
> 
> .


I was mistaken. I knew that it was their oil, their pipeline and that it wouldn't produce any fuel for the USA. I somehow thought they were going to do it all. 

Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands Action

â¢Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to *Europe and Latin America*. Proceeds from these exports are earned *tax-free*. Much of the fuel refined from the pipelineâs heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. driversâ tanks.
â¢By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL *will increase the cost of gas for Americans.*


----------



## arabian knight

I like some comments that were on that sided report. SOME views pints were from the other side of things not from the green movement side.


> The keystone pipeline is a proposed line that would run from Northern Canada (Alberta) to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas.
> The big uproar is for two reasons, first, the oil that comes from the Tar Sands in Alberta is a relatively new process in the oil industry and there has been a learning curve which has damaged the environment while extracting it. The numerous companies that are extracting oil from the tar sands are working to change processes and containment of harmful by products. It has been labeled "dirty oil" by environmentalists even though the US's coal industry causes more damage and harm to the environment every year.
> The second reason is that the pipeline would run through some areas of the US that some think is too environmentally sensitive if a pipe were to leak.
> The bottom line is this, the oil sands will be developed and the offer has been made by Canada to sell the oil to the US. If the US doesn't want it and the jobs it will create and the lessened dependence it will create on foreign oil (Mid-East in particular). Then Canada will find another buyer.
> You should also know that over 50% of a barrel of oil is used to make everyday products that you and even these protesters use every day. Oil fuels more than your car, it fuels every single industry on the planet.


 And a very good one that is another person that thinks outside of the box not just one way, and have blinders on besides like some do.


> Rich, The tar sands have made massive improvements in the last few years to containing the harmful by products. For instance, they are adding product to the waste water that solidifies the pond water so that it can no longer potentially seep into water supplies or harm water fowl. They are also drilling to deep water sheds that contain water with sodium levels so high it can't be used for any life nurturing purpose. They are starting to use this water for the tar sands processes instead of taking water from the Athabasca River. Why not use your voice to encourage and insist upon these improvements?


----------



## naturelover

haypoint said:


> I was mistaken. I knew that it was *their oil*, their pipeline and that it *wouldn't produce any fuel for the USA*. I somehow thought they were going to do it all.


It is not oil and it does not get refined into fuels for vehicles or domestic use. 

It gets made into synthetics for industrial equipments. USA energy companies will purchase it, refine it into synthetics and then sell it to whoever they want to but it won't be anything that gets used domestically or in vehicles.

The people in that article you posted don't know what they're talking about. They're getting confused about different kinds of oil products. The product that will come from KXL will have no effect on industry in the midwest which is refining a different product altogether.

.


----------



## haypoint

naturelover said:


> It is not oil and it does not get refined into fuels for vehicles or domestic use.
> 
> It gets made into synthetics for industrial equipments. USA energy companies will purchase it, refine it into synthetics and then sell it to whoever they want to but it won't be anything that gets used domestically or in vehicles.
> 
> The people in that article you posted don't know what they're talking about. They're getting confused about different kinds of oil products. The product that will come from KXL will have no effect on industry in the midwest which is refining a different product altogether.
> 
> .


I think you are confused. All crude oil when refined produces various products. The gasoline and fuel oil from the tarsand's oil will be sold in Europe and Latin America. Crude oil from different areas has different levels of products. I'd expect that there is more heavy products in tarsands oil. There is likely going to be lots more by products and waste, too.
In the past, the tar sands produced crude oil and it was made into gasoline that was imported to the USA. I have a friend that worked in the tar sands 20 years ago. 
Refining is a cracking process. You can't just say that this barrel will make plastics and that barrel will make asphalt and another barrel will make gasoline.


----------



## fantasymaker

Farmerwilly2 said:


> I suppose you ship oil by pipe for the same reason you get your water that way, it's cheaper.
> 
> I'd say that folks that don't want oil should quit using it and leave what there is for us that do.


Actually in this case the cost to transport the oil wont affect the cost of the finished product to the customer.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerwilly2 said:


> I suppose you ship oil by pipe for the same reason you get your water that way, it's cheaper.
> 
> I'd say that folks that don't want oil should quit using it and leave what there is for us that do.


Sure it will be cheaper up to 40 cents a barrel cheaper as the oil runs continually through the pipeline nonstop, no stopping getting back onto the pipeline to get it off the trucks or trains. It needs to be built, that is plain and simple and good business sense. As trucking adds 40 cents MORE. And that cost is passed directly onto the consumer.


----------



## ryanthomas

40 cents a barrel doesn't seem like much, considering oil is over $100 a barrel. Less than half a percentage point difference, probably 2-3 cents per gallon of gasoline.


----------



## ryanthomas

fantasymaker said:


> Actually in this case the cost to transport the oil wont affect the cost of the finished product to the customer.


How can the transportation cost not affect the cost of the finished product?


----------



## fantasymaker

ryanthomas said:


> How can the transportation cost not affect the cost of the finished product?


The Canadian bitumin is a low grade porduct its price will be adjusted to meet its relative value at the refinery.
Perhaps this is the reason CANADA pushng so hard for the lowest cost transport at any price?


----------



## fantasymaker

arabian knight said:


> Sure it will be cheaper up to 40 cents a barrel cheaper as the oil runs continually through the pipeline nonstop, no stopping getting back onto the pipeline to get it off the trucks or trains. It needs to be built, that is plain and simple and good business sense. As trucking adds 40 cents MORE. *And that cost is passed directly onto the consumer*.



:umno: I think thats the reasons the Canadian companys want to build it . Since its a secondary product its price at the point of use will have to be cheeper than crude oil to be competitive.
Fot those of us in the USA it seems a moot point since it sounds like it will simply be refined her not bought or sold.
How much more than Pipeline will rail cost?


arabian knight said:


> There is no reason NOT to built it, but a whole lot of reasons TO built the pipeline.
> Like keeping the price of oil DOWN.
> When trucked it adds 40 cents to that barrel, when PIPED it is in a continuous flow, and keeps that 40 cents from getting added to the price. Why not KEEP it in a pipeline from start to finish. That is those most economical way to do things. Why pipe it out, then transfer it either to tanker or rail car, then BACK into a pipeline?
> KEEP it contained in a pipeline only makes the best economical sense and is the best way to keep a constant flow to the refinery.


Nope not at all. At least not to the USA. It would seem like to the USA rail would be cheeper and offer better returns in jobs created AND be more enviromentally friendly . a WIN WIN WIN!


----------



## fordy

texican said:


> The pipeline going by a compressor on my place, is running around 700psi. Compressors are needed on older wells, because the wellhead pressure is so low. Shale gas wells don't need compression, as they can be over a 1000psi at the wellhead.



..................Lots of Barnett Wells produce copious amounts of salt water and they will keep a compressor on site too assist(push) that heavy salt water to the surface for disposal in an injection well ! Otherwise , the Ng will never be produced . , fordy


----------



## arabian knight

Well lets see if this takes place for the good of WI.
*Proposed pipeline would move North Dakota crude to Wisconsin*


> MINOT, N.D. (AP) &#8212; A Houston-based petroleum company is proposing a pipeline that would transport North Dakota crude to Superior, Wis.
> 
> Enbridge officials say the Sandpiper Pipeline would cover more than 500 miles and could transport about 225,000 barrels per day. The company's current capacity in North Dakota is 275,000 barrels per day.
> 
> The pipeline would run from the Beaver Lodge area south of Tioga to the main Enbridge terminal in Superior.


 We need these pipelines it moves crude where roads and rails are not close or not in the area.

Proposed pipeline would move North Dakota crude to Wisconsin


----------



## fantasymaker

Enbridge is a Canadian Company and the lyingest cheetingest company I know.


----------



## Trixie

Well, it is being built - so we'll see who benefits.

Just my old cynicism, but I don't think it will be the American people.

I'm waiting to see if they go over or under the highways ---


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How much more than Pipeline will* rail* cost?


Quite a bit more since it requires specialized heated cars.
The pipeline could also be used for other products


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Quite a bit more since it requires specialized heated cars.
> The pipeline could also be used for other products


Where do you get this from? Tank cars that can be heated while not the most common on the rails are not really rare enough to be concidered specialized as most would think of it. Sorta like a box car with a restraining strap specialized yes but no big deal.

The thing is every dollar it costs is a dollar in the USA not some Canadian Companies pocket. So the more the better!


Well to a point at some point it would become profitless to ship the product here and we would lose the wages made refining and transporting the product .....BUT we are a LONG way from that !


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Where do you get this from?


It's reality. Which part is incorrect?


> The thing is every dollar it costs is a dollar in the USA not some Canadian Companies pocket. So the more the better!


Every dollar spent on building the pipeline is being spent here and would be providing thousands of jobs


----------



## naturelover

You're wasting your time trying to discuss this with him because he's not paying attention to all the responses he got. It was all explained over and over when this topic was started and it never sank in.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You're wasting your time trying to discuss this with him because he's not paying attention to all the responses he got


You're right.

It's obvious he has no real idea about what it is or how it's trasported, and why a pipeline is the most *logical *way to do it


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's reality. Which part is incorrect?
> 
> 
> Every dollar spent on building the pipeline is being spent here and would be providing thousands of jobs


How will the pipeline provide thousands of jobs?

PLEASE remember we are not discussing weather to bring the oil here. I am in favor of that That will provide a couple of hundred jobs in refineries and harbors loading out finished products.

What we are talking about here is the number of jobs that a pipeline provides verses what transporting the same amount of oil by rail or some other way.

Ever see a pipeline crew? Not a lot of jobs there and not for very long. Probably about a wash verses the number of people employed building railroad cars.
Id also suspect that the railroad cars would be made of parts made in the USA where the pipeline would most lilky be imported pipe.


 So again how would the pipeline provide *THOUSANDS* of jobs?

You said that the rail would cost quite a bit more. How much? Where did you get your figgers? You said that every dollar spent on the pipeline is being spent here. Where do you get that from?
The last pipeline that came thru here was built with mexican labor with pipe from China.


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're right.
> 
> It's obvious he has no real idea about what it is or how it's trasported, and why a pipeline is the most *logical *way to do it


 ANd now that WI has regained majority control in the state I am sure they will revisit the mining issue in Northern part of the State again. We had a RINO cross over and vote against the mine and stopped it. Now the GOP is back in control.
Now with this pipeline that is thinking about coming int northern WI as well that is a good thing the GOP IS in control once again. The D's just don't seem to think that we need to use our OWN natural resources to get off of imported oil.
But it is important and it is important for jobs, many many jobs not just on the pipeline, not just on mines, but all the businesses that will gain in money coming into the area.
They seem to forget all about the trickle over effect that happens when jobs come into the area, that is good for all businesses and companies around. Especially like Northern WI which has been economy depressed for years. But all that seems to go out the window when talking to a D on issues like this.


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're right.
> 
> It's obvious he has no real idea about what it is or how it's trasported, and why a pipeline is the most *logical *way to do it


Thats why I asked.
I know what a pipeline is and that things are often transported that way.
Im just asking for the Logic behind it.
If you KNOW the logic PLEASE tell me.
Remember "We have always done it that way" thats how they do it" are not the logical reasons.

So far I havent seen anybody present any logical reason to transport canadian bitmen across the USA in a pipeline.

Remeber thats what we are talking about?

Im am waiting please enlighten me!


----------



## fantasymaker

arabian knight said:


> ANd now that WI has regained majority control in the state I am sure they will revisit the mining issue in Northern part of the State again. We had a RINO cross over and vote against the mine and stopped it. Now the GOP is back in control.
> Now with this pipeline that is thinking about coming int northern WI as well that is a good thing the GOP IS in control once again. The D's just don't seem to think that we need to use our OWN natural resources to get off of imported oil.
> But it is important and it is important for jobs, many many jobs not just on the pipeline, not just on mines, but all the businesses that will gain in money coming into the area.
> They seem to forget all about the trickle over effect that happens when jobs come into the area, that is good for all businesses and companies around. Especially like Northern WI which has been economy depressed for years. But all that seems to go out the window when talking to a D on issues like this.


How is that in ANY way relavant to the issue of this thread? Or were you just looking for a place to bash the"D"s?


----------



## arabian knight

fantasymaker said:


> How is that in ANY way relavant to the issue of this thread? Or were you just looking for a place to bash the"D"s?


Sure there is a Pipeline is being Proposed from SD to WI. ANOTHER GOOD pipeline maybe built.
And it is WAY more economical to pipe oil through a pipe then being transported via tanker trucks. It ADDS more then 2 dollars a barrel to the price of that oil. That is the best reason of all to move fluids through a pipeline. Oh move it by rail. How many rail lines are there left in the USA?
And all the "spur" lines?
They have been ripped up many years ago to make "biking and hiking and 4 wheeling trails out of them.
The railroad tracks are just not in place like they were 40 years ago, they just are not there anymore, or if they are have not been kept up and the bridges etc. are in disrepair.
And LOOK at how many miles of pipelines there are.
I bet many didm;t know that they are that many miles of pipelines ALREADY in place and already being used day in and day out 365 days a years.
What is this trying to stop a few more miles? It just doesn't make sense at all.
How big is our pipeline infrastructure: how many miles of what kinds of pipelines are there in the United States?
*In 2003, there were over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying natural gas, and hazardous liquids (chiefly petroleum and refined petroleum products, as well as chemicals and hydrogen).*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you KNOW the logic *PLEASE tell me.*


We've been telling you all along, and you keep asking the *same* questions
Study it yourself



> So far *I havent seen* anybody present any logical reason to transport canadian bitmen across the USA in a pipeline.


That just proves you're neither reading nor understanding what anyone else posts


----------



## fantasymaker

AK and Bear.
I dont think you get it.
We are talking about ONE pipeline to move ONE product from ONE place.
Keystone is a special case.
IT requires a special pipeline setup.A Dual line
A pipeline thats will forcably take rights from Americans.
A pipeline that will endanger Americans.
It will ONLY benifit the owners of canadian Bitmen.
The COST to move the oil will not be Borne  by US consumers.
But the jobs that could be created here by rail transport would benifit Americans.


Thats different than most pipelines That at least reduce the cost to US consumers and Create jobs in the US.
KEYSTONE is a special case since it works the opposite way.


----------



## arabian knight

Good. It is a special pipeline IF that is true just means even more money to made by the workers because of the special needs in the welding and preparation, and constructing it. Good deal for everybody all the way around.


----------



## fantasymaker

arabian knight said:


> The railroad tracks are just not in place like they were 40 years ago, they just are not there anymore, or if they are have not been kept up and the bridges etc. are in disrepair.


I belive there are sufficant rails in place to do the job.
I belive the CEO that said his railroad could start hauling the bitmen today wouldnt have said that if there wasnt sufficant rail capacity to do the job.


----------



## fantasymaker

arabian knight said:


> Good. It is a special pipeline IF that is true just means even more money to made by the workers because of the special needs in the welding and preparation, and constructing it. Good deal for everybody all the way around.


AK I dont get you one minute you are all about how cheep the pipeline is and how thats a good thing the next you gloat about it costing more to build?
:shrug:

If the canadians were DEMANDING that we build a new direct railroad would you be supporting them then because thats what the coorperations want?
If you are WANTING workers to make more money why arent you supporting rail transport?
If you want the refiners to start employing people to refine the Bitment Why not support rail transport the product would reach them faster!


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> So far I havent seen anybody present any logical reason to transport canadian bitmen across the USA in a pipeline.
> 
> Remeber thats what we are talking about?
> 
> Im am waiting please enlighten me!


Go back and read the beginning of this topic again and all the responses that came. You've been told more than once the logical reasons for a pipeline for bitumen but you are not paying attention. 

What is the matter with you? If you refuse to pay attention to what people are telling you then why should anybody tell you _anything_ at all?

.


----------



## fantasymaker

No naturelover Ive been told a lot of reasons .Mostly people just repeating the same ilrelavant reasons
Reason;
#1 The money... Lol its always about the money. 
#2 The jobs we need the jobs it will create. Since we are not talking about stopping bitmin from being transported just how we transport it the refining end jobs wont change. So its only the actuall transportation jobs we are talking about. rail creates more jobs .
,advantage rail.
#3 Its cheeper ....no one has come up with any numbers to back that. There seems to be some evidence that rail might actually be the cheeper way to go. The Infastucture is already in place.
But In the end it doesnt make any difference in the USA since we wont be paying the transport cost.
Advantage neither.
#3 Its safer to pipe it I havent seen any numbers presented but I have seen both pipeline leaks and rail accidents. Rail accidents contain the product better and inherantly limit the spilled amounts. Bitmen transported cold is hardly capable of spilling. Advantage rail
#4 Its easyer to keep the oil in the pipeline. Thats sorta missleading. Its not like there is one line from pit to refinery. The bitmen in a pipe must be mixed with dilutant . routed and stored sepertad from the dilutant and handled in many ways ,esentailly rail transport is much the same except no dilutant is needed.
In the end these people are all paid to do these things so its not really a inconvenance its jobs
Advantage neither.
#5 We have always done it that way. Not true .Not relavant.
Advantage neither


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No naturelover Ive been told *a lot of reasons* .Mostly people just repeating the same ilrelavant reasons


And you've ignored all of them, and just keep rambling
You really don't seem to *know* much about the realities of it
You can't even SPELL it :shrug:

It's hard to take you seriously after you post something like this:



> 4 Its *easyer* to keep the oil in the pipeline. Thats sorta missleading. Its not like there is one line from pit to refinery. The *bitmen* in a pipe must be mixed with dilutant . routed and stored *sepertad* from the dilutant and handled in many ways ,*esentailly* rail transport is much the same except no dilutant is needed.


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you've ignored all of them, and just keep rambling
> You really don't seem to *know* much about the realities of it
> You can't even SPELL it :shrug:
> 
> It's hard to take you seriously after you post something like this:


LOL ok I get it you dont have any real argument so your reduced to saying my SPELLING is bad?

Does my mom wear Army boots too?


----------



## naturelover

Okay, I'm going to say this one last time and then if this doesn't sink in there's not much point in trying to explain anything to you.

The dilbit (diluted bitumen) MUST be in a semi-liquid form. It MUST be heated up to 165 degrees and injected with liquid gas so that it will flow in a semi-liquid form. It *MUST be kept circulating* and *flowing steadily, non-stop in one direction only* at a speed of 5 mph or more. The pipeline MUST be heated and maintained at 165 degrees and it MUST be pressurized to 1,600 psi to allow for a steady flow through the pipeline at a speed of approximately 5 mph to deliver 1 million barrels of dilbit per day.

*THAT CANNOT BE DONE ON A TRAIN INSIDE TRAIN CONTAINERS.*

Trains can move non-flowing oil inside containers. They cannot move hot, flowing, pressurized dilbit. If you think they can then tell me - where is the hot pressurized dilbit flowing from and to at 5 mph inside each of the train containers?

**************************************

And in answer to your question _"is there any reason to build Keystone pipeline?"_ Apparently not. It may be a moot point now because at this stage of the game it's looking more and more like it's not going to happen and America apparently doesn't need Canadian bitumen. So Canada, who can't wait around twiddling her thumbs while America tries to make up its mind, will just get on with the business of selling crude oil and raw bitumen to other countries who will do their own refining instead. If America needs more pipelines it will most likely have to be building it's own pipelines for transporting its own American domestic oil.

Keystone XL pipeline still a question mark after Obama election win | Energy | News | Financial Post

.


----------



## fordy

naturelover said:


> Okay, I'm going to say this one last time and then if this doesn't sink in there's not much point in trying to explain anything to you.
> 
> The dilbit (diluted bitumen) MUST be in a semi-liquid form. It MUST be heated up to 165 degrees and injected with liquid gas so that it will flow in a semi-liquid form. It *MUST be kept circulating* and *flowing steadily, non-stop in one direction only* at a speed of 5 mph or more. The pipeline MUST be heated and maintained at 165 degrees and it MUST be pressurized to 1,600 psi to allow for a steady flow through the pipeline at a speed of approximately 5 mph to deliver 1 million barrels of dilbit per day.
> 
> *THAT CANNOT BE DONE ON A TRAIN INSIDE TRAIN CONTAINERS.*
> 
> Trains can move non-flowing oil inside containers. They cannot move hot, flowing, pressurized dilbit. If you think they can then tell me - where is the hot pressurized dilbit flowing from and to at 5 mph inside each of the train containers?
> 
> **************************************
> 
> And in answer to your question _"is there any reason to build Keystone pipeline?"_ Apparently not. It may be a moot point now because at this stage of the game it's looking more and more like it's not going to happen and America apparently doesn't need Canadian bitumen. So Canada, who can't wait around twiddling her thumbs while America tries to make up its mind, will just get on with the business of selling crude oil and raw bitumen to other countries who will do their own refining instead. If America needs more pipelines it will most likely have to be building it's own pipelines for transporting its own American domestic oil.
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline still a question mark after Obama election win | Energy | News | Financial Post
> 
> .



...............IF , Dilbit was being pumped into individual tank cars at 165f , It doesn't need to be kept at that temp for the duration of the journey ! But , at it's termination it would have to be reheated and unloaded from the tank cars depending on the climatic conditions prevailing at it's destination . Transportation by pipeline would seem to be the only logical way of moving the volume necessary to supply the refinery , but transport by rail tank car should be possible as well IF one IGnors the economics involved . , fordy


----------



## naturelover

fordy said:


> ...............IF , Dilbit was being pumped into individual tank cars at 165f , *It doesn't need to be kept at that temp for the duration of the journey ! But , at it's termination it would have to be reheated and unloaded from the tank cars depending on the climatic conditions prevailing at it's destination .* Transportation by pipeline would seem to be the only logical way of moving the volume necessary to supply the refinery , but transport by rail tank car should be possible as well IF one IGnors the economics involved . , fordy


It's my understanding that it has to be kept at that temperature and kept moving under pressurized flow so that it doesn't seperate and solidify again. If it's allowed to cool and sit stationary it will solidify and the dilutants will rise to the top while the bitumen solids sink to the bottom and form into a hard, solid mass. It is asphalt, after all, and you know how asphalt turns quite solid and hard once it's cooled.

If that happened inside a rail container .... if it cooled and solidified .... I have no idea how they would re-inject, reheat and re-pressurize it into a semi-liquid while it's still inside the container just to get the whole mass of it out of the rail container. 

Do you know how they could do that?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> LOL ok I get it you *dont have any real argument* so your reduced to saying my SPELLING is bad?


Once again you show *you don't read* anything anyone says, and your spelling is beyond "bad"


----------



## fordy

naturelover said:


> It's my understanding that it has to be kept at that temperature and kept moving under pressurized flow so that it doesn't seperate and solidify again. If it's allowed to cool and sit stationary it will solidify and the dilutants will rise to the top while the bitumen solids sink to the bottom and form into a hard, solid mass. It is asphalt, after all, and you know how asphalt turns quite solid and hard once it's cooled.
> 
> If that happened inside a rail container .... if it cooled and solidified .... I have no idea how they would re-inject, reheat and re-pressurize it into a semi-liquid while it's still inside the container just to get the whole mass of it out of the rail container.
> 
> Do you know how they could do that?
> 
> .


..................Obviously , IF it would solidify back into something resembling a block of asphault , then rail transport is not a possibility ! This new information leads me to the idea that IF one was inclined to stop the 'Pumping' of this product all that is necessary is to interrupt the flow and a solid plug would form inside the pipeline which they might never beable to recover from . :hysterical: , fordy


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> It's my understanding that it has to be kept at that temperature and kept moving under pressurized flow so that it doesn't seperate and solidify again. If it's allowed to cool and sit stationary it will solidify and the dilutants will rise to the top while the bitumen solids sink to the bottom and form into a hard, solid mass. It is asphalt, after all, and you know how asphalt turns quite solid and hard once it's cooled.
> 
> If that happened inside a rail container .... if it cooled and solidified .... I have no idea how they would re-inject, reheat and re-pressurize it into a semi-liquid while it's still inside the container just to get the whole mass of it out of the rail container.
> 
> Do you know how they could do that?
> 
> .


LOL peoples minds get hung up in the pipline thinking. In a railcar you dont need to transport dilutant.
Being solid isnt a problem,LOL if it would STAY solid you could haul it just like Coal.
* BUT the railroads are ALREADY hauling this stuff*. They use a tank car that has heating coils in it and just warm it up when they get to the destination.
This makes it very safe in transport and eleminates the need for dilutants and pressure..


