Keystone Pipeline

Date 11-19-2014 18:31

Not to take sides or make any kind of major political battlefield out of it here, but, the Democrats own the denial of a works program 100% with that one. Just watch the individual states go.

I am all for being careful with our natural resources. But, they are here for us to use; the impact statements and multiple research projects have already been done and more won't change things other than getting the people you want on it to say what you want to hear and tell people that it is not a good idea. Back to my 4 out of 5 doctors recommend thesis.

We'll see.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 11-19-2014 18:58

I fill the same way about our natural resources and I would like for them to be here for my great grand kids can enjoy, but how many people would that project put to work.

M.G.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 11-25-2014 19:54

best projection is about 3K jobs for 2 years and about 30-50 residual jobs. Sure it's awesome work for the pipeliners when being built but it's not some long term job creator... it's a pipeline.

By Blaster (***)

Date 11-19-2014 20:27

In part, I look at our oil as a strategic resource. Domestic production is important as it provides the infrastructure for supply in the event foreign supplies became impeded. However to the extent practical, it seems to me that it would be wise to use everyone else's up before our own.

Side note: What diameter pipe would Keystone be?

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 11-19-2014 20:43

I ran search and I think 36" diameter.

M.G.

By lo-hi

Date 11-20-2014 00:23

Natural resources within the borders of our country should be held for the security of our country. Allow it to be sold at a profit to other nations for a profit by corporations and they would sell our butholes and tell us that its better to poop through our ribs. Oh wait, that would create more jobs building toilets, what was I thinking.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 00:55

I agree Lo - Hi!

Now if the Congress would stipulate in an amendment before passing the Keystone Pipeline that the oil slurry from tar sands coming out of Canada and into the US is to be used domestically only, I wouldn't have a problem with that being built... But to have all of that energy passing through our country and we can't get a drop of it doesn't make sense to me... If that's the case, then why doesn't Canada build a pipeline to it's own Pacific or to their Atlantic shores? It sure does make me wonder why.

Respectfully,
Henry

By S J

Date 11-20-2014 02:19 Edited 11-20-2014 02:29

Excuse me for my ignorance, but what happens to recycled motor oil (in truth, rumor, or fiction)? Should they pay us for our oil changes, or should we pay them - or call it an even trade???

Some farmers spread used motor oil on gravel roads to keep the dust down - probably not the best option for protecting their own water wells.

And, hasn't the human race been using motor grade oils for a couple of centuries now?

Who are the best folks to chime in on this brain teaser (for those people like myself that sometimes feel like they have been asleep for 1,000 years)? Would they be:

The chemical/petroleum team?
Or, the logistics and transportation team?
Or, the manufacturing/metal trades team?

These questions present a real Google challenge for inquiring minds - but, my fear is that the answer may lead some of us to the past for some locations - unless some forward thinking options are available that might satisfy all the stakeholders.

I forgot the number for the actual number of barrels of recycled motor oil in the US; but, now I am distracted and worried about synthetics and the need for cat-crackers. My bad if I have taken the topic off track.

Actually, it might hinge on natural gas...

Is that why they say that we have a friend in PA?

And, where there is coal there is NG - sometimes, but, now we are talking about a bet between strip mines, traditional shaft mines, or buying up more farmland. And, what about sinkholes, vs. back filling, and loss of topsoil in other geographic locations?

No betting for this one - just yet.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 02:43

S J, you have hit several good points and they are well taken.

As part of environment interest we really need to look at how to use/recycle or whatever used oil. There are many options as opposed to using it on driveways and dirt roads past their homes. Oil burner heaters for one.

As to all the different aspects and discussions about who gets what, it really doesn't matter who gets what they bring down. As long as our oil companies can get one price on the world market they are not going to sell it to us cheaper unless the government steps in and controls it. Wouldn't bet on that being a good thing either. Sure, we could cap it all off or process it and put it into storage but does that really help the average Joe out? Only if we use it and at least push the price down a little because they get scared we will not buy from them do we help ourselves.

Who should be involved? All of us and yet most of us don't have enough of the facts to make rational decisions. But, that is really the case in almost all issues facing us today. To many voices that differ drastically and all offer their own facts to sway the rest of us. And a media, government, and education system that can't be trusted to tell us the truth. Doesn't matter which party, religion, gender, nationality, etc.

