Comments on: An Argument Against Building the Keystone XL Pipeline

By: rs

rs — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:35:05 +0000

*symbols

By: rs

rs — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:34:09 +0000

“This may be true. But it is also true that the ad does not really invoke any of the traditional symbols of this sort of thing. Yes, it shows a lot of red along with the China part of the story, and the red flag with the stars on it, and it even highlights, using a B&W vs. Color contrast, the red in the Chinese Flag and the red in the Canadian flag.”

Ya, it doesn’t invoke any of those traditional stereotypes…except this one. and that one. and the other one…

By: Andrea Long

Andrea Long — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:24:01 +0000

media@thenextgeneration.org

Focus-group tested nationwide in all demographics to have the most impact and longest retention. Promote this phrasing nationally, Now!
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20140302/NEWS/303020074/

Keystone Kills!:

World Health Organization says:
#1 Cause of Cancer = Petroleum
#1 in $$$ to elected officials = Petroleum industry!
Cancer rates increasing massively!
Outlaw petro-politics & Keystone Cancer!

By: Miguelito

Miguelito — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 19:15:07 +0000

I’ll admit they’ve been increasing heavy-oil refining capacity in the mid-west, but they’d have to expand it alot more to absorb all that bitumen. To put this in perspective, the addition to the BP Whiting refinery cost $3.8 billion, all for 102,000 barrels per day of coking capacity, or about 15% of proposed Keystone XL throughpout.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=8_NA_8CTC0_R20_5&f=A

Meanwhile, the capacity at the Gulf Coast coast is already there and they don’t have to spend a nickle to take that heavy oil. To the market, it’s a no brainer. And it’s why nobody will be dumping huge amounts of cash to build more coking capacity in the U.S. midwest.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:41:57 +0000

I’m sorry, but the argument foy shoring up transport to the upper plains and building more refinery capacity there is still perfectly sound.

By: Miguelito

Miguelito — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:44:59 +0000

The United States refinery fleet is already very big and running underutilized. There’s no point in building more refineries that’ll just sit there idle and losing money when there’s more than enough room in the existing fleet to do the job.

What explains Keystone XL is that there was a big expansion of coking capacity in the refineries of the U.S. Gulf Coast over the past twenty years. These refineries are currently running underutilized and they’re looking for heavy crude. Meanwhile, there’s a big supply pool of it in western Canada that looks cost competitive with other sources of heavy crude oil in the world.

So, the market at the Gulf Coast wants the bitumen. That’s why Keystone XL was proposed.

Let’s look at this another way. Currently, the Gulf Coast U.S. is a world market for oil, paying world prices. So, the Chinese can sell the bitumen there for world prices OR they can pay a tanker to ship it to their refineries in Asia where those refineries essentially pay those same world prices. If it costs $10/barrel to ship that oil, they just lost $10/barrel. It makes absolutely no sense to do that.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:27:57 +0000

But that does not explain the pipeline. Bitumen is already transported to the US and refined. It’s what I put in my car here in Minnesota. It would be cheap and not subject to as much regulation to expand current transport and expand refinery capacity here. The refine in the US and sell here strategy is being dismantled by Keystone XL.

By: Miguelito

Miguelito — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:14:37 +0000

Yes, that’s the argument, but does it make any economic sense for Asian refineries to get their hands on bitumen from the U.S. Gulf Coast?

If that bitumen can easily be outcompeted by other crudes, then it makes no sense at all.

Producers would have already paid about $10/barrel to ship that bitumen to the Gulf Coast through Keystone and then they’d have to pay more to ship that bitumen through the Panama Canal and to Asia.

The world oil market is incredibly competitive and those extra shipping costs would very likely push bitumen out of the Asian market. This, of course, makes Steyer’s argument that “Keystone is only being built so Chinese companies can refine dirty oil” not a very good one. You can use that argument against the Northern Gateway and TransMountain expansion projects, but it’s not very applicable to Keystone.

Finally, again, it makes far more sense for the Chinese to sell that bitumen within the U.S. market.

By: Miguelito

Miguelito — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:04:44 +0000

I should add that, if using pipelines and rail to ship the bitumen to the west coast of Canada and the U.S. to export it from there can save Chinese refineries money in the end, they’ll do that too.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:03:40 +0000

That is what the argument being made is, that the investors want yo sell it on the market.