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again you show *you don't read* anything anyone says, and your spelling is beyond "bad"


It is a disability I have to deal with, but it really does not affect the points made.,


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *BUT the railroads are ALREADY hauling this stuff*


Not in the *quantities needed* for a refinery.
The temperatures have to be maintained the ENTIRE TIME:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor---=9027506&contentId=7050144



> As bitumen cools, it gradually becomes unworkable. Therefore the delivery of paving grade bitumen not only calls for the supply of bitumen to be provided at the right quality and quantity at the right time, but* the product must also be kept between 150Â°C-190Â°C throughout the supply chain*. When it is loaded into a road tanker, the temperature can drop by about 7Â°C-10Â°C and continue to fall by a further one or two degrees per hour while in transit.





> It is a disability I have to deal with, but it really does not affect *the points made*.,


You haven't made any valid points, or *listened *to anyone else's.
Pipelines are the* BEST* way to transport Bitumen to refineries


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> Okay, I'm going to say this one last time and then if this doesn't sink in there's not much point in trying to explain anything to you..


 Okay, I'm going to say this one last time and then if this doesn't sink in there's not much point in trying to explain anything to you



naturelover said:


> The dilbit (diluted bitumen) MUST be in a semi-liquid form. It MUST be heated up to 165 degrees and injected with liquid gas so that it will flow in a semi-liquid form. It *MUST be kept circulating* and *flowing steadily, non-stop in one direction only* at a speed of 5 mph or more. The pipeline MUST be heated and maintained at 165 degrees and it MUST be pressurized to 1,600 psi to allow for a steady flow *through the pipeline* at a speed of approximately 5 mph to deliver 1 million barrels of dilbit per day.
> 
> *THAT CANNOT BE DONE ON A TRAIN INSIDE TRAIN CONTAINERS.*.


 Those things need to be done to get it thru a pipeline Its not needed to haul it by rail. There Are other prducts are hauled by rail that Do have requirements simualur to that though.


naturelover said:


> Trains can move non-flowing oil inside containers. They cannot move hot, flowing, pressurized dilbit. If you think they can then tell me - where is the hot pressurized dilbit flowing from and to at 5 mph inside each of the train containers?
> 
> **************************************
> 
> 
> .


Again since the trains are not pipelines they dont need to do this stuff.
They can haul it they DO haul it .You are beating a dead horse. And the railroads dont seem to have a problem with it.


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not in the *quantities needed* for a refinery.
> The temperatures have to be maintained the ENTIRE TIME:
> 
> http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor---=9027506&contentId=7050144


:umno:

How the heck do you think this stuff is getting to the refineries now? Im not sure the requirments for a pavement product really apply. But who cares? If it needs to stay warm they must be keeping it warm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How the heck do you think this syuff is getting to the refineries now?


I didn't say it was "impossible".
I said it's not the LOGICAL way to do it.
It's far *more expensive* to use rail transport.


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say it was "impossible".
> I said it's not the LOGICAL way to do it.
> It's far *more expensive* to use rail transport.


 NOPE!
It doesnt cost the USA ANYTHING .

It PAYS THE USA MORE to haul it by rail.


We have gone over this before. The cost of transport is borne by the Canadian Supplyers not the US consumers.

But a lot of the jobs created by rail transport ARE in the US. More jobs that a pipeline would create.:banana:


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say it was "impossible".
> I said it's not the LOGICAL way to do it.
> It's far *more expensive* to use rail transport.


Sure it is and no matter WHO bares the cost it STILL goes on the cost of a barrel of oil on the World market Keeping THAT price Higher. A Lower cost would mean a lower cost on the World market that ALL see at the pumps.
So there must be found a way to transport this oil the most economical way and that is by Pipeline. As the Flow is constant, never stopping and goes places where the rail lines are not in place.


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> How the heck do you think this stuff is getting to the refineries now?


USA transports its own domestic bitumen in very small quantities by rail and truck and by barge. 90% of that bitumen isn't diluted, it's used industrially the same way all other asphalt and tar is used, not for making fuels.

Your own domestic bitumen doesn't go to refineries. It doesn't need to because it's not being refined into fuels.

There are only 2 refineries in USA that have the capability to refine bitumen into fuels. They do not refine very much if any bitumen into fuels since they do not have the quantity of bitumen needed to make it practical and financially feasible, so although they have the capability they don't do bitumen, they mostly refine crude oils and re-refine already partially refined oils. But they do have the capability for refining bitumen on a large scale ...... that is if it will ever get delivered in the required quantity for making it into fuels.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> NOPE!
> It doesnt cost the USA ANYTHING .
> 
> It PAYS THE USA MORE to haul it by rail


Why would ANY company pay* more* than they have to?
Even if the DID use trains, they STILL could transport it fast enough for a refinery

You just keep demonstrating your *lack of knowledge* about the whole thing


----------



## naturelover

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would ANY company pay* more* than they have to?
> Even if the DID use trains, *they STILL could transport it* fast enough for a refinery


 
I think you meant to say they still could NOT transport it fast enough for a refinery. Yes?

.


----------



## emdeengee

Keystone will go ahead even if the route is changed again. The Texans who were fighting the line crossing their property are losing the fight. Might all be a moot point anyways. The $5.7 billion bitumen refinery that has been on hold just got the green light to proceed. Only 30 minutes from Edmonton this is the first to get approval and will be operational in 2016 providing 5000 plus construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs. The Federal Government has held the position for a long time that we need to have more refineries especially with Asian trade opening up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think you meant to say they still could NOT transport it fast enough for a refinery. Yes?


Yes, I meant "couldn't".
Thanks for catching that typo!


----------



## solidwoods

We should build a refinery at our northern border. Then transport/distribute the products.
jim


----------



## fantasymaker

arabian knight said:


> Sure it is and no matter WHO bares the cost it STILL goes on the cost of a barrel of oil on the World market Keeping THAT price Higher. A Lower cost would mean a lower cost on the World market that ALL see at the pumps.
> So there must be found a way to transport this oil the most economical way and that is by Pipeline. As the Flow is constant, never stopping and goes places where the rail lines are not in place.


:umno:
You keep forgeting its a secondary product It must remain cheeper than LS Crude to sell. It will hardly effect the word price of oil .
The second part of your argument seemsa bit off. There are rails in place where its going but even if there were not if they can build a pipeline they can build a railroad...right?



naturelover said:


> USA transports its own domestic bitumen in very small quantities by rail and truck and by barge. 90% of that bitumen isn't diluted, it's used industrially the same way all other asphalt and tar is used, not for making fuels..


:umno: 
Wait a minute after all this time of arguing that it cant be done your telling us that trucks rail and barge ARE doing it?


naturelover said:


> Your own domestic bitumen doesn't go to refineries. It doesn't need to because it's not being refined into fuels..


 :umno:
It doesnt? Got some proof on that?


naturelover said:


> There are only 2 refineries in USA that have the capability to refine bitumen into fuels. They do not refine very much if any bitumen into fuels since they do not have the quantity of bitumen needed to make it practical and financially feasible, so although they have the capability they don't do bitumen, they mostly refine crude oils and re-refine already partially refined oils. But they do have the capability for refining bitumen on a large scale ...... that is if it will ever get delivered in the required quantity for making it into fuels.
> 
> .


Perhaps your right on this so why dont we get them Some Bitmen NOW instead of messing with a pipeline?



Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would ANY company pay* more* than they have to?
> Even if the DID use trains, they STILL* could* transport it fast enough for a refinery
> 
> You just keep demonstrating your *lack of knowledge* about the whole thing


They wouldnt but if the pipeline isnt built they would HAVE to if they want it refined here.
Assuming you ment couldnt in the word I bolded the rails could certainly transport it fast enough. Why wouldnt they be able to?

Just a little something Ive learned while here the railroads haul about 200 trainloads of coal out of the powder river basin EVERY DAY. Nation wide they move about 600 trainloads of coal A DAY About 1300 trains of every type A DAY pass thru Chicago (No wonder its congested!)
I dont think another 25 trains a day to move this oil would be that big a deal to them.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

fantasymaker said:


> NOPE!
> It doesnt cost the USA ANYTHING .
> 
> It PAYS THE USA MORE to haul it by rail.
> 
> 
> We have gone over this before. The cost of transport is borne by the Canadian Supplyers not the US consumers.
> 
> But a lot of the jobs created by rail transport ARE in the US. More jobs that a pipeline would create.:banana:


You are actually suggesting that higher transport costs are NOT being passed on to the consumer?

Amazing!


----------



## fantasymaker

Right whys that so amazing?

You see this bitmen is a secondary product. Its not as good as the primary product. So it must always be priced at a discount to the prefered product. LS Crude.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You see this bitmen is *a secondary product*. Its not as good as the primary product. So it must always be priced at a discount to the prefered product. LS Crude.


That has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything pertaining to *transport costs*.
You still have shown no* real* knowledge of the subject.



> It doesnt? Got some proof on that?


We don't need any proof
You've shown no evidence of any being transported *TO* a refinery.
All your examples are FROM the refineries.

There is only ONE refinery that takes Bitumen *IN* to process further



> Just a little something Ive learned while here the railroads haul about 200 trainloads of* coal* out of the powder river basin EVERY DAY.


Coal is not Bitumen, and has *no bearing* on this discussion, since it requires no special handling


----------



## naturelover

fantasymaker said:


> Originally Posted by *naturelover*
> _USA transports its own domestic bitumen in very small quantities by rail and truck and by barge. 90% of that bitumen isn't diluted, it's used industrially the same way all other asphalt and tar is used, not for making fuels.._
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute after all this time of arguing that it cant be done your telling us that trucks rail and barge ARE doing it?
Click to expand...

Sure they're moving bitumen. Bitumen has been getting transported for decades and decades, since even before people started drilling for oil. By horse drawn wagons, wheelbarrows, trains, barges, boats, trucks. 

They have been transporting raw bitumen, they have not been transporting dilbit. 

Dilbit is what a pipeline is needed for and dilbit is what we are talking about, not bitumen.



fantasymaker said:


> I dont think another 25 trains a day to move this oil would be that big a deal to them.


*It is NOT oil*. !!!!!! It is semi-liquified *asphalt*. !!!!!!!

Have you still not figured out yet what the difference is between bitumen and dilbit, after all the times it's been explained to you?

I'm honestly not trying to be nasty when I ask you this question, but I'm wondering if you've suffered from a serious head injury in the past or if you have epilepsy or some other kind of neurological disorder? 

Your evident lack of comprehension and short term memory loss even after repeated prompting seems to be indicative of what are called daily "absence" seizures. While not life threatening since they usually only last for a few seconds each time a seizure occurs, they do impair daily comprehension and short term memory, so I'm wondering if that's what's happened to you. It would be less frustrating to converse with you and easier to be more patient with you if there was some explanation and better understanding of what it is that is effecting and impairing your faculties and cognitive processes.

.


----------



## arabian knight

naturelover said:


> *It is NOT oil*. !!!!!! It is semi-liquified *asphalt*. !!!!!!!.


And that is precisely why it is better to go under pressure and heat via a Pipeline~! period.


----------



## fantasymaker

naturelover said:


> Dilbit is what a pipeline is needed for and dilbit is what we are talking about, not bitumen.
> 
> 
> 
> *It is NOT oil*. !!!!!! It is semi-liquified *asphalt*. !!!!!!!
> 
> Have you still not figured out yet what the difference is between bitumen and dilbit, after all the times it's been explained to you?
> 
> I'm honestly not trying to be nasty when I ask you this question, but I'm wondering if you've suffered from a serious head injury in the past or if you have epilepsy or some other kind of neurological disorder?
> 
> .


NO.
What we are talking about is if there is a reason to build the Keystone pipeline.
The point of the pipeline is to get BITMEN to the refinery.
The dilutant is needed to move bitmen in a pipeline.
But if you haul the Bitmen in railroad cars you dont need a dilutant thus Dilbit does not have to be transported.


Dilbit seems to be a much larger danger than simple Bitmen.
dilbitwww.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-diluted-bitumen-oil.html?_r=0

Just a few quotes from the artical.
"the National Transportation Safety Board issued a report that was harshly critical of the federal government&#8217;s regulation and oversight of pipeline safety following a spill of more than one million gallons of dilbit into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010."
"The N.T.S.B.&#8217;s investigation of the Michigan spill identified &#8220;a complete breakdown of safety&#8221; at Enbridge, the pipeline&#8217;s operator. But it also revealed that pipeline rules are weakly enforced. One telling fact: Enbridge discovered defects in the area where the pipeline eventually ruptured as early as 2005, and reported them to regulators. Yet the company was able to delay making repairs without breaking any rules."
"The N.T.S.B. also found that Enbridge&#8217;s leak detection system did not work as advertised. The company had said that its sensors could spot a leak and shut down in less than 10 minutes. TransCanada, the company that is building the Keystone XL, makes similar claims. Yet it took operators in Enbridge&#8217;s Canadian control room 17 hours to realize their pipeline had torn open. Sensors triggered 16 alarms but operators continued to pump dilbit into the line, believing the problem was an air bubble, until someone in Michigan saw oil on the ground and called Enbridge&#8217;s emergency line."


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything pertaining to *transport costs*.
> You still have shown no* real* knowledge of the subject.
> Sure it does it goes to show who pays them...thats a key point here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need any proof
> You've shown no evidence of any being transported *TO* a refinery.
> All your examples are FROM the refineries.
> 
> 
> 
> They have? Does it make a difference which direction the cars are rolling?
> 
> 
> 
> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> oal is not Bitumen, and has *no bearing* on this discussion, since it requires no special handling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been repeatedly said the rails dont have the capacity to move this product. Since moving ALL of it would amount to only 25 trainloads a day i would think the ability to move 600 trainloads a day of another product would be relavent.....And Bitmen doesnt require any special handling in rail cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Does it make a difference which direction the cars are rolling?


Yes it does, since in one instance it's a "by product" left over from refining, and will be USED as asphalt, and in the other, it will be refined into fuels, and therefore a *STEADY SUPPLY* is needed, as opposed to random loads to various places



> And Bitmen doesnt require any special handling in rail cars.


It not only requires "special handling" but requires SPECIALLY BUILT cars too, in addition to adding nearly* $20 per barrel* to the costs

In nearly 200 posts, you haven't learned anything at all.

I'm done tryng to educate you, since it's hopeless


----------



## fantasymaker

Almost every railroad car is specially built. The days of everything being loaded in a Boxcar are long gone.
There is nothing particulary special about a heatable tank car . there are already thousands of them.


----------



## fantasymaker

CN idea a winner for oil sands

Again a few quotes from the link.
"Canadian National Railway's "Pipeline on Rails" initiative is a game-changer for Canada. As I revealed in Thursday's Financial Post, the railway has developed a transformative strategy to move oil sands production more quickly and cheaply to markets in North America or Asia."

"The business model is that pipelines charge $17.95 per barrel to ship oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast and "we can do it cheaper", Jim Foote, CN's executive vice-president, said."


Wow it seems like not only does the Canadian Railway think it can do it but they seem to think they can do it CHEEPER!


----------



## arabian knight

Well where is the surprise? Of course CN is going to say they can do it cheaper. Mu goodness that is what companies do to GET BUSINESS, but the thing of it is CAN THEY REALLY do it cheaper, not just SAY they can.


----------



## fantasymaker

LOL well of course business does tend to be optimistic.
But I think that statement pretty well proves that rails can move the bitmen. Thats a point that has been argued here a LOT.
I think it also negates the argument that some have been making about How it would cost too much.
So now we are left with the original question. IS there any reason to build the Keystone?
Against it is,
It would take longer to get in operation.
It might cost more, it might not in either case it doesnt matter to the USA.
Its not as safe.
It employes fewer US people.
It would have to be forced on unwilling people.

In its favor,
It MIGHT save its canadian owners some money.
Its the way we have always done it.


----------



## blooba

arabian knight said:


> How big is our pipeline infrastructure: how many miles of what kinds of pipelines are there in the United States?
> *In 2003, there were over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying natural gas, and hazardous liquids (chiefly petroleum and refined petroleum products, as well as chemicals and hydrogen).*


But this extra 1,000 or so miles will blowup and leak oil everwhere and ruin our country , we will all be swimming in oil because of all the leaks. It will be the demise of this country........lol

Really people what is the difference of another 1,000 miles? Sure it COULD be transported in other methods but I don't see the big deal here. Unless you have the "Not in my backyard" argument I see no other argument.


----------



## fantasymaker

Blooba you might want to take a look at the link in post#180 .
For the most part I agree with your point Whats another 1000 miles.
What it is in this case is unneeded , unwanted and will not benifit the citisens of this country. 
Most pipelines Benifit the population of the US by making a product cheeper. but this one wont do that ,so then you need to take other things into concideration and when you do that I cant see any benifit to the USA of this pipeline.


----------



## blooba

fantasymaker said:


> Blooba you might want to take a look at the link in post#180 .
> For the most part I agree with your point Whats another 1000 miles.
> What it is in this case is unneeded , unwanted and will not benifit the citisens of this country.
> Most pipelines Benifit the population of the US by making a product cheeper. but this one wont do that ,so then you need to take other things into concideration and when you do that I cant see any benifit to the USA of this pipeline.


Do you really think a company would spend millions of dollars on something that is "unneeded"? 

So the millions of dollars of tax revenue wouldn't benefit the citizens of this country? Wake up and smell the roses, the country is broke, we need to do ANYTHING we can to make a buck, Why do you think all these states are legalizing marijuana? The tax dollars!!!!!!


----------



## fantasymaker

Perhaps you havent read the thread,its getting pretty long and I am sure that many are not reading all of it, Im not sure I would.
The company that wants to build the line would benifit from it I am sure . BUT there are otherways to transport the oil that would be better for the USA.
This product requires a special pipeline , a sort of "Dual' line.
no matter how we transport the oil the same taxes would need to be paid(are there any?) Rail since it would employ more people IN the USA would seem like it would generate taxes.

Let me explain the unneeded comment a bit. There are lots of ways to transport something.
I might move something by pipeline ,rail, truck,boat,airplane and even passenger pigeon, as long as ONE way will move the product the others are not "needed". they still might work and even make money. many products move by all of them...well maybe not pigeon .


----------



## blooba

fantasymaker said:


> Perhaps you havent read the thread,its getting pretty long and I am sure that many are not reading all of it, Im not sure I would.
> The company that wants to build the line would benifit from it I am sure . BUT there are otherways to transport the oil that would be better for the USA.
> This product requires a special pipeline , a sort of "Dual' line.
> no matter how we transport the oil the same taxes would need to be paid(are there any?) Rail since it would employ more people IN the USA would seem like it would generate taxes.
> 
> Let me explain the unneeded comment a bit. There are lots of ways to transport something.
> I might move something by pipeline ,rail, truck,boat,airplane and even passenger pigeon, as long as ONE way will move the product the others are not "needed". they still might work and even make money. many products move by all of them...well maybe not pigeon .


ummm, i think you are missing the biggest tax that would be paid on a pipeline vs any other form of transportation. 

PROPERTY TAX!!!!

In places that already have the pipeline built the local govs are complaining because they cannot spend the money fast enough. The raise in property tax was about 20% and state laws say a local gov cannot raise its budget by more than 2.5%/yr so they had to LOWER the overall property tax rate. Oh darn, we can't have tax rates going down now can we? People might get used to keeping their own money and not wanna give it up later.


----------



## fantasymaker

That is a impressive amount....got a link?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am sure that many are *not reading all of it, Im not sure I would.
> *


LOL

That's been obvious the whole time


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfoot you have to Admit that it has GROWN to rather staggering size! i am sure it was much easyer to digest in small bites.


----------



## CesumPec

Fantasy - your pointlessness about the pipeline not being needed is big gov't liberal foolishness. There is a company that wants to pay the bill but gov't is standing in the way. Maybe the company is making a dumb mistake and if so will lose money and maybe even go out of biz, but the pipeline will remain for others to benefit from. Why should gov't be able to approve the business decisions of private companies? And I exclude business practices that harm others. beyond enviro hysterics, this isn't a public harm, so gov't should get out of the way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Bearfoot you have to Admit that it has GROWN to rather staggering size! i am sure it was much easyer to digest in small bites


It could have been less than 20 posts if you had listened to the* FACTS* instead of rambling on about railroads


----------



## blooba

fantasymaker said:


> That is a impressive amount....got a link?


First Keystone pipeline's valuation up to $538.5 million - Omaha.com

and yes they do complain also that the pipeline will be depriciated to $0 in 15 years but that is 15 years of lower taxes for everyone in the counties involved. Then they will be back to the tax rate they had initially but I would LOVE a tax DECREASE for 15 years.

They also complain because their state funding will be lowered offsetting the increase in their revenue so actually it is benefitting everyone in the state although i'm sure there won't be a state wide decrease in taxes because the state Gov will find something else to spend it on.

I do like the law of only allowed to increase their budget by 2.5%/yr. We should place that on Fed Gov.


----------



## fantasymaker

Bearfootfarm said:


> It could have been less than 20 posts if you had listened to the* FACTS* instead of rambling on about railroads


Funny thats what I was thinking about you.


----------



## fantasymaker

CesumPec said:


> Why should gov't be able to approve the business decisions of private companies?


Because this company wants to use the power of emmeint domain to force landowners to give up their rights to their own privatly owned property.
Is that good enough for you?
They are saying that a pipeline has to be built to transport the oil but its pretty clear there are other ways to do it.
Before the government gives them the right to use that power they have a obligation to show it is in the publics best interest. 
Thats what we are discussing here. What way of transporting the bitmen would be best for THE USA.
Not whats best for some Canadian investers ,or a private company , its not even a matter of How its always been done before.



CesumPec said:


> Fantasy - your pointlessness about the pipeline not being needed is big gov't liberal foolishness. There is a company that wants to pay the bill but gov't is standing in the way. Maybe the company is making a dumb mistake and if so will lose money and maybe even go out of biz, but the pipeline will remain for others to benefit from. Why should gov't be able to approve the business decisions of private companies? And I exclude business practices that harm others. beyond enviro hysterics, this isn't a public harm, so gov't should get out of the way.


 Why do you exclude enviromental concerns? They are a valid interest.


----------



## arabian knight

CesumPec said:


> Fantasy - your pointlessness about the pipeline not being needed is big gov't liberal foolishness. There is a company that wants to pay the bill but gov't is standing in the way. Maybe the company is making a dumb mistake and if so will lose money and maybe even go out of biz, but the pipeline will remain for others to benefit from. Why should gov't be able to approve the business decisions of private companies? And I exclude business practices that harm others. beyond enviro hysterics, this isn't a public harm, so gov't should get out of the way.


Yes I agree there is no good reason at all this pipeline should not be b
uilt. Good for everyone concerned in both countries. There are so many millions of miles of pipelines already in use one more thousand miles one is NOT going to hurt one bit. 
And jobs is what we need in this country and stopping good paying job like this is just plain silly.
The government and tree huggers get out of the way and let America WORK. And Get Back to work.


----------



## CesumPec

fantasymaker said:


> Because this company wants to use the power of emmeint domain to force landowners to give up their rights to their own privatly owned property.
> Is that good enough for you?
> They are saying that a pipeline has to be built to transport the oil but its pretty clear there are other ways to do it.
> Before the government gives them the right to use that power they have a obligation to show it is in the publics best interest.
> Thats what we are discussing here. What way of transporting the bitmen would be best for THE USA.
> Not whats best for some Canadian investers ,or a private company , its not even a matter of How its always been done before.
> 
> 
> Why do you exclude enviromental concerns? They are a valid interest.


A company does not have the power of eminent domain. If they can not procure a right of way in the free market, then they are out of luck or have to reroute or whatever other decision the biz deems prudent. If the company is trying to use big gov't to use the gov't eminent domain, welcome to the world liberals have created. 

Again, you or the gov't should have no more right to determine how that company does business than that company or the gov't should have the right to determine how you develop your homestead. 

{sigh} I do not exclude enviro issues. I'll try again in different words. A company should not have the gov't intrude upon its business decisions unless the company is deciding to harm others, such as with a high probability of significant environmental harm. People have had "concerns" but no one has shown serious reason to deny this project based enviro issues.