But, if we think mankind can ruin this planet one day sooner than the Good Lord has in His perfect plan then we think awfully highly of ourselves and very low of Him. Global warming, if I believe the 'majority' then YES. It has been warming up ever since the ice age and I for one am glad. I like my green grass, warm summers, and liquid lakes. But what happened to the next ice age that I was taught in school and by the media in the 60's? OOPPSS. Then, when the warming evidence reversed on them, now it is Climate Change instead of Global Warming. Can't go wrong there. The climate is always changing.

NOW see what you did! Off soapbox.

Keystone, I think we need it. Probably better controls and safer both environmentally and every way than the Alaskan Pipeline. That didn't turn out so bad.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Tyrone

Date 11-20-2014 11:35

Why doesn't Canada build it's own refinery? I'm totally ignorant of the oil industry. Is it cost or technology? Am I missing something?
Tyrone

By Northweldor (***)

Date 11-20-2014 13:10 Edited 11-20-2014 13:14

Neither cost nor technology. The Canadian government, like the US government, is firmly in the pocket of Big Oil, and it is cheaper to build pipelines than refineries, and cheaper to ship off-shore to take advantage of cheap labor.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 11-25-2014 19:51

labor is not a large factor in refinery cost. But refineries are near billion dollar investments. It's cheaper to build a pipeline to existing refinery infrastructure than to build a new pipeline. Also a large refinery in rural canada would have higher operational costs and it's no where near major use centers. There was some discussion of building a cross canada pipeline to their pacific coast but elevation, infrastructure and cost is not in their favor. Make no mistake the Canadians would love to keep more of that profit in their country if possible, but it's just not practical for the tar sands.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 12:21

My "limited" understanding of the subject is that the oil from Canada is currently being moved across the U.S. by rail anyhow.

I don't think it's a matter of something new, that we can say, "only sell it domestically."

Seems to me that a pipeline is far more safe and cost effective than rail for moving all that oil.

Also, the use of rail to move that oil has put a tremendous strain on Mid-West agriculture, as the cost to move corn and soybeans has risen dramatically over the last few years due to lack of rail capacity.

It's a really big narrative.

And we regular folks get fed angry negatives from both sides rather than persuasive evidence from ether side.

.

By Northweldor (***)

Date 11-20-2014 13:31 Edited 11-20-2014 18:50

Henry:

The TransCanada Energy East Pipeline to the Atlantic, reversing a 40 year-old natural gas line and carrying dilbit across 961 lake and river crossings is already well past the proposal stage, with construction expected soon. The twinning of the TransMountain line from Alberta to Vancouver is at the surveying stage with disputes over route and safety. So, both options are proceeding, to take Canadian crude off-shore, without shipping through the US.

In addition, Russ Girling, CEO of TransCanada, the Keystone owner, announced this morning that his company is going into the railroad business.
"...Though TransCanada touts pipelines as the safest and most efficient mode of transport, it sees a long-term role for rail for the energy industry.

"I think the marketplace has learned that it is flexible, it can be put in place relatively quickly, it doesn't have the same regulatory hurdles as building pipe does," said Girling.

"I think it plays a larger role in the future than it has in the past, and therefore it's likely a business that we're in long term, irrespective of Keystone."

The magnitude of TransCanada's rail investment will depend on the fortunes of Keystone XL and other U.S. pipeline proposals.

"To the extent that they're delayed, I would say the scale of that business would be larger than it would be if we see these approvals happen in the near term," Girling said...".

Calgary Herald, Nov.18/14

By S J

Date 11-20-2014 19:58

You raised some interesting points for discussion Northweldor, and, they raise some other factors for inquiring minds to consider:

1.) What is the shortest distance between two points?
2.) What is the fastest and most economical mode of transport? Today, in the short term future, and in the long term future?
3.) How fast do railroad ties rot?
4.) What is the compression strength and fatigue life of the best "plastic"/fiber/carbon-nano-fiber railroad ties on the market today?
5.) Are all the refineries in North America posted on the web today?
6.) Should this information be posted on the web for open access?
7.) What defines "insider trading" - in international law terms? I'm not sure, not a big player, do not work for CSX, or hold any investment positions directly to these concerns.

Some of us prefer a stable, "rooted" lifestyle, and others enjoy travel, camping, and the great outdoors - then too, age sometimes plays an important factor in the decision making process.

And, some of us "old folks" do not like noise.

