Skip to main content

View Diary: Eco-advocates plan opposition to Nebraska Gov. Heineman's okay of new Keystone XL pipeline route (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is alarming (0+ / 0-)
    53 senators, nine of them Democrats, sent a letter to President Obama Wednesday, urging him to approve the project.
    When Obama rejected the XL pipeline he specified the sand hills of Nebraska as his only objection. I hope he considers the climate and the planet as more important than bipartisanship.

    To jeopardize the drinking water of 8 states is criminal. And the pipeline means that the Tar Sands project will be able to continue destroying the continent. Jim Hansen says if the Tar Sands are allowed to continue and expand, it's game over.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:51:29 PM PST

    •  If we don't refine the oil (0+ / 0-)

      ... then someone else will.

      I know most progressives hate this argument, but it is the fact that we have to deal with.  Canada has spent a lot of time and resources on getting these tar sands up and running, so the oil is coming out of the ground one way or another.  

      They want to pipe their 'heavy crude' to our refineries in the South (the only ones in the US capable of refining high-sulfur petroleum), which were originally built to refine the heavy crudes tanked in from Mexico and Venezuela.

      The fact of the matter is, if they can't refine them here in the US, then they will just pipeline them to the Pacific coast and ship the crude elsewhere.

      I agree with the argument that the pipeline should be planned in the safest route possible, however, once this has been addressed, I don't believe shifting to the second argument; that we shouldn't build it because ... 'global warming'.  Until science develops economically viable alternatives to petroleum (or government takes oil subsidies and gives them to solar/wind energy utilities) then we are left making due with what we have.  And the safest, most environmentally friendly way to use petroleum is to limit the distances between where it is dug/refined/used.

      I am grieved by the environmental impact petroleum use has at both the local and global level, but I would rather a feasible (and implementable) alternative exist prior to attempts to remove petroleum completely from our energy production.  I believe on this issue, progressives have an easier time say what they are against then what they are for (and by what they are for, I mean actual, implementable policy changes that replace petroleum as the nations major energy fuel).

      •  Right, last I looked PADDIII has about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deepbreath

        1.1 million barrels a day of cat cracker capacity.

        KXL is to deliver .9 million b/day.

        A super tanker loading facility has been proposed for Houston, providing a shorter super tanker route to the western EU than from the Mid East. Remember super tankers cant go thru the Suez Canal, they have to come around the The Cape of Good Hope, South Africa, to the Western EU.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:44:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

          ... I get the faster route to the EU kick (though it still is much farther then a Russian pipeline) but I still think oil companies wouldn't be so eager to build a pipeline if all they were gonna do was ship the crude out of the US.

          They only make money if they refine it here and sell it.  Now, the refined products might make it on supertankers bound for the EU, but still.

          •  I do know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deepbreath

            Houston and Vancouver are slated for new super tanker loading facilities. SuezMax and PanamaMax sized tankers ply the waters of the US, west and east coast, making local deliveries. Super tankers are used to cross oceans, not to ply coastal waters.

            Syncrude is the biggest product currently coming out of the tar sands. The EU will take light sweet syncrude and Asia will take medium API syncrude.

            The only real question is where will the bitumen be cracked & refined in Alberta Canada or Port Arthur Texas. Since the KXL is being sold as a dilbit carrier, my guess is the bitumen will be cracked in Port Arthur (PAD III), where over the last 7-9 years a bit over a million barrels a day of cat cracker capacity has been built up.

            A light sweet syncrude would be tailor made for EU refineries, 52% of the International market is in light sour crudes, 2% sulfur or more. Offering a light sweet syncrude with an API of 40, you can command prices higher then West Texas Intermediate or Brent.

            Suddenly Alberta light sweet syncrude from tar sands is the benchmark.

            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:31:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site