Is Keystone XL Really a Good Deal for the US?

But look at how many jobs the cleanup operations create!

Agreed Lyn, no jobs, dangerous, and obviously it's not going to lower the price of fuel in the USA. I think Canada should dig through their own pristine landscape, out to the West coast! _{Not actually since I don't want that crap spilled anywhere on my planet!}

Very interesting, thanks!

It's a tough nut to crack for sure...but let's face it we are fully committed to oil as an energy source, and pipelines are everywhere....this little piece is a small addition....I think this would be a nice boost to the economy....and the down side risk is really negligible at this point in time....and in fact pipeline transport of oil is safer than shipping by rail....The elephant in the room is coal....you want to make an environmental impact, clean up coal....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/05/julie_mack_weighing_the_pros_a.html

Always BEWARE the person/corporation with a *vested* interest in any risky venture!

The oil is currently being carried by railcar. The risk of a catastrophe from derailed railcars is far, far worse - ask the folks survivors in Lac-Mégantic, Canada.

Billions of gallons of oil are already being piped across the US. When was the last time you heard of a pipleline disaster like the railcar disaster in Canada? Never.

The estimate of 35 permanent jobs is ludicrously low. I've seen estimates of 'over 2 thousand' jobs.

The oil is going to be refined somewhere. It makes no sense to ship it by railcar to a port, then via tanker to China (or Asia somewhere), then back to the US via tanker as refined oil and gasoline.

Oops! The '2000+' jobs was Obama's number. Others place the estimate much higher:

http://www.shopfloor.org/2013/08/fact-checkers-give-president-failing-grade-on-keystone-claims/29457

this is more accurate. it will be a boon to Gulf area refineries and the workers there.pipelines have their own inherent issues but I'd rather have one than a railroad in my backyard.its a completely overblown political lie at this point. I say put it in and boost construction jobs for a year......but keep fracking!!!!oil was 52 bucks today

2,000? Are you kidding?

What would you propose that 2,000 people could possibly find to do on a finished pipeline?

I can see no possible benefit to this.

The fact that current under-designed rail cars are not appropriate for this use is no excuse to do it.

<#6> What will they do????????

Think about it.

Do you seriously think that 35 people can operate the machinery to refine the oil from a pipeline, maintain the pipeline, pumps, lift stations, port administration, infrastructure, and shipping, etc.??? I think it takes 35 people to operate a single oil tanker !

Trucks and railcars will transport the oil, if not by pipeline. Do the stupid environmentalists even understand what the various transport risks are?

The oil is coming. Money will ensure that it will. It makes more sense to discuss the mitigation of risks, not the benefits or evils of oil pipeline transport.

Bing ! I want to know - why does Canada need to traverse the USA, and why do you let it .So far, it's sounding like y'all signed up for a bad deal.

I'm A brit and have no clue about how you lot get along.....Let us transport our tarry sands down south, you can have a few jobs and we take the profit. Is it that bad ?

"why does Canada need to traverse the USA"

There is no fundamental reason they need to.

But....................

$ The refineries to process the low grade oil are already permitted and built. $

It's not bad, if you will profit from it. As I said earlier, Joe six-pack won't profit a lick.

Only those already wealthy will profit in the long run.

Maybe tcmtech will move down south and milk take one of the cushy jobs watching the PLCs control things.

It's not traversing any of my property so I'll not have a clean-up to do.

I believe the last new refinery in the us was 35 years ago....thank your treehuggers

There's a refinery in Delaware City, Delaware that was shuttered a few years back. It has since been sold and re-opened. It was shuttered because it's cheaper to refine overseas and bring in the refined product. As I understand it, now there is little or no processing occurring in the plant now, it's mostly storage and mixing/blending.

The tree huggers had little to do with it. Money/profit was the sole reason for closing the plant. The loss of a hundred or so jobs was immaterial as well.

If it's cheaper to refine outside of the country, why would anybody build a refinery here?

I don't have an agenda.

The reality is that more than 35 people will be required to administrate and maintain this project.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously at odds with me...which is unnaceptable.

On a personal note...hope you had a good Holiday season...and bring on the oil !

