Keystone Pipeline

[CarlV]

I re-found this article that I had found previously.

In pushing for the Obama Administration’s approval of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the North American oil industry and its political patrons argue that the pipeline is necessary for American energy security and its construction will help wean America of dependence on Mideast oil. But a closer look at the new realities of the global oil market and at the companies who will profit from the pipeline reveals a completely different story: Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.

A new report from Oil Change International lays out the case, based on data and documents from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the Canadian National Energy Board, corporate disclosures to regulators and investors, and analysis of the rapidly shifting oil market.

The facts:

Keystone XL is an export pipeline. The Port Arthur, Texas, refiners at the end of its route are focused on expanding exports to Europe, and Latin America. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.

Valero, the key customer for crude oil from Keystone XL, has explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. Because Valero’s Port Arthur refinery is in a Foreign Trade Zone, the company can carry out its strategy tax-free.

In a shrinking U.S. market, Keystone XL is not needed. Since the project was announced, the oil industry acknowledges that higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth mean declining U.S. oil demand, even as domestic production is booming. Oil from Keystone XL will therefore displace American crude from new, “unconventional” domestic fields in Texas or North Dakota.

“To issue a presidential permit for the Keystone XL, the Administration must find that the pipeline serves the national interest,” said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. “An honest assessment shows that rather than serving U.S. interests, Keystone XL serves only the interests of tar sands producers and shippers, and a few Gulf Coast refiners aiming to export the oil.”

Valero has contracted to take at least 100,000 barrels of tar sands crude a day from Keystone XL until 2030. It’s publicly disclosed business model relies on refining heavy sour crude for export. It is upgrading its Port Arthur refinery to process heavy sour into diesel fuel. Its investor presentations clearly show it plans to ship diesel to Latin America and Europe.

Valero – the Texas independent behind last year’s attempt to overturn California’s clean fuel standards – is the only U.S. company among the six customers who have jointly committed to purchase 76 percent of Keystone XL’s initial capacity. The other refiners are Shell, which is part of Motiva, a joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and the Saudi government, and Total of France, both of which have newly upgraded facilities in Port Arthur tax-free trade zones. There are also two Canadian producers and one international oil-trading firm in the group of six customers.

Link


Carl

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I've always believed it should be built, but only once all environmental issues, etc., have been thoroughly worked out. Beyond that, I don't see that job creation will be the largest direct asset. Once a pipeline is built, it requires very few people to maintain/operate it. Unless new refineries are built, and I doubt that will happen, long term job creation will be minimal. In the grand scheme of things, negligible, even.

I say build it, but I believe the "jobs" argument is more political than anything else, in the long run.

Dave

I have a real problem with private industry confiscating men's private land to build this pipeline. A pipeline that will not benefit America and will line the pockets tax free of the international business. \

But then it's not as if anyone really owns the property they buy anyway.... the government owns it all.

[Zeke]

I have no issues -- it's law on the books -- with imminent domain style seizure of property in the event of national interest but I want the displaced folks to be compensated to the point of near ridiculousness.

If it's that important, mere $$$ shouldn't be an issue.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by MrPots

I have a real problem with private industry confiscating men's private land to build this pipeline. A pipeline that will not benefit America and will line the pockets tax free of the international business. \

But then it's not as if anyone really owns the property they buy anyway.... the government owns it all.

Originally Posted by Zeke

I have no issues -- it's law on the books -- with imminent domain style seizure of property in the event of national interest but I want the displaced folks to be compensated to the point of near ridiculousness.

If it's that important, mere $$$ shouldn't be an issue.

Hmmm.........

I can see both points.

Dave

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Tar sand oil is crap oil. Other than using things made of plastic, no.



Carl

We need lots of crap oil as ingredients for thousands of products we use daily.

It's thoroughly amazing how many things have petroleum in them. Our world population would be cut by 3/4 without it's exploitation.

Not as thats a bad thing. Oil allowed this planet to overpopulate to the extent all resources are overextended.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Tar sand oil is crap oil. Other than using things made of plastic, no.

Carl

That's not true. It too can be refined into gasoline, heating oil, etc., though the process is certainly more complex and expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_san...n_and_refining

[epifanatic]

I've been against it from the beginning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by epifanatic

I've been against it from the beginning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

It's been rerouted to avoid the Sand Hills and the portions of the aquifer closest the ground's surface.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trans...peline-2011-11

[epifanatic]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's been rerouted to avoid the Sand Hills and the portions of the aquifer closest the ground's surface.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trans...peline-2011-11

Yeah, IIRC the original route would've nearly bisected it. It's still too close for me.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

We need lots of crap oil as ingredients for thousands of products we use daily.

It's thoroughly amazing how many things have petroleum in them. Our world population would be cut by 3/4 without it's exploitation.

Not as thats a bad thing. Oil allowed this planet to overpopulate to the extent all resources are overextended.

Yeah, sure. Your source for this information?


Carl