If Democrats would just tell the fucking truth about the Keystone Oil Exporter..

[livingwagenow]

educate the American people that the sole purpose of the oil EXPORTER pipeline is just that.

It will put North American oil on the global market which will cause oil, gas, diesel, nat gas prices here in America to skyrocket.

In 5 years, take a guess at the price of a gallon of gas here in the US. My guess: $10 a gallon.

Keystone Exporter is a price manipulation/fixing tool that will cause energy prices to soar. If the American people understand this they just might line up to oppose it. Plus the fact that it is an environmental disaster in the making..

Soaring energy is a national job killer.

The Oil Exporter will kill jobs and harm our economy.

Drop the name Keystone and rename it..

The Oil Exporter.

[fredamae]

1. Isn't the bigger

issue/question: Why Won't They? They're Not stupid. They're not ignorant. They Are aware.
So what would drive any politician's silence?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The answer to your question used to be delivered in brown paper bags. Now it's called

campaign contributions.

[Rex]

10. MONEY.

It always goes back to the $$$.

[FreeJoe]

2. huh?

How will the pipeline cause a meaningful change in world or US oil prices?

[Finnmccool]

5. TransCanada says right in their 2009

permit application that the purpose of the pipeline is to raise oil prices.

[FreeJoe]

25. Locally

By having the ability to reach more markets with their oil, they can can get buyers to complete for it and get better prices. That will have almost no impact on global or even US prices.

[Finnmccool]

28. At least a .20 increase in the midwest

[Finnmccool]

30. Here it is in their own words

TransCanada, in testimony to the Canadian National Energy Board, “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude

[FreeJoe]

32. And that will lower prices elsewhere

Following the implied logic from the OP, Texas should keep all of its crude in Texas to lower is energy costs.

[Finnmccool]

34. No they don't want to build a pipeline

to lower prices they want to raise prices which they make pretty clear.

[FreeJoe]

36. Higher for them, lower for the buyers

The price in the market that they are selling into is depressed because it is oversupplied. With the pipeline, they will sell into a higher priced market, lowering the price there. The net effect is improved efficiency for the overall market at the cost of their local market.

The same thing happened with natural gas a few years ago when pipeline capacity was added from the Rockies to the East. Three was a glut of gas in Denver, which made prices there low. When the extra capacity came in, it raised local prices but lowered prices in other areas that could now get access to that gas.

Obviously, the pipeline makes the oil more valuable and more likely to be produced, but it will lower the world average price of crude, not raise it.

[Finnmccool]

37. No they don't want to lower the prices somewhere else

they want to end the discount in the midwest.

[FreeJoe]

40. Of course they don't want to

They would love to sell at the highest price possible. Refiners want to buy at the lowest price possible. When they can't get their oil to a broad market cheaply, the local refiners and transporters get a better deal and the buyers that can't get access to the oil get a worse deal. With the pipeline, they will have access to more buyers and lower transportation costs. The new buyers will pay the tar sands producers more than they were getting, which is how they get higher prices, but the new buyers will be passing less than they were paging there other suppliers, which is how they also get lower prices. This is how markets allocate resources.

[Finnmccool]

42. "passing less than they were paging" I don't have any idea what that means

But gas prices in the midwest will go up and other areas will stay the same.

[FreeJoe]

43. Sorry for the typo

I was writing my response on a tablet and wasn't paying enough attention. It should hae read "but the new buyers will be paying less than they were paying theirother suppliers"

Prices will adjust in both areas for the same reason - supply and demand. As more fuel gets shipped out of the midwest, the supply there will be lower and, without a change in demand, the price will increase. As more fuel gets shipped to the south, the supply will be higher and, without a change in demand, the price will be lower. How could you expect the increased supply of oil in the south not to lower the price? Are you expecting other suppliers to drop out of that market? Are you expecting demand to increase?


