Wouldn’t it be fine if rail could grab that oil movement now that the pipeline has been blocked? Probably too unstable an issue politically for rail to try. Can’t there be 10,000 ton tank trains with operations similar to coal trains? I would think any derailment spill would cause limited damage. Just don’t like the idea of the oil going to Asia. We shoot ourselves in the foot so often.
There already some dedicated trains doing that right now.
According to news reports this date the US State Department is witholding the cross-boarder permits for the pipe line.
As well as, the Courts which have also ordered that the pipe line must avoid the route across Nebraska ,and reroute it around the Ogalala Aquifer, Which**, apparently was noted is the source of water for some eight states )?)**
Sounds as if the whole case is moving into the relm of the Federal Courts for resolution(?)
I think that the portions through Kansas have been completed, and it was finished to the Kansas-Nebraska Border area . It was building East of this area back in July and August, and was moving northward in a rapid manner.
It sounds like the pipeline is dead:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/11/10/victory-weve-killed-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-oil-pipeline/
Here’s another report.
From that Reuters article, it looks like the alternate route through Canada will also face environmental opposition. And even if either one was approved today, it would still be several years before the pipeline is completed enough so that the oil can flow through it.
In the meantime, railcars and terminals can be constructed and placed into service in a matter of months, and perhaps some short lengths of pipeline to fill gaps or create routing options, etc. And once that capital has been invested (“sunk costs” or “stranded”) into rail-based transport operations, why do that again - but for a pipeline instead - that then has even less of a service life left ?
Rail won’t be the cheapest, but it will be the most flexible. Most importantly, it can start much sooner, and the oil price differential is big enough to cover the slightly higher costs. If it were me, I’d take all of that action I could get today and make as much money off that differential by using rail as long as possible, and let the future oil transport take care of itself. As Gen. Patton famously said: “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.”
- Paul North.
Nebraska has been in a tizzy for quite some time over this. Basically, we were told that this pipeline would happen and we couldn’t stop it. So the people started to make noise and we got attention. We have pipelines over eastern NE, so we aren’t anti-pipeline.
But to build it right thru one-of-a kind Sandhills and then over the aquifer, which is another one-of-a-kind over many states, and be reassured that there will be no problems or they will be handled quickly and without problem to either of these sites…
Is this where they insert “trust me”?
We keep hearing that oil by train is too expensive. This is probably true because if there is a pipeline break, they won’t do much more than token cleanup. Just ask Louisiana.
Much ado about this pipeline, not being allowed across the U.S. I’m hearing lots of talk here about cancelling it and shipping the oil to Prince Rupert and marketing it to China, it would be cheaper to build and Canada would get a better price for the oil, another concept brewing is not to ship any crude oil out of Canada unless it’s refined, another good idea.
The U.S. has now opened new exploration leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
Mookie - good ones ! [(-D]
[:-,] So the Keystone XL pipeline would have been more expensive than to Prince Rupert, and to a market with not as good a price as China ? Something about those claims “doesn’t compute”, then . . . Perhaps the promoters should thank the US State Dept. for saving them from themselves and their bad deals ?!? [:-^]
- Paul North.
This Keystone XL Pipeline has certainly raised temperatures all over the place.
Today I listened to a guy; called in on Rush’s (Limbaugh) Show. he said that he was a trucker, and rancher from Nebraska, he was reciting a laundry list of all things bad about this project. You also have the posts above on this Thread referencing an environmental angle and how the environmentalists are saying they have surely killed this project. I would bet that as much pipe has been laid to its current northern terminus, they will find another use for it(?)
The major issues seem to be the placement of the pipeline route transiting the Sandhill region of Nebraska, and the Ogallala Basin Aquifer.
This link to the Pipeline is a Wikipedia link, admitted not a reputable source, but it seems to have most of the elements to explain the working of this XL Project all FOUR Phases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
and as the Sandhills Region of Nebraska is part, this link shows a map and history of the Area: http://nematode.unl.edu/halseyNEmap.htm
This link is to a map of the area of the Ogallala Aquifer:
http://www.hpwd.com/the_ogallala.asp
Bear in mind that there are already smaller pipelines that transit an are to the East of the proposed phase of the XL Project. So this whole thing seems to have boiled in to major political football. Read and make your own judgements.[2c]
One thing about it. the railroads seem to be in a position to be a winner as they can connect the source with the pipeline terminus to move the product as needed. As they are already doing in the source regions for this petroleum product.
