View topic - Neil Young and the Alberta oil sands on CBC radio...

It is currently August 17th, 2019, 12:58 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: February 9th, 2014, 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6112
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Quote:
“The president made clear that he would put America’s interests first -- and not the interests of a foreign oil company -- when deciding whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline if it would worsen carbon pollution,” Lehane said in an e-mailed statement.


Last week, when the State Department raised no major environmental objections to Keystone construction, one of the points being made was that, if Keystone was not approved, there would still be heavy oil demand by US refineries, and tar sands oil would find it's way to refiners by rail.

Transportation by rail would result in greater CO2 emissions than construction of the pipeline so that must have been considered when the State Dept concluded there would be no significant increase in CO2 emissions with Keystone.

I am not for tar sands oil but the horse is out of the barn and closing the door won't do much good now. Globally, the issue is getting developing nations like China and India off coal, which is a much bigger CO2 source than Keystone (the understatement of the year).

And as far as putting "America’s interests first"... American refiners have an interest in processing the heavy tar sands oil, and so do American oil producers and shippers... and so does the American government, in the taxes that will be paid by those American businesses, and by workers they employ.

Quote:
Keystone XL waiting list grows for US oil shippers

TransCanada: Waiting list grows for US oil shippers on Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline

By James Macpherson, Associated Press
February 4, 2014 2:06 PM

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- TransCanada Corp. says it has a growing list of U.S. oil shippers signing up to use a proposed connector to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

The Calgary-based company announced in 2011 that it secured five-year contracts to move crude from the oilfields of North Dakota and Montana via a proposed five-mile-long pipeline known as the Bakken Marketlink. The $140 million project, designed to carry 100,000 barrels of crude daily from the rich Bakken and Three Forks formations, would meet with the Keystone XL in Baker, Mont.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said Monday that the contracts, which are confidential, have since been renegotiated in anticipation of U.S approval of the long-delayed Keystone XL, which would be primarily used to transport crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. It cleared a big hurdle last week when the State Department raised no major environmental objections to its construction.

"We have not lost customers," Howard said. "In fact, we have a waiting list."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/keystone- ... 36476.html

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 9th, 2014, 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 12th, 2008, 6:01 pm
Posts: 432
Location: North Bay, Ontario
frozentripper wrote:
Quote:

Last week, when the State Department raised no major environmental objections to Keystone construction, one of the points being made was that, if Keystone was not approved, there would still be heavy oil demand by US refineries, and tar sands oil would find it's way to refiners by rail.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/keystone- ... 36476.html


To me this is transparently false. If they don't need the pipeline, why do they want it? Why do they want to spend billions of dollars building it? The obvious answer is that it is cheaper for them to ship the oil by pipeline than by rail or any other means. That means that, without the pipeline, tar sands oil will be more expensive. That means that it will be less cost competitive with other sources of hydrocarbons and other energy sources. That means the tar sands development will be slowed and even stopped in less favourable locations if the pipeline is not built.

I am not an economist and even I can figure that much out...

So this business about the pipeline decision having no effect on tar sands development is obviously untrue if you think about it for more than a few seconds. It is a mystery to me why the State Department would even make such a ridiculous claim. Same with it having no effect on carbon emissions. Of course it will.

Kinguq.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 9th, 2014, 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6112
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Oil delivered by rail or tanker to the heavy oil refineries on the Gulf coast will be more expensive than oil delivered by pipeline, so refinery profits should improve with Keystone. There are other issues relating to not enough heavy oil being available to Gulf refineries resulting in poorer operating efficiency, the need for American energy security (maybe... America wants to become less dependant on risky Middle East oil), oil-related jobs, less risk of spills than by tanker or rail, and lower CO2 emissions than by rail.

Right now the railways are making megabucks transporting oil to refineries which is great for the railways, not for the refiners.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 10th, 2014, 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
frozentripper wrote:
Oil delivered by rail or tanker to the heavy oil refineries on the Gulf coast will be more expensive than oil delivered by pipeline, so refinery profits should improve with Keystone.

You have it backwards. Oil trades at the market price in the Gulf (regardless of whether it is shipped by pipeline or rail). This cost is absorbed by the producer. Margins for refiners don't change (whether the oil is more expensive or not), but it passed on to the consumer.