By Superflux (****)

Date 11-21-2014 06:16

Since the RailRoads are already transporting the oil, they will want a HUGE trespass fee to put a pipeline across their ROW.
This killed slurry lines for Wyoming coal way back when. It would have been a win win deal for us by getting valuable water from the Great Lakes and increased sales of coal tonage.
Nebraska was supposedly playing hard ball and it was not about polluting the Ogallala Aquafer as it was the cornhuskers were holding out for more concessions.

By Dualie

Date 11-21-2014 08:02

Well obamas Chief ra ra supporter/contributor and advisor is warren buffet, Guess who owns the railroad thats currently transporting the oil...

By S J

Date 11-21-2014 13:56

Hopefully you meant WARREN BUFFET - or, is He still no longer the second, or third, or whatever richest man in the world?

However, now that you mention it, the Coke lingo also is running through my head.

And, what did the French Queen Catherine (or Katherine), or whoever (Bohemian?) say - "Let them eat cake?"

Sorry, my bad.

Still a bit confused - the API website reported some 300,000 miles of pipeline in the USA today.

And, a brother in law once advised me to not "worry" about things that are "secret". Was it not Alfred Newman of Mad Magazine fame who used to quip - "What - me worry"?

How do our investment analysts ever keep up?

A recent visit to one online computerized brokerage website suggested that one of the V.P.'s photos had perhaps been replaced by some "wonder boy" kid's photo. One hates to ask if this was done by a hacker, or a desire to emulate the Hollywood elite who sometimes attempt to deny their own mortality.

Slurry - is what? Sounds like a good way to clog a pipeline if you ask me. It is perhaps the 8th wonder of the World though, or some (wild?) imagination at work.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-21-2014 16:21

SJ,

SLURRY:
noun, plural slurries.

1.) a thin mixture of an insoluble substance, as cement, clay, or coal, with a liquid, as water or oil.

2.) Ceramics. a thin slip.

verb (used with object), slurried, slurrying.
3.) to prepare a suspension of (a solid in a liquid).

adjective
4.) of or pertaining to such a suspension.

Examples from the web for slurry:

Mountaintop sites also create slurry ponds-artificial lakes that hold the byproducts of coal processing and that sometimes fail.

Then the pieces were dipped into a vat of ceramic slurry-a suspension of silica flour and liquefied plastic.

Together they came up with a slurry of a few species of lichens and mixed in some protein.

The slurry would be injected into the jet, carrying the particles away in the ascending heated air.

When houses are dismantled, the ground on which they stand is transported through slurry pipes to the new location.

It took ten days' effort before it was finally plugged, with cement slurry.

When manure is stored as liquid or slurry in ponds or tanks, it releases methane.

There are many examples of toxic materials, from pig manure to coal slurry, flooding communities.

The rumbling of a building-sized slurry machine soon filled the air.

But with some time and patience, all that tech slurry can be taken in and digested.

By Northweldor (***)

Date 11-21-2014 17:18

Another interesting fact: Richard Kinder of Kinder Morgan, the builder of the proposed TM pipeline in Canada, and 41st richest man in the US, is the former CEO of Enron, preceding Kenneth Lay. He left well before the collapse, and does not like to talk about it!

By SCOTTN

Date 11-21-2014 18:04

41st richest man in America. Pretty impressive. I'll never understand rich people. They get to go out killing pheasants and foxes with rifles and people clap and cheer. I killed a horse, which is ten times the size of a pheasant and people just cried. Plus, I didn't even have a gun, I had to use a hammer.

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 11-21-2014 18:50

LOL

By js55

Date 11-21-2014 19:27

SJ,
The cake statement was attributed to Marie Antoinette. And she didn't say it either.
Actually, nobody did. It was made up.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-21-2014 19:44

I think my wife did it at my 50th birthday. :lol:

By Stringer (***)

Date 11-22-2014 03:09

Well I was going to mention a Barron's article about Richard Kinder receiving an inordinate percentage of company profits but it appears we've gotten sidetracked.

By Northweldor (***)

Date 11-22-2014 12:44 Edited 11-23-2014 17:06

His salary is only $1 a year, and he gets the other $300,000,000 in dividends. Also, company profits are quite high, since Kinder-Morgan does not pay the 35% US corporate income tax, due to its structure in "master limited partnerships".

Correction: I should not have used the word "dividends" above; it should be "earnings". This tax loophole, called "energy income trusts" in Canada, was shut down in 2008, in Canada, but is still continuing in the US.

