Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Why is the Keystone Pipeline such an issue? Perhaps some of these lies explains part of the reason.

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

gatorfan



Fact Checker

"Obama’s claim that Keystone XL crude would go ‘everywhere else’ but the United States"

“I won’t hide my opinion about this, which is that one major determinant of whether we should approve a pipeline shipping Canadian oil to world markets, not to the United States, is does it contribute to the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change?”

–President Barack Obama, news conference at G20 summit, Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014

“Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.”

–Obama, news conference, Rangoon, Burma, Nov. 14

Twice during his recent overseas trip, President Obama asserted that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was designed to take Canadian crude oil to the world markets. The implication of the president’s words is that the United States would be simply a conveyor belt for the oil.

The pipeline would allow the Canadians “to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else,” the president said in Burma. The question he faced, he said in Australia, is whether “we should approve a pipeline shipping Canadian oil to world markets, not to the United States.”

Is this really the case?

The Facts

First of all, the president leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). As our colleague Steven Mufson reported more than two years ago, the refineries in the Gulf Coast are “eagerly waiting” for the Canadian crude, since there isn’t enough oil in the area anymore to feed the refineries.

“The modernized Valero refinery [in Port Arthur, Tex.] can turn 310,000 barrels a day of some of the world’s worst-quality crude oil — such as the bitumen-laden mixture from Canadian oil sands — into gasoline and diesel fuel for cars and trucks,” Mufson wrote. “Valero, the largest U.S. oil refining company, would be one of the biggest customers of oil from the Keystone XL pipeline, buying about 150,000 barrels a day.”

Indeed, the State Department’s final environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL project specifically disputed claims that the oil “would pass through the United States and be loaded onto vessels for ultimate sale in markets such as Asia,” saying it was not economically justified. The State Department noted that the traditional sources of crude for the Gulf Coast, such as Mexico and Venezuela, are declining and so refineries would have “significant incentive to obtain heavy crude from the oil sands.”

So then the question turns on what happens to that oil after it leaves the refinery. Oil is a global commodity, of course, and where it travels often depends on market conditions. In Obama’s telling, however, the refined Canadian oil goes “everywhere else” and “not to the United States.”

But that’s not right either, according to the State Department report. U.S. exports are not affected by various pipeline scenarios but instead by market conditions, such as “domestic demand versus domestic refining capacity, the cost of natural gas, and refining capacity abroad, including in foreign markets currently importing U.S. refined products such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Europe,” the report said. The demand for exports, in other words, is completely unrelated to building the Keystone XL pipeline.

For the sake of argument, let’s look at the percentage of exports currently from the Gulf Coast area, using data for refining output and product exports from the Energy Information Administration. In 2013, annual exports of distillate fuel oil were 898,000 barrels per day, out of 2,589,000 produced. That’s about 35 percent exports, 65 percent domestic. Finished motor gasoline is exported at a rate of 323,000 barrels per day, out of 946,000 produced. That’s also about 35 percent exported, 65 percent domestic.

In other words, about two-thirds of the oil that is refined in the Gulf Coast stays in the United States. Market conditions could change, of course, but there is little basis to claim that virtually all of the product, or even a majority, would be exported. (The Fact Checker has previously noted that, contrary to the claims of advocates of the project, Keystone XL is unlikely to have much impact on gasoline prices.)

Opponents of the Keystone project have seized on slides, such as the one below from one of Valero’s presentations to investors, to suggest the plan ultimately is to export the production from Canadian oil sands.

But Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero, says “it’s a mistake to interpret this to mean that Gulf Coast products would ONLY go to export markets.” The slide is simply showing the flow of trade, from various refineries; diesel currently is more popular in Europe while gasoline is king in the United States, though demand for diesel is growing in both markets. Day noted that currently the vast majority of the company’s products stay in the United States for domestic consumption.

The White House did not provide an on-the-record comment.

The Pinocchio Test

The president seriously overstates the percentage of Canadian crude that might be exported if the Keystone XL pipeline is built. He suggests all of it would be exported, without mentioning that it first would stop in the Gulf Coast to be refined into products. On top of that, current trends suggest that about one-third of that refined product would be exported. That is not insubstantial, but it is certainly much smaller than 100 percent.

All of this is laid out in the extensive report issued by the State Department earlier this year. The president might want to study it before he addresses the Keystone question again. In the meantime, he earns Three Pinocchios. We nearly made it Four Pinocchios, but it is correct that at least some of the product would be exported, based on current market conditions.

Why is the Keystone Pipeline such an issue? Perhaps some of these lies explains part of the reason. Pinocchio_3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/20/obamas-claim-that-keystone-crude-would-go-everywhere-else-but-the-united-states/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z10

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Here is what Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said before the Senate voted on the Keystone XL pipeline:

“Think before you vote today about what you’re saying to this country’s most significant trading partner,” he said. “I do not believe we should be in unstable parts of the world chasing oil. We should be working with our closest neighbor who’s a reliable trading partner instead.”

“….I do not believe we should be in unstable parts of the world chasing oil….” Thank you, Senator, as this is my prime reason for supporting the renaissance of North American oil production, along with the Keystone pipeline.

