7ony (7ony) wrote,

Keystone Pipeline

I've had trouble understanding the reasoning behind the proposed Keystone pipeline running from Canada across the US to the Gulf Coast refineries in Texas. It doesn't seem reasonable or economical to convey crude oil that far. There are a number of US refineries in the north and the northeast. Just two examples are the refinery at Mandan, North Dakota and the one at Whiting, Illinois. These and others are closer to Canada and closer to the majority of US gasoline and heating oil consumers. Additionally, the refineries in Texas already have access to plenty of crude oil from Gulf Offshore and South and Central America sources. I don't see the Texas refineries as being needy.

At first, I assumed the reason for the pipeline was because the Texas refineries were the only ones equipped, or could be equipped, to process the sour tar sands crude oil, but I have since learned that many northern US refineries are already processing the Canadian tar sand crude. I recently read that 80 percent of the output from the proposed Keystone pipeline was committed to markets outside the United States, and that a second pipeline is planned which will take different route and double the Canadian crude output. Keystone has a third pipeline presently under construction that runs west across the Rockies and will be used to export tar sands crude to Asian markets.

So, the proposed Keystone pipelines that end in Texas will supply Canadian tar sand crude oil to the rest of the world. This is great for the multinational oil companies who are heavily invested in the Canadian tar sands, but probably not so great for the oil-consuming US citizen who expect their fuel costs to fall. I would argue that completing the Keystone pipeline to Texas will cause the price of the crude, and the gasoline and heating oil made from it, to rise and fall with the world markets.

Many argue for the Keystone project on the basis of the number of jobs it will create. The estimates vary wildly from 6 thousand to 200 thousand. I heard the latter estimate from an Oklahoma politician and the former from a US State Department representative. I tend to believe the former. The Keystone pipeline portion already completed used mostly Canadian, not US, workers. They used steel pipe imported from China and India. Some of the steel proved to be inferior and the resulting ruptures have lead to a number of spills.

In my opinion, the tar sands oil is not ready for prime time. The processing method is terribly hard on the environment. Future generations will likely view the Canadian project in the same way as we here in Oklahoma view our Tar Creek Super Fund debacle. Unfortunately, the scale of the Canadian effort is over 1,000 times larger in area than the Oklahoma one.

I don't see the Keystone Project as an appropriate political football. It should not be built.

  • Alt-ObamaCare or RepublicanCare

    I've heard the Repeal ACA, or Alt-ObamaCare, called many names, some not very nice. The latest name I've heard on the news is TrumpCare. I…

  • I'm lonesome

    I'm feeling a bit lonely, today. I've considered myself a Conservative since before Goldwater ran for president. I believe in personal and…

  • 2016 Voters in Oklahoma

    The estimated Oklahoma population is 3,943,066 persons The number of age 18 and older Oklahomans is estimated to be about 2,807,548, living in…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.