By Superflux (****)

Date 11-22-2014 15:59 Edited 11-22-2014 16:01

S J,

It was proposed to use this system of coal slurry to get our coal to markets cheaper. http://clui.org/ludb/site/black-mesa-coal-mine-and-pipeline
It never got off the ground (or into the ground). State of Wyoming was even threatening eminent domain to force the railroads into submission.

This explains the concept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_pipeline

And heres the story of what failed here.
http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/coal-slurry-idea-came-and-went

So major pipeline projects come and go and can disappear from concept to construction.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-23-2014 10:29

Oil sands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

A whole lot of information in this link even if it is Wikipedia. :eek:

*Warning: Multiple walls of text in the link! :eek:

Respectfully,
Henry

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 11-23-2014 21:27 Edited 11-23-2014 21:31

Who has it backwards....the environmentalist movement to stop the keystone or the folks who want to see it built. From a risk standpoint mile long trains of super sludge oil sands crude appear at least to me a far greater risk to the environment of anywhere then pumping it down a tightly controlled and monitored pipeline. Perhaps the environmental push (like everything else political) has a vast slushbag of money dangling like the proverbial carrot in front of it in some backdoor room for the cooperation of protesting common sense.

I resisted posting to this but temptation has overwhelmed my meager resolve. I worked for TC on the Keystone Gulf project, the first leg of the keystone pipeline already bought, paid for and built. Cushing OK to the gulf south of houston, ten large impressive pump stations along the way. Already in the ground and pumping oil to and from the tank farms and terminals in Cushing. A side bet is the announced pipeling from Cushing to Memphis across Arkansas, contractors are vying for sections as we speak.

From the start to the end with TC, I am highly impressed with engineers, QC and management types. I talked to them on the jobsite and at the hotels, all type a personalities who apparently really liked who they worked for. They are determined, they have the money, they are SUPER serious about it being done by the book, cost is not even a secondary consideration it seems like. AS just a lowly welding hand....I appreciate greatly the perspective imparted to me by these Trans Canada folks, to use pipeline terminology as a company they are "JAM UP"! I have little doubt the pipeline will come into existence, however I have no doubt they will find a way to sell this oil at the best market price to ANY buyer regardless of the US govt. stance on it.

my paltry $.02
carry on

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-25-2014 15:09

>Who has it backwards....the environmentalist movement to stop the keystone or the folks who want to see it built. From a risk standpoint mile long trains of super sludge oil sands crude appear at least to me a far greater risk to the environment of anywhere then pumping it down a tightly controlled and monitored pipeline.

Tommy, I think you are right...a stationary pipe, to me, looks far safer than these trains loaded down and derailing spilling into rivers and waterways like the recent accident that happened in my hometown in April of this year.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/09/25/american-petroleum-institute-offers-crude-train-testing-standards/

>Several CSX tanker cars carrying crude oil in flames after derailing in downtown Lynchburg, Va., Wednesday, April 30, 2014. (AP Photo/City of Lynchburg, LuAnn Hunt

APTOPIX-Train-Derailm_Coha1-306x184.jpg (15k)

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-25-2014 15:36

I agree John... It's got so many folks around here that live near RR tracks and see these snakes of trains coming by their houses wondering if the old track will be solid enough to handle them constantly going back and forth when prior to using this method of transport, maybe 1/10th of the amount of train traffic was passing by their houses and land... They don't think " I wonder if these train would derail the amount of damage they could cause..." They instead think "It's only a matter of time before there's a derailment on one of these spur lines and they're planning to put even more trains on these tracks!"

It's definitely an accident waiting to happen and the crazy part of it is that the higher ups know that a pipeline is so much more safe and way less likely to spill oil... Friggin knuckleheads!

Respectfully,
Henry

By Metarinka (****)

Date 11-25-2014 19:59

Marking the oil for domestic use only would be equivalent to international blackmail, unless you want to repeat the 1970's OPEC embargo's where everyone says "nah we'll keep to ourselves". Interestingly enough with the discovery and extraction of shale gas we are pretty energy independent now, and it's plummeting the price of oil. Sending venezula and other countries into hyper inflation.