Here's the kicker on the whole thing. The portion of the Keystone XL pipeline to take oil from the midwest (actually Cushing, OK) to the south is already done and in use. It started transporting oil in January of this year. The only part that doesn't exist is the part bringing oil from Canada to the US.

A couple of years ago, oil production in the north and central US increased substantially. This caused more oil to flow into Cushing than there was capacity to use it. That caused a historically unusual drop in the NYMEX price (the price of oil in Cushing) relative to the Brent price. In the past, NYMEX was generally equal to or higher than Brent. This caused people to find ways to get more oil from Cushing to the Gulf Coast. They reversed pipelines that used to flow north. They added additional pipelines like the Keystone XL. They are still adding more pipeline capacity. That parts is happening completely outside the debate about the portion of the Keystone XL that is being debated.

The remaining portion of the Keystone XL will actually lower prices in the midwest because it will make it easier to get tar sands oil to the midwest. Today, that oil flows through existing pipelines (like the Keystone - non-XL) and on rail. The existing pipelines are at capacity and so their owners are charging a significant premium. Rail is less efficient and also in high demand, so they are also charging high rates. The net effect is that there is a significant shipping surcharge on all that oil flowing to the midwest. That surcharge will decline as shipping costs decline.

That isn't to say that I think that the Keystone XL is a good idea. By lowering the costs of shipping tar sands oil, we will make developing it more profitable. That will encourage more development of it. What we really need is a carbon tax which will make all fossil fuel use more expensive and discourage it.

[Finnmccool]

35. That wasn't an OP that was their testimony

and if Texas kept all the oil there it would be cheaper in Texas, but oil companies want to make money.

[arikara]

21. The only way the tarsands companies can make money off the bitumen

is to keep the oil prices sky high. Its very expensive to rip it out of the ground.

They are lying to us Canadians about it too, with the Northern Gateway pipeline. They say we need it for our energy security here in Canada, as they want to ship it all over to China. What a crock, the Chinese also own the tarsands companies.

[FreeJoe]

26. Sort of true, but not really

Tar sands are not profitable at much lower crude prices. That is true. "They" don't control oil prices. This process are st in a global market. Canada doesn't have a big enough share of that market to control price. OPEC struggles to do it. If prices fall, they will do production in the tar sands because it will not be profitable.

[The Straight Story]

33. Prices in the heartland will go up

As oil produced here in the US will piggyback on the pipeline, higher bids by China and such will push US oil out of the US (at least the region the pipeline runs through) thus raising prices here.

Oil here in the US will end up benefiting the few over the many and foreign interests over our own.

"Price hikes at the pump are likely to hit as far as California. Canada is the second-largest exporter of crude to the West Coast region, just behind Ecuador. California refiners are taking action to import and use more Canadian oil."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/28/1227226/-Report-reveals-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-would-raise-U-S-gas-prices

[FreeJoe]

38. The pipeline from the Midwest to Texas is done

The price spread between West Texas Intermediate and Brent has already declined. The cheap Midwest crude party is over. It was a blip caused by oil production increasing very rapidly and pipeline capacity not keeping up. That problem has largely been solved.

The "few" that are making out like bandits are the real companies see in areas like North Dakota where they still don't have much pipeline capacity. The price of crude there is very low, but it is the railroads and not the consumers that are getting the benefit.

[Savannahmann]

3. This is the same thing that Professor Lakoff tries to do.

Change the name to reflect a different view of the problem. For example, he wanted to rename the Oil Platform that blew up in the Gulf of Mexico "The Deepwater Death Gusher" and for some reason the name didn't catch on.

Here is the problem with your suggestion. Exporting things is not that bad of a thing generally speaking. GM is the number one car company in the world because of exports among other things. So Exporting is not a bad thing. We export Boeing Jet's, and that is good for American workers. We compete with other companies that are trying to export their products to the other nations. So on it's face, exporting things is not bad. You have not shown that exporting Oil would be bad for America, nor bad for the workers. So naming it the Oil Exporter might even help sell it to the people on the fence.