----------



## AmericanStand

I see they approved this today.


----------



## arabian knight

GOOD Now lets get it signed and get going on building it. Course with Obama at the helm I am not holding my breath. But 'Git R Done'


----------



## doingitmyself

Is this an above ground pipeline like in Alaska or a buried pipeline?One gets bullet holes in it, the other rusts away and leaks.


----------



## fordy

...............The economics of the Pipeline that supposedly 'Justified' it's construction two years previous have done a 180 and now say we don't need it for our oil supply ! We're , for the first time , Exporting 4 million barrels of US produced oil products each day that exceed what the current economy can absorb ! 
...............The Canadian people , doNOT want this crap being transported by railcar across their country..........it's the current Canadian gov't and the oil companies whom are pushing the construction ! Canada is destroying their forests and fresh water reservoirs so they can produce this product and the polluted transport medium will by left for the refineries in TX to dispose of in some fashion . 
...............Obama will kill this deal in any way he has too because he knows it's the right decision ! I'm not an Obama fan but I support his decision on this pipeline . , fordy
............My 4 million BPD exported US produced oil is To High , but I can't substantiate my source for that number !,fordy


----------



## fordy

arabian knight said:


> GOOD Now lets get it signed and get going on building it. Course with Obama at the helm I am not holding my breath. But 'Git R Done'


 ..............So , if you had say a thousand acre farm and Kerr-McGee want a ROW to lay a mile of their pipeline across your farm , you're going to just allow such without a fight ? , fordy


----------



## fordy

doingitmyself said:


> Is this an above ground pipeline like in Alaska or a buried pipeline?One gets bullet holes in it, the other rusts away and leaks.


 .............All or most of this line will be buried ! , fordy


----------



## Oxankle

Sorry, tree huggers. Pipelines have had the use of eminent domain, if needed, for many years. They have to pay damages for the loss of use of the land they need, but they cannot be denied the right to cross. 

This one is special only because it involves an international crossing. The "aginners" have tried to stall the project by using the same tactics that killed the proposed superhighway from Mexico to where ever it was supposed to end. Does not look like this one will end as it appears the vote is veto-proof.

I might as well add that when a company builds something this expensive they put a lot of thought into making it safe and rust-proof. 
There will be anodes and cathodes all over the place to assure that the pipe does not rust--unless they run ethanol thru it.


----------



## Nevada

naturelover said:


> *It is NOT oil*. !!!!!! It is semi-liquified *asphalt*. !!!!!!!


The point is not what it's called, the point is that the technology to deal effectively with spills doesn't exist. They can build the pipeline if they want, but the pipeline shouldn't be allowed to operate until they can demonstrate that they can deal with spills.

I feel the same way about deep water drilling. I have no objection if they have the technology to control deep water wells effectively, but they should have to demonstrate that.


----------



## HDRider

fantasymaker said:


> Ok So Im seeing all these comments about how We HAVE to build the keystone pipeline.
> Gotta get canadian oil , free trade, NAFTA,Etc.
> Then I get to reading about railroads and how much coal they cary.
> It hits me....:smack
> Why cant trains carry Oil? Its been done in the past. They are already in place,etc.


They do. Watch the stock prices for tanker car manufacturers and rail roads to drop when the announce KS.


----------



## AmericanStand

I have to agree with the OP in a way. I can't understand why this was presented as a development verses ecology fight when to me it looks more like jobs verses making the rich richer.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> The point is not what it's called, the point is that the technology
> to deal effectively with spills doesn't exist. They can build the pipeline if they want, but the
> pipeline shouldn't be allowed to operate until they can demonstrate that they can deal with spills.
> 
> I feel the same way about deep water drilling. I have no objection if they have the technology
> to control deep water wells effectively, but they should have to demonstrate that.





HDRider said:


> They do. Watch the stock prices for
> tanker car manufacturers and rail roads to drop when the announce KS.


********************************************
that the folks that you are responding to, 
aren't going to be able to answer your retort to theirs???:facepalm:

Not very sporting....wouldn't ya say?:hijacked:


----------



## Jim Bunton

Ozarks Tom said:


> OP, can you give some LEGITIMENT reasons not to build it? Even if the estimated 20,000 jobs only turn out to be half that, that's still a lot of good paying construction jobs when we need them. Also, the continued operation and maintenance of the finished pipeline provides income to hundreds at the minimum.


 Using Naturelover's figure of 1,000,000 barrels per day a break could lose 11.5 barrels a second, 964 barrels a minute, or 41,660 barrels an hour. The country needs to have more to gain to take on that kind of risk. Those 20,000 jobs are temporary jobs. If this was such a good thing it would be headed west through Canada to the Pacific.

Jim


----------



## Darren

There are no reasons other than ensuring the energy security of the US while benefiting a staunch ally. Bankrupting the socialist regime in Venezuela and adding to the Russian's economic misfortune is icing on the cake. An upside might be a real democracy in Venezuela after the people get really fed up with the Chavistas and use them to decorate lamp posts. 

We used to be the biggest customer for their heavy crude. It would be good for them to try to sell their crude to the world when most refineries can't handle it. I hope they have a lot of lamp posts.


----------



## copperkid3

Jim Bunton said:


> Using Naturelover's figure of 1,000,000 barrels
> per day a break could lose 11.5 barrels a second, 964 barrels a minute,
> or 41,660 barrels an hour. The country needs to have more to gain to take
> on that kind of risk. Those 20,000 jobs are temporary jobs.
> *If this was such a good thing it would be
> headed west through Canada to the Pacific.
> *Jim


*******************************************
technicality involving the First Nations people. 
Otherwise it would already be a done-deal.

http://readersupportednews.org/news...-qwe-are-the-wallq-that-pipelines-cannot-pass

The* ONLY *one's that will be benefiting from it, 
are the pipeline people and their paid government stooges.

Everyone else will be put at risk and will have 
to suffer the damages when something happens.

(And it_* WILL *_happen eventually.....check out that companies history in regards to 'accidental' spills.)


----------



## haley1

They origanally wanted a pipeline across western Canada to the coast as it was shorter and cheaper but Canadians shot that down as too big a risk


----------



## Oxankle

All the hoopla about eco damage from oil spills is way overdone. Fifty years ago there were mud pits all over the oil fields. Gushers spouted thousands of barrels of crude onto the countryside. Today there is not a sign of that oil; it decays and turns into fertilizer. Inconvenient if it spoils your fishery for twenty years, but the oil companies do not like to pay for that and try to avoid it. Especially so since every leech in the vicinity will try to show they lost their livelihood even if they never came close to a spill. 

Spoiling an aquifer with rusted-out, unplugged wells is a disaster---it was part of the learning curve and will take centuries to reverse--but in the meantime two generations of men raised their families on good wages. We did some pretty bad things with our copper and coal mines, too.

I've seen old oil fields in OK where there is still oil on the ground, but it is slowly going away as the rains wash away the salts and the waxes and heavy oils decay Nobody wants this and our engineers have learned how to avoid it. No one can predict human error or accident any more than we can predict terror, but we must do our best. 

As for the jobs, the construction crews will be succeeded by men who work in the tank farms and the pumping stations along the way, by the men who run the refineries along the line and the myriad of businesses that support these endeavors. Don't underrate the jobs potential.

As for the railroad; Warren Buffet owns the Burlington Northern--he will not like the pipeline. 

As for me, I bought a little Calument refining---They recently bought a refinery down in Corpus Christi to go with that they already have.


----------



## Nimrod

Here, the development of the Bakken (sp) oil field in western ND means that the railroads are giving priority to shipping oil east. I think some winds up in Duluth/Superior and some to the Twin Cities for barge shipment down the river. Shipping oil on the railroad is much more profitable for the railroad than shipping wheat. The railroad tracks can only handle just so much traffic safely. When I go to town there is a train every 15 minutes on these tracks. This means that farmers in ND and western MN are having a hard time getting enough capacity on the railroad to ship their grain to market. 

Seems to me that the same thing is happening in places where the railroad is shipping oil to maximize their profit and there is not enough capacity to ship coal. 

Pipelines are the cheapest way to move oil. They need better monitoring and maintenance and they should not be built through ecologically sensitive areas or areas of high population but we should build more of them.


----------



## AmericanStand

A little checking tells me there will be less than. 100 jobs created my best guess is about 20 !


----------



## AmericanStand

Nimrod said:


> Pipelines are the cheapest way to move oil. They need better monitoring and maintenance and they should not be built through ecologically sensitive areas or areas of high population but we should build more of them.


Why is cheep important. ? The oil will be the same price at the refinery no matter how it's carried. 
The issue here is jobs and the rail transport will creat more jobs in the USA.


Besides the oil isn't ours and won't be it's just passing through.


----------



## arabian knight

Nimrod said:


> Here, the development of the Bakken (sp) oil field in western ND means that the railroads are giving priority to shipping oil east. I think some winds up in Duluth/Superior and some to the Twin Cities for barge shipment down the river. Shipping oil on the railroad is much more profitable for the railroad than shipping wheat. The railroad tracks can only handle just so much traffic safely. When I go to town there is a train every 15 minutes on these tracks. This means that farmers in ND and western MN are having a hard time getting enough capacity on the railroad to ship their grain to market.
> 
> Seems to me that the same thing is happening in places where the railroad is shipping oil to maximize their profit and there is not enough capacity to ship coal.
> 
> Pipelines are the cheapest way to move oil. They need better monitoring and maintenance and they should not be built through ecologically sensitive areas or areas of high population but we should build more of them.


 Yes it is the cheapest trucking ADDS 2 Dollars to Each and Every Barrel.
And how many millions of Miles of pipelines are across the uSA carrying way more than just oil way more dangerous stuff. One More Pipeline is NOT going to make ANY difference in ANY ecological difference. None What So Ever. Just the green tree huggers that NIMBY mentality. Which is coming to end I hope once and for all in this country.


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Why is cheep important. ? The oil will be the same price at the refinery no matter how it's carried.
> The issue here is jobs and the rail transport will creat more jobs in the USA.
> 
> 
> Besides the oil isn't ours and won't be it's just passing through.


And to create even more jobs, forget the rail. Just hand 5 gal buckets to people and make them walk the oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. What a GREAT IDEA! :facepalm:

Personally, I don't think it is my business to decide for others how they spend their money. Libs seem to think otherwise.


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> Personally, I don't think it is my business to decide for others how they spend their money. Libs seem to think otherwise.


But you don't have a problem forcing them to give up their land ?
Us liberals would never do that , that would be a socialist idea. 

Remember it's not a case of telling them how they spend their money it's simply telling them how we will allow them to use our rights.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

AmericanStand said:


> A little checking tells me there will be less than. 100 jobs created my best guess is about 20 !


Those 20 guys better get to digging they got over 2,000 miles of pipe to lay :help:


----------



## AmericanStand

REALLY SHARP ShOVELS !

I take it you equate 100 temporary jobs with 200 permanent ones ?


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> REALLY SHARP ShOVELS !
> 
> I take it you equate 100 temporary jobs with 200 permanent ones ?


The only permanent jobs are the ones held by gov't bureaucrats. 

What do you think is a permanent job?


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> But you don't have a problem forcing them to give up their land ?
> Us liberals would never do that , that would be a socialist idea.
> 
> Remember it's not a case of telling them how they spend their money it's simply telling them how we will allow them to use our rights.


I do have a problem with forcing anyone to give up their land. Welcome to the Kelo decision inflicted upon us all by libs.


----------



## bowdonkey

DEKE01 said:


> I do have a problem with forcing anyone to give up their land. Welcome to the Kelo decision inflicted upon us all by libs.


I believe the majority were Republican appointed judges? What I don't like about the Kelo decision is nothing has been done to reverse it. Some dissenting opinion was about it. Many states, mine included, have passed laws to not allow it. But my neighbor is being forced to sell for a pipeline project. So far he is holding out. The price offered is a pittance by the way. If it were me, and the battle looked lost, I would offer to lease my land, with a few reservations and restrictions and of course lotsa $$$. Anyway, if my neighbor continues to say NO, we know what happens next. He will go to court, and probably lose, Kelo or no Kelo he will lose. And America will get it's pipeline. And good Americans will build it.


----------



## HDRider

copperkid3 said:


> ********************************************
> that the folks that you are responding to,
> aren't going to be able to answer your retort to theirs???:facepalm:
> 
> Not very sporting....wouldn't ya say?:hijacked:


I am not getting your point?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

HDRider said:


> I am not getting your point?


He is saying they can't respond to your post to theirs :sing: Look under their user name real close ,it says BANNED :facepalm:


----------



## Tricky Grama

tinknal said:


> And tankers sink. Would you think that a leak in a land based pipeline would be worse than a supertanker running aground in the Pacific?
> 
> This oil will be transported, processed, and used. The only question is how and by whom.


Prolly duplicating what others have said, but the EPA did SIX studies showing that the environment wouldn't be harmed & we KNOW they're biased so if they coulda shown ANYTHING they would've.

Here's a tidbit about overriding the Idioitincharge when he vetoes the legislation.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ke...il_job=1595453_11142014&s=al&dkt_nbr=wtsnjffs


----------



## Oxankle

About that 20 job estimate: Where in the devil did that come from????? 

Any roustabout who ever came close to an oil field knows that pipelines of any length have pumping stations along the way. Routine maintenance, security checks--there is constant work. 

Add to that the people who will work in the tank farms that receive and distribute the oil, the refiners, the port workers and the ships' crews at any export point. Then add in the money that circulates through these locations to support the grocers, the home builders, everyone who backs up an oil field worker. 

Twenty?? That's insane. Such thinking scares me.


----------



## HDRider

Sawmill Jim said:


> He is saying they can't respond to your post to theirs :sing: Look under their user name real close ,it says BANNED :facepalm:


Oh.... OK..


----------



## fordy

.............For those interested , in what a major leak on this pipeline would DO , should it flow into any river or watershed lets look at what happened on Feb. 3rd. , 2014 when Duke energy notified the Public of a major spill into the DAN River . Duke estimated that 50,000 to 82,000 tons of Coal Ash and 27,000,000 gallons of water containing metals , and various other polluting chemicals being held in open air ponds drained into the Dan River . Duke waited 24 hours to publish their notice and pollution was still flowing into the river when , they finally did tell the public what had happened . Coal ash and the polluted water are not unlike the so called 'Oil' in the Keystone Pipeline . 
.............Most problems with pipelines are man made , where some Idiot doesn't observe the warning signs and tears a hole in the line while operating heavy equipment ! The Reality of any pipeline declared Safe by it's builder\operator IS , it isn't Safe at all...........Because the operator can't hold the hand of every contractor who is working in close proximity to any pipeline , especially Keystone that has contents that are as potentially as explosive as it's contents , are . , fordy


----------



## Oxankle

Fordy: Check me out and let's see if I understand you fellows: NatureLover says that what flows thru the line will not be oil but semi-liquid asphalt. You say it will be dangerously explosive. 

Have you ever tried to explode tar? That's what they call the producing formations, 
"Tar Sands". When it reaches a refinery capable of catalytic cracking of the petroleum tar it will be fractionated and reformed into lighter products. 

Now imagine somebody spilling a boatload of tar in your field? Would it soak in? Would it spread? Not nearly so much as West Texas Crude---you'd get out there and pick it up with bucket loaders and haul it off. It is so thick that it has to be diluted with lighter hydrocarbons even to put it in a pipeline.


----------



## arabian knight

IS there any reason to build Keystone?

There is NO good reason for NOT building it, and good reasons FOR building the pipeline.


----------



## AmericanStand

Oxankle said:


> Add to that the people who will work in the tank farms that receive and distribute the oil, the refiners, the port workers and the ships' crews at any export point. Then add in the money that circulates through these locations to support the grocers, the home builders, everyone who backs up an oil field worker.
> 
> Twenty?? That's insane. Such thinking scares me.



Those jobs at the end points will remain constant or perhaps go up a slight amount if the stuff travels by rail. The twenty was a multiple of the jobs per pump station times the reported MANNED up stations according to EnBridge.


----------



## AmericanStand

Oxankle said:


> Fordy: Check me out and let's see if I understand you fellows: NatureLover says that what flows thru the line will not be oil but semi-liquid asphalt. You say it will be dangerously explosive.
> 
> Have you ever tried to explode tar? That's what they call the producing formations,
> "Tar Sands". When it reaches a refinery capable of catalytic cracking of the petroleum tar it will be fractionated and reformed into lighter products.
> 
> Now imagine somebody spilling a boatload of tar in your field? Would it soak in? Would it spread? Not nearly so much as West Texas Crude---you'd get out there and pick it up with bucket loaders and haul it off. It is so thick that it has to be diluted with lighter hydrocarbons even to put it in a pipeline.


I have the scars to prove I have survived the tar explosion. It's not something to be taken lightly. Worse yet one of these two pipelines will be flowing with a mixture of tar and solvent The other ,YES there are two pipelines involved in this , Will be flowing with solvent very unstable product at best.


----------



## DEKE01

bowdonkey said:


> I believe the majority were Republican appointed judges? QUOTE]
> 
> Surely you're not under the impression Republicans are conservatives? Maybe a few of them, not the majority.
> 
> The Kelo town, New London CT, was run by big gov't libs, and the 5-4 SCOTUS decision was 4 libs and one mod, vs 4 conservatives. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.


----------



## Oxankle

The solvent will not be any more dangerous than gasoline, less so in fact, and we ship gasoline all over the country in pipelines.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Oxankle said:


> The solvent will not be any more dangerous than gasoline, less so in fact, and we ship gasoline all over the country in pipelines.


And worse yet rail,tanker trucks most all cars on the road and untold numbers of cans in car trunks too. :sing:


----------



## fordy

Oxankle said:


> Fordy: Check me out and let's see if I understand you fellows: NatureLover says that what flows thru the line will not be oil but semi-liquid asphalt. You say it will be dangerously explosive.
> 
> Have you ever tried to explode tar? That's what they call the producing formations,
> "Tar Sands". When it reaches a refinery capable of catalytic cracking of the petroleum tar it will be fractionated and reformed into lighter products.
> 
> Now imagine somebody spilling a boatload of tar in your field? Would it soak in? Would it spread? Not nearly so much as West Texas Crude---you'd get out there and pick it up with bucket loaders and haul it off. It is so thick that it has to be diluted with lighter hydrocarbons even to put it in a pipeline.


 .................Ox , Dilbit(Bitumen) , in and of itself isn't necessarily any more dangerous than crude oil...........The real danger comes from the list of 'Secret' chemicals that the pipeline has to add to it to make possible to move it through the pipeline ! Benzene is one of the primary additives to bilbit and it is very dangerous during the first few seconds of a derailment . It will also evaporate rather quickly when exposed to air . 
.................The greatest damage to the topography from a pipeline spill carrying dilbit is the Cleanup , esp. when it gets into a river or lake ! Dilbit in water will have most of the 'Secret' transport chemicals evaporate . Dilbit will exhibit the consistency of peanut butter when floating in water , ******50% will SINK to the bottom of the waterway , only 10% of regular crude oil will sink..........This is what makes the Cleanup of Dilbit so troublesome ! The article I read was dated June 26, 2012 and it was in reference to the pipeline spill in Marshall , Mich. on July 26 , 2010 into the Kalamazoo River . Approx. 1,000,000 gallons entered into the river . I'm not sure , IF , the cleanup has been finished . , fordy


----------



## Nevada

Why are we so big on putting our country at risk just to get Canadian oil to international markets? Why don't they build their own pipeline someplace in Canada?


----------



## AmericanStand

Oxankle said:


> The solvent will not be any more dangerous than gasoline, less so in fact, and we ship gasoline all over the country in pipelines.


I suppose that's a matter of opinion but from what I've seen it's orders of magnitude more dangerous starting from a higher vapor pressure and extending to chemicals deadly in parts per million.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> Why are we so big on putting our country at risk just to get Canadian oil to international markets? Why don't they build their own pipeline someplace in Canada?


jobs for workers, profits for investors, taxes for the state. It s the same as any other business. The question is, is the risk justified? The EPA has failed to show it is not. 

Most people have very poor understanding of risk vs reward. It is why Casinos are so profitable. 

Let me ask you this. There has been a new energy form discovered that replaces oil, but it is estimated that 50 people a year will die because of its production and use. Would you approve of legalizing this energy form?


----------



## AmericanStand

Please explain to me how a pipeline to move this stuff has any benifit to the USA that trains do not ? 

On the rail side I see;
More jobs 
More tax revenue 
A safer product to move. 
More routing options so less chance of disruption. 
Transport profits going to US company's .
More flexibility to move larger or smaller amounts.
Will deliver product sooner


On the pipeline side I see;
Out of sight.


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> jobs for workers, profits for investors, taxes for the state. It s the same as any other business. The question is, is the risk justified? ?


 No! See that's the point this pipeline will provide FEWER jobs , NO profits , LESS tax revenue and MORE risk to the USA. 
So why are we even thinking about letting it be built ? Who is paying off the republicans pushing this ?


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> No! See that's the point this pipeline will provide FEWER jobs , NO profits , LESS tax revenue and MORE risk to the USA.
> So why are we even thinking about letting it be built ? Who is paying off the republicans pushing this ?


Jobs - If you want to produce more jobs, start a business, The pipeline investors are not required to please you in that regard. 

Profits - The pipeline investors, no doubt far better informed than you or me, think it will produce profits and they are risking their own money, so it is their decision. 

Risk - thanks for demonstrating my point that people don't understand risk vs reward. Rail has been shown to be much riskier than pipelines in terms of spills, deaths, danger to the towns the rail passes thru. We have decades of documentation to back up that fact whereas your side has nothing but hypothetical speculation.


----------



## Paumon

Nevada said:


> Why are we so big on putting our country at risk just to get Canadian oil to international markets? Why don't they build their own pipeline someplace in Canada?


Canada has a few pipelines in Canada, and several more in USA. (The dotted lines are proposed, the solid lines already exist): http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/map-pipeline/

The problem for Canada and many other oil countries is that they don't have any refineries or else not enough refineries suitable to their product and all the biggest, best and most numerous major refineries are in USA. So no matter what any country wants to sell oil on the international market, if they don't have their own refineries it has to be sent to America first to be refined before it can go on the international market. More often than not USA corporations buy the crude oil directly from them, refine the oil, then sell the refined oil as an American DOMESTIC product export. That is what USA does with the oil that comes from Canada, it's a middle man and buying, refining and selling Canada's and many other countries' oil is big profit business for USA. It has more than 200 major refineries throughout the nation and it refines oil from many countries. USA has been doing that for many, many decades. 

If all the countries that presently send oil to America for refining had the capability to build their own domestic refineries (most _don't_ have the capability) and were to stop sending oil to USA for refining then USA would no longer have enough oil to export to other countries at a profit to USA. USA doesn't really produce enough of it's own domestic oil to export internationally, it relies on what it buys and refines from other countries to sell.

I thought you used to work in the oil industry. You and several others here discussing this should already know that's how the big oil business works.


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> Jobs - If you want to produce more jobs, start a business, The pipeline investors are not required to please you in that regard.
> 
> Profits - The pipeline investors, no doubt far better informed than you or me, think it will produce profits and they are risking their own money, so it is their decision.
> 
> Risk - thanks for demonstrating my point that people don't understand risk vs reward. Rail has been shown to be much riskier than pipelines in terms of spills, deaths, danger to the towns the rail passes thru. We have decades of documentation to back up that fact whereas your side has nothing but hypothetical speculation.


Wow just wow I suppose we should load up Fort Knox and send that to canada too ?
It's our country why shouldn't be able to do things to our benifit? Why should we be concerned with making sure Canadian investers getting a little richer ?
As for risk you are comparing a lion and a cobra to a cow ! Dangerous ful it in one line and dilutant in another to rail cars of almost solid tar.


----------



## Paumon

AmericanStand said:


> Please explain to me how a pipeline to move this stuff has any benifit to the USA that *trims* do not ?
> 
> On the rail side I see;
> More jobs
> More tax revenue
> A safer product to move.
> More routing options so less chance of disruption.
> Transport profits going to US company's .
> More flexibility to move larger or smaller amounts.
> Will deliver product sooner
> 
> 
> On the pipeline side I see;
> Out of sight.


Trims? Do you mean trains? 

