Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JHH on November 17, 2011 at 13:14

Kickbacks?  Shocking!  Revenue enhancements?  HA!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on November 16, 2011 at 22:57

Oil has jumped to over $100 a barrell.  Do you think the jump could have had something to do with the news last week that the Keystone project might not happen?  If you look at it in supply vs demand terms wouldn't the pipeline increase the overall supply of oil and thereby reduce costs? 

 

I wonder how much of this rise in the price of oil can be attributed to the keystone project - OR are there other geopolitical forces I just don't know about?  Anyone have a speculation why oil prices rose this week?

 

thanks for your ideas,  HANG

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 17, 2011 at 4:18

This article explains part of the price jump.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hKZkzFepXgALTETk...

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on November 17, 2011 at 6:24

HANG,

Per oil price jump and Keystone...No connection.  IMO  In reading the "experts'" blogs, they are attributing "Nebraska's" new expiditing wishes to some remarks from TransCanada Corp. Reps and the White House per "changing the pipeline route" away from the NE Sandhills area... But could they possibly look at bypassing "Nebraska" altogether????  Now we know Nebraska doesn't want that.  They want a public compromise so the NE Governor can save face and the environmental groups will be appeased, and the White House will look like "They" are on both sides.  AKA: POLITICS

In addition, TransCanada Corp. decided that it could get the lower-leg of the Keystone in "contruction mode" much easier and fairly quickly through to the GOM.  Aka, no new jobs for NE, in the short term, if the GOM leg gets built first.

Oil price increase:  Seaway pipeline reversal.  Moving crude from Cushing to GOM.

Have a great Day, HANG.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on November 18, 2011 at 1:11

The issue of Nebraska not wanting a pipeline amazes me.  I don't get it.  Look at this map of existing natural gas pipelines in Nebraska.  What am I missing?

 

http://38.96.246.204/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/...

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 18, 2011 at 4:08

That map is nat gas pipelines.

 

The Midwest has been on edge about Oil pipelines since this summers Yellowstone spill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on November 18, 2011 at 9:08

Oops.  Baron, you are right as usual.  I must have been up too late watching Tiger Woods lose last night.

So, now my mind is clearer, and I went and looked up oil pipelines and found that in the US there are:

-  approximately 55,000 miles of trunk lines (8 - 24 inches in diameter)

-  approximately 30,000 - 40,000 miles of gathering lines (2 - 6 inches in diameter)

That's a lot of existing pipelines.   I still don't get the objection.  Yes, the Yellowstone spill was bad.  But it was hardly a catastrophe.  And Exxon will pay for its mess.  While I strongly object to the environmental damage that will come from extracting the oil from the tar sands, I accept that this will happen whether or not the US buys that oil.  So we might as well get it, rather than let Canada sell it to Asia.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 19, 2011 at 19:02

you're exactly right, there is no guarantee that the canadians are going to wait for us to unscrew ourselves, they would be crazy to let those assets sit idle for long, they have invested money to produce this oil and it will get produced no matter what we decide or don't decide.  i'm sure the chinese are practically salivating at taking advantage of another dysfunctional snafu in the american political arena.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 20, 2011 at 12:37

there is no proof or even circumstantial evidence that i can find which points in that direction, even your own link up there said specifically that it required presidential approval, and that state was going to delay for another "environmental impact" study, not a "eminent domain" study.  what am i missing here?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 20, 2011 at 14:49

like i said, eminent domain is determined by each state, not the federal government... the argument that eminent domain issues have stopped this project on a federal level does not hold water, i'm sorry.  can you not just admit that obama is playing politics with our national interests?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 20, 2011 at 16:43

that is a circular argument, the company in question also could not have actively pursued such in court either.  on it's face it seems true that a "foreign company" was threatening to "take their land"; and i am not making the argument that such behavior is either moral or ethical.  however.  the unspoken truth in what he was saying is that the foreign company would have needed the cooperation of the prospective state governments in each case.  the fact that the ogalalla aquifer and the sand hills are specifically mentioned as primary reasons to not proceed only help my argument, the eminent domain posturing was tacked on as a nice bit of popularist lagniappe, but it is far from the main thrust of the issue that has been used to justify halting the project.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 20, 2011 at 16:48

that is an absurd article.   securing affordable energy from our neighbors to the north rather than trying to rely on energy from unstable regions who happen to mostly hate us is most certainly in the national interest.

 

so which is it, should we stay implicitly involved in the middle east, or turn to the responsible development of more local sources?  quite a few generations after us will be dead and buried before we stop having to dig holes in the ground to make this thing called modern civilization work.  it's just our reality.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page