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. Somewhere, there's probably data on number of workers required for such a pipeline.

The reality is that those who will profit most need it least.

The American way.

Yes, thank you, we had a good holiday. On New Years Day, we drove 35 miles north of our desert home and played in the snow. Photos at 10:00 PM.

Hope yours was good as well.

Drill, baby drill!

Hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars are being spent here on the Gulf Coast to improve refining capacity. The Citco expansion alone is over 500 million. These typs of things are not advertized. People, for some reason, think of refinery expansion as a bad thing. What it means here is, pay rates are increasing. Housing is getting scarce. Headhunters call me constantly in my office at work, trying to lure me away.
If that pipeline goes through, the Gulf Coast area will be the next finantial boom town.
That oil is going to exported. Why not refine it here in the USA? Here we get to keep the tailings for the US market, lowering the cost of plastics and rubber products.
We make money in refining, and then all the residual markests are boosted too.
Why do you expect there to be more failures of this pipeline than the Alaskan pipeline?
Why is this even an issue?

-A-

Maybe,

Citgo a "wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA"

CITGO Petroleum Corp - Encyclopedia.com

Foreign oil going to foreign owned refineries.

I guess some of the money will be paid out in wages here.

Sounds good for Texas, I guess.

Lyn,

There is a very large quantity of refinery projects currently underway in the New Orleans & Baton Rouge areas all along the Mississippi river. (Jacobs, Bechtel, Black & Vetch, Brown & Root to name a few of the large contractors.)

Many of the older refineries are being refurbished, some new facilities are being built, and some refineries from out of country are being re-assembled.

The project expense is pushing $40 billion in that area alone and the monies have been solidly committed.

There are also quite a few projects either starting up or underway in Texas.

The Per Diem for the jobs in the New Orleans area are $3K + per month (depending on job title) and they have a lot of openings.

The money is very enticing to me but going back on the road is not.

Hardly a topic to joke on, but presumably there's some adequate policing of all this.

Who accepted such a crappy sounding deal ? Are there not elected leaders who's vote is a matter of public record ?

I roughly know the electoral college system and all that. My point is that surely many states must have said 'OK' to a pipeline. Do such things not get voted and recorded at State level. I'm not asking you do do the research, but is it stuff that can be unearthed ?

I'm curious that no eco-lobby has listed politicians in a name-and-shame fashion. Maybe not - it doesn't seem to happen over here. It might be possible to discover who votes on some piece of UK infrastructure (Hi-Speed Rail Link comes to mind), though I'm not aware of any easily available source. I'd have to write a gazzillion letters to find out.

Politicians work very much the same here.

If you watch C-SPAN you will see how things get passed, the head of the class reads a bill and ask for the aye's and nay's, at this point the room goes silent and the head of the class pronounces the aye's have it, OK now we have passed a bill and not one name is associated with it. The politicians can now proclaim to have voted either way they chose and there is no record to show otherwise unless their was a call for a recorded vote be taken at which point they delay the vote until such time as there is a sufficient number present to vote the way that the monies has paid for.

since Obama is against the idea it must be a great thing for America.

Like Harry Reid mentioning the Koch Brothers 134 times , on the Senate floor...

What will the US get out of the deal, long term, besides the pollution?

A few jobs? Maybe 35 jobs after the construction and commissioning is completed is too little, does anybody know? I don't trust anybody who is saying this is a good long term investment for the US.

Not sure where all the labor will come from, we'll have another ND boom, then bust I guess.

Valdez AK still has Exxon oil pollution.

Mayflower AR too.

Live like a third world nation, indeed. I think not.

Time will tell.

"the next big problem will not be environmental pollution, but what to do with all the unwanted planetary heat that we generate"

Can you expound a little on that.

Simple.

Let's pretend that we solve the fusion problem and now have all the energy we could every need.

Energy is converted to work, which ultimately produces heat.

We just need more atmospheric aerosols....

Reducing total solar irradiance (heat energy) may reduce the total sum of planetary heat generated, but it will not do the environment any favors.