Your question above has already been explained in explicit detail several times in this topic. It MUST be moved by pipelines. Go back to page one and read the whole topic to find out why it must by moved by pipelines.


----------



## Nevada

Paumon said:


> I thought you used to work in the oil industry. You and several others here discussing this should already know that's how the big oil business works.


I know how it works. My question is whether there's enough in it for us to be worth the spill risk. They still don't know how to deal with this kind of spill.

I've also read that mining & processing tar sands has political problems in Canada. Let's face it, tar sands is a dirty business.


----------



## Paumon

Nevada said:


> I know how it works. My question is whether there's enough in it for us to be worth the spill risk. They still don't know how to deal with this kind of spill.


I understand. I can't answer if it's worth the spill risk to USA but if it does go through there's no doubt in my mind that USA will profit from it as much as Canadian and American oil corporations will. 

I agree they don't know how to deal with that kind of spill. It's certainly not worth the risk to British Columbia's provincial government and populace which refuses to allow Enbridge's Northern Gateway proposed pipeline to transport dilbit or diluent from Alberta through British Columbia to the Pacific. BC's government and non-native populations are fully behind the BC First Nation's Council who are taking a stand and refuse to let themselves be bullied or bribed by big oil corporations the way they've bullied the First Nations people on the oil producing prairie provinces. BC has the largest number of First Nations tribes of all provinces in Canada (nearly 200 BC tribes) and the BC First Nations Council overall has a tremendous amount of political and governmental clout in BC that the native councils in other provinces don't have. So everyone in BC is saying "No, it's not worth the risks to the whole province and its coastline and it's not going to happen."

I'm pretty sure the Northern Gateway pipeline will never be built, at least not in the foreseeable future if ever (speaking not for many decades here) so the Alberta oil corporations (who are both Canadian and American owned, by the way) are going to be desperate to push through on KeystoneXL through USA to the bitumen refineries in Texas and Louisiana. 




Nevada said:


> I've also read that mining & processing tar sands has political problems in Canada. Let's face it, tar sands is a dirty business.


LOL. That's an understatement. Political problems up the yinyang and a filthy dirty business indeed, both environmentally and morally. Check out this article from last June. 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...sands_like_an_environmental_horror_story.html

The panel appointed by the federal government determined that all of the noted health and pollution problems were "justified" and in the public interest due to the economic benefits.  If they'll allow these health problems and fouling in their own nests, why would they care about it happening in other people's nests?



> ........ The panel found the Jackpine expansion would have &#8220;adverse environmental effects&#8221; on wetlands, traditional plant life, species at risk, migratory birds, old-growth forests, caribou and &#8220;biodiversity.&#8221; Further, the panel said the Jackpine expansion, in combination with other existing or planned oil sands projects, would have a negative impact on the rights, culture and traditional land use of aboriginals.
> 
> 
> Despite those findings, the panel said the Jackpine proposal would provide economic benefits and was in the &#8220;public interest.&#8221;
> 
> 
> The final word fell to the Harper cabinet. In the first decision under the streamlined 2012 environmental assessment legislation, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced the Jackpine expansion would go ahead because the government found the adverse environmental impacts &#8220;are justified in the circumstances.&#8221;
> 
> 
> This chain of events has raised concerns about the entire regulatory approval process.
> 
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s like an environmental horror story&#8221; but it was approved anyway, Jenny Biem, a lawyer working with the ACFN, said of the panel&#8217;s finding.......


Take it from me - dirty oil corrupts more than just health and environment, it also corrupts people's ethics, morals and principles, especially the ethics and moral principles of those who stand to make the most money from it.

_________________________


----------



## rambler

AmericanStand said:


> Please explain to me how a pipeline to move this stuff has any benifit to the USA that trims do not ?
> 
> On the rail side I see;
> More jobs
> More tax revenue
> A safer product to move.
> More routing options so less chance of disruption.
> Transport profits going to US company's .
> More flexibility to move larger or smaller amounts.
> Will deliver product sooner
> 
> 
> On the pipeline side I see;
> Out of sight.


Our rail lines are too congested already. We can't ship more stuff.

Canada forced the CP to come back home to canida and ship Canadian wheat and other products in Canada. CP is several -months- behind on shipping.

BNSF has also been behind. Several weeks....

My coop here in southern mn was just talking about it. We used to get fertilizer railed down to us from Canada. Took a week. Now the trans need to run in Canada, so it would take 3 months or longer. So they are railing fertilizer to the east coast in Canada, loading ships, hauling down to New Orleans, loading barges, and floating it back up the Mississippi River to get it here this fall. It takes 2-3 weeks, and costs $10 a ton more, but at least it gets here.

Rail lines are too busy.

Then, rail lines are far more dangerous way to transport than a pipeline. Man, put the stuff in a pipe of you can, keep it safer for everyone!

There are lots and lots of building, maitenence, and taxing oppertunities on a pipeline to create many jobs all along the route. Someday if we need more crude in this country, it will be there, access able to us. The companies in Texas will be able to refine it and make some money and jobs from it.

Railing the crude is not even an option if you look into it.

It seems silly to be against the pipeline, but I do want it to be built safely. It seems the issue has become political and not sensibly studied, so no one really knows the actual issues any more - it's just a political football.

I'm only a simple dirt farmer, I can be wrong headed but as it seems to me.

Paul


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oxankle said:


> About that 20 job estimate: Where in the devil did that come from?????
> 
> Any roustabout who ever came close to an oil field knows that pipelines of any length have pumping stations along the way. Routine maintenance, security checks--there is constant work.
> 
> Add to that the people who will work in the tank farms that receive and distribute the oil, the refiners, the port workers and the ships' crews at any export point. Then add in the money that circulates through these locations to support the grocers, the home builders, everyone who backs up an oil field worker.
> 
> Twenty?? That's insane. Such thinking scares me.


Just about any time a liberal thinks they are thinking, scares me.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> Jobs - If you want to produce more jobs, start a business, The pipeline investors are not required to please you in that regard.
> 
> Profits - The pipeline investors, no doubt far better informed than you or me, think it will produce profits and they are risking their own money, so it is their decision.
> 
> Risk - thanks for demonstrating my point that people don't understand risk vs reward. Rail has been shown to be much riskier than pipelines in terms of spills, deaths, danger to the towns the rail passes thru. We have decades of documentation to back up that fact whereas your side has nothing but hypothetical speculation.


Thanks for this, my Friend.


----------



## Jim Bunton

This pipe line is go to transfer a great deal of land through the use of eminent domain I do not see enough good to the U S public to justify the massive transfer of property. Add the risk of a pipeline accident. This pipeline will be built as a free trade zone that will transport oil to refineries that are also in free trade zones so the government (we the people) will collect very little in taxes, the vast majority of the jobs will be temporary construction jobs. These are a good thing but not good enough to justify the use of eminent domain. The Canadian government is not allowing the alternative pipeline to this plan to be built either for many of the same reasons and they stand to gain much more then the United States.

If you feel I am wrong please explain what justifies the use of eminent domain to build this pipeline. It will not be built without the government confiscating land.

Jim


----------



## AmericanStand

Since when is stealing land from a individual to give it to a corporation to make a few people rich a conservative ideal ?
If that's what a conservative is then I guess I'm not. Does that make me a liberal , probably not but if that's what it takes to make a stand against stealing from the individual and the public ok call me a liberal


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Don't know how one would call it stealing the land :hammer: Years back they put a pipe line through this area ,paid the people good for their mess .Some probably got more for that one spot than they gave for the whole farm . They didn't haul the land off or fence it off either . So as of today most people have no idea where that pipe is buried :sing:


----------



## AmericanStand

And that's fine and dandy if the owners want to sell that use if not it's theft. When you take something by force it's theft , I know that's a liberal idea but I think most people in the USA would agree.


----------



## AmericanStand

Paumon said:


> Trims? Do you mean trains?
> 
> Your question above has already been explained in explicit detail several times in this topic. It MUST be moved by pipelines. Go back to page one and read the whole topic to find out why it must by moved by pipelines.


Thanks for the trims-trains catch. 

I think that the evidence I've seen is that trains CAN haul the bitmen AND do it Safer than a pipeline and with even more benefits for the USA.

The ONLY benifit I can see to the pipeline is the Koch brothers will make more money. 

I bet that's enough to get it built.


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> Jobs - If you want to produce more jobs, start a business, The pipeline investors are not required to please you in that regard.
> 
> Profits - The pipeline investors, no doubt far better informed than you or me, think it will produce profits and they are risking their own money, so it is their decision.
> 
> Risk - thanks for demonstrating my point that people don't understand risk vs reward. Rail has been shown to be much riskier than pipelines in terms of spills, deaths, danger to the towns the rail passes thru. We have decades of documentation to back up that fact whereas your side has nothing but hypothetical speculation.


This issue is simple. They have to demonstrate that they can deal with a spill of this type of oil to use ANY kind of transportation. If they can then we can discuss risk vs reward. If they can't then the oil shouldn't be shipped through the USA at all.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

AmericanStand said:


> And that's fine and dandy if the owners want to sell that use if not it's theft. When you take something by force it's theft , I know that's a liberal idea but I think most people in the USA would agree.


Like the railroad stole all the land they run the rails on :thumb: By those standards we would still be limited to one lane trails following everyone's property lines . I do see the point though I hate progress to . :thumb:


----------



## Paumon

Jim Bunton said:


> This pipe line is go to transfer a great deal of land through the use of eminent domain I do not see enough good to the U S public to justify the massive transfer of property. Add the risk of a pipeline accident. This pipeline will be built as a free trade zone that will transport oil to refineries that are also in free trade zones so the government (we the people) will collect very little in taxes, the vast majority of the jobs will be temporary construction jobs. These are a good thing but not good enough to justify the use of eminent domain.
> 
> *The Canadian government is not allowing the alternative pipeline to this plan to be built either for many of the same reasons and they stand to gain much more then the United States.*
> 
> If you feel I am wrong please explain what justifies the use of eminent domain to build this pipeline. It will not be built without the government confiscating land.
> 
> Jim


I'm not disagreeing with you on the rest of your post but I need to correct you on the part that was bolded because you are mistaken in what you said about the Canadian government.

The Canadian federal government DOES wish to allow the alternative pipeline. That alternative is the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that I posted about above, which is proposed to be built through British Columbia. The people of British Columbia, including BC's _provincial_ government, are not willing to take all the risks expected of them and are standing against it for a great many reasons. 

It is only British Columbia that is against it, not the rest of Canada nor Canadian government. The Canadian federal government and the provincial governments and people of oil producing prairie provinces and their oil corporations are champing at the bit to have the Northern Gateway pipeline pushed through to the Pacific Ocean and they've been brow-beating, name-calling and trying to bribe and bully British Columbia to give in. (Heck, even some of the HT members here on the forum who live in Alberta and Saskatchewan have been joining in on the abusive name calling.) They're eager to send the bitumen to Asian markets as an alternative to having to rely on the American oil industry to get rid of the stuff. If Northern Gateway does not get built then the Canadian government will be desperate to see the KeystoneXL pipeline completed and sending the dilbit through to the dilbit refineries in Texas and Louisiana. Correction ..... they already are desperate to see it done.


----------



## arabian knight

And it is not cheaper to Train it.
First off you have to pipe it in the rail car and then Pump it out. ALL involves PIPES and PUMPS. Which can also leak.
KEEP it in a Pipeline all the way to its destination is better all the way around.
And besides the Rails are SO crowded NOW it is even get gin hard to things railed around the US. There are more people in the USA than someone so concerned over Their Own Back Yard.
Keep it inside a pipeline a free up the rail lines for other important items.
Like COAL~!!!!


> *A shortage of coal shipped by rail to power plants in Wisconsin may cause a crisis next winter.* Which MEANS THIS WINTER which has already started out to be a wicked one.~!
> 
> http://www.wpr.org/coal-shipping-shortage-could-cause-energy-crisis-winter
> 
> Even as railroad tankers become a âpipeline on wheelsâ from the North Dakota Bakken oil field, trains shipping coal on rail lines from western states like Wyoming and Montana to electrical generating plants in the Upper Midwest arenât keeping pace with demand.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Keep it inside a pipeline a free up the rail lines for other important items.


But can they keep it inside the pipeline?



arabian knight said:


> Like COAL~!!!!


Just so you know, pipeline is actually a great way to transport coal.

This marker is over a pipeline that transported coal from the Black Mesa Mine to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada.​


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Most don't know much about pipelines and don't do any research . Most new pipelines are called supper pipelines :sing: Other oil Co's rent transport on them they can send many different liquids threw them to different locations . Also TransCanada has lots of operations already located in the US .Got a big operation in Co been there saw it :thumb:


----------



## Nevada

Sawmill Jim said:


> Most don't know much about pipelines and don't do any research . Most new pipelines are called supper pipelines :sing: Other oil Co's rent transport on them they can send many different liquids threw them to different locations . Also TransCanada has lots of operations already located in the US .Got a big operation in Co been there saw it :thumb:


I'm not sure that you can effectively pig a pipeline to transport anything else behind tar sand oil. It's pretty nasty gack.


----------



## Paumon

AmericanStand said:


> Thanks for the trims-trains catch.
> 
> *I think that the evidence I've seen is that trains CAN haul the bitmen AND do it Safer than a pipeline* and with even more benefits for the USA.
> 
> The ONLY benifit I can see to the pipeline is the Koch brothers will make more money.
> 
> I bet that's enough to get it built.


Yes, trains can haul bitumen. Any method of transportation can be used to haul bitumen.

No, trains can NOT haul dilbit. Dilbit is not the same thing as bitumen and dilbit is what we are discussing here. 

At this point in time the railways do not yet have the technology to move bulk dilbit. Dilbit in it's heated form must be kept in constant pressurized circulating motion and must be transported by pipeline. The KeystoneXL pipeline would be built exclusively to move bulk heated dilbit circulating at 5 miles per hour under pressure. Please - read the whole topic and the explanations in it before jumping to conclusions about what you _think_ you've seen evidence of.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure that you can effectively pig a pipeline to transport anything else behind tar sand oil. It's pretty nasty gack.


Maybe but they say they can . Note TransCanada don't own a drop of this oil.
âThe public has been bombarded with misinformation about the oil that will go through the Keystone XL Pipeline, but this latest study by the highly credible National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that oil is oil and the pipelines we build will safely move different blends â as we have been doing for decades,â says Vern Meier, TransCanadaâs vice-president, pipeline safety and compliance. - See more at: http://keystone-xl.com/diluted-bitumen-manufactured-myth-deconstructed/#sthash.OaKhnrkF.dpuf

http://keystone-xl.com/diluted-bitumen-manufactured-myth-deconstructed/


----------



## AmericanStand

The point of the keystone isn't to move dilbit. 
I think that illustrates a lot of the problem in this discussion. We are going off on lots of tangents. 
Perhaps the OP should have titled it "What's the best way for the USA to move Canadian bitmen to US refiners. ?"
Bitmen could be safely moved in open hoppers , of course it's even safer to enclose it. 
US railroads have the capacity to move the oil but that too is a red herring. If the RRs not having the capacity to move it disqualifies them the the pipelines lack of current ability disqualifies them too.


----------



## Nevada

Sawmill Jim said:


> National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that oil is oil


Yeah, and Rumsfeld says oil is fungible. There's a huge difference in various crude oils, but tar sands oil is a different animal.


----------



## AmericanStand

Sawmill Jim said:


> Like the railroad stole all the land they run the rails on :thumb: By those standards we would still be limited to one lane trails following everyone's property lines . I do see the point though I hate progress to . :thumb:


:umno:
Most western railroads were built on land that wasn't privately owned. 
Those railroads that were built with eminent domain had to show they were the best way to serve the public. 
Isn't that what we are debating here ?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Nevada said:


> Yeah, and Rumsfeld says oil is fungible. There's a huge difference in various crude oils, but tar sands oil is a different animal.


You always spout off about approved science this and that :sing: Did you read the part about it being diluted


----------



## Wanda

Sawmill Jim said:


> Don't know how one would call it stealing the land :hammer: Years back they put a pipe line through this area ,paid the people good for their mess .Some probably got more for that one spot than they gave for the whole farm . They didn't haul the land off or fence it off either . So as of today most people have no idea where that pipe is buried :sing:



So if I were to come to your house with the local sheriff you would be happy selling me something that wasn't for sale,as long as the price was good? Go put a fence on top of that pipeline and see if you still have the full use of ''your'' property.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

AmericanStand said:


> :umno:
> Most western railroads were built on land that wasn't privately owned.
> Those railroads that were built with eminent domain had to show they were the best way to serve the public.
> Isn't that what we are debating here ?


You are bad at history about the history of the RR if there were people in the way they put it to everyone in their path both coming and after being built :facepalm:


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Wanda said:


> So if I were to come to your house with the local sheriff you would be happy selling me something that wasn't for sale,as long as the price was good? Go put a fence on top of that pipeline and see if you still have the full use of ''your'' property.


Nope I never said I would be happy :hammer: But the old story about one sick clown can't stop the whole circus has always been up healed .99% of all roads were put in that very way and still are I don't like that either but I drive on them non the less , don't you :hammer:


----------



## Nevada

Sawmill Jim said:


> You always spout off about approved science this and that :sing: Did you read the part about it being diluted


I'm aware of how tar sands oil is processed.


----------



## Jim Bunton

The fact that everyone can drive on public roads is what makes them for the public use. Pipelines are built for profit not for the public use. This pipe line is worse then most in as much as it is moving product from a foreign nation to other foreign nation. Where is this being used for the public?
Jim


----------



## Allen W

Wanda said:


> So if I were to come to your house with the local sheriff you would be happy selling me something that wasn't for sale,as long as the price was good? Go put a fence on top of that pipeline and see if you still have the full use of ''your'' property.


 
I've got fences across pipelines and farm over several, try that with a set of train tracks.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Jim Bunton said:


> The fact that everyone can drive on public roads is what makes them for the public use. Pipelines are built for profit not for the public use. This pipe line is worse then most in as much as it is moving product from a foreign nation to other foreign nation. Where is this being used for the public?
> Jim


As one guy said it would create 20 jobs but TransCanada's estimate is a little different The State Departmentâs own review found that Keystone XL will generate just over 42,000 jobs both directly (employed on the project itself) and induced (as result of the economic stimulus the project will generate). We can demonstrate down to the single job, how many employees we require to build our pipelines. - See more at: http://keystone-xl.com/facts/myths-facts/#sthash.BANmSLme.dpuf 

But some wold prefer those folks just get on welfare ,then gripe about that and no jobs too.:thumb:


----------



## haley1

Why don't they build a refinery in Canada right by the tar sands to make a better product and it will be easier to pump.

How about a double walled pipeline. If it leaks the second wall will catch it plus more job creation since it will be more work to build


----------



## DEKE01

haley1 said:


> Why don't they build a refinery in Canada right by the tar sands to make a better product and it will be easier to pump.


I don't know the answer to that question, but I'll bet someone in the oil industry fully understands why they don't. I know companies sometimes make bad decisions, but you would think with all the financial and intellectual resources the oil industry has, that if they thought they could avoid the political hassles of the pipeline in a cost effective way, they would jump at the chance.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

haley1 said:


> Why don't they build a refinery in Canada right by the tar sands to make a better product and it will be easier to pump.
> 
> How about a double walled pipeline. If it leaks the second wall will catch it plus more job creation since it will be more work to build


Well if it is refined there you still stuck with a shipping problem :sing: The pipe line ends at the Gulf Coast for a reason :facepalm:


----------



## haley1

If it is refined there I would bet they could build a short pipeline to hook into exist gas pipelines, or maybe there would be less of a fight to build a pipeline as it would be lower pressure to pump thus possibly less danger?

Is it really that hard to think of solutions?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

haley1 said:


> If it is refined there I would bet they could build a short pipeline to hook into exist gas pipelines, or maybe there would be less of a fight to build a pipeline as it would be lower pressure to pump thus possibly less danger?
> 
> Is it really that hard to think of solutions?


Well it is simple if the existing pipelines went where they are needed . Some pipelines are doing all they can do now . A supper pipe line can carry most any liquid including water if needed .Ask poster Nevada about pigging a line ,i,m sure since he was in the oil field improvements have been made big time .


----------



## Ceilismom

haley1 said:


> If it is refined there I would bet they could build a short pipeline to hook into exist gas pipelines, or maybe there would be less of a fight to build a pipeline as it would be lower pressure to pump thus possibly less danger?
> 
> Is it really that hard to think of solutions?


Thinking of solutions isn't the hard part. Getting all the special interests (Not In My Backyard) to allow the solution to be implemented is the hard part. A person could die of old age before they got through all the red tape and lawsuits to build an oil refinery.


----------



## haley1

So we just make excusses instead of solving problems, that's why these guys are not getting it built. They just stamp their feet and say that is what thy need instead of thinking outside the box to solve the problem.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

haley1 said:


> So we just make excusses instead of solving problems, that's why these guys are not getting it built. They just stamp their feet and say that is what thy need instead of thinking outside the box to solve the problem.


I guess you could start a bucket brigade :thumb:


----------



## Paumon

Canada already has oil refineries. Remember that Canada is America's biggest supplier of oil and America is Canada's biggest customer, taking 99% of what Canada produces. All that oil that Canada already exports to America comes from Canadian oil refineries.

What Canada does not have is enough refineries nor the capacity to refine all of the tar sands (bitumen) into oil, and it doesn't have anywhere near the capacity to build more refineries. 

Canada has less than 20 refineries spread out in 11 provinces to accomodate Canada's own domestic needs and something like only 3 or 4 refineries are in the 2 provinces that have the tar sands. America has 212 refineries and more advanced capacity to refine bitumen into oil. So Canada needs to get the bitumen to other places like America and China who do have the resources and enough refineries to turn the bitumen into oil.

The original Keystone pipeline that has already been in operation for a few years only pumps oil that comes from Canadian refineries.

The new proposed KeystoneXL pipeline (which this topic is about) would be designed and built specifically to transport only dilbit (diluted bitumen) going south and diluent going north, but not oil.

There are no other big bitumen pipelines anywhere in North America, the Keystone XL would be the first of its kind.


----------



## haley1

Sawmill Jim said:


> I guess you could start a bucket brigade :thumb:


I hope they don't get it built, hek with that crappy tar


----------



## Sawmill Jim

haley1 said:


> I hope they don't get it built, hek with that crappy tar


Well if they go plan B don't gripe when a tanker sinks an China will be glad to get it :thumb: Maybe you can create enough jobs to make up the loss :sing:


----------



## Shrek

Transporting the asphalt consistency oil sand tar via a pipeline would be of little issue. They would simply use a version of the steam pumping that has been employed for decades to glean pump previously considered exhausted well pockets to keep the pipeline flow going.

Ironically to the chagrin of many environmentalist who rallied around the mantra that oil was not an easily renewable resource , after decades of steam pumping many of the well pockets considered exhausted began to recover with more easily refined levels of crude.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Paumon said:


> Canada already has oil refineries. Remember that Canada is America's biggest supplier of oil and America is Canada's biggest customer, taking 99% of what Canada produces. All that oil that Canada already exports to America comes from Canadian oil refineries.
> 
> What Canada does not have is enough refineries nor the capacity to refine all of the tar sands (bitumen) into oil, and it doesn't have anywhere near the capacity to build more refineries.
> 
> Canada has less than 20 refineries spread out in 11 provinces to accomodate Canada's own domestic needs and something like only 3 or 4 refineries are in the 2 provinces that have the tar sands. America has 212 refineries and more advanced capacity to refine bitumen into oil. So Canada needs to get the bitumen to other places like America and China who do have the resources and enough refineries to turn the bitumen into oil.
> 
> The original Keystone pipeline that has already been in operation for a few years only pumps oil that comes from Canadian refineries.
> 
> The new proposed KeystoneXL pipeline (which this topic is about) would be designed and built specifically to transport only dilbit (diluted bitumen) going south and diluent going north, but not oil.
> 
> There are no other big bitumen pipelines anywhere in North America, the Keystone XL would be the first of its kind.


 From what I got from TransCanada web site it would be a super pipeline .Thus it could carry different things at the same time .


----------



## Paumon

Sawmill Jim said:


> From what I got from TransCanada web site it would be a super pipeline .Thus it could carry different things at the same time .