So you say that putting the products on the market is bad. Yet, the prices go up when supply on the international market are restricted. OPEC fiddles with the supply, and prices go up because of less product on the market, not more. Americans close our main Gold Mine from time to time when the price goes too low, because we are hoping to restrict supply and drive the price back up.

In the 1970's, when there wasn't much competition in the auto market, the "big three" had the market essentially cornered. The quality sucked, the gas economy was non existent, and the people were unhappy with the products offered. Then Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen flooded the market with inexpensive cars that were reliable and economical. They may have been rather ugly, but they were going to last a long time when you bought them. The Big Three complained that they could not compete with Japan because their labor was so low. That wasn't the problem, the problem was the products offered by the Big Three were enormous gas guzzling monstrosities that broke down too often and disintegrated. This era damn near saw the end of the automotive industry in England.

So people are now driving as many Toyota's as they are Chevrolet's. We gasp in astonishment when an American Car makes a top ten list, and we jump for joy if our cars ever make number one.

You complain that the oil would be exported. Not definitely. If the oil is more valuable domestically, and is of sufficient quality that it can be refined as easily as "light sweet crude" then it will remain domestic. Again, simple economics. If the oil is worth 80 dollars a barrel in Europe, but 85 dollars a barrel here, where are they going to send it?

So let's talk about the pipeline itself. Your renaming argument is not really all that useful so far. If we don't build the pipeline will they stop taking the oil sands which is an energy intensive project? No. They will still mine it, and they will still semi-refine it, and they will still export it from Canada somewhere. China is competing with us for the oil, their economy needs it as much as ours does.

So we're down to "Not in my back yard" arguments. The Oil is going to be exported from Canada one way or another. Either to Texas, or China. Losing the pipeline would kill as many jobs as your theoretical oil and gas price jump that seems counter intuitive to the average person.

So what good would it do to call it the Oil Exporter? Well it might increase the demand of the people who want jobs. It might quash the last arguments of the environmentalists like myself who think that the dangers of a spill are extremely high.

But go ahead, if you are so inclined. Stab a knife into the heart of the environmental movement by making the discussion all about economy, because guess what, the Rethugs are winning that argument. That's why they oppose the "Job Killing" Obamacare, the "Job Killing" minimum wage hike, and the "Job Killing" reductions in the Defense budget. Now, they'll have a chance to fight against the effort to stop the "Job Killing" oil exporter pipeline.

[Finnmccool]

6. Please explain how it will be exported

anywhere but the USA without the pipeline?

[Savannahmann]

7. The Oil Sands are in Alberta Canada.

We have no say in if the oil sands are mined, and semi refined enough for transport. Canada is after all, a separate and independent nation. We Americans might think we run the world, but Canada doesn't need American Permission to mine the sands and sell the tar/oil within. Canada has a number of ports any of which can be used to export the product via the same ships that can call on Houston's ports.

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

We do have some say in if they are exported from Canada to here. Making the argument an economic one is a loser. Canada can and will export the oil sands to anyone who wants to buy, and if we Americans say no we don't want it, then someone, China according to the Wikipedia article, will say that they do want it.

[Finnmccool]

8. Canada has banned oil tankers

in Canadain waters since the 1970's and they don't want a pipeline running through their own country. So I'll ask again how will they export it to anyone but the USA?

[Finnmccool]

9. Sorry ports not waters

[Savannahmann]

12. You may want to let the Canadians know that, because they don't seem to be aware of it.

Just a cursory search found these interesting articles. http://www.canadianshipper.com/news/large-aframax-tanker-calls-port-of-montreal/1002775151/?&er=NA

http://icsclass.org/oil-tanker-safety-a-review-of-canadas-ship-source-oil-spill-preparedness-and-response-regime

This one talks about a pipeline to Vancouver, which is in the United States, and actions that a port in Ottowa, IN CANADA is taking to increase their understanding of what to do in case of a Oil Sands spill at their port. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d38c69ce-5e1e-4896-a647-5b7a611980b8

And, in northern B.C., Ottawa is sponsoring an ocean-monitoring study to probe surface wind effects on bitumen from Kitimat to the Hecate Strait, to prepare for oil spill response measures.

