I see on the news that the Keystone pipeline has (again) been shot down. irrc the function was to move the heavy Canadian tar sands oil to the (Texas?) refineries equipped to handle it?
What’s happening to that oil right now? I assume it must be travelling by rail to somewhere.
The feelings are with Keystone off track the attention now focused at getting oil to Eastern Canada by pipeline to refineries there, also talk of pipeline to the West coast for the Asian market, Alberta is thinking about building refineries instead of shipping crude oil, something they talked about 30 years ago. It’s a new ballgame now.
There are other pipelines already carrying the oil to the midwest and gulf coast. Keyston would just have been added capacity. And, as mentioned TransCanada (Keystone’s parent) and another pipeline co are planning to expand their tar sand reach into eastern Canada, with the ability to tanker to the US east coast. Also Keystone may try to apply again in just over a year when there is a new president.
There are also new governments in Alberta and Ottawa which may not be so keen on tar sands.
I expect both Keystone and tar sands production to be a thing of the past soon.
Simple fact remains, the oil’s going to get moved, one way or another.
I recall being told here that Obama would not ultimately oppose Keystone. Why how could he? He is a big proponent of oil and gas production. How’s that working out?
I expect a massive assault on the fossil fuel energy business by the justice department and federal regulators. The way to get us to stop using fossil fuel energy is to drive the producers out of business by swamping them with federal litigation. It works every time.
This latest tactic of branding climate change skeptics as “deniers” and calling for their prosecution is really creepy. Real truth ought to be able to stand on its own without needing to jail the skeptics.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/ny_attorney_general_to_investigate_exxon_for_denying_climate_change.html
Every improvement in the human condition has followed a major increase in the availability of and lowering of the cost of energy. Todays government policies are taking us backwards not forward.
Be prepared two lower your standard of living as the government continues to force the replacement of realitively cheap efficent energy sources with inefficent high cost sources.
Research on energy to develop new more efficent sources and improve existing sources (including oil,
The use of “cheap energy” without regard for the environmental consequences is simply creating an unfunded liability which you will eventually have to pay for one way or another. The economy does not control the laws of nature, it’s the other way around.
+1 It’s great to see someone from the carbon energy industry recognize those externalities that cheap energy producers make a delayed transfer of to all of us taxpayers and insurance payers and may even make us pay later with our health.
Don’t be so Doom and Gloom NASA now has the basis of a Quantum Engine for Interstellar Space travel that produces thrust without fuel…
Needs perfection but reading the specs I am amazed at the technical advancement.
Yep and on another front, controlled fusion-generated electricity looks more and more possible.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810
The Canadian tar sands are the high cost producer of crude. Back in August, there was a WSJ article that estimated their costs in the $45/barrel range before any transportation cost. Between the development of the Bakken and the Saudi determination to pump freely, that is about where oil is selling.
When the pipeline folk asked for a postponement of the decision I was very unsure if their motive was to await a more friendly administration or a recognition that the project wasn’t economically feasible at this time.
Instead of Keystone, refine the oil here. Or better yet, leave it in the ground.
One point that has repeatedly been overlooked is that the Keystone pipeline was meant to transport petroleum to a port on the Gulf for export, not for refining and consumption in the United States.
I don’t think anyone in Canada wants the tar sands oil. The Irving refinery in New Brunswick brings in cheaper oil from the Persian Gulf and Venezuala. The whole Alberta economy is going down due to the U.S. being almost self-sufficient in oil these days and right, there was no benefit for the U.S. to have a foreign pipeline cross their territory. A bad idea all around.
Albertans are used to the swings in oil. They’ll be back stronger than ever and probably less dependent on oil.
+1 And maybe with the new government in Alberta, that could happen? (along with economic forces)
Probably not, but over the long term Alberta will get away from being so highly dependent on oil. It’s bound to happen, and they’ve already made great strides in that direction over the last 20 years.
From what I’ve read TransCanada,in addition to seeking to increase pipeline capacity to B.C ports is also planning to build additional pipeline infrastructure to the east in ordeer to supply bitumen to refineries on the East coast of Canada, particularly to Irving Oil’s refinery in St. John, New Brunswick.
So plenty of Oil sands derived fuel may be sold in the Norhteastern U.S after all…
I imagine that in the meantime there may be some product going by rail to the same facilities, which already get crude oils shipments by train.