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/ ... through-it

Quote:
Unless the price of oil dropped below $75 a barrel (it is now about $97), tar-sands producers could absorb the cost of rail transport, the report said. Rail freight had risen to 180,000 b/d in Canada by the end of last year, from almost nothing in 2011.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 10th, 2014, 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6112
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Quote:
frozentripper wrote:
Oil delivered by rail or tanker to the heavy oil refineries on the Gulf coast will be more expensive than oil delivered by pipeline, so refinery profits should improve with Keystone.

You have it backwards. Oil trades at the market price in the Gulf (regardless of whether it is shipped by pipeline or rail). This cost is absorbed by the producer. Margins for refiners don't change (whether the oil is more expensive or not), but it passed on to the consumer.


My $0.02... the tar sands oil delivered by rail to the Gulf coast right now doesn't amount to very much volume, so refiners are forced to use heavy oil from other sources than Canada... the other heavy oils being more expensive.

What makes the Keystone pipeline attractive to Gulf coast refiners is that it can supply Western Canada Select (which includes tar sands oil) in greater volume, and WCS is cheaper than the other heavy oils available. Gulf coast refiners want heavy oil, not light oil, and WCS is some of the cheapest heavy oil around. Steady supply by pipeline should improve long-term profits for GC refiners.

The price of WCS varies with time, and what determines price is complex... in the past pipeline and storage bottlenecks have resulted in low prices relative to Texas and Brent crude, but more recently price has risen, which may reflect more demand... but the reasons determining price are probably more complex than demand alone.

From the news reports here, Gulf coast refiners want Western Canada Select for a variety of reasons and since a refinery is a business, improved profits probably have something to do with it. From the business POV, it doesn't make sense to transport oil by rail at about five times the cost of pipelines, the efficiencies are poorer and in the long run, don't benefit the industry.

Again, I am not for tar sands oil, still, that seems to be the picture on the ground out there, and interesting to watch while it develops, in a polluted sort of way.

:o

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 10th, 2014, 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 12th, 2008, 6:01 pm
Posts: 432
Location: North Bay, Ontario
Everything both of you (Idylwyld and Frozen Tripper) have said supports my point that building the pipeline will make developing the tar sands and selling tar sands oil more profitable. If it is not built, the tar sands will be less profitable and therefore development will slow. This is simple free market economics and it is a mystery to me why the State Department would deny it. It makes me suspect they are under a lot of pressure to support the project.

For those of us who want to slow development of the tar sands, opposing this and the other proposed pipelines is a sensible choice.

Kinguq.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 11th, 2014, 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 24th, 2007, 1:52 pm
Posts: 556
Location: Beaumont, AB
kinguq wrote:
...For those of us who want to slow development of the tar sands, opposing this and the other proposed pipelines is a sensible choice.

Kinguq.


Those who are really opposed to the Keystone pipeline and oilsands development in general should also boycott any and all petroleum products that are derived from oilsands, and not partake in any kind of oilsands related jobs, support activities, or other economic benefits that everyone in Canada is currently enjoying as a result of the oilsands development. I would hazard a guess that a majority of Canadians would find it impossible to do so, as the benefits of oilsands development have crept into many facets of everyday life.

Quote:
Economic benefits generated over next 25 years -
provinces outside of Alberta

Image

Rather than demanding a halt to the development, which is never going to happen, it would be much more productive to work towards sensible resolution of the issues that are associated with this resource.

_________________
Dave W
"Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing" - Henry David Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 11th, 2014, 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6112
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
IBer,


Quote:
Those who are really opposed to the Keystone pipeline and oilsands development in general should also boycott any and all petroleum products that are derived from oilsands...


Eg... fueling up at PetroCanada... the profits from the fuel sales go to Suncor, which owns PetroCanada. Suncor specializes in tar sands oil, one of the biggest players there and they've been at it as one of the first in to develop that resource. Just one example of many.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 11th, 2014, 1:04 pm 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2891
Location: Montreal
We here in Quebec of course are totally green and organic, always have been and always will be. Hence, parents in Quebec should not avail themselves to $7 a day day-care because Quebec receives transfer payments from Ottawa, a portion of which are derived from the Alberta tar sands.
OK, maybe they can send 2/3 of a kid out of two but the other 1 1/3 kids should go to a private, for-profit day-care.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 11th, 2014, 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
ice-breaker wrote:
Those who are really opposed to the Keystone pipeline and oilsands development in general should also boycott any and all petroleum products that are derived from oilsands, and not partake in any kind of oilsands related jobs, support activities, or other economic benefits

What does a boycott have to do with anything? Wouldn't it be just fine to thrown in some scientifically merited carbon mitigation and industry best practices, and also minimize exports overseas (so that domestic markets and local consumers can receive the MOST benefit in terms of local jobs, lower cost fuel, energy security, etc.).