If the Northern Gateway pipeline gets the nod from Ottawa early next year, some 250 tankers could one day operate out of Kitimat.

I was able to find where the Canadians had banned individual tankers for safety reasons, but I can't find anything that says they banned all tankers. I don't know what to tell you my friend. Perhaps you can provide me with a link for my edification.

[Finnmccool]

14. You mean this Kitimat?

Tanker moratorium in British Columbia[edit]


Proposed tanker routes and prohibition zone.


Proposed oil tanker routes to service the Northern Gateway Pipelines, and the tanker prohibition zone.
There has been an informal moratorium on large tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound since 1972.[49] Since then, the federal and provincial governments have commissioned periodic studies to reassess whether to lift the tanker moratorium. Each study has concluded that the risk of tanker spills is too high. In 2003–2004, the federal government initiated a three-part review process, including a scientific review by the Royal Society of Canada (the RSC report), a First Nations engagement process (the Brooks Report), and a public review process (the Priddle Panel). The RSC report concluded that "the present restriction on tanker traffic along the West Coast of British Columbia should be maintained for the time being[50]

In 2009, the Canadian government's position was that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic in the coast waters of British Columbia.[51] However, on December 7, 2010, Canada's environmental watchdog (Scott Vaughan, commissioner of the environment and sustainable development) in a damning report stated "Canada's government is not ready to handle a major oil spill from a tanker, in part because its emergency response plan is out of date".[52]

In December 2010, the federal House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.[53][54][55][56]

[Savannahmann]

15. So it's informal, and no such ban exists

It's more of a Wouldn't that be nice? Which explains how that Aframax tanker showed up in Ottowa, and why they are expecting up to 350 tankers a year to call on the facilities in Kitmet and other locations. That comes to about one a day, which is impressive by any standard.

Thanks for the information, and it jibes with what I found, which was no actual ban on, but a few statements for publicity sake.

[Finnmccool]

19. If they have so many tankers coming why do we get all their oil?

and why did P.M Harper say you can't be an energy superpower with only one customer?

[Finnmccool]

20. BTW could you post a link where a super tanker went to Ottawa

that seems like it would be quit the trick.

[arikara]

22. Northern Gateway has to go over all the first nations

most they have no treaties with, and other residents of BC that are against it. First nations are already blockading in remote areas, all hell will break loose if they start trying to push it through more populated areas. There are court challenges going on too.

Just because the Chinese own the tar sands doesn't mean that its going to be cheap or easy for them to get their toxic sludge through BC.

[Calista241]

16. Us or China

If we're being honest with ourselves, we already lost the fight on whether the sands will be exploited for oil or not. The only question left is who refines it.

I, personally, would like to see us refine the oil for production rather than the Chinese. We're by far the more likely to ensure environmental regulations are enforced, and the end product will be cheaper due to the proximity of our refineries.

[NickB79]

17. Rail, most likely

Lots and lots of fucking rail cars

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. I Have to take issue with one of your points

If the oil is more valuable domestically, and is of sufficient quality that it can be refined as easily as "light sweet crude" then it will remain domestic.

What will be piped from the Alberta Tar Sands is in NO WAY "Light Sweet Crude".

From what I have read, the substance that will be pumped through that pipeline has the consistency of hot peanut butter. It is abrasive to the inside of the pipe and the primary reason for building the pipeline in the first place is that the refineries capable of handling such a substance are in large part located on the gulf coast. The Canadians, or rather no Canadian fuel producers, want to spend the money to build a refinery to handle the stuff.

