This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Except it is a long way from Quebec to Alberta.
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.
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.
While your solution has the potential to be viable, we need more information before we will know if it actually is.
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.
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.
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.
Using existing infrastructure means sending it to the gulf. I'm pretty sure you don't have a pipe the size of Keystone sitting empty and stretching all the way from Alberta to Maine or thereabouts. The only slight possibility I can think of is if TransCanada were to convert a portion of their natural gas system that runs west-east to oil, but I think they just got a new rate agreement for shipping natural gas east, and a conversion would be quite expensive, so that doesn't seem likely. Much of Keystone has already been built. It's built in Canada, and the portion in the southern section of the U.S. is in place, so it's just he mid section that still needs to be built and approved. Really, the environmentalists will fight any major project that helps move tar sands oil to the marketplace due to environmental concerns. Sending it to Maine and exporting it doesn't change that equation. And as I noted before, the oil is already heading to the gulf, just by train rather than pipeline. Why not doing it in a more economical and environmentally safe way? Because people are short-sighted and too focused on narrow special interests.
If the federal government screws up, we're very limited in how we can punish those involved. The common answer is through the election system, but the elected officials have very little impact on the day-to-day jobs of the average bureaucrat. When a private company screws up, they face fines, tighter regulatory punishments, and possible loss of revenue. These are all very real impacts to those who've invested in the company providing the service and create greater motivation for them to do their jobs both efficiently and effectively. With exception to the ability to wield force, I hold that government should be in the role of watchdog, and not producer. As a watchdog, it can be effective and it creates a layer in separation of duties so long as it's not been corrupted. When the separation is gone, carelessness and flawed execution creeps into the process, and too much back-scratching comes into play.
The Portland pipeline scenario isn't just using existing infrastructure. Your linked article indicates that it would be 870 miles of new pipeline and cost $12 billion to build. That might be more new construction and cost than putting in the middle segment of Keystone at this point. If the enviros fight Keystone tooth and nail, you'll get the same and maybe more for the Portland pipeline. And again, then you just are building it to export, instead of having North American supplies stay in North America for processing and consumption. Yes, it's a global market, but there is still some energy security to having a resource processed and delivered to this market without it going overseas. I can understand the economic development interests of having the Portland project move forward, but I don't see how it makes sense over finishing Keystone. My guess is that the Portland project may be a way of pushing on Obama to approve Keystone. This is the same company that's developing Keystone after all, not some other company with a competing project.
So the government should look to bankrupt a company when it screws up? IMO, it should have rules set in place for restitution and then a fine scale set in place that follow certain guidelines. Make it hurt, make investors question the company's leadership, but don't make it a goal of trying to put it out of business. There's no win there for anyone. And for companies the size of BP and Halliburton, and given the market of BP, you're very unlikely to put it out of business anyway. It's too large, and it's not based in the US. Should they decide, should they feel the US Government is too temperamental, they could begin long-term plans to leave the market. Surrendering this market to their competitors may not sound reasonable now, but you don't want to make it look that way in the future because of overly punitive fines.