We're on a sinking ship, I propose to fill the hold with styrofoam to keep 'er afloat, and yer worried about a few rats getting squashed....The time to worry about inflicting harm to the environment has passed, it's time for survival mode....A pristine environment never existed to begin with, it's a treehugger myth....a pipe dream discussed in reverent tones amongst the stoned dreamers who would depopulate the Earth of all human presence,,, even themselves, though they are blissfully unaware of that....

"stoned dreamers who would depopulate the Earth of all human presence"

Shirley, you don't really believe this.

"An environmentalist broadly supports the goals of the environmental movement, "a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities"."

IE: Your existence...

Name any large scale human support activity or structure that doesn't harm the environment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalist

Great post - you get to the points. GA from me.

xenophobic thread.......its about money

A great post Lyn, and your replies were great too. One aspect I have not seen brought in to the discussion yet is how much will it cost us taxpayers? Anyone see that info/estimate.

When we are looking at an investment, we need to compare cost to earnings. In large companies that is typically a short term look (even quarterly for some). But for an investment in a country should always give the most weight to long term profits. So to simplify the problem, we can divide and concur. Setting aside for now the much more complex long term risk/reward analysis. We can look at just the investment cost/profit, how much will it cost US citizens (tax dollars) to gain those 35 long term jobs?

If the above question does not have a favorable answer, then the decision is simplified by not needing to look any further at the more complex aspects.

Another way to approach this topic is, what is the key benefit to the USA from the keystone? If it is just the initial construction jobs, does the USA really need another stimulus package, aren't we already recovering just fine. If the validation is, 'the USA already has a nightmare of underground plumbing', well, should we be adding more to it, or trying to clean it it up. After all, the USA is our home, we usually want home improvement, not to just add to the mess.

And one more angle that hasn't been mentioned, regardless of cause, global warming is here, and with it comes ever increasing sever natural disasters. That may even include more earth quakes. The longer the pipe run, the greater risk for damage. The bottom line with these kind of country wide decisions, is the long term, what are we leaving for our children and grandchildren.

http://keystone-xl.com/five-reasons-why-keystone-xl-benefits-the-u-s/

Nothing like an "unbiased" analysis of the pipeline's "benefits".

Somebody's going to make a lot of money on this deal and it won't be you or me. Taxes will be deferred or turned into subsidies for the movement of the product. The Commodore started a trend that is still profitable.

Some profit will be funneled into the pockets of the boot-lickers in Congress who facilitated the great pipeline.

If there is any benefit it may reduce, but not eliminate oil shipment by rail.

What do I know?

As you eloquently demonstrated, it's obvious that we will be doomed without this "essential" boost to the American ↓ economy and livelihood.

as with all Washington deals money will be spread around, lobbyist will cash in

So we have a list of pipeline failures in the 21st century, very interesting. Do we also have a list of train car derailments and truck spills for the same time period so we can fairly decide if pipelines are a more dangerous way to transport oil?

Surely you aren't suggesting that Keystone will reduce the amount of petroleum shipped by rail?????????????

I did not say that. I said the safest form of travel was statistically by pipeline.

Can only speak for myself, as a Haz Mat technician and specialist in numerous skill areas and the activities of my county volunteer haz mat team responding to at this time. We have two major railroad freight lines, one passenger railroad, two interstates, at least 8 major (4 lane) highways, numerous pipelines up to 42" for natural gas and petroleum products. Included for the nat gas is a large compressor station. In the 20 years with this team I have responded to 2 very minor liquid pipeline leaks, numerous incidents excavating equipment puncturing distribution/residential pipes, 6 rail leakage incidents (4 of which were materials which were not hazardous and 2 engine fuel tank leaks), about 2 petroleum tank truck leaks per year and more truck saddle tank leaks than I can count.

The railroads are now hauling 85 tank cars per train of Ethanol and 105 tank car per train of Bakken Oil.

This is not an industry county. Several times in the past years it or one of the adjacent counties has been the highest per person income of the nation.

No personal opinion here. Just stating the facts for one "suburban/rural" county.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Is it worth the risk, in either case, to transport foreign oil, bound for foreign markets across the US.

Apparently, most here think yes, it is.

Fine.

I don't know for sure if it is or isn't worth it. And we may not know for many years to come. I do think the oil coming across the USA will benefit us, even if it gets refined and sent over seas.