Again, from what I have read (I am not a petroleum engineer) this material is just about the worst crap you want to have to deal with in order to get a usable fuel out of. A by product is...surprise, surprise! SAND. A shitload of it. And not sandbox or beach sand, but toxic, dirty, smelly sand. That has to be put somewhere.

In my opinion, it is the Canadians digging this crap up...let THEM refine it and sell it. But no...there's too much money to be made.

[Savannahmann]

24. I thought I said.

Environmentalists like me. I also want it stopped, but I'm smart enough to know that arguing it on economic reasons is a losing proposition.

[Scootaloo]

27. Keystone XL is being marketed to the US public with the rubric of "Energy Independence"

As if the product is going to go straight into the US reserve, or straight from the pipe to your local gas station or something. Yes, this falls apart with even a little critical thinking (how does a Canadian pipeline reduce our dependence on "foreign oil"?) but that doesn't matter - this is how the project is being advertised.

And that advertisement is blatantly false. Just like it's always been when oil companies want to open new wells, claim more public land, or whatever. That petroleum goes - not to the world market - but to the corporation's own reserves. Supply is then controlled by these corproations through market collusion in order to keep artificially inflated prices high - and profits as a result.

Keystone will not give the United States "energy independence." Nor will it lower oil prices (the very fact that it's being extracted from bitumen sands makes that perfectly clear!). All it's going to do is stuff more dollars in the pockets of Big Oil, at potentially enormous risk to the environment of the United States and Canada.

[Cleita]

11. Well, it would require giving up all that nice oil money to their campaigns.

Unless we can reverse Citizens United and bring in campaign finance reform, we are doomed.

[Rex]

13. Maybe you haven't noticed, but telling the truth hasn't been in style since

forever. Special Interest Groups (thanks Reagan) killed this country and are looting the corpse as we speak.

[FarCenter]

23. The Keystone southern leg from Cushing, OK to Nederland, TX began transporting oil Jan 22, 2014.

Keystone pipeline leg to Nederland up, pumping

TransCanada's Keystone pipeline began delivering crude oil Wednesday to the Sunoco Logistics Inc. terminal in Nederland from the Cushing, Okla., oil hub 487 miles away, opening the tap on another source for the four Southeast Texas motor fuels refineries and other Gulf Coast refineries.

TransCanada said none of the oil is intended for export.

That leg of the Keystone pipeline, which TransCanada calls the "southern segment," is delivering crude from a variety of sources, but not the tar sands of western Canada, a TransCanada spokesman said.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Keystone-pipeline-leg-to-Nederland-up-pumping-5165028.php

This will reduce the price differential for a barrel of crude as West Texas Intermediate at Cushing and the world price for Brent in London.

Crude on the East, Gulf, and West Coast is based on Brent prices anyway. WTI is only for US speculators and mid-continent refineries.

[elehhhhna]

29. the oil may not be for export but the refined product is another story

weaselly misleading statement there

[FarCenter]

31. We export more refined product than we import, but those flows are much smaller than crude flows

Currently, the figures are:
7.3 million bpd crude import
-0.1 million bpd crude export
====================
7.2 million bpd net crude imports.


3.8 million bpd refined product exports
-1.8 million bpd refined product imports
=======================
2.0 million bpd net refined product exports

So the net exports of refined products are much smaller than the net imports of crude

Part of the economic rationale is that refined products are imported to the east coast from Canada and Europe, while refined products are exported from the Gulf Coast to Latin America.

So overall, we are importing around 2 million barrels of crude more than we need for domestic consumption, refining it, and exporting the refined products.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

[Dirty Socialist]

39. If The Democrats Told The Truth about The Pipeline

The corporate whores err..."press" wouldn't report it.

[seveneyes]

41. The logical reasoning behind it raising fuel to $10/Gal would be helpful

How, exactly, does building a pipeline cause gasoline in the US to rise to ten dollars per gallon?