I can understand the concern about danger to the aquifer if oil is spilled in porus ground such as sand. I don’t know if there is any way of protecting against that problem if a pipeline is run through the sand hills. I don’t know if the sand there runs all the way down to the aquifer. But it would seem to be impossible to guarantee that no leaks or spills will ocurr anywhere on a pipline. If the sand hills were the only issue, I would think it prudent to slove the problem by re-routing around the sand hills.
However, when I listen to the advocacy opposing this pipeline, I hear far more objection than just the threat to the aquifer under the sand hills. Here is a quote from the link I posted above celebrating a victory over killing the pipline:
Lotsa acreage in Nebraska - why right over two very important parts of the US?
Yes, that is a good question. Why route a pipeline through places where convincing objections will be raised? I would have thought this issue would have been raised before the routing was even committed. Would it have been that hard to go around the sensitive area in a way that the opponents would accept? What do the proponents say when they are challenged about the possibility of the pipeline contaminating the aquifer?
Wouldn’t the easiest answer to this be to build a new refinery in Manitoba or North Dakota? Short pipeline; no fuss, no muss. Seems less expensive than piping it to Texas.
The citizens were reassured that if a spill happened, it would take so long to get to the aquifer that they would get it all cleaned and tidy. (see trust me) Haven’t we seen this animal in all different forms beside oil - financial, politics, etc.
I have read that they are talking about a bond in the neighborhood of $500 milion just in case trust me fails. But if something really bad goes wrong, that neighborhood would dissolve right into the lawyers pockets for generations.
And NE isn’t the only state in the aquifer. Haven’t heard much from Sam’s, Norris, or Houston Ed’s states. Man on TV just now said that crude oil can’t penetrate to the acquifer. If true, then what about all the land above the aquifer and in the sandhills? Is that not just as important?
I am just a lowly voter/resident, but all my warning bells are going off and no one seems to be able to turn them off. A real head scratcher!
So when the oil spills, they claim they can chase it as it sinks and catch up with it before it reaches the aquifer. Yes, I would be skeptical of that. I am not sure how that all shakes out geologically. But sand is like a sieve. I guess the other question is how much oil could the aquifer tolerate, or how far would the damage spread?
In St. Louis Park, MN, we had a creosote plant that intentionally leached creosote into the ground. I don’t recall exactly what the point of that was, but they had a ditch where creosote sunk into the ground for many years. The chickens eventually came home to roost after the plant was closed, and creosote showed up in nearby municipal wells. They closed several wells, and cleaned up the surface of the site. I really don’t know how far that creosote has traveled, but nobody seems to be talking about it anymore. It had to travel downward a long way just to get to the aquifer from which the wells drew.
Refineries are ideally located hear the consumers. It’s cheaper to transport crude by pipeline or tanker to a central refinery, and then distribute the many different products of the refinery to the surrounding area. The Texas refineries already have the infrastructure and an established distribution system.
Its crazy how some people come out and oppose anything and everything there is. Like a bridge over the St.Croix river by Stillwater, Mn. Stillwater has been trying to replace a 1931 bridge for 25 years.
To Mookies point.
The part of the keystone XL line that came through this area ( actually, about 8 miles, to the East of my town , on a line that roughly paralleled US Hwy 77, to its West). The main manifestations that warned of it were the massive pile of staged pipe and supplies. The actual construction went relatively quickly from trenching to covering. It was pretty unobtrusive, as highways were not cut, but were hydraulically under tunneled).
The line originates in the Cushing, Okla area. [Considered a "pricing’ point for crude oil.] Paul North, IIRC pointed that out on another Thread. I understand that the lines current Termi
There is a Story in OTR circles that goes like this by the time the DOT finally gets done doing the Enviromental impact study the Traffic survey and all the othe3r Crap they have to do to Build a New Bridge and such. They need to build a REPLACEMENT for the REPLACEMENT. The old Woodrow Wilson on I-95 around Washington DC case in point needed to be replaced for around 30 Years heck muy Father was screaming about it when HE drove OTR. They finally replaced it. The NEW ONE is already over Capacity and needs to be replaced. i9t is less than 5 years old. Or the Tappen Zee arcoss the Hudson River the George Washington take your Pick all of them need to be Replaced just the Evriomental Impact Surveys will take FOREVER to get done hopefully none of them collaspe before they get beyond that study.