1. I expect US companies will make money in the refinement process
2. I expect the US will get paid something for allowing the oil to traverse the country
3. By there being more product on the global market, it will keep prices down for US consumers

The big question in my mind is "will it be beneficial enough to more than offset the overall costs?" Environmentalist say "no" supported by a bunch of data, those in favor of it say "yes" supported by a bunch of data.

Yes if:

1. It allows us to not ship our own oil to foreign markets, or at least reduce that amount. If Canada wants to compete with OPEC - lets help them.

2. It provides some monetary gain for anyone in the USA. (if we got absolutely nothing from this - then forget it)

its a huge boost to gulf refineries, oil jobs and taxes collected

Why should we provide the most land when we will be getting the least benefit? If the U.S.A. provides the land then we should be skimming off a portion of that oil for our own reserves. Just my opinion. Lyn, like you commented, the average Joe gets screwed and the politicians get loaded!

You already do that when you open up a savings account at Big Bank. Clearly, Big Bank makes more money on your money than they pay you in silly interest.

If you take that logic to it end you would be advocating that you pull all your money out and start stuffing it under your mattress.

That way no one makes any money on it - just to be fair.

Sadly, very true!

Whether we are skimming off a little oil for ourselves or charging for use our land for transport, either wwy it's getting something in return for our "value added". Sounds like a reasonable thing to me.

Really JB, what are we getting, besides problems? There is no cost/benefit, except to the Politicians.

The Keystone makes about as much sense as Atlanta GA going to Lake Superior for its raw water supply. The name of the game is to put treatment facilities close to the raw product, so as to permit sales of the processed product along the pipeline route.

have noticed there are just a few ports in the Gulf that move this stuff internationally daily? the oil sands are landlocked

Really???

Let's do a simpler comparison to what you suggest:

You have a food processor and a cabinet for glasses in one corner of your kitchen and the refrigerator in another. So you want a health shake. Do you transport the foods from the refrigerator to the existing processor, use it and then transport to your glass, or do you say, hey, the foods are way over there, better buy a new processor for in the refrigerator so I don't need to move the foods to the existing processor, run a new power cord to the processor to run it, and then after processing, transport the shake over to the glass? Which makes more sense economically? Use what you have and do a bit of transporting of the raw products, or, buy another processor and a means to allow it to work, and then still have to transport finished product the same distance????

Except to do that you would need multiple pipelines. Once you refine the crude you will need a pipeline for gasoline, benzene, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel and so on, all of which are are volatile and hazardous than transporting crude. I wonder just how deep the crude would penetrate toward an underground aquifer in the event of a spill considering that the crude is less dense than water, forms tar balls like in the Gulf spill and would quickly congeal during cold weather due to viscosity at low temps.

US Steel just laid off 750 people due to reduced call for steel used for oil production and that's just because of the low price of oil. If any of the steel pipe, the pumps and engines to drive them scheduled for this pipeline is going to be produced in the US then that would represent a lot more than 35 jobs and could easily affect more than 2000 jobs in the US manufacturing sector.

Like pointed out, if this Canadian oil competes with OPEC to keep the price of oil low, how many "blue collar" workers will benefit from the lower price of gasoline? How many companies will benefit from lower fuel prices? How many families will benefit if the abundant fuel kills off the wasteful energy consumptive production of ethanol and the diversion back to food of our corn crop? How many Third World populations will benefit from the then available supply of corn. which has been removed from being sent to them. as part of our Foreign Aid?

I personally feel that pipelines are a safer method of transportation than trains or trucks. Less energy consumptive I would also think. I can't imagine that local towns or states will not be able to recoup any costs associated with a spill either from the pipeline owners or their insurers and not be financially burdened.

Obviously you do not understand the process! Read my earlier comment about pipeline transport! It takes a lot of energy to move the heavy crude product and when the pipeline fails, the product continues to move until the energy is dissipated - generally a million gallons +/-. When a tank car derails, usually 5-6 tankers @ 35000 gallons +/- each. As you point out petro products are lighter than water, thus float, leading to colateral damage. The Canadians have alternative plans to transport their product to their west coast! The proposed U.S "Plan" is synonomise with Atlanta GA going to Lake Superior for their raw water supply!

