Comments on: Another Delay Looms For Keystone XL Pipeline

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:26:00 +0000

I somewhat agree with you. We won’t be able to stop people from burning oil by fighting oil. We have to give people an acceptable alternative.

EVs and PHEVs are significantly cheaper to drive per mile. They are more convenient to drive and most people find them more enjoyable. Get ranges up and purchase prices down a bit and people will move away from oil.

In the meantime do more to get people into more efficient oil burning cars and onto public transportation/bikes.

That said, there are likely specific pipelines and projects which should probably be opposed. The danger of a blowout, and they happen far too often, in some areas is too great a problem to accept.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:44:00 +0000

People need to realize that Pipelines don’t cause us to burn more fossil fuels, they just supply our addiction. If you are fighting the pipeline or even “Big oil” you are fighting the wrong battle since the energy industry is already starting to lean to alternative energy sources… just look at TransCanada’s portfolio as an example where a good portion of their focus and investment is into wind, hydro, and nuclear power. If things are gonna change, it’s the consumer that needs to make that happen in better ways than flying here and there to attend sit ins.

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:08:00 +0000

I’ll believe that when I see it. You’re free to.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 03:51:00 +0000

Could be they will. Nothing wrong with that. But so far US companies are in the lead. BYD (the major Chinese EV manufacturer) has plans to open a plant here in the US.

You probably realize that due to the cost of shipping and the low labor inputs in modern car factories it’s getting to be common to manufacture close to the market, don’t you? US manufacturers are setting up shop in China to make their units sold in Asia and making the ones for domestic consumption here.

As for coal powered. China will be capping their coal use at 2011 levels starting in 2015. That means that they will burn 6% less coal than they did in 2012 in 2016 and going forward.

China is starting to back away from coal. Their leaders have no issues with climate change denial. They’re largely a bunch of engineers who can do the math.

China just ditched plans for a new super-large coal plant last week due to local protests about air quality.

And China has a real problem with water for cooling thermal plants. That’s part of the reason they cut back on the number of nuclear plants they intend to build and will build no more inland where water is getting scarce.

China is greatly increasing their solar and wind installations. They seem to see that as their route forward.

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 03:34:00 +0000

The Chinese will bring them out cheaper than their jeans. And the plants they produce them in will be coal powered. They’re not fools.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:45:00 +0000

Let’s see…

The largest selling EV. That would be the Nissan LEAF. Nissan just opened a plant in Tennessee and makes the LEAF here.

The most exciting EV. No question. The Tesla S, made in California.

Then the best selling PHEV. GM’s Volt. American made. And they also make the EV Spark.

Ford, are they in the game? Why, yes, then are. They’re making the Focus EV in the US.

And what are we charging these electrics with? Oops, not all that much coal. At one time we got 57% of our electricity from coal. Last year it was down to 37%. And it’s going to be a lot less going forward since we’ve got over 100 coal plants scheduled to close over the next few years.

Oil and coal? So last century….

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:03:00 +0000

The oil will come from somewhere. Maybe Saudi Arabia. Or Venezuela, Mexico or Nigeria with a higher CO2 footprint.
And if electric cars get built they it will probably be in China.
And powered by coal fired plants. Enjoy.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:30:00 +0000

Leave that crap in the ground where it belongs.

Do another, larger ‘cash for clunkers’ and move a lot of people into EVs, PHEVs, and very efficient ICEVs.

People can go to work building new cars rather than laying pipe.

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:10:00 +0000

This line will provide US Gulf Coast refiners with a more competitively priced feedstock which is from a secure source that allows guaranteed US access by virtue of NAFTA. The only threat to this access is the US government. There is a higher US content in oilsands production than any other foreign crude they import. From US companies and citizens working in Canada to parts suppliers, engineering services and financing, the US benefits from the production of this oil. But that will be reduced if the oil can’t be shipped down the most logical route.

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:02:00 +0000

I see you know little about economics neither.

By: Dan Hue

Dan Hue — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:54:00 +0000

Easy. Use less oil. Let the price of crude climb and adjust demand by substituting to other energy sources.

By: Dan Hue

Dan Hue — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:48:00 +0000

“non-tariff trade barriers”, LOL. Tell that to the land owners who get their property seized under eminent domain, all for a purely private project that is of no benefit to the US at large. Tell that also to those who will be affected when the pipeline leaks, like it inevitably will at some point. The bottom line is, there is no need for KXL and tar sand oil.

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:47:00 +0000

How are supplies of this ‘conventional crude’ you are always comparing oilsands to? Since conventional is only about 35% of total reserves and these are located increasingly in unfriendly states it’s obvious that to rely only on them wouldn’t be practical. So why compare oilsands to them as if they could replace oilsands or other unconventional? They can’t.

By: Moreboomplease

Moreboomplease — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:40:00 +0000

The project will go eventually. In the meantime several avenues are open. One would be to complete the line as far as the Baker, Montana on-ramp and make additional capacity available here to Bakken crude which is currently railed. Use the freed up rail cars to move railbit from Alberta to Baker and further dilute it there with Bakken for piping to the Coast. More carbon would make it to the refinery gates than in the original KXL plan. Also the TransCanada Energy East project could deliver crude to Eastern Canada and replace Canadian crude currently re-imported from the US. This would amount to 600 kbpd which could be diverted to US refineries.
These would be effective until a less obstructionist president comes to office. I’d also like to see a NAFTA challenge by Canada to eliminate these non-tariff trade barriers.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:56:00 +0000

It´s becoming clear that the Obama strategy on Keystone is the death of a thousand reviews. Just as nobody is fired from government these days, just forced to resign, so Transcanada wil eventually read the tea-leaves and withdraw its hopeless project.