If that's true I'd guess that would be a good thing then. More multi-purpose for the future.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Paumon said:


> If that's true I'd guess that would be a good thing then. More multi-purpose for the future.


Yep and some other oil Co's here in the states wanted to send product places too. My take on it was it would have many load and unload places As noted TransCanada don't own any of the oil they are just a shipper .


----------



## AmericanStand

AmericanStand said:


> :umno:
> Most western railroads were built on land that wasn't privately owned.
> Those railroads that were built with eminent domain had to show they were the best way to serve the public.
> Isn't that what we are debating here ?





Sawmill Jim said:


> You are bad at history about the history of the RR if there were people in the way they put it to everyone in their path both coming and after being built :facepalm:


I suppose I might be bad at history but I don't think I'm wrong.
I don't think you comprehend what I ment.
Most railroads in the west were built mostly on government land , Heck the government even gave them MORE land to build there.
*BUT* where railroads where built across private lands they either had to buy the rights or Prove public need to use eminent domain to force their way across.
Is that clearer and more to your satisfaction ?


----------



## AmericanStand

arabian knight said:


> And it is not cheaper to Train it.
> First off you have to pipe it in the rail car and then Pump it out. ALL involves PIPES and PUMPS. Which can also leak.
> KEEP it in a Pipeline all the way to its destination is better all the way around.
> And besides the Rails are SO crowded NOW it is even get gin hard to things railed around the US. There are more people in the USA than someone so concerned over Their Own Back Yard.
> Keep it inside a pipeline a free up the rail lines for other important items.
> Like COAL~!!!!


Did someone say it was cheeper?

Where do you get the Idea that the American rails are over crowded?
The reasons for slow grain movement have nothing to do with over crowed rails.
Heck if they were that would be even better! More building more jobs!


----------



## AmericanStand

*This situation is unique!*

Those that keep arguing about a pipeline being a cheaper way to move oil miss the point.
A foreign power wants to use our country to their benefit NOT OURS!
This benefits the Koch Brothers, Rich Canadians 
Not the Average US citizen.
The question is What way would benefit the USA the Most?
A pipeline that saves a few RICH Canadians money doesn't seem like the best thing for the USA to me.
If the market would bear the cost and it was safer Im all for a bucket brigade.




AmericanStand said:


> The point of the keystone isn't to move dilbit.
> I think that illustrates a lot of the problem in this discussion. We are going off on lots of tangents.
> Perhaps the OP should have titled it "What's the best way for the USA to move Canadian bitmen to US refiners. ?"


----------



## Sawmill Jim

AmericanStand said:


> I suppose I might be bad at history but I don't think I'm wrong.
> I don't think you comprehend what I ment.
> Most railroads in the west were built mostly on government land , Heck the government even gave them MORE land to build there.
> *BUT* where railroads where built across private lands they either had to buy the rights or Prove public need to use eminent domain to force their way across.
> Is that clearer and more to your satisfaction ?


Not to mention these RR ended the American Indians way of life but they didn't ever count as owners . No Government never owned anything it didn't take from someone somewhere .


----------



## Allen W

AmericanStand said:


> Did someone say it was cheeper?
> 
> Where do you get the Idea that the American rails are over crowded?
> The reasons for slow grain movement have nothing to do with over crowed rails.
> Heck if they were that would be even better! More building more jobs!


If you want to split hairs your almost right, it has to do with the cost of getting the rail cars to move grain. The price increase is from $500 to $3,000 per car. That's for access to the cars not freight. Don't for get that every thing on the railroad is done on their schedule, the rail road has to service the costumer but it is on their schedule. That cost is then deducted from the price of the grain that farmers is paid. In some places that rely on rail transport this has pushed the basis for corn to over $2.00 under the board of trade price on top of an already down market. There are places still full of earlier crops in corn country so more corn will have to be stacked on the ground.

Don't forget that if additional railroad are built eminent domain will be used if needed.


----------



## wy_white_wolf

TNHermit said:


> Part of the reason we don't have the pipeline is Buffet owns the rail roads.  probably doesn't mean anything though:grumble:


Buffet also owns pipelines and doesn't want the competition.

WWW


----------



## wy_white_wolf

AmericanStand said:


> Did someone say it was cheeper?
> 
> Where do you get the Idea that the American rails are over crowded?
> The reasons for slow grain movement have nothing to do with over crowed rails.
> Heck if they were that would be even better! More building more jobs!


Actually you are right that it is not overcrowded rails. It's a shortage of locomotives to move the additional trains. Locomotives that were used for hauling coal and grain are being put to work hauling oil where they get paid more.

WWW


----------



## arabian knight

AmericanStand said:


> Did someone say it was cheeper?
> 
> Where do you get the Idea that the American rails are over crowded?
> The reasons for slow grain movement have nothing to do with over crowed rails.
> Heck if they were that would be even better! More building more jobs!


 Who said anything about grain shipments? 
The article I posted about was COAL shipments to Power plants~ And it was talking specifically the upper midwest Where I am. And the Coal fired electric plants for yet another Cold, Long, Winter ahead NOT getting enough COAL because of Overcrowded Rail Lines.
So If there is yet another article stating slow Grain Shipments just magnifies the overcrowded Rail lines.


----------



## arabian knight

And here is yet Another article on heavy rail traffic. Slow delivery of SALT for the upcoming Harsh Winter.


> Montreal-based CN expects to have 60 new locomotives on the rails by winter, and has spent more than $110-million upgrading its busy Edmonton-Chicago corridor, adding second tracks in some areas and alternate Prairie routes that can serve as relief lines to avoid congestion.
> 
> To meet rising traffic volumes ahead of winter, CN has hired 3,500 people this year, *but is warning customers winter could mean longer waits.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> How many more articles do some of you want before realizing the railroad is not only NOT for oil transport, but is already taxed to the limit and many cases are behind in getting Supplies around this country?
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/despite-rosy-forecast-north-american-railways-brace-for-harsh-winter/article21514708/
> And as a side note: I have talked to CN railroads personally.
> My friends have coffee equipment at may of their offices and depots throughout central Wi and even into the eastern parts of WI. and have been at their places many times over the past several years.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> And here is yet Another article on heavy rail traffic. Slow delivery of SALT for the upcoming Harsh Winter.
> 
> 
> 
> Montreal-based CN expects to have 60 new locomotives on the rails by winter, and has spent more than $110-million upgrading its busy Edmonton-Chicago corridor, adding second tracks in some areas and alternate Prairie routes that can serve as relief lines to avoid congestion.
> 
> To meet rising traffic volumes ahead of winter, CN has hired 3,500 people this year, *but is warning customers winter could mean longer waits.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> How many more articles do some of you want before realizing the railroad is not only NOT for oil transport, but is already taxed to the limit and many cases are behind in getting Supplies around this country?
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/despite-rosy-forecast-north-american-railways-brace-for-harsh-winter/article21514708/
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a lot of new locomotives and rail cars need to be built. Might be a new job or two there along with people needed to operate and maintain them. All without forcing any of the 100 or so Nebraska landowners who haven't signed up yet to allow someone else to use their land.
Click to expand...


----------



## Paumon

CN is a Canadian railway that services all of Canada but just a very narrow strip of mid-east USA going from north to south so I don't think CN qualifies as an appropriate example to use when discussing rail transportation of goods throughout USA. 

What is the state of affairs of all the American owned railways operating in America?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Paumon said:


> CN is a Canadian railway that services all of Canada but just a very narrow strip of mid-east USA going from north to south so I don't think CN qualifies as an appropriate example to use when discussing rail transportation of goods throughout USA.
> 
> What is the state of affairs of all the American owned railways operating in America?


Probably near out of business C&N has lots of rail yards near here as does Stella Jones another Canadian Co. it is a tie treatment Co. Most RR in the states became known for lousy service and surviving on Gov handouts . I think C&N bought a lot of them out . They maybe the only Co that knows how to run a RR left :sing:


----------



## 7thswan

We should build it because Obama dosen't want it-that in it's self means it would be good for the US.


----------



## Allen W

Paumon said:


> CN is a Canadian railway that services all of Canada but just a very narrow strip of mid-east USA going from north to south so I don't think CN qualifies as an appropriate example to use when discussing rail transportation of goods throughout USA.
> 
> What is the state of affairs of all the American owned railways operating in America?


They actually built another set of tracks next to an existing set here to alleviate congestion. Several lines have been closed and dismantle here in the last twenty years, one piece was bought by an area elevator and they operate it for their own use basically.


----------



## Paumon

AmericanStand said:


> This situation is unique!
> 
> Those that keep arguing about a pipeline being a cheaper way to move oil miss the point.
> A foreign power wants to use our country to their benefit NOT OURS!
> This benefits the Koch Brothers, Rich Canadians
> Not the Average US citizen.
> The question is What way would benefit the USA the Most?
> A pipeline that saves a few RICH Canadians money doesn't seem like the best thing for the USA to me.
> If the market would bear the cost and it was safer Im all for a bucket brigade.


I think you're not looking at the big picture here. It reminds me a bit of what I heard your president Obama say on the news broadcasts this week which really annoyed me, and I know it shocked and annoyed the hell out of the Canadian government to hear him say something so two-faced and deceptive. 

He said that the KeystoneXL would be using American land to transport oil that would be getting sold to foreign countries and that the only people who would benefit from it would be Canada and other foreign countries with no benefit to USA. It wasn't an outright lie but it was definitely deception through witholding of information because it wasn't the entire truth, which is that America would also profit by buying some of that oil, refining it and selling it back to Canada and to other countries. 

The message I was getting from him is that it's perfectly okay if America monopolizes Canadian oil and profits from the 99% of all the oil that Canada produces but it's not okay to cooperate if Canada wants to sell additional product to other countries. In other words, he's saying America needs to keep Canada pinned down under the American thumb and only be able to provide oil to America and prevent Canada from expanding, prospering and getting ahead in the world.

Now I'm not condoning or condemning the building of the KeystoneXL but I would like to know what suddenly happened to friendly cooperation between the two nations that have historically had the world's greatest and most successful partnership and alliance for over 100 years? Why the dog in a manger change of attitude towards America's best sibling, friend and neighbour who suddenly is getting referred to and treated as a FOREIGN STRANGER of no worth?

Canada, by comparison with America, is a small country with an economy that doesn't come close to approaching the superior economy of a super power like America. Why would Obama and other people who think like him want to keep Canada down and not see it get ahead and prosper, when it can only benefit America, not hurt it, if Canada prospers?

I'm am not comprehending the double standard and hypocrisy. Frankly, this kind of dog in a manger attitude is the type of thing that would make more hot-headed people want to retaliate by cutting America off entirely from it's biggest and friendliest supplier of oil and let it sink or swim. I think it's a good thing for America right now that Canadian government is not hot-headed.


----------



## Paumon

Just for the record, my own personal opinion is that the Keystone XL should not be built. It's not because I don't want to see employment created for Americans and it's not because I don't want to see America profiting from additional Canadian oil. It's because I don't like the tar sands and what it is doing to Canada. I think the tar sands should be shut down and not export oil to any other country, it should be held in reserve for Canada's future and only take the minimal amount that Canada needs for its own domestic use.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Just for the record, my own personal opinion is that the Keystone XL should not be built. It's not because I don't want to see employment created for Americans and it's not because I don't want to see America profiting from additional Canadian oil. It's because I don't like the tar sands and what it is doing to Canada. I think the tar sands should be shut down and not export oil to any other country, it should be held in reserve for Canada's future and only take the minimal amount that Canada needs for its own domestic use.


I understand your sentiments. There are a few people in the US who have said for years that we should not pump US oil because we should use all the Saudi, Venezuelan, etc oil until it is gone and then the US will have a hugely more valuable asset. 

I also understand the flip side of the argument that cheap energy now grows the economy for the benefit of all. It's a gamble either way. 

If we don't find a new energy form or technologies that dramatically reduce the need for oil, there will be a day when fighting over what ever oil remains will make the Iraqi war look like a picnic. I believe the new technologies will come when the economics justify it. But that is another gamble.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> I think you're not looking at the big picture here. It reminds me a bit of what I heard your president Obama say on the news broadcasts this week which really annoyed me, and I know it shocked and annoyed the hell out of the Canadian government to hear him say something so two-faced and deceptive.
> 
> He said that the KeystoneXL would be using American land to transport oil that would be getting sold to foreign countries and that the only people who would benefit from it would be Canada and other foreign countries with no benefit to USA. It wasn't an outright lie but it was definitely deception through witholding of information because it wasn't the entire truth, which is that America would also profit by buying some of that oil, refining it and selling it back to Canada and to other countries.
> 
> The message I was getting from him is that it's perfectly okay if America monopolizes Canadian oil and profits from the 99% of all the oil that Canada produces but it's not okay to cooperate if Canada wants to sell additional product to other countries. In other words, he's saying America needs to keep Canada pinned down under the American thumb and only be able to provide oil to America and prevent Canada from expanding, prospering and getting ahead in the world.
> 
> *Now I'm not condoning or condemning the building of the KeystoneXL but I would like to know what suddenly happened to friendly cooperation between the two nations that have historically had the world's greatest and most successful partnership and alliance for over 100 years? *Why the dog in a manger change of attitude towards America's best sibling, friend and neighbour who suddenly is getting referred to and treated as a FOREIGN STRANGER of no worth?
> 
> Canada, by comparison with America, is a small country with an economy that doesn't come close to approaching the superior economy of a super power like America. Why would Obama and other people who think like him want to keep Canada down and not see it get ahead and prosper, when it can only benefit America, not hurt it, if Canada prospers?
> 
> I'm am not comprehending the double standard and hypocrisy. Frankly, this kind of dog in a manger attitude is the type of thing that would make more hot-headed people want to retaliate by cutting America off entirely from it's biggest and friendliest supplier of oil and let it sink or swim. I think it's a good thing for America right now that Canadian government is not hot-headed.



Amen! Canada and USA have ONE economy. In most cases, what is good for one is good for the other. We are allies and neighbors like the world has rarely seen and in size, like the world has never seen previously. I might bicker with my Canuckian friends in HT from time to time, but our leaders should never treat our national BFFs with such disdain. 

Obama can hardly find a bad word to say about Russia or China or Muslim extremists, but he has no problem treating our friends with contempt.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Paumon said:


> Just for the record, my own personal opinion is that the Keystone XL should not be built. It's not because I don't want to see employment created for Americans and it's not because I don't want to see America profiting from additional Canadian oil. It's because I don't like the tar sands and what it is doing to Canada. I think the tar sands should be shut down and not export oil to any other country, it should be held in reserve for Canada's future and only take the minimal amount that Canada needs for its own domestic use.


I can see your point :thumb: Thing is does Canada have enough refineries without out side refining .Next what would the economy of Canada be without the tar sand jobs and it's support systems .Just one those monster machines used in the tar sands would cost enough to burn a wet mule on a windy day . 

Now as to O insulting Canada he only insults non Muslim countries . He also forgets that a lot of those pipes for that pipeline will be made and sold in the US .

Also if Canada and the US ever got in a real peing contest I think Canada would be in a real hurt fast . Already TransCanada and Stella Jones have large holdings in the US way more than most realize and that is just two Co's 

If the politicians would get out of the way the US wouldn't need anyone else's oil not sure they do now . Go read TransCanads web site it tells why Canada don;t do all their own processing :thumb:


----------



## AmericanStand

Canada has never shown itself to be a friend of the USA Its simply happy to use the US when its to its own benefit then forget its obligations when its not convenient to them.


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Canada has never shown itself to be a friend of the USA Its simply happy to use the US when its to its own benefit then forget its obligations when its not convenient to them.


NAFTA, NATO, ALCAN Hwy, WW2, rescue of diplomats during the Iranian hostage crisis, Ford's Windsor 351 and too many cross border economic mutually beneficial products and services to list since we form the world's largest trading block. Every time Canada buys US made war planes, it helps lower the costs of production for the USAF.

Your statement really is terribly wrong. Yeah, lots of stuff Canada does with the US benefits Canada. That goes both ways.


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> NAFTA, NATO, ALCAN Hwy, WW2, rescue of diplomats during the Iranian hostage crisis, Ford's Windsor 351 and too many cross border economic mutually beneficial products and services to list since we form the world's largest trading block. Every time Canada buys US made war planes, it helps lower the costs of production for the USAF.
> 
> Your statement really is terribly wrong. Yeah, lots of stuff Canada does with the US benefits Canada. That goes both ways.


Sure they do stuff when it benefits them but as soon as they feel like it they just ignore their obligations, heck just look at the things you listed.

We already built the Alcan so now that they have it they don't feel ANY need to live up to their side of the deal.


----------



## mmoetc

It appears that the cost of extraction for coal sands oil is in the $40-$50/bbl range. It may be that making this cheaper oil more readily available to southern refineries might have a detrimental impact on future oil development here and may negatively impact jobs there.


----------



## arabian knight

AH yes who said that Obama might want to cut some deal now that Keystone is back up? And now a little blackmail might be in the works to get Obama's so called carbon tax passed.


> U.S. President Barack Obama might be open to using the Keystone pipeline as leverage with Republicans if they co-operate on other aspects of his long-stalled domestic agenda, such as investing in infrastructure, closing tax loopholes or reducing carbon emissions.


 Yes Obama is now showing his hand on this Pipeline stuff.
It has NOTHING to do with green folks or ecology minded, Nope not at all it was and IS about POLITICS. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/keystone-could-obama-be-ready-to-cut-a-deal-with-republicans/article21646748/


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> It appears that the cost of extraction for coal sands oil is in the $40-$50/bbl range. It may be that making this cheaper oil more readily available to southern refineries might have a detrimental impact on future oil development here and may negatively impact jobs there.


Not cheaper!
That's the cost of extraction add the extra cost of refining this and the lower value of the products then subtract that from the cost of a barrel of LSWTC and you get the PROFIT for the owners.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> I think you're not looking at the big picture here. It reminds me a bit of what I heard your president Obama say on the news broadcasts this week which really annoyed me, and I know it shocked and annoyed the hell out of the Canadian government to hear him say something so two-faced and deceptive.
> 
> He said that the KeystoneXL would be using American land to transport oil that would be getting sold to foreign countries and that the only people who would benefit from it would be Canada and other foreign countries with no benefit to USA. It wasn't an outright lie but it was definitely deception through witholding of information because it wasn't the entire truth, which is that America would also profit by buying some of that oil, refining it and selling it back to Canada and to other countries.
> 
> The message I was getting from him is that it's perfectly okay if America monopolizes Canadian oil and profits from the 99% of all the oil that Canada produces but it's not okay to cooperate if Canada wants to sell additional product to other countries. In other words, he's saying America needs to keep Canada pinned down under the American thumb and only be able to provide oil to America and prevent Canada from expanding, prospering and getting ahead in the world.
> 
> Now I'm not condoning or condemning the building of the KeystoneXL but I would like to know what suddenly happened to friendly cooperation between the two nations that have historically had the world's greatest and most successful partnership and alliance for over 100 years? Why the dog in a manger change of attitude towards America's best sibling, friend and neighbour who suddenly is getting referred to and treated as a FOREIGN STRANGER of no worth?
> 
> Canada, by comparison with America, is a small country with an economy that doesn't come close to approaching the superior economy of a super power like America. Why would Obama and other people who think like him want to keep Canada down and not see it get ahead and prosper, when it can only benefit America, not hurt it, if Canada prospers?
> 
> I'm am not comprehending the double standard and hypocrisy. Frankly, this kind of dog in a manger attitude is the type of thing that would make more hot-headed people want to retaliate by cutting America off entirely from it's biggest and friendliest supplier of oil and let it sink or swim. I think it's a good thing for America right now that Canadian government is not hot-headed.


Don't take it personally. It's just USA-centered environmental populism. You won't hear it much from Obama because he's not a fan of American exceptionalism, but when it serves his purposes he'll try to appeal to an "us versus them" mentality. He probably didn't even consider the fact that the "them" is our friend because he doesn't care.


----------



## Oxankle

Don't take him seriously. He's a proven liar, and he may not even be an American. Certainly it appears his social security number was stolen from a dead man.

I've said since he became a candidate that he was the Manchurian Candidate revisited.
Ox


----------



## winemaker

I load chemical barges and railcars in a chemical plant for a living. The possibility of shipping that much tar sand by any other way than pipeline is impossible. The pipeline can handle 830,000 barrels per day.

830,000 x 42 gal is 34,860,000 gal per day

A rail car holds around 15,000. The cars they would use would have to be heater cars which are heavier because of the insulation. Upon arrival at the refinery they would have to be heated back up to off load. The process of heating takes about 48 hours to heat the dilbit back up. It would also take 2,324 cars a day to haul that much material. The rail yard at the refinery would have to have room to plug in 7000 cars, with 3 heaters in each car pulling 150 amps per heater. It takes 1 man 2 hours to load a car and prep for shipping. 

Now the barge, only barges with heaters could be used for transportation of dilbit. A barge holds 30,000 barrels, 1,260,000 gallons. Largere barges cant be used because of the lock and dams on the rivers. So that is 28 barges a day. It takes 2 people about 14 hours to load a barge. I would guess its a 10 day trip to the gulf from canada, if there is a way. That would be 560 barges and tugs to haul that much.


----------



## unregistered353870

Good to see info from somebody who actually has first hand knowledge instead of people who just yell "trains trains trains" as if that's somehow a solution.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Good to see info from somebody who actually has first hand knowledge instead of people who just yell "trains trains trains" as if that's somehow a solution.


Yeah, as if anyone around here cares about my oil experience.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Yeah, as if anyone around here cares about my oil experience.


I do. I think I've even asked for your professional opinion occasionally. But your experience isn't in transporting oil, is it?


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> I do. I think I've even asked for your professional opinion occasionally. But your experience isn't in transporting oil, is it?


Most of my experience is in refining, but I've also done production and transportation. I was in the oil business for 24 years.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Most of my experience is in refining, but I've also done production and transportation. I was in the oil business for 24 years.


Good to know. I thought it was just refining. Is any of your transportation experience with rail transport, or all pipeline, or other (I don't know what else there is) stuff?


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> Not cheaper!
> That's the cost of extraction add the extra cost of refining this and the lower value of the products then subtract that from the cost of a barrel of LSWTC and you get the PROFIT for the owners.


Here's some info on the cost of production and profitability of various formations in the current market. My understanding is that the cost of Canadian tar sands is below the cost of frakking and directional drilling in many cases. If that is the case, does it make economic sense for our country to facilitate cheaper oil getting to refineries and markets at the expense of oil field jobs here? Oil production has always been driven by the market. Back in 70's I had a lab partner whose family was involved in the oil business in southern Illinois. He told me he could pretty accurately predict the price of oil on any given day by seeing how many of the small wells were operating their pumps on any given day. The same dynamics exist today. If prices fall far enough many of those operations in the Dakotas and elsewhere will shut down awaiting higher prices. Bringing cheaper, Canadian oil to market probably doesn't help our domestic oil production though I'm personally happy to see lower gas prices.


----------



## AmericanStand

jtbrandt said:


> Good to see info from somebody who actually has first hand knowledge instead of people who just yell "trains trains trains" as if that's somehow a solution.





winemaker said:


> I load chemical barges and railcars in a chemical plant for a living. The possibility of shipping that much tar sand by any other way than pipeline is impossible. .


Yes it is but you have to guard against the assumption of the status quo.
I called a friend whos son is a leading petro chemical engineer she had him give me a call so I could ask him about the quoted post.
After he read it he pointed out the while it could be done the way the poster suggest that he would never design it that way .




winemaker said:


> The pipeline can handle 830,000 barrels per day.
> 
> 830,000 x 42 gal is 34,860,000 gal per day
> 
> A rail car holds around 15,000. The cars they would use would have to be heater cars which are heavier because of the insulation. Upon arrival at the refinery they would have to be heated back up to off load. The process of heating takes about 48 hours to heat the dilbit back up. It would also take 2,324 cars a day to haul that much material. The rail yard at the refinery would have to have room to plug in 7000 cars, with 3 heaters in each car pulling 150 amps per heater. It takes 1 man 2 hours to load a car and prep for shipping.
> 
> Now the barge, only barges with heaters could be used for transportation of dilbit. A barge holds 30,000 barrels, 1,260,000 gallons. Largere barges cant be used because of the lock and dams on the rivers. So that is 28 barges a day. It takes 2 people about 14 hours to load a barge. I would guess its a 10 day trip to the gulf from canada, if there is a way. That would be 560 barges and tugs to haul that much.


