Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:18 PM Nov 2014

Keystone pipeline question

Is there a good argument that not building the pipeline through the US would mean less oil actually ends up getting extracted? Or is this about moving the same amount of oil through Point A rather than Point B? I've only seen arguments that the extraction rate doesn't change with the pipeline. Are there arguments against that claim?

I've read a lot about how bad the tar sands extraction is. I wish the tar sands extraction would stop. Will stopping the pipeline stop (or even slow) the extraction? If not, is there something else we could do to stop the extraction? If this is about where the oil goes once it's extracted, and not how much gets extracted, I'd personally rather work at getting less extracted.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Peacetrain

(22,877 posts)
1. Ogallala Aquifer.. for starters..
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:23 PM
Nov 2014

there are tons of pipelines running through the United States.. but this is an especially dirty type of oil.. over possibly the most important underground water source in the US.. and pipelines leak and burst..

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
2. I have no doubt there are better and worse places to put a pipeline
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:24 PM
Nov 2014

and that this may be one of the worse places.

But does it change the amount of oil that actually gets extracted? Or is it about which aquifer we will put at risk when we move the same amount of oil? (And, for that matter, I'm fine with saying "Canada's extracting it; Canada can take the risk transporting it.&quot

Peacetrain

(22,877 posts)
3. I am in the middle of the country..
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:28 PM
Nov 2014

and we have been fighting this hard.. Canada has really screwed itself ecologically on some of these developments.. This is just such a dirty fuel source.. and yep.. if they want to do this, then figure out another way to transport it without going over our aquifers..

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
7. IMO, Canada will not let the supplier dump the sand waste if they extract and refine
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:37 PM
Nov 2014

in Canada. So the oil industry decided to run it down to Gulf and dump it where it will blend with the oil spill in the gulf. Probably illegal and a lot cheaper.

But... right now the bubble on tar sand oil is about to burst because the price of oil is now below the cost of extraction.

It may now be much to do about nothing.

Spazito

(50,355 posts)
4. The only thing, at this point, that will slow the extraction is the price of oil...
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:31 PM
Nov 2014

It is very, very expensive to extract tar sands oil and if the price of oil goes down, there comes a point where the return on tar sands oil is less than the cost of the extraction.

I think the environmental hazards wrt the pipelines has been the bigger issue re Keystone and other proposed pipelines both in the US and Canada. The hazards alone are reason enough, imo, to try and stop them.

I, too, wish we could stop the tar sands extraction, making it harder to export the product via pipelines helps, increasing the restrictions on shipping by rail helps as well and a key aspect would be to increase the environmental regulations would both make it more difficult and more expensive for the corporations to continue. I think it will be a multiple-pronged approach that will, if possible, reduce the extraction of dirty oil.

on point

(2,506 posts)
5. Not having the pipeline increases cost of delivery, which suppresses oil sand production
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:33 PM
Nov 2014

Plus, this is a very bad infrastructure investment choice for the US. The money would be better spent on renewables.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
6. No, in the end there is not a good argument to be made there, unforunately.
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:36 PM
Nov 2014

Infrastructure can impede extraction, and one might say that extraction could even be stopped, but only if all the various transport modes, (pipeline, rail, truck, etc.) in both countries and all ports was impacted.

Pinch a pipeline here, the crap will come out through a different conduit or mode.

I think the argument many make against the pipeline is that we're taking an environmental risk and not reaping any energy security measure since the product is being exported, and wtf with that?

In the end, the planet suffers, the extractors and energy brokers get rich, and we sink deeper into the dirt as just another third world country there to be exploited.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
8. It's a done deal.
Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:47 PM
Nov 2014

Embridge pipeline through the Iron Range can be jacked up to carry more product via Lake Superior route. Keystone will be a additional route direct to the Texas Refineries and then to foreign markets as finished product. We get to keep all the shit and the Chinese and Indians get the clean finished product. It's a jobs bill by the Rethugs. Two new pipelines south of Chicago will come on line by spring. You guessed it,Canadian sludge going to Norman Oklahoma and then to the Texas coast. White House gave the go ahead on this part of the so called Keystone line last year. Appears the OPEC,which is basically U.S. multinational oil companies are just tying to pin Putin into his little playpen and force his banks to capitulate their holdings and then away the Oil prices go straight to the moon. We have been had bigtime by the 1%ers once again. And along the way,they steal our 401's.IRA's and put everyone in some worthless privatized chained CPI Social Security POS. Got it!!!! If you had been paying attention,you would have seen this coming.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Keystone pipeline questio...