Still though you can't just hold an international commodity hostage because you want to use it all first. You could make export tariffs unbearable but that's not happening anytime soon with Oil. based on economic factors Canada already is our biggest oil supplier and keystone being built or not won't change that.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-25-2014 21:10 Edited 11-25-2014 21:13

But that's not my point Joel... My point is that the oil shouldn't go to be exported exclusively... I'm not saying to keep it all to ourselves because that's like shooting our own economy in the foot if we don't continue to help supply our most strategic economical partners like Japan and South Korea for example... I know that oil is a commodity and is subject to pricing based on what ET and Brent crude and maybe a few other markets are selling at and I should know about shale because I live on top of a whole bunch of it duh?

What I'm against is not sharing the supply with our own domestic needs and if Keystone does indeed facilitate that then I'm all for it but as far as the rest of the world is concerned and especially if they're not friendly - they can kiss my American/Cuban/Dominican azz because more than likely we have helped them in one form or another only to be spit at when we ask for a little cooperation I mean let's be real Joel! I can remember when many of these countries that currently have tremendous influence in controlling the price of oil via being a member of OPEC and using their influence by limiting their own production knowingly to hurt our economy intentionally, and yet we put up with it! Heck, we even sacrificed blood and treasure to defend them only to be spat at afterwards and called the evil ones...

This country saved their azzes more than once in ways that were never reported in the media because even today they're still classified as top secret... And yet we should always share everything we have regardless of the circumstances? That may have been something we could realistically do befre but currently? Heck no! And give me a good reason why we should continue to be as benevolent as we were before all of this manipulating, scheming,and outright hostility has literally labelled the US as the Bad Guys to the rest of the world...

But in the overall final analysis, the United states of America has helped more countries whose new found riches in their own natural resources have increased their quality of life as well as their wealth assets to levels they never would have imagined just a few decades before just as they were getting ready to start exporting... And how do they show us their gratitude? by increasing the price of that commodity and by forgetting that our sons and daughters have lost blood and treasure in defending those countries for the most part or have been willing to do so and more so than any other country... The only exception to that is what Great Britain has also sacrificed also, and they should be credited for doing so even when their own popular opinion was totally against doing so...

Now if it were me as the person having the authority to decide that we as a country are going to keep all of our natural resources, I would say no -we'll sell 10% and keep 90% for domestic use until we have alternate fueled vehicles en masse to replace the fossil fuel vehicles we currently use... Only then would I gradually loosen the restrictions I imposed on distribution of our own commodities much like OPEC already does and has been doing since the seventies I might add.... Too much? Okay I'll loosen up a bit and settle for 25% to export and 60% for domestic use with the remaining 10% going to our own strategic reserves... I'm going to stop because I might end up typing something in here that's politically incorrect to the globalists that get so offended and twist what someone like myself posts to be mean and selfish and is really distorting their own interpretation of reality.

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-25-2014 21:17

Northweldor.

Tell that to the people all over the USA that have experienced some similar accidents as described in this link that John Wright posted earlier in this thread...

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/09/25/american-petroleum-institute-offers-crude-train-testing-standards/

I think that they would totally disagree with you and they would probably have some very clever metaphors to express their discontent. :eek:

Respectfully,
Henry

By Northweldor (***)

Date 11-25-2014 22:04

What, specifically, is in that article, that contravenes anything I posted?

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-25-2014 22:39

1.) "a rail spur is much more economic than a pipeline, and the amount of oil spilled in all rail derailments is miniscule compared to the amount spilled in one major pipeline accidents." But, if you count how many accidents have occurred ever since the use of tank cars for transporting oil has increased to the current levels, one would see that their have been more in way less time that pipeline leaks in the same time period...

2.) "Another major factor, for weldors, is that there are far more longer- term welding jobs to be had in manufacturing new full-frame tank cars to replace the faulty tank cars that use the tank for a frame, and crumple, burn and/or explode on impact, than the jobs briefly produced by pipelines."

The new tank cars haven't been produced yet so they're still using the older ones... Pipelines usually leak in remote area's with some very few exceptions... The same cannot be said of the existing tank car accidents that have happened so far in the US which just so happens to be the country where most of us in here live and I'm not familiar with what's going on in Canada being that I don't live there... These existing cars that are travelling all over residential area's in the USA are as you describe -Quote: "faulty tank cars that use the tank for a frame, and crumple, burn and/or explode on impact" If you don't know then I'd be wasting my time trying to answer your reply...