While a railcar of standard design holds about 500 barrels you don't need 1660 cars to haul a days production since dilbit is only about half tar the tar it self would need just over 800 cars.
And while it might take hours to heat a car entire trains can be heated at once.
He pointed out to me that he would rather heat less product not entire cars so he would design for rotary dumping and only have to heat the product in contact with the car surface to let it release Or use air pressure to POP the product out , lots of ways to go there car linings etc. but hes pretty sure it should be as fast as coal unloading in the end.

Works out to about 6 trains a day.


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> I called a friend whos son is a leading petro chemical engineer she had him give me a call so I could ask him about the quoted post.


So why didn't you ask me?


----------



## plowjockey

It almost seems like an act of desperation, to create a permanent customer, for a product, that will likely be highly undesirable in the future.

Expensive to produce, expensive to transport and creates more greenhouse gases in mining, transportation and finishing.

Now that our own oil U.S. industries are once again, flying high, not sure why we are still cheering for an endless supply of "imported oil" 

The old "if we don't get it, China will" mantra, really no longer flies, either.



> China more than tripled natural gas production since 2003, producing 3.8 tcf in 2012, and the government is targeting production to reach about 5.5 tcf/year of gas by the end of 2015, according to a recent analysis from the US Energy Information Administration.
> 
> 
> China is attempting to use more natural gas to reduce air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, which are largely caused by coal and oil usage for energy. Underpinned by large investments in domestic gas production and infrastructure, along with growing imports, the Chinese government anticipates increasing its gas share of total energy consumption to around 8% by yearend 2015 and to 10% by 2020. In 2012, natural gas accounted for only 4.9% of China&#8217;s total energy consumption.


http://www.ogj.com/articles/2014/08/eia-china-to-increase-natural-gas-consumption-investment.html


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Yes it is but you have to guard against the assumption of the status quo.
> I called a friend whos son is a leading petro chemical engineer she had him give me a call so I could ask him about the quoted post.
> After he read it he pointed out the while it could be done the way the poster suggest that he would never design it that way .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While a railcar of standard  design holds about 500 barrels you don't need 1660 cars to haul a days production since dilbit is only about half tar the tar it self would need just over 800 cars.
> And while it might take hours to heat a car entire trains can be heated at once.
> He pointed out to me that he would rather heat less product not entire cars so he would design for rotary dumping and only have to heat the product in contact with the car surface to let it release Or use air pressure to POP the product out , lots of ways to go there car linings etc. but hes pretty sure it should be as fast as coal unloading in the end.
> 
> Works out to about 6 trains a day.


So tell us. If there is a better way to move the oil, in all the years the industry has had to contemplate this, why do you believe they still want to build the pipeline? Because it is fun? Is it part of a grand plot of world dominion? Because they like dealing with the politics? Or perhaps, they think it is the best solution by a wide enough amount that they spend millions to deal with those with a limited knowledge who fight this?


----------



## Oxankle

It is a pointless argument. The people have voted. Come January we will have veto overrides in both houses.

Hide and wait.


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> So tell us. If there is a better way to move the oil, in all the years the industry has had to contemplate this, why do you believe they still want to build the pipeline? Because it is fun? Is it part of a grand plot of world dominion? Because they like dealing with the politics? Or perhaps, they think it is the best solution by a wide enough amount that they spend millions to deal with those with a limited knowledge who fight this?


Oil companies don't care how many rail cars or barges it might take, or even how labor intensive it might be. None of that matters to them. All they care about is how much it's going to cost them, and pipeline is the least expensive.

My only objection to the project is that they still haven't developed technology to deal with spills. Develop that technology and we'll talk.


----------



## plowjockey

Nevada said:


> My only objection to the project is that they still haven't developed technology to deal with spills. Develop that technology and we'll talk.


This seems to be a moot point, at least IMO.

The TransAlaska pipeline has been in operation for 30 years with nearly no mishaps.

Pressure sensors will shut a leaking pipeline down in seconds.

They spilled _11 million gallons_ of heavy crude in Alaska. Pretty messy, but eventually got it all cleaned up.

Environmental impact is just another political ploy, IMO. We have *2.5 million miles of pipelines* in the U.S. some 70 years old. 

Leaks have not really been a big problem.


----------



## Nevada

plowjockey said:


> This seems to be a moot point, at least IMO.
> 
> The TransAlaska pipeline has been in operation for 30 years with nearly no mishaps.
> 
> Pressure sensors will shut a leaking pipeline down in seconds.
> 
> They spilled _11 million gallons_ of heavy crude in Alaska. Pretty messy, but eventually got it all cleaned up.
> 
> Environmental impact is just another political ploy, IMO. We have *2.5 million miles of pipelines* in the U.S. some 70 years old.
> 
> Leaks have not really been a big problem.


They know how to deal with North Slope crude spills. Tar sands oil is a different animal.

http://grist.org/news/no-one-knows-how-to-stop-these-tar-sands-oil-spills/


----------



## plowjockey

Nevada said:


> They know how to deal with North Slope crude spills. Tar sands oil is a different animal.
> 
> http://grist.org/news/no-one-knows-how-to-stop-these-tar-sands-oil-spills/


I read the article.



> This is a new kind of oil spill and there is no &#8216;off button,&#8217;&#8221; said Keith Stewart, an energy analyst with Greenpeace who teaches a course on energy policy and environment at the University of Toronto. &#8220;*You can&#8217;t cap it like a conventional oil well or turn off a valve on a pipeline.*


It not even the same thing. Coming up through the ground would certainly be harder to clean up. Plus, they are not even trying.


----------



## Nevada

plowjockey said:


> I read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> It not even the same thing


Wrong article. The problem with tar sands oil is that it has surface properties that make it resistant to conventional oil clean up. Here's a better article.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...-sands-Alberta-Kalamazoo-Keystone-XL-Enbridge


----------



## Nevada

plowjockey said:


> They spilled _11 million gallons_ of heavy crude in Alaska. Pretty messy, but eventually got it all cleaned up.
> 
> Environmental impact is just another political ploy, IMO. We have *2.5 million miles of pipelines* in the U.S. some 70 years old.


Like the deep water Horizon spill, they sank a lot of oil in Alaska with surfactant. What that basically entails is dropping detergent from aircraft onto the spill, so the oil goes into the water. That oil eventually sinks. It's perhaps out of sight and out of mind, but it's hardly cleaned up.

Oil companies get away with it because they pay off fishermen, paying them for the fish they'll never catch.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> Oil companies don't care how many rail cars or barges it might take, or even how labor intensive it might be. None of that matters to them. All they care about is how much it's going to cost them, and pipeline is the least expensive.
> 
> My only objection to the project is that they still haven't developed technology to deal with spills. Develop that technology and we'll talk.


Your first parag is exactly right. So all the debate in this thread about there being better economic solutions, is nonsense. 

In the minds of the radical environmentalists, there is no use of hydrocarbons justified by the enviro risks. But as Plowjockey and many others have pointed out, we have decades of history to prove that pipelines are not infallible but are the safest means we have to move oil. 

The left likes to say climate skeptics refuse to believe the science. Here we have a case of the lefties refusing to believe much more easily verified science.


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> we have decades of history to prove that pipelines are not infallible but are the safest means we have to move oil.


Pipeline experience, yes, but not with tar sands oil.


----------



## unregistered353870

If spills don't happen, then cleaning up spills shouldn't be a huge concern. Obviously spills do happen, but how much do they happen? Is it more than trains would spill?

And here's a question for your expertise, Nevada...you say the properties of this particular oil make it more difficult to clean up. Would those properties possibly also make it less harmful? Is it thicker (probably not the right word) and therefore won't spread as rapidly?

I really have no idea about this stuff so I don't even know the right questions to ask to get at the information I'm curious about. Maybe I need to study up on it.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> And here's a question for your expertise, Nevada...you say the properties of this particular oil make it more difficult to clean up. Would those properties possibly also make it less harmful? Is it thicker (probably not the right word) and therefore won't spread as rapidly?


It's really think and nasty. There was a spill in a residential area in Arkansas and they bought the homes near the spill.


----------



## AmericanStand

Nevada said:


> So why didn't you ask me?


Cause I couldn't find your number? LOL


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> So tell us. If there is a better way to move the oil, in all the years the industry has had to contemplate this, why do you believe they still want to build the pipeline? Because it is fun? Is it part of a grand plot of world dominion? Because they like dealing with the politics? Or perhaps, they think it is the best solution by a wide enough amount that they spend millions to deal with those with a limited knowledge who fight this?


Why do we keep going back to this. 
The thing bout using pipelines is they are cheeper .
But that's only better for the Koch brothers.
what I think the OP set out to explore was is that enough to be the best thing for the USA .


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Why do we keep going back to this.
> The thing bout using pipelines is they are cheeper .
> But that's only better for the Koch brothers.
> what I think the OP set out to explore was is that enough to be the best thing for the USA .


we keep gong back to that question because you and others eep trying to argue otherwise. 

The pipeline is cheaper, safer, produces less emissions. Sounds like the right way to do it.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> It's really think and nasty. There was a spill in a residential area in Arkansas and they bought the homes near the spill.


Where did it spill from? How much spilled? How far did it reach from the point of origin of the spill?


----------



## Oxankle

"It's really think and nasty. There was a spill in a residential area in Arkansas and they bought the homes near the spill."

Nevada; a matter of dollars and cents. If ANY pipeline bursts near a home (it ain't-a-gonna-happen because they run the piplines in undeveloped areas) it spreads oil onto the home itself. Buying out at a premium price is cheaper than trying to clean it up so that it is again liveable. You cannot clean out a basement so that no oil smell or trace remains. 

If I'm not mistaken you are referring to the train wreck that happened in town somewhere near here. Buy, let the people go get a better home away from the tracks.


----------



## arabian knight

ANd if that oil was not on a train it would have been a safer travel inside a PIPE. Pipes don't Derail.


----------



## DEKE01

In northern VA, just outside DC, there is a neighborhood downhill from a oil storage tank farm. In the 1980s, a tank leaked millions of gallons into the soil. Here's a not very friendly description. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/11474/crude-awakening

>>>>>>>
Crude Awakening 
A big oil company bleeds an estimated 4 million gallons of oil into the soil of Mantua, a rich residential community in Fairfax County. You might expect Mantua residents to scream bloody murder, but they're barely making a peep. After all, property values are at stake.
>>>>>>>>

What does this tell us? Oil is a dirty business. Bad things happen. It is part of the price we pay to drive, heat our homes, and store leftovers in plastic containers. 

I almost bought a home in that neighborhood in 2001. It had and still has the best school, nicest public park amenities, best roads in the area. All paid for by the offending oil company. It was a great recovery. 

Bad things are going to happen no matter how the tar sand oil is moved and used. So we either need to decide to park our cars, and chop wood to heat our homes, and store leftovers in tin cans, or deal with a pipeline which is the proven safest way to move oil.


----------



## AmericanStand

Oxankle said:


> If ANY pipeline bursts near a home (it ain't-a-gonna-happen because they run the piplines in undeveloped areas) it spreads oil onto the home itself. Buying out at a premium price is cheaper than trying to clean it up so that it is again liveable. You cannot clean out a basement so that no oil smell or trace remains. .


Embridge was planning on building a 42 high pressure line *Through *a house near here.:yuck:

Now its much better since the have decided they only need a 24 inch line and can go UNDER the house. :facepalm:


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> The pipeline is cheaper, *safer,* produces less emissions. Sounds like the right way to do it.


That seems to be very debatable since the pipeline concept means TWO pipelines one with Dilbit and one with Dilutant. BOTH far more dangerous than regular crude oil. Tar on the other hand When shipped by rail is both the consistency of cold peanut butter and just about as dangerous.


DEKE01 said:


> The pipeline is *cheaper*, safer,[produces less emissions. Sounds like the right way to do it.


Cheaper for rich Canadians. not for the USA.


DEKE01 said:


> The pipeline is cheaper, safer, produces *less emissions.* Sounds like the right way to do it.


I suspect the part about emissions is correct.

So in the end it looks to me like you are willing to trade less emissions for American jobs.
Not a position I expected you to take.

Any Idea of the amount of emissionsavings we are talking about?


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> That seems to be very debatable since the pipeline concept means TWO pipelines one with Dilbit and one with Dilutant. BOTH far more dangerous than regular crude oil. Tar on the other hand When shipped by rail is both the consistency of cold peanut butter and just about as dangerous.
> 
> Cheaper for rich Canadians. not for the USA.
> 
> I suspect the part about emissions is correct.
> 
> So in the end it looks to me like you are willing to trade less emissions for American jobs.
> Not a position I expected you to take.
> 
> Any Idea of the amount of emissionsavings we are talking about?


All that has been covered before, repeatedly. You want to produce more jobs by forcing the company to do things less efficiently and by more dangerous processes. When the US needed construction jobs to fight the recession, your side was willing to stall using bogus claims as has been shown by many studies.


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> All that has been covered before, repeatedly. You want to produce more jobs by forcing the company to do things less efficiently


Well DUH!




DEKE01 said:


> .
> and by more dangerous processes. .


Nope I don't think so.

So its A win-win for the USA !


----------



## Nevada

Oxankle said:


> "It's really think and nasty. There was a spill in a residential area in Arkansas and they bought the homes near the spill."
> 
> Nevada; a matter of dollars and cents. If ANY pipeline bursts near a home (it ain't-a-gonna-happen because they run the piplines in undeveloped areas) it spreads oil onto the home itself. Buying out at a premium price is cheaper than trying to clean it up so that it is again liveable. You cannot clean out a basement so that no oil smell or trace remains.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken you are referring to the train wreck that happened in town somewhere near here. Buy, let the people go get a better home away from the tracks.


No, it was a pipeline spill. I was referring to the Mayflower spill last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Well DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I don't think so.
> 
> So its A win-win for the USA !


I find it amazing you are so proud of that answer. And it is a lose-lose. 

forcing companies to do things inefficiently is what gave us over priced, lousy cars during the 80s. Again I ask you. If you just want to create jobs, why not give the workers two 5-gal pails and have them walk the oil to the gulf? Any spill will be small and easily cleaned up and you'll create many times more jobs. 

If a little inefficiency is good, a lot should be even better! :yuck: :hammer:


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Pipeline experience, yes, but not with tar sands oil.


What is the difference in how regular oil and tar sands oil are transported in pipelines? I know there has been a lot posted in the thread, but I'm looking specifically to your expertise.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> What is the difference in how regular oil and tar sands oil are transported in pipelines? I know there has been a lot posted in the thread, but I'm looking specifically to your expertise.


Transporting is the same. The problem is in dealing with spills.


----------



## unregistered353870

That's what I thought. So if we just did a better job of not spilling it, it should make no difference...but that's a big if.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> That's what I thought. So if we just did a better job of not spilling it, it should make no difference...but that's a big if.


Yeah, counting on having no spills isn't what I'd call a comprehensive strategy. They tried that with deep water drilling and you saw what happened.


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> I find it amazing you are so proud of that answer. And it is a lose-lose.
> 
> forcing companies to do things inefficiently is what gave us over priced, lousy cars during the 80s. Again I ask you. If you just want to create jobs, why not give the workers two 5-gal pails and have them walk the oil to the gulf? Any spill will be small and easily cleaned up and you'll create many times more jobs.
> 
> If a little inefficiency is good, a lot should be even better! :yuck: :hammer:


What some here don't seem to get is this is a VERY unusual situation.
No matter how much it costs to haul this oil it wont effect either the cost of oil in the USA OR the profits paid to Americans.
And unless the cost of hauling goes above what the market will bare it wont effect any refinery jobs.
So this is a case where we want to maximize the profits to the USA in cash and safety.


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> What some here don't seem to get is this is a VERY unusual situation.
> No matter how much it costs to haul this oil it wont effect either the cost of oil in the USA OR the profits paid to Americans.
> And unless the cost of hauling goes above what the market will bare it wont effect any refinery jobs.
> So this is a case where we want to maximize the profits to the USA in cash and safety.


wrong, wrong, and wrong. But you seem to have it out for Canada, so it is no wonder you think that way.

what big gov't types don't seem to get is that when you give the gov't enough power to jerk around your neighbor, you give the gov't enough power to jerk round you. Once the safety issue has been addressed, which has been done many times over no matter what you say, the gov't needs to get out of the way.


----------



## AmericanStand

Hows it wrong?


----------



## Oxankle

AmericanStand?????

Where in the devil do you get your information????? The oil will flow to Gulf Coast refineries and ports. Those refineries will refine the oil and pass it on to buyers wherever there is a purchaser. Hundreds of men will work in those refineries. Calumet has just BOUGHT a refinery in Corpus Christi, to handle oil that will NOT be going farther East because of the Keystone. 

Anyone who thinks this pipeline will not help Americans is absent his senses. There will be thousands of spin-off jobs. Men in the ports loading tankers, right of way maintenance crews, pump station crews. 

Think back to your basic economics; every dollar put into an economy has a multiplier effect. Let's say you hire a hundred men. Fifty of them will have a wife. Those fifty will have 2.38 kids each. The hundred must be fed, clothed, housed. The kids must be schooled. There must be a doctor, dentist, chiropractor, shoemaker, etc, etc, etc for all of them, men, women and children.

Somehow I get the idea that this thread has some politically motivated nay-sayers hanging onto it.


----------



## Wanda

Oxankle said:


> AmericanStand?????
> 
> Where in the devil do you get your information????? The oil will flow to Gulf Coast refineries and ports. Those refineries will refine the oil and pass it on to buyers wherever there is a purchaser. Hundreds of men will work in those refineries. Calumet has just BOUGHT a refinery in Corpus Christi, to handle oil that will NOT be going farther East because of the Keystone.
> 
> Anyone who thinks this pipeline will not help Americans is absent his senses. There will be thousands of spin-off jobs. Men in the ports loading tankers, right of way maintenance crews, pump station crews.
> 
> Think back to your basic economics; every dollar put into an economy has a multiplier effect. Let's say you hire a hundred men. Fifty of them will have a wife. Those fifty will have 2.38 kids each. The hundred must be fed, clothed, housed. The kids must be schooled. There must be a doctor, dentist, chiropractor, shoemaker, etc, etc, etc for all of them, men, women and children.
> 
> Somehow I get the idea that this thread has some politically motivated nay-sayers hanging onto it.



Sounds good in theory but I would venture to say the mans wife and kids were eating before the pipeline job.:facepalm:


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Wanda said:


> Sounds good in theory but I would venture to say the mans wife and kids were eating before the pipeline job.:facepalm:


Yea gruel :thumb: Lot of pipe welders make big big bucks . Also my understanding a lot of the pipe would be coming from Arkansas :sing:

But that is ok China can employ several building tankers to ship it there . China and Canada are now trading using their own money anyway aren't they :sing:.


----------



## DEKE01

Wanda said:


> Sounds good in theory but I would venture to say the mans wife and kids were eating before the pipeline job.:facepalm:


Really?!? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Why bother with jobs at all? Who needs to work? Let the gov't buy everyone food. That should do it.


----------



## AmericanStand

Oxankle said:


> AmericanStand?????
> 
> Where in the devil do you get your information????? The oil will flow to Gulf Coast refineries and ports. Those refineries will refine the oil and pass it on to buyers wherever there is a purchaser. .


Where do you get your info? Its my understanding that oil will ALL pass on offshore.



Oxankle said:


> Hundreds of men will work in those refineries. Calumet has just BOUGHT a refinery in Corpus Christi, to handle oil that will NOT be going farther East because of the Keystone.
> 
> Anyone who thinks this pipeline will not help Americans is absent his senses. There will be thousands of spin-off jobs. Men in the ports loading tankers,. right of way maintenance crews, .


And how are any of those dependent on a pipeline?


And if you are concerned about jobs why don't you want the oil carried by rail where there would be more jobs than in a pipeline?


----------



## AmericanStand

DEKE01 said:


> Really?!? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
> 
> Why bother with jobs at all? Who needs to work? Let the gov't buy everyone food. That should do it.


Wait a minute You are now in favor of jobs? Here all this time I thought you wanted to eliminate jobs to make a few rich Canadians richer?
Are you playing both sides?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

AmericanStand said:


> Where do you get your info? Its my understanding that oil will ALL pass on offshore.
> 
> 
> 
> And how are any of those dependent on a pipeline?
> 
> 
> And if you are concerned about jobs why don't you want the oil carried by rail where there would be more jobs than in a pipeline?


We could go back to horses and buggy's that way they could create more jobs making buggy whips . Didn't Fisher Coach realize their end was in sight :hammer:


----------



## sammyd

> Where do you get your info? Its my understanding that oil will ALL pass on offshore.


yeah, that's what those against would have you believe. The refineries are eager to have the oil piped to them.
They typically export very little of their product. According to one article less than 7% of the gasoline and less than 17% of the distillates.
The pipeline would help the refineries as supplies from other areas have been declining.


----------



## AmericanStand

haypoint said:


> Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands Action
> 
> â¢Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to *Europe and Latin America*. Proceeds from these exports are earned *tax-free*. Much of the fuel refined from the pipelineâs heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. driversâ tanks.
> â¢By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL *will increase the cost of gas for Americans.*


Hummmmm from way earlier in the thread .


----------



## AmericanStand

fantasymaker said:


> CN idea a winner for oil sands
> 
> Again a few quotes from the link.
> "Canadian National Railway's "Pipeline on Rails" initiative is a game-changer for Canada. As I revealed in Thursday's Financial Post, the railway has developed a transformative strategy to move oil sands production more quickly and cheaply to markets in North America or Asia."
> 
> "The business model is that pipelines charge $17.95 per barrel to ship oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast and "we can do it cheaper", Jim Foote, CN's executive vice-president, said."
> 
> 
> Wow it seems like not only does the Canadian Railway think it can do it but they seem to think they can do it CHEEPER!


Anybody remember this post?


----------



## Paumon

I read the article. Aside from it being from nearly 3 years ago (like this topic) and the economy and the dollar has changed enough since then that they can no longer do it at the same costs now, it was a proposal that involved the creation of specially built rail cars to move railbit, not dilbit and not crude.

What's your own point though? 3 years is a long time, long enough to have seen some results. Have they gone ahead with their proposal and accomplished that goal within the past 3 years, to your knowledge? If they haven't done it yet, then why not?


----------



## unregistered353870

It's a pointless debate now. When the thread started it was more pertinent. At this point, the pipeline will be built, whether it's a good idea or not.


----------



## arabian knight

I agree this pipeline Will Get Built it is a forgone conclusion. Just have to git rid of the liberals side in this administration that are against it and bingo 10's of thousands of jobs will suddenly open up. Have to wait for the administration that wants more and more control of its people through getting them on government assistance so they can get even more voters.


----------



## haley1

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281893/energy-east-canada-keystone

An alternative to keystone


----------



## OffGridCooker

Just doing a little critical thinking, if this oil is thick would that not be less of a problem. If it leaks it will just sit on the surface until it is cleaned up.
If it is cold enough it will become solid and you can just chip it up.
Now refined gasoline will soak in and to clean it up you have to remove the soil.
So is this thick oil not a lot safer to the environment than anything else in the pipeline?
I don't think the problem with this pipeline is a danger to the enviroment. The problem is the environmarxist want to stop capitalism and environmentalism is the excuse.


----------



## Paumon

haley1 said:


> http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281893/energy-east-canada-keystone
> 
> An alternative to keystone


Taken from that link you posted, this was interesting too:

*Further reading:* 9 questions about the Keystone XL pipeline you were too embarrassed to ask


----------



## arabian knight

Ah yes, yet another global warming site that disses the uses of OIL. BOTH of those links are from those in some la la land of their own making.
Not what anybody would call a site that has anything constructive to say about this Pipeline OR ANY pipelines that transport that NASTY stuff called Gas And Oil because of some claim stopping this would somehow Miraculously stop the so called scam of global warming, those that live in some dream world of their own.
BUT only bash oil consumption and the heck with America and Canada and others Around the World Depend on OIL and Gas. Period.


----------



## Paumon

OffGridCooker said:


> Just doing a little critical thinking, if this oil is thick would that not be less of a problem. If it leaks it will just sit on the surface until it is cleaned up.
> If it is cold enough it will become solid and you can just chip it up.
> Now refined gasoline will soak in and to clean it up you have to remove the soil.
> So is this thick oil not a lot safer to the environment than anything else in the pipeline?
> I don't think the problem with this pipeline is a danger to the enviroment. The problem is the environmarxist want to stop capitalism and environmentalism is the excuse.


No. It's worse than crude oil for the environment if it leaks. See, dilbit is not thick oil. It is not even oil. It is approximately +/- 70% bitumen (aka tar sand) heated and diluted to the consistency of a thick, heavy slurry with the addition of a combined mixture of approximately +/- 30% highly volotile and noxious petroleum by-products called diluents. Dilbit has to be refined to separate and extract the oil and the diluents out of it. 

The exact recipe for all the ingredients in the diluent is kept a trade secret by the processors but they are all known to be more toxic than crude oil on its own, the diluent fumes are more noxious, and it is more highly volotile. If dilbit leaks the diluent will eventually separate from the tar sand particles and the diluent will soak into the ground and poison it. Like with leaked gasoline, the soaked soil would have to be taken up and removed. The tar sand hardens into a thicker mass but it still spreads out like heavy mud ... or hot lava. If it leaks into water it will eventually separate, the majority of sand particles will sink to the bottom in gooey clumps and the diluents will both mix with the water and float on the surface, as well as dispersing into the air - and thus poison even more.


----------



## plowjockey

arabian knight said:


> I agree this pipeline Will Get Built it is a forgone conclusion. Just have to git rid of the liberals side in this administration that are against it and bingo 10's of thousands of jobs will suddenly open up. Have to wait for the administration that wants more and more control of its people through getting them on government assistance so they can get even more voters.


Why should anyone care about more jobs, in the U.S., when Americans are too lazy to take the good paying - but very hard jobs, we already have.

Trust me, I lived in MT. It gets just as cold, hot and nasty, as ND. These are not just jobs at McDonalds either.

They will have the exact same problems with housing, costs, crime, drugs, etc. same as ND.



> The state's unprecedented oil bonanza has made it the economic darling of the nation - boasting a sturdy economy, a state government budget surplus, and its highest population ever, as swarms of people have migrated to North Dakota. But it hasn't been enough, officials say, citing some 25,000 more jobs than takers in all industries in the state.


http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/03/18/north-dakota-oil-skilled-labor-shortage/

http://jobs.aol.com/listings/oil%20industry/?PostedWithin=30&industry=&distance=Unlimited&searchType=Keywords&ncid=edlinkuscare00000021&siteid=cbaol95int


----------



## unregistered353870

OffGridCooker said:


> Just doing a little critical thinking, if this oil is thick would that not be less of a problem. If it leaks it will just sit on the surface until it is cleaned up.
> If it is cold enough it will become solid and you can just chip it up.
> Now refined gasoline will soak in and to clean it up you have to remove the soil.
> So is this thick oil not a lot safer to the environment than anything else in the pipeline?
> I don't think the problem with this pipeline is a danger to the enviroment. The problem is the environmarxist want to stop capitalism and environmentalism is the excuse.


In order to make it flow in the pipeline they dilute it so it isn't so thick...that's the "dil" in dilbit.

Sorry, Paumon...didn't see your answer before I posted mine.


----------



## AmericanStand

Of course as pointed out before a railroad wouldn't have to transport dilbit just the tar.


----------



## Paumon

AmericanStand said:


> Of course as pointed out before a railroad wouldn't have to transport dilbit just the tar.


That would be nice if it was that simple. The tar sand would still have to be steamed under pressure and separated from the dirt and other organics though, and unfortunately the tar sand can't be transported on its own without being diluted to a certain extent. The tar sand would have to be mixed with 17% diluent (half the amount of diluent as in dilbit) and transported in specially outfitted insulated and heated rail cars. It's called railbit when it's transported that way.


----------



## unregistered353870

AmericanStand said:


> Of course as pointed out before a railroad wouldn't have to transport dilbit just the tar.


Your earlier post about rotary dumping was interesting, but that article about CN saying they can transport it cheaper says they don't plan to do it that way. They must have a good reason.


----------



## Paumon

An after thought for American Stand. Just so you know, there are 272,600 rich Canadians in all of Canada and the majority of them have no involvement with the oil industry. So I don't think you have to worry about all of the rich Canadians in Canada taking advantage of America. :hysterical:


----------



## OffGridCooker

Paumon said:


> No. It's worse than crude oil for the environment if it leaks. See, dilbit is not thick oil. It is not even oil. It is approximately +/- 70% bitumen (aka tar sand) heated and diluted to the consistency of a thick, heavy slurry with the addition of a combined mixture of approximately +/- 30% highly volotile and noxious petroleum by-products called diluents. Dilbit has to be refined to separate and extract the oil and the diluents out of it.
> 
> The exact recipe for all the ingredients in the diluent is kept a trade secret by the processors but they are all known to be more toxic than crude oil on its own, the diluent fumes are more noxious, and it is more highly volotile. If dilbit leaks the diluent will eventually separate from the tar sand particles and the diluent will soak into the ground and poison it. Like with leaked gasoline, the soaked soil would have to be taken up and removed. The tar sand hardens into a thicker mass but it still spreads out like heavy mud ... or hot lava. If it leaks into water it will eventually separate, the majority of sand particles will sink to the bottom in gooey clumps and the diluents will both mix with the water and float on the surface, as well as dispersing into the air - and thus poison even more.


I know what bitumen is I was a commercial roofer at one time. I am still confused. It is 70% tar but it worse than crude? And you don't know what it is diluted with. Could it be kerosene? Kerosene and gasoline are both more noxious and volitable than crude, but we transport them everyday.
Would you be happy if it was just diluted with kerosene?


----------



## OffGridCooker

jtbrandt said:


> In order to make it flow in the pipeline they dilute it so it isn't so thick...that's the "dil" in dilbit.
> 
> Sorry, Paumon...didn't see your answer before I posted mine.


Not so thick but still thick right?


----------



## OffGridCooker

Paumon said:


> An after thought for American Stand. Just so you know, there are 272,600 rich Canadians in all of Canada and the majority of them have no involvement with the oil industry. So I don't think you have to worry about all of the rich Canadians in Canada taking advantage of America. :hysterical:


If Canadians got rich that would be good right?


----------



## OffGridCooker

Paumon said:


> No. It's worse than crude oil for the environment if it leaks. See, dilbit is not thick oil. It is not even oil. It is approximately +/- 70% bitumen (aka tar sand) heated and diluted to the consistency of a thick, heavy slurry with the addition of a combined mixture of approximately +/- 30% highly volotile and noxious petroleum by-products called diluents. Dilbit has to be refined to separate and extract the oil and the diluents out of it.
> 
> The exact recipe for all the ingredients in the diluent is kept a trade secret by the processors but they are all known to be more toxic than crude oil on its own, the diluent fumes are more noxious, and it is more highly volotile. If dilbit leaks the diluent will eventually separate from the tar sand particles and the diluent will soak into the ground and poison it. Like with leaked gasoline, the soaked soil would have to be taken up and removed. The tar sand hardens into a thicker mass but it still spreads out like heavy mud ... or hot lava. If it leaks into water it will eventually separate, the majority of sand particles will sink to the bottom in gooey clumps and the diluents will both mix with the water and float on the surface, as well as dispersing into the air - and thus poison even more.


If dilbit leaks how long does it take for the dilutent to "eventually" separate?
If it it so thick and has to be heated to flow, it seems like it could be cleaned up before it penetrated too deep into the soil.


----------



## Paumon

OffGridCooker said:


> I know what bitumen is I was a commercial roofer at one time. I am still confused. It is 70% tar but it worse than crude? And you don't know what it is diluted with. Could it be kerosene? Kerosene and gasoline are both more noxious and volitable than crude, but we transport them everyday.
> Would you be happy if it was just diluted with kerosene?


According to the wikipedia and Endbridge sites it is mostly natural gas condensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbit#How_is_bitumen_diluted.3F



> The most common diluent used to dilute bitumen is natural gas condensate (NGC), especially the naphtha component.[5] Due to insufficient quantity of natural gas condensate in Alberta, bitumen shippers also use refined naptha and synthetic crude oil (SCO) as diluent, and import a considerable amount from the U.S.[6] Although SCO requires a higher volume percentage to achieve the same viscosity, at least one study found that SCO provides better blend stability than NGC.[7] Shippers dilute bitumen before shipment in order to meet viscosity and density requirements found in common carrier pipeline tariff rules. A National Energy Board study assumed a standard dilbit containing 33% condensate (resulting in product with "21.5 Â°API and sulphur content of 3.3 percent") and synbit containing 50% SCO.[8][9][10][11] By selecting different diluent types and blend ratios, bitumen shippers attempt to lower component costs, increase blend value, and maintain pipeline transportability. The blend ratio may consist of 25 to 55% diluent by volume, depending on characteristics of the bitumen and diluent, pipeline specifications, operating conditions, and refinery requirements.[3]
> Froth treatment which removes heavy constituents rather than adding lighter ones is another method.





OffGridCooker said:


> If Canadians got rich that would be good right?


I don't think so. If Canadians got rich I think it would be at the expense and detriment of other countries. I don't think that would be such a good thing and from what I know about typical Canadians' attitude towards wealth, materialism and consumerism it is not as important a priority to them as it is to people of many other cultures and countries. 3/5ths of the Canadian population are low income earners, the other 2/5ths are middle class to upper middle class earners and a very tiny percentage (272,600 out of 35,000,000) are classified as very wealthy and many of the wealthy are known philanthropists who share the wealth for the betterment of the nation.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Paumon said:


> According to the wikipedia and Endbridge sites it is mostly natural gas condensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbit#How_is_bitumen_diluted.3F
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. If Canadians got rich I think it would be at the expense and detriment of other countries. I don't think that would be such a good thing and from what I know about typical Canadians' attitude towards wealth, materialism and consumerism it is not as important a priority to them as it is to people of many other cultures and countries. 3/5ths of the Canadian population are low income earners, the other 2/5ths are middle class to upper middle class earners and a very tiny percentage (272,600 out of 35,000,000) are classified as very wealthy and many of the wealthy are known philanthropists who share the wealth for the betterment of the nation.


How would someone getting rich be at the expense and detriment of some one else unless they stole the money?
I thought people got rich by creating commerce not by cheating someone else.


----------



## Paumon

Heh. I think you have to be a Canadian to understand the Canadian mindset about what constitutes real wealth. Canadians aren't rich in $$$ by other people's standards but every one of us is very wealthy and happy by comparison with the rest of the world, America included. 

And we're getting off topic here, so adios....


----------



## OffGridCooker

Paumon said:


> Heh. I think you have to be a Canadian to understand the Canadian mindset about what constitutes real wealth. Canadians aren't rich in $$$ by other people's standards but every one of us is very wealthy and happy by comparison with the rest of the world, America included.
> 
> And we're getting off topic here, so adios....


I think wealth envy is very much part of the climate debate. Stopping people from getting rich. Stopping capitalism by attacking its lifeblood, oil.


----------



## Paumon

Paumon said:


> Heh. I think you have to be a Canadian to understand the Canadian mindset about what constitutes real wealth. Canadians aren't rich in $$$ by other people's standards but every one of us is very wealthy and happy by comparison with the rest of the world, America included.
> 
> And we're getting off topic here, so adios....


Still off topic but I have to add this and make a correction to the above comment. Most Canadians are happy with what they have but for some reason there's a lot of people living in the wealthy oil producing provinces who are really, truly miserable and mouthy. And the people in those provinces are the ones who are getting the extra payouts and dividends from their provinces. :facepalm: Go figure, eh!

LOL.


----------



## unregistered353870

OffGridCooker said:


> Not so thick but still thick right?


So I hear from the experts. But apparently not thick enough to just "stay put" until they can scoop it up and put it back in the pipe. I read one of the common diluents they use is naphtha. That's not particularly pleasant stuff.


----------



## OffGridCooker

jtbrandt said:


> So I hear from the experts. But apparently not thick enough to just "stay put" until they can scoop it up and put it back in the pipe. I read one of the common diluents they use is naphtha. That's not particularly pleasant stuff.


So it is mostly dirty unrefined tar and paint thinner.
When using Naphtha it is best to open the windows until the paint drys.
Naphtha dries fairly quick, and it will make you feel dizzy and drunk. So it is best to use a fan, And it gives me a headache. 
I just don't see unrefined tar and paint thinner as being a problem to transport through a pipe.


----------



## bowdonkey

Paumon said:


> Heh. I think you have to be a Canadian to understand the Canadian mindset about what constitutes real wealth. Canadians aren't rich in $$$ by other people's standards but every one of us is very wealthy and happy by comparison with the rest of the world, America included.
> 
> And we're getting off topic here, so adios....


Having lived there, that is so true.


----------



## unregistered353870

OffGridCooker said:


> So it is mostly dirty unrefined tar and paint thinner.
> When using Naphtha it is best to open the windows until the paint drys.
> Naphtha dries fairly quick, and it will make you feel dizzy and drunk. So it is best to use a fan, And it gives me a headache.
> I just don't see unrefined tar and paint thinner as being a problem to transport through a pipe.


It doesn't evaporate that quickly when it soaks into the ground in quantities of thousands or hundreds of thousands of gallons. I'm guessing you don't use thousands of gallons of paint thinner in your house. And it's also carcinogenic. So not "no big deal." It probably isn't a big problem in the pipeline. It's when it gets out that's a concern. How much of a concern is debatable.

But I'm not interested in debating the pipeline as you seem to want...you're a little late to the discussion and the decisions have essentially already been made. It's purely academic at this point, with no bearing on the outcome...as if this thread ever had a bearing on the outcome. What will be will be.


----------



## AmericanStand

Question for Nevada our Petro expert.
Could the canadian oil be transported as tar or even cooled and transported as a solid?


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> Question for Nevada our Petro expert.
> Could the canadian oil be transported as tar or even cooled and transported as a solid?


I've never heard of transporting oil that way. I suspect keeping that volume of oil cool would be impractical.


----------



## AmericanStand

Could the reason that you haven't heard of it be that hauling this kind of oil is relatively new and not perfected yet?


----------



## Fennick

AmericanStand said:


> Canada has never shown itself to be a friend of the USA Its simply happy to use the US when its to its own benefit then forget its obligations when its not convenient to them.


This is news to me.

Apparently you think you know something that most Americans and Canadians aren't aware of. I think you should put your money where your mouth is and tell us the facts instead of dropping what appear to be spurious pot-stirring comments without any basis to them. 

In what ways has Canada shown itself to not be a friend to USA, and what exactly are Canada's obligations to USA?


----------



## AmericanStand

First Canada is quite happy to steal US land. The northern boundary of the southern states should meat the southern boundary of Alaska..
The eastern boundary of Alaska should be much farther east.
Just one treaty obligation I know of is that the USA was promised "unfettered" access to the Alaska highway Canada places unreasonable restrictions on its access and use by US citizens when it promised NONE !


----------



## Fennick

:facepalm:

Well now I am feeling embarrassed for you. 

None of that is true, it's just something you've made up. Look, you can't just make up fictional stories out of your imagination and post it expecting that everyone will believe it simply because you said so. If you're going to make an allegation you need to be able to back it up with proven historical facts and evidence and you haven't done that. 

If you really believe those things you made up about Alaska and the Alcan then I think you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the factual history of America's purchase of Alaska territory from Russia. You also need to research on the history and national ownership of the Alcan. There is tons of historical information on internet about the Alaska Purchase and the building of the Alcan. Avail yourself of the facts. 

When you do that be sure to take note that Russia never owned and was never in a position to sell well established British owned territory to America. You can't sell property that doesn't belong to you. It's just not done.

Also take note that the sections of the Alcan highway in Yukon and British Columbia are strictly Canadian property, not American property. You seem to be under the impression that the Alcan is some kind of easement for Americans through Canadian territory but nothing could be further from the truth. At no time in Canada's history have there ever been agreements that allow any foreign nationals or their militaries unfettered access or easement through any parts of Canadian territories or highways, not even during the war when the Alcan was being built by permission from Canada.

It's just not done.


----------



## Sanza

arabian knight said:


> ANd if that oil was not on a train it would have been a safer travel inside a PIPE. *Pipes don't Derail.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Some of you may not have seen this on the news, so here's the train derailment that happened last year. Tell me again that trains are safer then the XL pipeline....
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lac-megantic-victims-died-a-violent-death-coroner-1.2045245


----------



## AmericanStand

Fennick said:


> :facepalm:
> 
> Well now I am feeling embarrassed for you.
> 
> None of that is true, it's just something you've made up. Look, you can't just make up fictional stories out of your imagination and post it expecting that everyone will believe it simply because you said so. If you're going to make an allegation you need to be able to back it up with proven historical facts and evidence and you haven't done that.
> 
> If you really believe those things you made up about Alaska and the Alcan then I think you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the factual history of America's purchase of Alaska territory from Russia. You also need to research on the history and national ownership of the Alcan. There is tons of historical information on internet about the Alaska Purchase and the building of the Alcan. Avail yourself of the facts.
> 
> When you do that be sure to take note that Russia never owned and was never in a position to sell well established British owned territory to America. You can't sell property that doesn't belong to you. It's just not done.
> 
> Also take note that the sections of the Alcan highway in Yukon and British Columbia are strictly Canadian property, not American property. You seem to be under the impression that the Alcan is some kind of easement for Americans through Canadian territory but nothing could be further from the truth. At no time in Canada's history have there ever been agreements that allow any foreign nationals or their militaries unfettered access or easement through any parts of Canadian territories or highways, not even during the war when the Alcan was being built by permission from Canada.
> 
> It's just not done.


Wow have you ever studied the history of these things at all ? This is just simple stuff you should have learned in 5th grade.


----------



## AmericanStand

Sanza said:


> arabian knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANd if that oil was not on a train it would have been a safer travel inside a PIPE. *Pipes don't Derail.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Some of you may not have seen this on the news, so here's the train derailment that happened last year. Tell me again that trains are safer then the XL pipeline....
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lac-megantic-victims-died-a-violent-death-coroner-1.2045245
> 
> 
> 
> In this case the reason trains would be much safer than pipe is they would carry much different products.
Click to expand...


----------



## arabian knight

And they still can just Not This oil coming from Canada. Cool


----------



## DEKE01

Arabian, I admire your efforts and those of many others in this thread, but I think the issue we have missed on this topic is like many conservative vs liberal debates. Like gun rights vs gun control, natural changes vs manmade global warming, pro-life vs pro-choice, and build keystone vs don't build...

In each case one side uses the arguments of logic, natural rights, freedom, historical evidence, and yes, science to justify their position while the other side uses emotion, fear, manipulated science, and gov't force to justify their position. The emotions side will come along shortly to deny this, but fear is their primary weapon. 

The problem for the side of reason is that logic doesn't not convince the fearful. For example, someone who has a true fear of flying will rarely be convinced not to have fear by logic, statistics, and comparisons to relatively more dangerous alternatives. In the keystone issue, we have to argue against emotions, like an irrational fear of spills in spite historical data, and unbelievably, we have to argue against an irrational hate of Canadians. 

In the end, all we can hope for in a democracy is that the adults in the room outnumber those who cling to their fears like a child hiding behind her mother's skirt.


----------



## arabian knight

And now IF oil prices Stay Low for a length of time.
This whole pipeline thingy is MOOT.
Cause it is going to be a high cost to get that oil up and out and processed enough to transport will be higher than what they can get for a barrel of oil not sure where the price point is but low prices is not good all the way around, as wells have already been shut off.
And the Longer this goes and not being built the Price for building it goes up.
What a shame too. 
Those that feel this is so bad such things like this.
Will IN THEIR MIND that is this at least a win at getting the pipeline stopped. Which is far from the truth but that is what they will think and say.

This Low Price for Crude and OPEC doing nothing about about it.
MAYBE Opec's Way OF stopping this pipeline. How many how thought along those lines? Forget any kind of fear for safety or green tree hugging. It MAY have been OPEC now that is holding the cards in getting no pipeline built.
To Protect THEIR oil and the strangle hold they have on the worlds oil needs.


----------



## unregistered353870

AmericanStand said:


> In this case the reason trains would be much safer than pipe is they would carry much different products.


Are you speaking about an actual proposal for using trains from someone in the position to do it, or your own ideas? That article about CN posted very early in the thread and then posted again by you said the train product would be quite similar to the pipeline product.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> This Low Price for Crude and OPEC doing nothing about about it.
> MAYBE Opec's Way OF stopping this pipeline.


Not the pipeline specifically, but it's aimed at North American tar sands and shale oil production. Both are much more expensive to produce than Arab oil, and Arab oil is of much higher quality. Arabs have the capability to squeeze them out of business. They might be successful too. We'll see how low it goes.


----------



## AmericanStand

LOL I don't hate Canada ,I just don't see all the warm fuzzys. Like any nation it puts its own interests first EXCEPT for the USA which seems to feel we need to carry everybody else.

The more I read of this thread the more I'm convinced it would be the best thing for BOTH countries if Canada built refineries close to the oil sands. 
It would enable a more efficient refining process. and it seems like it might help lower energy prices in both countries


----------



## Sanza

Well at least we can agree on one thing americanstand, and that is that we build the refineries up here in Alberta. As we speak there are refineries being built just a short drive from where I live......which happens to be inside the triangle of the Fort McMurray oil SANDS, the Cold Lake oil sands and the refineries at Fort Saskatchewan now spreading northeast to Redwater.
Here's a peek at some of what's happening in my neck of the woods:
http://www.industrialheartland.com/...cle&id=130:project-status&catid=53&Itemid=160


----------



## AmericanStand

Did anybody else hear the statement on the news that the keystone would employ 50 people?

Yep a entire 50 people.


They did say that during the few months they were building it UP TO as many as 4000 jobs MIGHT be created.

Wanna guess which number was far more prominent?


----------



## arabian knight

That is in the long run but sure not at first. Think of all the WORKERS building the Pipe. Think of All the Welders.
Now that oil prices have dropped so low the WORKERS that are making these pipes have already started to be played OFF. There are 1,000's of WORKERS that are up and down the line when building such a project. Why do you think the liberal media is JUST looking at the very lowest end of WORKERS to be Employed by this Keystone? They don't want it built, they don't want America to get employed they want folks to be government dependent.
And besides what the Big Deal here?
This is just ONE pipeline a few 100 miles long out of Over One Million that are already being used in this country. It Is No Big Deal.
But it WILL Employ 1,000's that is what this country needs. 

Now look Sears is closing 100's of stores, JC Penney is closing stores K- Mart is closing stores. MACY's is even closing stores. This country is IN BAD SHAPE don't let this Artificial Stock Market fool ya.
And POOR OLD Radio Shack's stock is at 35 CENTS. 

ANd this oil dropping like it has done is NOT GOOD NEWS around the world, sure in the short term Americans are enjoying it but the economic repercussions is going to be staggering in time. And not that far off either. This is NOT good news at all not dropping this fast~! Oil rigs are being shut down at a fast rate already. Many are now unemployed Ya that is not good at all.


----------



## bowdonkey

Took the boy to school today and we met some trucks hauling pipe. It's being stockpiled just a few miles north of me, actually on the way to school. This line will run just a little over a quarter mile south of my place. I have mixed views of it's construction. One part of me says yes, but not because of jobs creation. But more along the lines it will keep SA pumping cheap oil. Hopefully the price of fuel will remain low and that will spur more job growth than any pipeline will. And of course this will leave more $$ in the pockets of the citizens of the USA, not some oil conglomerate or hostile foreign country. I don't view any country in the Middle East as good friends. As far as anyone who has investments in oil getting less return on their retirement fund. All I can say is " go SA "! Another plus of building it is we have the infrastructure in place in case the oil supply is disrupted, ya never know. Then there's a side of me that says no. My neighbors 40 is being crossed with the line. For that he gets a whole $1000. Yep, that's all they will pay. Him and a few hundred other folks are fighting it. But seeing as to how they're bringing in pipe I think the descision has already been decided. FWIW.


----------



## arabian knight

Nebraska's highest court has tossed a lawsuit challenging a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The decision released Friday by the state Supreme Court upholds a 2012 state law that allowed the governor to empower Canada-based TransCanada to force eastern Nebraska landowners to sell their property for the project.


