Please talk to me about the pipeline

[somersault72]

I see Biden immediately stopped the Keystone pipeline. Since nothing is a unity horse anymore can someone point me in the direction of information as to how this is not going to all of a sudden make us dependent on foreign oil and cause gas prices to skyrocket. (note: I don't think those things, these are arguments I am seeing).

[hocus2]

It isn't built yet and there are already other methods for transporting the crude oil from Canada though they are less efficient. Since we don't have this already prices are not going to change much in the near future. While we do import a lot of oil from overseas we're producing more now that we did when the pipeline was introduced over 10 years ago.

www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/01/07/the-key-distinction-between-us-energy-independence-and-energy-security/?sh=753c1db97859
www.deccanherald.com/international/world-news-politics/fact-check-us-not-fully-energy-independent-yet-792693.html

[pixy0stix]

Off the top of my head - we wouldn't get any of that oil, or the money associated with it. The only thing it does to benefit the USA is lining people's pockets from the oil lobby.

ETA: We would eventually get the oil, but we'd have to buy it and it's going to US refineries. Fact checking myself - www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/16/kirsten-gillibrand/will-oil-keystone-xl-pipeline-stay-us/

Here's an article about the pros and cons: www.cbsnews.com/news/who-benefits-from-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-dakota-access-pipeline-pros-cons/

You'll hear a lot about the jobs that will be created, but they're short term employment jobs while it's being built. 

[pixy0stix]

Also, the oil is Canadian, so by default if we depended on the oil from the pipeline, it would be foreign oil. LOL!

[sonrisa]

(I was going to post a profanity laden post but pixy and others in here have covered the substance better and with less ire)

[pixy0stix]

Jan 21, 2021 17:32:56 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

(I was going to post a profanity laden post but pixy and others in here have covered the substance better and with less ire)

It's just so fucking stupid. The people who want it clearly haven't done ANY research at all into it. Like the dependency on foreign oil. It's not USA oil, ffs.

[schrodinger]

Are they worried about foreign crude dependency, or are they worried about gas prices?  Canadian crude is cheap, so it could arguably cause gas prices to drop... but it's also foreign, so running more of it would increase our dependency on foreign oil.

On a whole, the US is already a net importer of crude.  Keystone XL wouldn't change that, since it is just a pipeline to get ~800,000 barrels/day of crude from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.  I highly doubt that all of the crude would be able to be refined in the US, so this is just a play to get access to shipping/trading of Canadian barrels in the Gulf Coast market.  I'm sure OPEC will not respond well to this and will try and tip the market back in their favor.  What this means for crude prices and availability is really anyone's guess.  I've seen doomsday predictions from experts that say $10/bbl, and $100/bbl of crude are possible.

Canadian crude is cheap because it's crap compared to other crudes.  It's hard to process and has poor yields of gas/jet/diesel.  Just because it is cheaper to buy doesn't mean that the margin is there for refineries to process it.  Lower feedstock price doesn't result in lower product prices if the processing costs are high.  Most refineries have an upper limit to the amount of Canadian they can process and cannot get around this without significant investment, so even if all the cheap crude was made available tomorrow, it might be years before it makes it's way into a local system.

EIA is a good source for unbiased reports on volumes and markets in the US.


EIA link 
XL Map

[MixedBerryJam]

Jan 21, 2021 17:11:43 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

.../

You'll hear a lot about the jobs that will be created, but they're short term employment jobs while it's being built. 

 Also re jobs I there are going to be a lot more jobs* in renewable energy/infrastructure in the next few years than the 50k (no idea if that number is right, is just the most recent one I saw) conduction jobs lost with Keystone.  

Also I didn't see anyone else mention this but would the Keystone Pipeline have carried tar sands sludge which is far more expensive to refine and much more damaging in the case of a pipeline rupture (than whatever "regular" raw petroleum is? I know nothing about oil and gas.)

*I meant to include a link. Sorry. www.edf.org/energy/clean-energy-jobs

[loira]

Most Canadians minus Alberta think the Keystone is stupid, so you all are not alone in this.

I would much rather the pipeline didn't happen. Alberta needs to diversify ffs. I say that lovingly as someone who spent a good portion of my upbringing there. Its biggest problem is that the provincial government refuses to champion anything but the traditional energy sector. What's next, coal? Perhaps they could make even more cuts to education and healthcare and use the money to fund the reopening of Turtle Mountain*.

*If you do not understand the sarcasm here I urge you to google Turtle Mountain and the town of Frank in Alberta.