If we can get past the unrelenting climate change fearmongering, a reasonable argument on this can be brought forward. Will the fearmongers shut down Canadian tar sands development? Never. Will bitumen from Alberta continue to make its way to U.S. refineries? Yes it will—it comes by rail now and will continue to be delivered that way, with or without the pipeline. Can the argument be made that pipeline delivery of diluted bitumen creates fewer greenhouse gasses than rail delivery? I would say, absolutely! This is because smoke and CO2 belching locomotives pull long unit trains of the “sludge of death” from Alberta, all the way down to Oklahoma, and other smoke and CO2 belching locomotives pull long unit trains of naphtha (used as a bitumen dillutant) all the way back up to Alberta so it can be used to dilute more bitumen.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

gatorfan



It's amazing how greenies think not building (or should I say finishing) this pipeline will affect climate change - of course you are correct in that transporting "oil" (as it were) the current way actually increases emissions with the end result being that the product is still going to be refined at the terminus of the proposed pipeline. Refinery capacity in Texas is not even close to full capacity since source oil is diminishing.

This thing has been delayed long enough by small-minded, ill-informed people feeding off lies by special interest groups.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

gatorfan wrote:It's amazing how greenies think not building (or should I say finishing) this pipeline will affect climate change - of course you are correct in that transporting "oil" (as it were) the current way actually increases emissions with the end result being that the product is still going to be refined at the terminus of the proposed pipeline. Refinery capacity in Texas is not even close to full capacity since source oil is diminishing.

This thing has been delayed long enough by small-minded, ill-informed people feeding off lies by special interest groups.

And this is why sanity needs to return to the climate change debate, instead of shrill fearmongering about rising seas swallowing up our coastal cities by 2030. That's not going to happen.

Heck, just yesterday there was a Letter to the Editor in the PNJ, where a young woman studying environmental science at UWF claimed we needed to stop eating meat, because animal farming is a main contributor of greenhouse emissions that affect global warming. What else do these people want to force on humanity?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



The pipeline should be built for one reason only.......safety. If anybody does not think rail tanker cars are not going to continue to bring the oil to refineries, I have a swamp to sell you. Plus, the hilarious thing I find with the critics of the pipeline is the failure to recognize the first leg was completed years ago and that dirty oil is being refined into midwest gas, and bringing the price of gasoline in the midwest down by 2 cents per gallon.

The Indians are not going to allow the current routing over their land, and they have declared that such routing would be an act of war. It does not matter what congress or the President does, because local routing is going to change. However, in the end, I will take a pipeline to a derailed train killing all the fish in a river system. I have picked up those dead fish, and it is horrific and the safest method of transport should be our first choice.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


This is not an alternative choice discussion. We don't need tar sands oil, and we definitely don't need a huge pipeline crossing our heartland to line the pockets of oil interests...or those who benefit by their investment in what amounts to an ecological disaster in the making.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Here is the link to the executive summary of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project:

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf

If you read down through the document, towards the end, the summary compares the potential greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) for shipment of diluted bitumen from the Canadian oil sands region in Alberta via various means, including two or three rail shipment modes (like is going on now), and via the new pipeline, should it be constructed. The summary also presents different spill scenarios and their potential impacts using the same shipment scenarios.

If I read the graphs correctly, shipping the bitumen by rail produces roughly 29.5% more GHGs that shipping it by pipeline. Further, the potential for spills is 57% higher shipping it by rail than it is by pipeline.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat



This is not an alternative choice discussion. We don't need tar sands oil, and we definitely don't need a huge pipeline crossing our heartland

You are right. We are already getting the tar sands oil by pipeline and refining into cheaper gas for the midwest, and that pipeline crosses our heartland. Sorry, there is no alternative choice.....it is already here, and the only issue is routing and safety.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00042&segmentID=1

You might want to read this...excerpt below:

"...CURWOOD: Now, we're in the middle of a precipitous decline in price of crude oil. As we're recording this, the price of crude is down $81 dollars a barrel. How does that impact the viability of tar sands oil?

Right now, much oil from Alberta is being transported to markets by train. (Photo: Bigstockphoto)
PALMER: So, to understand this you need a bit of background. Tar sands oil is a kind of a cheap low-quality version of crude oil that comes from a very specific and remote location. Extracting tar sands is nothing like drilling for oil; it's much more like mining. So you need to move huge amounts of equipment out there to get the tar sands out of the ground. You need more equipment to separate the bitumen, which is the stuff that actually makes oil, from the sand and clay that it's stuck in, and then you need even more equipment to cook that down and turn it into something that vaguely resembles crude oil. When all of that is done, you still have to get the stuff to a refinery.
There are limited places that are refining oil in North America right now. The two best places to ship crude oil from Alberta are probably the upper mid-western United States and the Gulf of Mexico, and getting it there is a challenge. As of right now, it costs about $25 dollars per barrel to move tar sands crude from Alberta by rail to the Gulf of Mexico. If they had a pipeline, say, something like the Keystone XL pipeline, they could cut that price from $25 down to $9 dollars. That’s a huge difference. Now, because tar sands, as I mentioned, is a much lower quality version of oil, of crude oil, it sells at a discount, something like $20 to $30 dollars less than conventional crude. So with conventional crude in the 80s, tar sands crude more like in the 60s, maybe even a little bit less than that. If you can only get something like $60 to $65 dollars for your barrel of oil, having to pitch in an extra $15 to $20 dollars to move it by rail right now, rather than pipeline, will turn a marginally profitable business into a completely unprofitable business and that's scaring oil producers off of tar sands projects right now..."

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum