Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

[goldy_331]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

Frankly, I could live with reduced supplies of high fructose corn syrup.

But what about the vital ethanol supply?

[Rover]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

Why couldn't you route the pipeline through Windsor? If Canada wants the thing so bad, maybe they can build the bulk of it and then route it to Detroit that way, where my new neighborhood of oil refineries, nuclear power plants and supermax prisons will be located.

That would by and large avoid the Great Lakes and associated aquifers.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

Why couldn't you route the pipeline through Windsor? If Canada wants the thing so bad, maybe they can build the bulk of it and then route it to Detroit that way, where my new neighborhood of oil refineries, nuclear power plants and supermax prisons will be located.

That would by and large avoid the Great Lakes and associated aquifers.

It seems like that would be a long way around the lakes, but it may work. Now go get it done.

[Rover]

It seems like that would be a long way around the lakes, but it may work. Now go get it done.

I've got an idea that's already built!

Back in the early days of WWII, there was a concern that oil could not get up to our ally Canada due to the presence of U-boats looking to sink any tankers going up the coast. In response and pretty hastily the gubmint built a pipeline from Portland ME up through the forests into Quebec to reach the refineries there.

Fast forward 70 years. The pipeline is still there. Its already connected to a port. The only small problem is that the flow needs to be reversed. Voila! Oil gets out of Canada, through the United States. Only difference is instead of being shipped out of Houston or New Orleans it gets sent out of Maine which happens to be a lot closer to the European market.

Problem solved, baby!

Somebody should elect me President.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

I've got an idea that's already built!

Back in the early days of WWII, there was a concern that oil could not get up to our ally Canada due to the presence of U-boats looking to sink any tankers going up the coast. In response and pretty hastily the gubmint built a pipeline from Portland ME up through the forests into Quebec to reach the refineries there.

Fast forward 70 years. The pipeline is still there. Its already connected to a port. The only small problem is that the flow needs to be reversed. Voila! Oil gets out of Canada, through the United States. Only difference is instead of being shipped out of Houston or New Orleans it gets sent out of Maine which happens to be a lot closer to the European market.

Problem solved, baby!

Somebody should elect me President.

Except it is a long way from Quebec to Alberta.

[Rover]

Except it is a long way from Quebec to Alberta.

My understanding is that pipeline or pipelines already exist too. There is a connection from Alberta to Portland. The only issue is the pipeline from Quebec to Portland is flowing the wrong way.

Now make that check out to the "Rover for President Committee", campaign slogan "Let Rover Take Over in 2016".

[Bob Gray]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

If this is built above ground or just below aren't people going to notice when there's an issue and have an automatic shutoff (or several) in case things go wrong? Further, if the underground lake is that large won't it just dilute? What kind of scale is this? Why don't we have the same worries about the Alaskan pipeline then?

Opposition has little to do with technical issues specific to the pipeline. It's more big picture environmentalism philosophy that's against this. It's not like we don't have pipelines running all over the country, carrying oil, natural gas, liquids, etc. If people knew how pipelines are built now, they realize how little risk there would be of leakage. They have all sorts of monitoring equipment on these pipes. They take x-rays of each and every weld on the pipe and analyze them to make sure they are up to standard and have those records on hand in case they ever need to dig up the pipes. Etc., etc., etc. People don't want this because it accesses the tar sands, which require a good deal of fossil fuels to access and process, thereby leading to more climate change gasses. Of course if the fuel will be shipped anyway, even if the pipeline isn't completed, as you can send it by rail. Now, that's a lot more risky than a pipeline, but that fact apparently isn't that important to some people.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

My understanding is that pipeline or pipelines already exist too. There is a connection from Alberta to Portland. The only issue is the pipeline from Quebec to Portland is flowing the wrong way.

Now make that check out to the "Rover for President Committee", campaign slogan "Let Rover Take Over in 2016".

There's a lot of cost to move oil, or natural gas, or whatever, from Alberta to the east coast, with the cost of compression, etc. That's why the TransCanada pipeline is having a tough time. Can't really get natural gas to the eastern markets competitively when you're battling Marcelus natural gas that's produced basically on-site in the east.

[Rover]

There's a lot of cost to move oil, or natural gas, or whatever, from Alberta to the east coast, with the cost of compression, etc. That's why the TransCanada pipeline is having a tough time. Can't really get natural gas to the eastern markets competitively when you're battling Marcelus natural gas that's produced basically on-site in the east.

They're SOL on natural gas anyway. Its not easy to ship even if you could get it to port, and the minute you sent it to say Europe in any significant quantity Russia would drop its extortion surcharge and flood the market with cheap gas.

Regarding oil though, if the economics make sense, and they should given the price of oil, why not use existing infrastructure? I have competing priorities here. I don't like environmental degredation, but I also want the US to control as much of the world's energy sector as possible (along with Canada). So, as they will find a way to get that icky oil exported one way or another, we might as well have it sent through our ports. Where I step off however is with the need to build a whole new pipeline when one already exists. Depending on where you're starting from in Alberta, its going to be 2000+ miles to get to Portland or Houston anyway. Too much of this is trying to score a political victory when a simpler solution is already present.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

They're SOL on natural gas anyway. Its not easy to ship even if you could get it to port, and the minute you sent it to say Europe in any significant quantity Russia would drop its extortion surcharge and flood the market with cheap gas.

Regarding oil though, if the economics make sense, and they should given the price of oil, why not use existing infrastructure? I have competing priorities here. I don't like environmental degredation, but I also want the US to control as much of the world's energy sector as possible (along with Canada). So, as they will find a way to get that icky oil exported one way or another, we might as well have it sent through our ports. Where I step off however is with the need to build a whole new pipeline when one already exists. Depending on where you're starting from in Alberta, its going to be 2000+ miles to get to Portland or Houston anyway. Too much of this is trying to score a political victory when a simpler solution is already present.

While your solution has the potential to be viable, we need more information before we will know if it actually is.

First, what is the capacity of the existing infrastructure? Is it capable of carrying the additional volume that we're talking about along with the existing volume?
Second, are there any existing contracts, or other obligations associated with the existing infrastructure that would prevent it from being used like you are suggesting?
Third, what is the useful life and current state of maintenance/operation of the existing equiment and infrastructure? Is this thing in good shape, and well maintained, where we could expect it to be used without major issue for the foreseeable future?
Fourth, what is the refining capability of Portland, where you suggest the oil get shipped? Or, what is the capability to ship the oil, via tanker from Portland to Houston, and do so economically?

[Rover]

While your solution has the potential to be viable, we need more information before we will know if it actually is.

First, what is the capacity of the existing infrastructure? Is it capable of carrying the additional volume that we're talking about along with the existing volume?
Second, are there any existing contracts, or other obligations associated with the existing infrastructure that would prevent it from being used like you are suggesting?
Third, what is the useful life and current state of maintenance/operation of the existing equiment and infrastructure? Is this thing in good shape, and well maintained, where we could expect it to be used without major issue for the foreseeable future?
Fourth, what is the refining capability of Portland, where you suggest the oil get shipped? Or, what is the capability to ship the oil, via tanker from Portland to Houston, and do so economically?

Good questions. Off the top of my head I can answer the last one. Portland doesn't have the refining capacity but Quebec does. They'd refine the oil there and then send it down the pipeline. Portland has a viable port and I believe it would be used solely for exporting a finished product instead of sending out crude to be refined.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlan...real_Pipe_Line


http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/2013...0101/130809988

[Bob Gray]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

They're SOL on natural gas anyway. Its not easy to ship even if you could get it to port, and the minute you sent it to say Europe in any significant quantity Russia would drop its extortion surcharge and flood the market with cheap gas.

Regarding oil though, if the economics make sense, and they should given the price of oil, why not use existing infrastructure? I have competing priorities here. I don't like environmental degredation, but I also want the US to control as much of the world's energy sector as possible (along with Canada). So, as they will find a way to get that icky oil exported one way or another, we might as well have it sent through our ports. Where I step off however is with the need to build a whole new pipeline when one already exists. Depending on where you're starting from in Alberta, its going to be 2000+ miles to get to Portland or Houston anyway. Too much of this is trying to score a political victory when a simpler solution is already present.

It makes a lot more sense to ship it to the gulf, where you've already got a lot of infrastructure to process it, rather than exporting it. Even if you did decide to export, it'd likely go to the Pacific coast and then on the the far east, rather than Maine. Going to the Pacific coast makes sense geographically and economically.

[bigmrg74]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

It makes a lot more sense to ship it to the gulf, where you've already got a lot of infrastructure to process it, rather than exporting it. Even if you did decide to export, it'd likely go to the Pacific coast and then on the the far east, rather than Maine. Going to the Pacific coast makes sense geographically and economically.

well, other than the pesky matter of having to ship all of that oil thru the Rocky Mountains, and oh yeah, up over the Continental Divide. Once you're up and over the Divide the cost of moving it should be pretty low as you would have gravity helping you a lot of the way, but those savings are going to get eaten up getting it up and over.

[St. Clown]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

well, other than the pesky matter of having to ship all of that oil thru the Rocky Mountains, and oh yeah, up over the Continental Divide. Once you're up and over the Divide the cost of moving it should be pretty low as you would have gravity helping you a lot of the way, but those savings are going to get eaten up getting it up and over.

The Canadian Rockies make up part of Great Divide/Continental Divide, and the entire section of the Divide within Alberta, which is just the SW corner of the province. While you do have go over both, you don't have to go over BOTH because they're one and the same.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Call Detroit. Tell them bankrupt!!!

well, other than the pesky matter of having to ship all of that oil thru the Rocky Mountains, and oh yeah, up over the Continental Divide. Once you're up and over the Divide the cost of moving it should be pretty low as you would have gravity helping you a lot of the way, but those savings are going to get eaten up getting it up and over.

There are pipelines that move oil and natural gas across the Rockies in various places, so it's obviously something that can be done. You might just need to add a bit of compression or something to give it an extra boost.

The proof is in the pudding. There has been serious discussion of sending the oil to the west coast and on to the far east of Obama continues to crater Keystone. I haven't seen anything in the trade press or general media regarding shipping the oil east to Maine or something along those lines.