[audette]

Jan 22, 2021 1:06:45 GMT -5 loira said:

Most Canadians minus Alberta think the Keystone is stupid, so you all are not alone in this.

I would much rather the pipeline didn't happen. Alberta needs to diversify ffs. I say that lovingly as someone who spent a good portion of my upbringing there. Its biggest problem is that the provincial government refuses to champion anything but the traditional energy sector. What's next, coal? Perhaps they could make even more cuts to education and healthcare and use the money to fund the reopening of Turtle Mountain*.

*If you do not understand the sarcasm here I urge you to google Turtle Mountain and the town of Frank in Alberta.

Oh, man, Frank Slide is an eerie place to visit.

Yup, AB needs to diversify. And, under their last administration an attempt was made to do that. And then... Kenney.


Keystone was just screwed up from the get go. And, like Loira, I spent many a formative year in AB, as well as spending the majority of my adult life working in a related industry. Pipelines are not a horrible idea (they are, generally, safer and better than other transport options for oil). But oil sands crude is some of the cheapest, dirtiest oil in the world. It's not worth as much as sweet crude from other places. With the current price of oil, piping from northern AB to the gulf coast is nutty.

[dellabear]

Jan 22, 2021 1:06:45 GMT -5 loira said:

Most Canadians minus Alberta think the Keystone is stupid, so you all are not alone in this.

I would much rather the pipeline didn't happen. Alberta needs to diversify ffs. I say that lovingly as someone who spent a good portion of my upbringing there. Its biggest problem is that the provincial government refuses to champion anything but the traditional energy sector. What's next, coal? Perhaps they could make even more cuts to education and healthcare and use the money to fund the reopening of Turtle Mountain*.

*If you do not understand the sarcasm here I urge you to google Turtle Mountain and the town of Frank in Alberta.

Actually they granted a bunch of new coal mining leases in the Rockies in December and people freaked out and they had to rescind them.

I lived in AB for a decade before moving last year and I agree with you.  But people there have been brainwashed by the premier to think that a pipeline is the only thing between them and six figure jobs for all. 

[cville]

It is really really dumb, for real.

[mcppalmbeach]

I mean the brainwashing is real. My mom (Biden voter) just called to tell me to get gas because she saw on the news that Biden closed the pipeline and prices are going to go way up. And I was like “I don’t even know where to start.”

[aprilsails]

Jan 22, 2021 13:10:08 GMT -5 mcppalmbeach said:

I mean the brainwashing is real. My mom (Biden voter) just called to tell me to get gas because she saw on the news that Biden closed the pipeline and prices are going to go way up. And I was like “I don’t even know where to start.”

Lol. They had barely started building the damn thing.

Conservatives friends who live in Alberta are upset, which is not surprising. Economically, Alberta has been in trouble since 2015. Housing values are dropping or stagnant while they are going up everywhere else in Canada. Unemployment was already up before Covid. So this is going to hurt them some more.

The province really needs to diversify their economy. They’ve taken a big hit this year with the lack of tourism as well. They are certainly going to grumble.

In my opinion we all need to put our money towards not using oil instead of spending money to come up with cheaper oil. I’m doing amazing studies for the federal government in Ottawa on Net Zero or low carbon building systems. I’m honestly stunned at some of the emission reductions that can be achieved (and are being achieved right now).

Furthermore, we invested extra in insulation on our new build home. It costs next to nothing to heat. I can’t believe how low our gas bills are this winter. They are $20 more per month than our summer bills, which are just for our hot water heater.

[somersault72]

Thanks so much everyone! It's falling on deaf ears, of course, but I am glad to learn more about it.

[notsopicky]

Thank you for this thread. I feel way more informed now. The political spin of Keystone is just one more addition to misinformation/disinformation campaigns (like mcppalmbeach's example--not a dig on your mom, I promise!), so the more facts we have, the better.

[minzy]

This article about the pipeline is not so much about its energy prospects, but about how the new administration listened and acknowledged the concerns of the tribal nations along the proposed route through South Dakota.
amp.argusleader.com/amp/4243581001

Indigenous people often get the short end of the stick with environmental decisions. However, their history and culture of living with the land, mean their voices should probably carry much more weight than others on the subject. It’s a concern seen over and over in many facets of the climate crisis.