I believe the argument is how to get the most benefit from oil sands, and not how to get the least. That's how I'm looking at it, and Keystone XL pretty much assures that most of us will be getting a raw deal (on a short term basis of reduced jobs, higher consumer costs, offshoring of refining capacity, etc., and on a long term basis with higher carbon emissions than developing the resource in a reasonable and measured way to fully meet domestic consumer demand and better promote energy independence in North America).

If you want to sell off your economic inheritance to foreign stakeholders, please be my guest. I think it's a terrible idea, and boycotts have nothing to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 11th, 2014, 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 12th, 2008, 6:01 pm
Posts: 432
Location: North Bay, Ontario
ice-breaker wrote:
kinguq wrote:
...For those of us who want to slow development of the tar sands, opposing this and the other proposed pipelines is a sensible choice.

Kinguq.


Those who are really opposed to the Keystone pipeline and oilsands development in general should also boycott any and all petroleum products that are derived from oilsands, and not partake in any kind of oilsands related jobs, support activities, or other economic benefits that everyone in Canada is currently enjoying as a result of the oilsands development. I would hazard a guess that a majority of Canadians would find it impossible to do so, as the benefits of oilsands development have crept into many facets of everyday life.

Rather than demanding a halt to the development, which is never going to happen, it would be much more productive to work towards sensible resolution of the issues that are associated with this resource.


Yep, we're all hypocrites. Neil Young is a hypocrite. Al Gore is a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite. Pretty much everyone is...

Thing is, that doesn't make us wrong. Arguments should be argued on the basis of facts, not the lifestyle choices of your opponent.

I don't think my boycotting gasoline will do any good at all. We as a people (and I include myself) are too greedy, rich and pampered to to get anything meaningful done that way. We have to attack the problem of climate change on a national and international basis.

So for me, anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive is a good thing. Stopping pipelines will do that. A big fat carbon tax would be better, but not much chance of that in the near term.

I am not "demanding a halt to the development". I want to starve it out. I want to make it so it can't compete with other, less carbon intensive energy sources, including new nuclear.

Kinguq


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 18th, 2014, 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 21st, 2013, 11:30 am
Posts: 123
Location: Minden, NV USA
This a tough one with a lot at stake. No one is a bigger fan of Neil than me. But I disagree with him on this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7th, 2015, 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
frozentripper wrote:
PS.... don't forget about that bottle of beer when the Keystone pipeline gets approved.

FT ... so how do you propose I collect? A win for local control, and for environmental policy in the US. Prices likely to stabilize some as a result (a clear benefit to producers and consumers alike). The marketplace appears to be working ... Keystone XL (benefitting foreign producers and exports of refined Canadian crude from Port Arthur) not needed in US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oba ... a9633b693c

Quote:
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline After 7 Years Of Review

... Taking a jab at the politicization of the pipeline, Obama said it had become "overinflated" and used as a symbol on the campaign trail by both parties.

"Over years, the Keystone XL pipeline has occupied what I frankly consider an overinflated role in our political discourse," Obama said, joined by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden. The president met earlier Friday with Kerry, whose department oversaw the review.

The president's rejection rests on key points highlighted by the State Department: That the pipeline would not contribute significantly to the economy, and that it would not lower gas prices for American consumers. Over the last year gas prices have steadily dropped in the U.S., due to an oversupply in the market.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7th, 2015, 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 19th, 2006, 8:47 pm
Posts: 8925
Location: Rattlesnake Pond ME
Its not over. Just Keystone XL. That was not the only program for piping tar sands oil.

https://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-a ... eline.aspx

the South Portland council voted not to allow the transport of tar sands oil. Of course there is a lawsuit pending

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/02/06/c ... ading-oil/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 9th, 2015, 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6112
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Idylwyld,

Quote:
FT ... so how do you propose I collect?


Well, well, well, look who finally shows up after a prolonged absence of a year or longer, hoping to bum another free beer... and in the past saying that we already made good on the beer bet since the delay in the Keystone approval and there are no more beer bets.

OK, you've won another beer but IMO you haven't earned it since you haven't been participating in the idle speculation and worse-than-useless political banter that happens here from time to time, or at least, used to happen here.

I agree that this isn't over yet, since if Republicans get voted in next year, the first thing they'll do is reverse Obama's Keystone decision. Maybe not much chance of that happening with Trump bluster shoving past everybody else but voters might just be crazy enough to pick him.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group