----------



## fixitguy

I hope people didn't forget about the American recovery act. http://www.recovery.gov/arra/Pages/default.aspx

Shovel ready jobs.......yea, O.K. then

The keystone pipeline offers jobs......funded by private company's. 

Does any one know someone that got a job because of the American recovery act?


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> ANd this oil dropping like it has done is NOT GOOD NEWS around the world, sure in the short term Americans are enjoying it but the economic repercussions is going to be staggering in time.


And if oil drops much farther they won't want to build the pipeline. It could be that the democrats saved industry a fortune by delaying construction of a pipeline that would have had no practical use.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> And if oil drops much farther they won't want to build the pipeline. It could be that the democrats saved industry a fortune by delaying construction of a pipeline that would have had no practical use.


Oil prices won't remain low for long. Democrats never save anyone money...ever!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Oil prices won't remain low for long. Democrats never save anyone money...ever!


I suspect that oil prices will remain low for the foreseeable future, perhaps years. This is a price war that the Saudis are very serious about. They will lower prices until it is no longer profitable to go after tar sands and shale formations. They have no reason to stop until North American producers are out of business.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I suspect that oil prices will remain low for the foreseeable future, perhaps years. This is a price war that the Saudis are very serious about. They will lower prices until it is no longer profitable to go after tar sands and shale formations. They have no reason to stop until North American producers are out of business.


Sure they do........money! As they start seeing their cash disappear, they will change their tune. They always do! North American producers will never go out of business. Our government won't let them!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Sure they do........money! As they start seeing their cash disappear, they will change their tune. They always do! North American producers will never go out of business. Our government won't let them!


The North American shale and tar sands business is toast. The Saudis will make money at half today's price, but I doubt they will need to go below $40. But they're prepared to.


----------



## Tricky Grama

bowdonkey said:


> Took the boy to school today and we met some trucks hauling pipe. It's being stockpiled just a few miles north of me, actually on the way to school. This line will run just a little over a quarter mile south of my place. I have mixed views of it's construction. One part of me says yes, but not because of jobs creation. But more along the lines it will keep SA pumping cheap oil. Hopefully the price of fuel will remain low and that will spur more job growth than any pipeline will. And of course this will leave more $$ in the pockets of the citizens of the USA, not some oil conglomerate or hostile foreign country. I don't view any country in the Middle East as good friends. As far as anyone who has investments in oil getting less return on their retirement fund. All I can say is " go SA "! Another plus of building it is we have the infrastructure in place in case the oil supply is disrupted, ya never know. Then there's a side of me that says no. My neighbors 40 is being crossed with the line. For that he gets a whole $1000. Yep, that's all they will pay. Him and a few hundred other folks are fighting it. But seeing as to how they're bringing in pipe I think the descision has already been decided. FWIW.


Nice to know, I guess, but we have no idea where you are...


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> I suspect that oil prices will remain low for the foreseeable future, perhaps years. This is a price war that the Saudis are very serious about. They will lower prices until it is no longer profitable to go after tar sands and shale formations. They have no reason to stop until North American producers are out of business.


As soon as our politicians get the gas tax increases the price of oil will go up.:buds:


----------



## Knight9

AmericanStand said:


> Canada has never shown itself to be a friend of the USA Its simply happy to use the US when its to its own benefit then forget its obligations when its not convenient to them.


Wow! This is the most offensive statement made in this entire thread so far. Great job. :hammer:


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> As soon as our politicians get the gas tax increases the price of oil will go up.:buds:


Sure, it will go up a little. Fuel taxes are collected to fund highways. The problem is that fuel (road use) taxes are collected on a per gallon basis, I think 18 cents per gallon currently. But we're consuming 1/3 as much fuel as we did a decade ago. It doesn't take a genius to see that they either need to raise the tax per gallon or come up with another way to collect road use taxes.

Taxes aren't always a bad thing. I don't mind paying road use taxes.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Sure, it will go up a little. Fuel taxes are collected to fund highways. The problem is that fuel (road use) taxes are collected on a per gallon basis, I think 18 cents per gallon currently. But we're consuming 1/3 as much fuel as we did a decade ago. It doesn't take a genius to see that they either need to raise the tax per gallon or come up with another way to collect road use taxes.
> 
> Taxes aren't always a bad thing. I don't mind paying road use taxes.


Average fuel taxes including state, local and federal is 49.9 for gasoline and 55.4 for diesel.


----------



## coolrunnin

no really said:


> Average fuel taxes including state, local and federal is 49.9 for gasoline and 55.4 for diesel.


And Texas has better than average roads because of it, federal gas tax hasn't changed since 1993.

I prefer a tax increase to the tolling that has been also suggested, infrastructure has to be paid for somehow.


----------



## no really

coolrunnin said:


> And Texas has better than average roads because of it, federal gas tax hasn't changed since 1993.
> 
> I prefer a tax increase to the tolling that has been also suggested, infrastructure has to be paid for somehow.


Lots of toll roads but I can decide if I want to use them and pay for that convenience.


----------



## coolrunnin

Do you really want to all that traffic on secondary roads?


----------



## DEKE01

coolrunnin said:


> And Texas has better than average roads because of it, federal gas tax hasn't changed since 1993.
> 
> I prefer a tax increase to the tolling that has been also suggested, infrastructure has to be paid for somehow.


If the gov't quit spending money on things that were not constitutionally authorized, it would have plenty of money to build and rebuild roads.


----------



## coolrunnin

DEKE01 said:


> If the gov't quit spending money on things that were not constitutionally authorized, it would have plenty of money to build and rebuild roads.


Agreed, but good luck stopping that. Even the highway trust fund goes for things not authorized.


----------



## no really

coolrunnin said:


> Do you really want to all that traffic on secondary roads?


I like choices. There is also the fees that the feds receive, maybe they just need to learn to use our money more wisely.


----------



## DEKE01

coolrunnin said:


> Agreed, but good luck stopping that. Even the highway trust fund goes for things not authorized.


if your adult child who was addicted to drugs, prostitution, and gambling was continuing to spend a vast fortune from his trust funds on those things, would you give him more cash to pay his rent?


----------



## coolrunnin

DEKE01 said:


> if your adult child who was addicted to drugs, prostitution, and gambling was continuing to spend a vast fortune from his trust funds on those things, would you give him more cash to pay his rent?


Problem is they are going to take it one way or the other , your analogy just doesn't fly.


----------



## DEKE01

coolrunnin said:


> Problem is they are going to take it one way or the other , your analogy just doesn't fly.


My favorite Alan Greenspan quote - No analogy is a good analogy. 

If all were to take your attitude, are country is doomed to the ash heap of history. When do you stand up and say enough is enough?


----------



## Nevada

Nevada said:


> Sure, it will go up a little. Fuel taxes are collected to fund highways. The problem is that fuel (road use) taxes are collected on a per gallon basis, I think 18 cents per gallon currently. But we're consuming 1/3 as much fuel as we did a decade ago. It doesn't take a genius to see that they either need to raise the tax per gallon or come up with another way to collect road use taxes.
> 
> Taxes aren't always a bad thing. I don't mind paying road use taxes.





no really said:


> Average fuel taxes including state, local and federal is 49.9 for gasoline and 55.4 for diesel.


I was only speaking for federal road use tax.

_The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States

18 cents wasn't that bad of a guess.


----------



## AmericanStand

Knight9 said:


> Wow! This is the most offensive statement made in this entire thread so far. Great job. :hammer:


Do you mean its not accurate or that its embarrassing to the Canadians be cause it is?


----------



## Paumon

It's not accurate and you were previously requested to put your money where your mouth is and prove your accusations. You still haven't provided any credible or factual evidence to back up your false accusations. There's only one person in this discussion that should be feeling some embarrassment for trying to stir the pot and it isn't any of the Canadians.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> It's not accurate and you were previously requested to put your money where your mouth is and prove your accusations. You still haven't provided any credible or factual evidence to back up your false accusations. There's only one person in this discussion that should be feeling some embarrassment for trying to stir the pot and it isn't any of the Canadians.


:kissy: You're my fave Canadian lately. 

Let's see, two countries with the longest undefended borders the world has ever seen, who have been at peace for 200 years, have had a far less contentious relationship than can be said between some of the US states, who have one economy joined at the hips, who have been faithful allies in numerous conflicts since at least WW2, yeah...Canada is a friend to the US.


----------



## greg273

As long as they re-route the pipe out of the Sand Hills, (as it looks like they have done), and pay everyone affected a fair price, i see no reason not to build it. There are already hundreds of pipelines crisscrossing the US already, one more isn't going to be some sort of ecological disaster. 

Now the question is, is it economically viable to ship and process tar sand at $50 a barrel?


----------



## Sawmill Jim

greg273 said:


> As long as they re-route the pipe out of the Sand Hills, (as it looks like they have done), and pay everyone affected a fair price, i see no reason not to build it. There are already hundreds of pipelines crisscrossing the US already, one more isn't going to be some sort of ecological disaster.
> 
> Now the question is, is it economically viable to ship and process tar sand at $50 a barrel?


Probably not :thumb: But as everyone keeps missing or refusing to read or understand this is to be a super pipe line :hammer: Thus it has inlet and outlet terminals in different places . If it is liquid they can send it hither and yound also different liquids in the same pipe at the same time . TransCanada has lost tons of money already from other oil co's wanting to use space in that pipe .:hammer:


----------



## doingitmyself

We should be happy using up and stockpiling the Arabianraqistanski cheap, good quality oil, then when their reserves have busted we can sell them back the expensive low quality stuff we have. Turn around is fair play, sell em $12 a gallon gasoline. By then we will all be using electric vehicles. Likely by then all oil will be converted to aviation fuel for military use (no commercial aviation) and plant blended diesel for trains or construction equipment use only.


----------



## AmericanStand

Paumon said:


> It's not accurate and you were previously requested to put your money where your mouth is and prove your accusations. You still haven't provided any credible or factual evidence to back up your false accusations. There's only one person in this discussion that should be feeling some embarrassment for trying to stir the pot and it isn't any of the Canadians.


Just when has Canada put the Interests of the USA ahead of their own?

Ever?

Im sorry Canada is a normal country Canadians are normal people Not some sorta saints.


----------



## arabian knight

Canada has been USA friendly for longer than anybody can count. And to say anything other is so far out of this world it is laughable.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Canada has been USA friendly for longer than anybody can count. And to say anything other is so far out of this world it is laughable.


Maybe so, but it's not Canada doing this. It's an oil company.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but it's not Canada doing this. It's an oil company.


I bet that news is a surprise even to the bigwigs at TransCanada :thumb:They don't even know they are an oil Co:sing:


----------



## Nevada

Sawmill Jim said:


> I bet that news is a surprise even to the bigwigs at TransCanada :thumb:They don't even know they are an oil Co:sing:


_TransCanada Corporation is a major North American energy company_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransCanada_Corporation

I'm sure they've figured out that they're an oil company. 

If there is any question about it being a private corporation then look at the New York Stock Exchange for TRP.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trp


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Nevada said:


> _TransCanada Corporation is a major North American energy company_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransCanada_Corporation
> 
> I'm sure they've figured out that they're an oil company.
> 
> If there is any question about it being a private corporation then look at the New York Stock Exchange for TRP.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=trp


I know it is a private Co the got lots of operations in Co. I been by lots of their operations . But even their own web sites don't claim to be an oil Co.
http://www.transcanada.com/our-businesses.html

http://keystone-xl.com/?gclid=CL3X0fXAj8MCFRUkgQodYIQApQ 

Not from wheipedia but TransCanada :thumb:


----------



## arabian knight

No they ar not a Oil Company They should be called a Energy Company as they are into electricity also. LOL


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> No they ar not a Oil Company They should be called a Energy Company as they are into electricity also. LOL


But either way it's not the Canadian government.


----------



## DEKE01

AmericanStand said:


> Just when has Canada put the Interests of the USA ahead of their own?
> 
> Ever?
> 
> Im sorry Canada is a normal country Canadians are normal people Not some sorta saints.


more spinning and deflecting. Not one person here has claimed they are saints. Spinning and deflecting is what people do when they know they have lost the argument but can't stop themselves from continuing to argue. 

We merely said the two countries are good friends to one another. That doesn't mean one of the friends has to do something not in its own best interests to prove the friendship.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> But either way it's not the Canadian government.


We know it is not the Canadian gov't. Canada entered the thread because one member here wanted to make baseless comments about our good friend to the north.


----------



## Nevada

OK, the word is that oil is headed a lot lower. OPEC's efforts haven't been successful in reducing US oil production, with production levels not seen since 1983. OPEC will continue to flood the market to reduce prices until US oil producers start going out of business. This could take some time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-...ec-forecasts-slower-growth-in-u-s-supply.html

On the upside, fuel consumers (most of us) will benefit from the oil price war.


----------



## no really

There is a lot of other influences affecting this and others that I suspect will soon become apparent, IMHO it will be heading back up this summer. Kinda figure between 75 and 80 a barrel. 

Sure does make me think about getting a bigger truck though .


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> There is a lot of other influences affecting this and others that I suspect will soon become apparent, IMHO it will be heading back up this summer. Kinda figure between 75 and 80 a barrel.


Not going to happen, and you've got the word of an oilman on it. Look for $40 crude oil this summer, and another 50 cent per gallon drop in gasoline.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Not going to happen, and you've got the word of an oilman on it.


Been out of the biz for awhile haven't you? My info is coming from leasing and drilling folks here in Texas. Old college friends. :buds:

Either way what happens, happens and it won't like oil prices haven't yo-yo-ed before.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Been out of the biz for awhile haven't you? My info is coming from leasing and drilling folks here in Texas. Old college friends. :buds:
> 
> Either way what happens, happens and it won't like oil prices haven't yo-yo-ed before.


Saudi's intentions are transparent. They're not going to give up. They will continue to flood the market with oil until tar sands & shale producers start going bankrupt. The Saudis will win too.

Texas production will survive because their oil is a lot less expensive to produce. They'll make money at $35, but a lot of shale producers in North Dakota are losing money below $60. That's where the devastation will occur.

I only wish the gold & silver markets were as easy to foresee as the oil market this time. Saudi Arabia is being open and honest about their plans.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Saudi's intentions are transparent. They're not going to give up. They will continue to flood the market with oil until tar sands & shale producers start going bankrupt. The Saudis will win too.
> 
> Texas production will survive because their oil is a lot less expensive to produce. They'll make money at $35, but a lot of shale producers in North Dakota are losing money below $60. That's where the devastation will occur.
> 
> I only wish the gold & silver markets were as easy to foresee as the oil market this time. Saudi Arabia is being open and honest about their plans.


Yep, the Saudi's have projected that reason for their actions, but there are other players in the game. Hehe I love a good game of chess. 

Think I might buy that truck anyway, I also love a good heavy duty truck.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Nevada said:


> Saudi's intentions are transparent. They're not going to give up. They will continue to flood the market with oil until tar sands & shale producers start going bankrupt. The Saudis will win too.
> 
> Texas production will survive because their oil is a lot less expensive to produce. They'll make money at $35, but a lot of shale producers in North Dakota are losing money below $60. That's where the devastation will occur.
> 
> I only wish the gold & silver markets were as easy to foresee as the oil market this time. Saudi Arabia is being open and honest about their plans.


Do you think they may also of figured out the American thinking too :sing: That if the people have cheap fuel they will buy the biggest and best autos no mater the millage they get .That means the auto co will go full out retooling . People will buy bigger even if they are already in debt up to their eyeballs because of cheap fuel . Then in a few years wham back up on the prices again . Bet they can buy all the drilling equipment they want at scrap prices in the meanwhile too .:sing:


----------



## Nevada

Sawmill Jim said:


> Do you think they may also of figured out the American thinking too :sing: That if the people have cheap fuel they will buy the biggest and best autos no mater the millage they get .That means the auto co will go full out retooling . People will buy bigger even if they are already in debt up to their eyeballs because of cheap fuel . Then in a few years wham back up on the prices again . Bet they can buy all the drilling equipment they want at scrap prices in the meanwhile too .:sing:


I doubt it. The revolution to hybrid & electric cars will continue. US gasoline consumption is already 1/3 what it was a decade ago. This market will be easily manipulated by the Saudis, and there's not a lot we can do about it.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Yep, the Saudi's have projected that reason for their actions, but there are other players in the game.


OK, tell me how your friends in Texas will outsmart the Saudis.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> I doubt it. The revolution to hybrid & electric cars will continue. US gasoline consumption is already 1/3 what it was a decade ago. This market will be easily manipulated by the Saudis, and there's not a lot we can do about it.


Why would anyone buy the hybrids and electric? They will go away fast with cheap gas. To expensive and no infrastructure for the electric. There is no revolution.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Why would anyone buy the hybrids and electric? They will go away fast with cheap gas. To expensive and no infrastructure for the electric. There is no revolution.


I think you're mistaken about hybrid & electric cars. They're in our future.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

no really said:


> Why would anyone buy the hybrids and electric? They will go away fast with cheap gas. To expensive and no infrastructure for the electric. There is no revolution.


Yep and I bet in the used car department a Hugo with a flat tire would be more in demand :facepalm:


----------



## no really

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yep and I bet in the used car department a Hugo with a flat tire would be more in demand :facepalm:


For sure!!


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> No they ar not a Oil Company They should be called a Energy Company as they are into electricity also. LOL



TransCanada's oil and gas interests are strictly from the transmission end. They build pipelines and charge customers for usage. 

As a side note, Canadian companies always refer to themselves as energy companies and those current in industry terminology use the term oilsands but never tar sands, which hasn't been industry accepted since the '80's. 

The eco folks and your president seem fond of the term but that's about it.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> I doubt it. The revolution to hybrid & electric cars will continue. US gasoline consumption is already 1/3 what it was a decade ago. This market will be easily manipulated by the Saudis, and there's not a lot we can do about it.


And how many months ago were you just as confidently discussing Peak oil and the inevitability of higher fuel prices?


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> And how many months ago were you just as confidently discussing Peak oil and the inevitability of higher fuel prices?


I've never discussed peak oil.


----------



## arabian knight

no really said:


> Why would anyone buy the hybrids and electric? They will go away fast with cheap gas. To expensive and no infrastructure for the electric. There is no revolution.


 Boy you got that right. And now with Ford coming out with this new F-150 I bet it will sell like hot cakes. They are going to be making them at two spate plants. 
And just look at all these hot ones that are rolling off 500 to over 600 horses.
Love it, this might even sink Tesla as who in the world would ever buy such a expensive car and go only a couple hundred miles on a charge RIDICULOUS! Even that new Chevy electric is dumb~!


----------



## arabian knight

Nevada said:


> I think you're mistaken about hybrid & electric cars. They're in our future.


Oh my goodness I laughed so hard at that one I spit all over my keyboard.
Ya the future 200 YEARS,,,,, 300 YEARS. LOL


----------



## Knight9

DEKE01 said:


> Let's see, two countries with the longest undefended borders the world has ever seen, who have been at peace for 200 years, have had a far less contentious relationship than can be said between some of the US states, who have one economy joined at the hips, who have been faithful allies in numerous conflicts since at least WW2, yeah...Canada is a friend to the US.


Precisely! Closest allies. Largest trading partners in the world. Longest undefended border. Ya sure, there have been squabbles over a few things like softwood lumber and the "Buy US First" program, but to say that Canada has never been a friend to the US is absurd. Canada has stuck its neck out many times to clearly articulate support for the US on many items, domestic and international. But then we all know that.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> OK, tell me how your friends in Texas will outsmart the Saudis.


Hmmm, sounds like you wouldn't mind seeing a US industry destroyed by the Saudi's, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Hmmm, sounds like you wouldn't mind seeing a US industry destroyed by the Saudi's, correct me if I'm wrong.


I don't want to see the tar sands & shale producers go out of business, but I don't see how to get around it. Saudi can produce oil for less and can hold out longer.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> I don't want to see the tar sands & shale producers go out of business, but I don't see how to get around it. Saudi can produce oil for less and can hold out longer.


They may go out of business, but it is not a major problem. That oil will sit there as long as it takes for it to become profitable again. Then new investors will be found and extraction will begin again.


----------



## no really

DEKE01 said:


> They may go out of business, but it is not a major problem. That oil will sit there as long as it takes for it to become profitable again. Then new investors will be found and extraction will begin again.


The smaller companies may fade away but the large ones will continue on. And we will have only the very large mega corporations in control.


----------



## DEKE01

no really said:


> The smaller companies may fade away but the large ones will continue on. And we will have only the very large mega corporations in control.


perhaps, perhaps not. But if you're right, one day that oil will run out and the mega corp will fade away, the same way cars replaced trains, Walmart replaced Sears, and gas stations replaced livery stables.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I think you're mistaken about hybrid & electric cars. They're in our future.


Only because they're being shoved down our throats. I personally like them, especially non-hybrid electrics, but the market overall isn't a huge fan so far. Americans prefer big vehicles...don't you drive an SUV yourself?

Production of hybrids has already been cut since gas has dropped because they can't sell as many as they can make...that's why Obama gave a speech to auto workers in a closed plant a week or so ago. If you're right that gas will get cheaper and stay relatively cheap for a few years or more, those sales of hybrids will continue to drop.


----------



## unregistered353870

arabian knight said:


> Boy you got that right. And now with Ford coming out with this new F-150 I bet it will sell like hot cakes. They are going to be making them at two spate plants.
> And just look at all these hot ones that are rolling off 500 to over 600 horses.
> Love it, this might even sink Tesla as who in the world would ever buy such a expensive car and go only a couple hundred miles on a charge RIDICULOUS! Even that new Chevy electric is dumb~!


Tesla isn't going under. Their business is not all that dependent on high gas prices like hybrids. They serve a niche market and have a ton of super valuable intellectual property.


----------



## arabian knight

*Why Falling Oil Prices Will Hurt Tesla*


> Summary
> 
> Tesla's stock price has already been hurt by falling oil prices and has the potential to fall further.
> Oil prices have pummeled the renewable energy stocks Tesla is often lumped together with.
> Low oil prices may hurt future demand for the Model 3, especially since it is aimed beyond its traditional consumer base in favor of the general consumer market.


http://seekingalpha.com/article/2797325-why-falling-oil-prices-will-hurt-tesla


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> They may go out of business, but it is not a major problem. That oil will sit there as long as it takes for it to become profitable again. Then new investors will be found and extraction will begin again.


It's a problem because the resulting unemployment and lack of commerce may throw this country back into deep recession.


----------



## unregistered353870

arabian knight said:


> *Why Falling Oil Prices Will Hurt Tesla*
> 
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/2797325-why-falling-oil-prices-will-hurt-tesla


Yeah, they might take a hit on their planned expansion, but they won't go under. Their "traditional consumer base" will keep them going. Also, stock prices don't mean a whole lot...especially when they're "lumped together" with very different businesses. You also left out this part:



> However, it is impossible to predict with full confidence that Tesla will be dramatically impacted because the stock is not traded based on fundamentals.


They'll be fine in the long run.


----------



## no really

DEKE01 said:


> perhaps, perhaps not. But if you're right, one day that oil will run out and the mega corp will fade away, the same way cars replaced trains, Walmart replaced Sears, and gas stations replaced livery stables.


Of course it will that is in the nature of most things, but I don't at this point feel it will happen in my lifetime. Hopefully we will be better prepared than we are now. Don't get me wrong I at this time have a nice solar setup that provides close to 65% of my power. And the main reason I have done it is the highly vulnerable state of the electric grid. It was costly for sure.


----------



## arabian knight

jtbrandt said:


> Yeah, they might take a hit on their planned expansion, but they won't go under. Their "traditional consumer base" will keep them going. Also, stock prices don't mean a whole lot...especially when they're "lumped together" with very different businesses. You also left out this part:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll be fine in the long run.


 Sure because those with $100,000 don't give a rip what the price of gas is they don't need to look at the prices. They just buy and those few hyped up folks on this kind of transportation are just doing so because of the Status Symbol of the hyped up anti everything group.


----------



## unregistered353870

arabian knight said:


> Sure because those with $100,000 don't give a rip what the price of gas is they don't need to look at the prices. They just buy and those few hyped up folks on this kind of transportation are just doing so because of the Status Symbol of the hyped up anti everything group.


Exactly.


----------