Here’s a decent Wikipedia overview of the intersection between climate change and indigenous peoples.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_indigenous_peoples

[audette]

I mean, this pipeline was probably conceived back in 2007-ish timeframe, when a barrel of oil was going for more than double what it is today. At prices over $100/barrel (at that time) it was economically beneficial to extract oil from the oil sands projects in Northern Alberta. It takes a lot of effort to extract the oil from the base material it is in, and even when that is done, the oil is generally of a lower grade/quality than many other sources in the world, so oil needs to be quite expensive to make that all worth doing


A pipeline to refineries or to a ocean-facing dock is not a completely insane proposal. Particularly when prices for oil are very high. As I said before, pipeline transportation, particularly _modern_ pipeline transportation is considerably safer than any other option to transport the oil from a land-locked area to where it can be marketed. But, with Keystone, the whole project was forced and pushed and bullied. Yep, it's simpler to take route A to B. But, that goes over sensitive aquifers, or over important tribal land. So, you have a few options at that point - engineer a solution to reduce the risk the aquifer, work with the tribe on what options might exist, or re-route the pipeline project. All of those are options worth exploring, but they likely would cost more money, a _lot_ more money. And, with oil now around $50/barrel, it's not really worth doing. Heck, at that price, I question if it's even worth having the Keystone pipeline as designed, even if you ignore all the asshole situations that surround it.

[DesertMoon]

I'm from Ontario and the consensus here atleast with people I know is disappointment. Supposedly this means Canada will have to continue buying their own oil back. I don't know much about it, so idk how valid that point of view is. I did hear Trudeau is pretty upset about it though.

[lolalolalola]

I'm an Albertan so this certainly colours my view. Generally through here are my thoughts.

- KXL would be better emissions wise than the other alternatives to get Alberta oil to global markets, like marine and rail.
- The US has built a number of domestic pipelines over the last 10 years (including under Obama) which have their own environmental impacts, but are not owned by Canada.
- More Canadian oil is better for the world. Period. The global demand for oil will be there through the transition to a lower carbon economy. Russia, Saudi, Venezuela and other countries with poor/incomplete/false emissions reporting and really awful human rights records, will fill in the gaps. Happily. Canada has one of the most strongest regulatory regimes in the world. (There is also a lot of misinformation spread about Alberta’s oil sands but that’s a whole other topic!).

I will say that even through I was pro-KXL, I'd rather lose the pipeline a million times over than have Trump for another 4 years. Because human right are more important - over and above the economy, emissions, etc. (see above).

[downtoearth]

I might DD later... but basically the construction that was "halted" is all at the border. The President took away the permit to connect internationally between MT and Canada. That is a little different than being able to stop the entire pipeline. It's sort of a temporary "halt" and from what I understand the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the State Department for the pipeline as it is designed within the US and the state permits sort of still stand (but several of the state 401 clean water act permits for Major Facility Siting are being challenged in district courts). But in general the EIS has stood up in courts so far. It's so hard b/c our EPA and state environmental agencies are all set-up where they don't really have the authority to stop a project so much as just add a lot of permit conditions that might make it too cost prohibitive to protect the environment when constructing or operating. But if a company is willing to accommodate the permit conditions, there really isn't a way the Army Corps/EPA or state environmental agencies can just say, "nope, the public is against this." So even though the majority of the nation and so many of the First Nations are against this, the permit process is really hard to use to stop a major facility like the Keystone XL pipeline. Ugh. Anyway, that's my 2-cents. And the Alberta/Canadian government definitely wants this to go forward and they spent $1.1M recently to help construction along while the pipeline company was able... so they have $ and want to make $ out of this. But also, I dispute that KXL is "better for emissions" - sure, we're not trucking it, but not using it and reducing our carbon footprint and reliance on carbon-intensive tar sands is better than any of those, right? What am I missing there? I thought that was the case.

The Exec. Order from Biden says the following:

"Sec. 6. Revoking the March 2019 Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. (a) On March 29, 2019, the President granted to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. a Presidential permit (the “Permit”) to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities at the international border of the United States and Canada (the “Keystone XL pipeline”), subject to express conditions and potential revocation in the President’s sole discretion. The Permit is hereby revoked in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Permit. "

Montana DEQ conditionally approved the 201+ water and wetland crossings as of December 31, 2020: deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/DEQAdmin/MFS/Documents/WQ/MT4011079_FinalDetermination_KXL.pdf

There are still public comment discussions being published, but there were over 650 individual comments (not including so many petition signatures that just said, "don't build"). The majority of the siting comments came from within Montana. But this permit is part of the Army Corps of Engineering review - each state does this on behalf of the feds basically.