"The Keystone makes about as much sense as Atlanta GA going to Lake Superior for its raw water supply. The name of the game is to put treatment facilities close to the raw product, so as to permit sales of the processed product along the pipeline route."

"Really JB, what are we getting, besides problems? There is no cost/benefit, except to the Politicians."

I guess I don't understand the process since neither of your 2 comments appear to cover that. I would also assume that containment valves would be available to prevent such a horrific spill (a million or so gallons) that you propose. Unless it is a major rupture wherein the entire opening is equivalent to the 36" diameter and based on the approximate 25,000 gpm pumping rate that would equate to 40" at the full pumping capacity. Pretty sure that the safety/shutdown switches would be activated well before that time frame.

I was basing my response on your assertion about "permitting the sale of processed product along the pipeline route".

Lyn, I share your concerns on this matter.

However, for many years now, most of the gasoline, diesel, and other bulk petroleum products we currently use have been and are being conveyed through underground piping utilizing "pigs" and "Plugs" for demarcation of products.

My concern is with today's lower engineering standards and poor safety measures in construction of the pipeline.

Hopefully the Canadian company funding the project is not going with the "low ball" bid(s) and instead is focused on the quality of installment instead of saving cost and time.

Based on the articles I am guessing that the QC is not at the level it needs to be on this project yet.

However, these spills should bring focus onto the root-cause of the issues so that they can be addressed and prevent any such spills in the future.

I will keep my fingers & toes crossed.

I heard on NPR today that Keystone will generate 4,000 jobs during construction and then there will be 50 perms left over.

That covers the pipeline. What about the associated industries? You think the refineries on the Gulf Coast are going to handle the new source of oil with 50 more employees? What about the shipping industry that will transport the refined product?

Yeah, this type of reporting is designed to be misleading and bias opinions. Sad.

New source?

Isn't one of the justifications for all this is that it will replace the trash oil coming from unstable South American sources to keep the refineries going?

Doesn't the name TAR SANDS raise any red flags at all? Hell, they don't even call it oil.

Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America.

Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline's heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers' tanks.

Who knows? I do know that nobody here knows, we're all just repeating things we've heard from the sources we lean toward.

I can't see any benefit to you and me, or anybody else who has to work for a living.

"Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline's heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers' tanks."

How much will end up in our tanks if we don't build it?

If we don't build it I guess we won't make any money refining it, either.

When I hear all the reasons why we shouldn't build this they all are pretty lame. That raises a red flag to me that the real reasons are more political than objective.

Yes, and as I said, we don't know how it will all unfold.

Depending on which side of the aisle we support, the "truth" takes on many hues.

It seems to have our collective attention. Some on the, "build it, it'll be good for us" and some on the, "don't build it, it won't ultimately benefit us" sides.

Lameness is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you remember my response when you asked if no-one else opposed this? I said if:

1. It allows us to not ship our own oil to foreign markets, or at least reduce that amount. If Canada wants to compete with OPEC - lets help them.

In my opinion, that still counts in a big way. Keep our oil and let Canada export theirs. With the recent problems with Russia, Europe could use a good source of petroleum based fuel with no political strings attached.

In light of the Russian attempt to use the cut off of oil and gas supplies to European and Eastern European customers as a leverage for their Ukraine issue I would think that politically the Canadian oil going to market should prevent the Russians from exploiting that leverage.

It should also serve to deflate the cost of oil and prevent the strangle hold that OPEC has on oil supplies and prices. The excessive profits derived from oil by the Saudis and other Near East areas has also been used to some degree to fund fanatical Islamic causes. The reduction of income to that area may also serve to reduce support of same.

Lastly, I would think that some sort of tax should be placed on every barrel of oil transported and distributed to each state to make up for any spill costs.

With exception of the taxes, that's pretty much my stand as well. But, the tax idea is fine with me.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Tar Sands oil doesn't make any sense right now. Just as the stripper wells in NW Pa can't be economically viable at under $95/barrel, or the tight sands in Texas, so too the Canadian oil at current selling price. The Keystone pipeline should become a moot point for the near future at least.