Rail spurs don't have to go over huge underground fresh water supplies where if oil were to be spilled, the results would be catastrophic for those folks in the mid-west especially states where farming depends heavily on the aquifers to supply them with fresh water... However. pipelines can be altered to change where they will be laid in order to avoid this sort of possibility... But until those new shiny, well built tank cars are being put on the rails like sausages, the risk for spilling oil is going to be greater with those older type of tank cars along with old twisted rail lines that are mostly in disrepair

In Canada, the rail lines must be in way better shape than the rail down in the US because it's more common place to have rail accidents of all sorts than one would think... Sadly to say, out infrastructure is is crumbling all around us and is also the potential source for making so many more jobs if we would only get really serious about fixing it... However, it's going to take a lot more accidents and many more deaths before any serious changes are made and the money spent on waste is spent on fixing it finally otherwise we're done! Enough said!

Respectfully,
Henry

By Northweldor (***)

Date 11-30-2014 14:20 Edited 11-30-2014 14:34

Henry:

“But, if you count how many accidents have occurred ever since the use of tank cars for transporting oil has increased to the current levels, one would see that their have been more in way less time that pipeline leaks in the same time period... “

I really doubt that this statistic proves much, about railway, or pipeline shipping, However, I don’t want to get into a statistical debate which neither of us will win, since, as Twain once said, “There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics”! This article in Forbes magazine, (a source I don’t often respect for honesty), makes it clear that there are plenty of Twain’s types on all facets of pipeline discussion:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

However, my point was that rail crude-traffic will continue and will continue to increase because it is cheaper and more flexible for short hauls, and fractured reserves that may soon be exhausted again. [Pipeline crude-traffic is cheaper and more efficient for longer hauls (over a thousand miles, say) but requires condensate to produce dilbit, while
railbit does not. ]

“The new tank cars haven't been produced yet so they're still using the older ones…”

I would really question this statement, especially in view of the quote below, over 18 months old:

“The tank car backlog is close to 48,000, and perhaps as many as 30,000 are related to crude petroleum,” said Toby Kolstad, who runs advisory firm Rail Theory Forecasts.
The number of tank cars ordered for shipping crude and expected to be delivered by the end of 2014 will be enough to move two million barrels of oil per day, almost three times what is currently extracted from the Bakken shale basin, Mr. Kolstad said.
That’s the size of two Keystone XLs and one Seaway pipeline….”
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/22/demand-for-tank-cars-to-ship-crude-oil-by-rail-rises-at-breakneck-speed/?__lsa=ed9e-ab62

Finally, with regard to relative safety of both shipping methods, my cynical view is that the companies involved have already done cost-benefit analysis, as GM did in the ignition-switch fiasco, to determine whether it is cheaper to institute safety measures, or plow ahead and pay off the survivors. With enough propaganda, money will rule. A good example is Keystone XL If TC had chosen to spend more on pipe and weldors, by twinning Keystone Phase 1 to Cushing, I think it would be flowing Canadian crude now. Instead, some cost-benefit type said "It would be cheaper...", and the rest is history.

By Stringer (***)

Date 12-03-2014 01:16

I've owned Suncor oilsand stock for some years now partly as insurance against a ship sunk in the Hormuz for some reason, and partly because I think the Canadians are superstars at continuity. I don't know as this oil has a lot of patriotism involved. They'll pump it wherever they can get a contract is my bet, whether it's a Chinese ship or the Keystone to Pt. Arthur, Texas Shell plant. But a ship hasn't been sunk and there's oil from fracking right at home and demand is not ramping up. I'm not changing from a spam-can commuter car to a Steve McQueen Bullitt model Mustang just because gas went down some. OK, I've thought about it, but I'd just get a ticket so no I'm staying the course. I'm a pipe welder but I'm not pro-Keystone just because of that. I worry about encroaching big infrastructure making me feel more imprisoned and less empowered. I also think if we burn all we can get through all these pipelines we're cooked. That said I'm going to weld and do my job best I can as always.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 12-03-2014 01:54

Do you really expect that that many tank cars will be ready to roll with such short notice? I don't and I know that there are already delays in the supply chain... Maybe next year.

By 357max

Date 02-24-2015 22:30

President Barak Hussein Obama has vetoed the Keystone Pipeline!?!?!?!? I wonder if they will stop the proposed 200 mile pipeline from North Dakota into Canada and tie into the pipeline heading to the Canadian Refineries on the East Coast. More power to the ingenious Canucks!