That being said, Keystone XL is able to keep building and doing construction while this is on-going. What Biden did was stop them from connecting internationally. They did temporarily stop, but it will depend on district court cases if they start again this spring to plan ahead and try to work around that. I'm guessing they won't, but you just never know if they have $ and think this will eventually happen.

[basilosaurus]

Jan 23, 2021 15:13:23 GMT -5 lolalolalola said:

I'm an Albertan so this certainly colours my view. Generally through here are my thoughts.

- KXL would be better emissions wise than the other alternatives to get Alberta oil to global markets, like marine and rail.
- The US has built a number of domestic pipelines over the last 10 years (including under Obama) which have their own environmental impacts, but are not owned by Canada.
- More Canadian oil is better for the world. Period. The global demand for oil will be there through the transition to a lower carbon economy. Russia, Saudi, Venezuela and other countries with poor/incomplete/false emissions reporting and really awful human rights records, will fill in the gaps. Happily. Canada has one of the most strongest regulatory regimes in the world. (There is also a lot of misinformation spread about Alberta’s oil sands but that’s a whole other topic!).

I will say that even through I was pro-KXL, I'd rather lose the pipeline a million times over than have Trump for another 4 years. Because human right are more important - over and above the economy, emissions, etc. (see above).

LOL. "I'm biased, so here are my biased opinions." We all do it, but many of your points have already been addressed by people working in the industry with much more detail.

As for pipelines generally, I think people in the field have specifically said why they're not bad and in fact may be the best option. The question was this particular pipeline and why the opposition to it. Beyond going across NA lands, it doesn't benefit the US. Pipelines built domestically under Obama do. 

If you're going to say there's misinformation about the oil sands, provide your reasoning why people in this thread are wrong. So far, all I see are people explaining why it's not the best. What about their points is wrong? I didn't know about quality but even I have long known it's a difficult and expensive extraction, one that made economic sense when prices were far higher but doesn't make sense right at this moment.

Finally, this question was really about refuting the people going OMGZ with no pipeline American gas prices will skyrocket!!! It seems it will have little to no impact on that due to, as you mentioned, Canada owning it. Maybe it will on Canadian prices, but that wasn't the question. Now if you want to make the argument that as close allies we should care about Canadian prices and their impact, I'll listen. What is your response to people saying AB needs to diversify which would spread economic impact? 

[aurora]

Jan 23, 2021 15:13:23 GMT -5 lolalolalola said:

I'm an Albertan so this certainly colours my view. Generally through here are my thoughts.

- KXL would be better emissions wise than the other alternatives to get Alberta oil to global markets, like marine and rail.
- The US has built a number of domestic pipelines over the last 10 years (including under Obama) which have their own environmental impacts, but are not owned by Canada.
- More Canadian oil is better for the world. Period. The global demand for oil will be there through the transition to a lower carbon economy. Russia, Saudi, Venezuela and other countries with poor/incomplete/false emissions reporting and really awful human rights records, will fill in the gaps. Happily. Canada has one of the most strongest regulatory regimes in the world. (There is also a lot of misinformation spread about Alberta’s oil sands but that’s a whole other topic!).

I will say that even through I was pro-KXL, I'd rather lose the pipeline a million times over than have Trump for another 4 years. Because human right are more important - over and above the economy, emissions, etc. (see above).

The bolded is not an irrefutable fact.

Although I do agree that Canadian oil is better than oil from less stable locations (all else being equal), less oil from all sources is better for the world.

If we throw up or hands and say "well, it's inevitable it will come from somewhere," we'll be a lot less motivated to find sustainable solutions to the climate crisis.

(I feel this way about pipelines built fully within the U.S., too.)

[loira]

Coming back in to clarify that when I say "Alberta needs to diversify" I don't say it in a finger wagging "naughty Alberta" way. I spent nearly 20 years in the province. It's where my parents are from, and I still have a ton of family there. I have family and friends who have lost jobs because even though the actual work they do, like marketing or HR, has little or nothing to do with the oil industry (or could be done in any industry), they are employed by the oil industry. Or their company has oil industry clients. Or they manage donations for a charity and nobody is donating anymore because money's too tight. Or they've had to close their restaurant (pre-covid) because there's less disposable income people weren't eating out.

Even people who don't want to believe the "oil is the only way" malarkey are forced to cling to it because people are hurting and the forever conservative government offers few alternative plans.

Alberta needs to diversify for the environment, yes. But also for Albertans. And for the rest of Canada. Everyone wins when Alberta's economy is based on more than extraction of limited natural resources.

[basilosaurus]

loira, I understood what you meant by that. It doesn't come across as finger wagging.