Keystone XL Pipeline Project thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

A universe in which we are measure the cost to accomplish a particular peak load.  Given the inability of solar to provide 24/7 power, the capital costs per Kwh will be higher because a solar plant will have fewer hours to recoup the investment.  However, in many areas, peak load occurs due to heavy AC use.  Since the conditions which cause the heaviest AC use also happen to be excellent ones for solar power, it is quite conceivable that solar would be useful as part of the mix, tho obviously as base load generating system it is still pricey.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

While I would in general agree with this statement, the fact that tar sands oil has to be diluted with a liquid called natural gasoline, which has to be piped up to Canada plus the fact that tar sands oil is not very flammable, as opposed to Bakken crude, means that tar sands may be more cost effective to rail, especially as more heated rail cars are built.  To me, the best solution would be for Bakken to be piped and tar sands railed, but the refiners on the gulf coast have ample supplies of light oil from the Eagle Ford while East and West coast refiners are the ones who can use it.  Gulf Coast refiners could retool to handle more light crude, but they're making too much money right now to stop and spend money on retooling.

What that suggests is that it might be reasonable to semi-refine the oil at the tar sands.  However, the practicalities and politics of greenhouse gases might have an effect.  I could see where two-stage refining might cause increased emissions, plus it certainly looks better for Canada if the emissions from refining took place in a foreign country.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is telling that they are apparently unable to refute the conclusion and hence are forced to fall back on casting aspersions on the process.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So what do you all think?  Is the State Department EIS on the pipeline so compromised by the oil industry that it is too biased to be reliable, as the Greens are claiming here? 

It absolutely is.

Evidence?

You're asking Bandit for evidence that backs up his opinion?  Given your predilection for lost causes such as this, are you certain you aren't a Southerner?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

TransCanada has just asked the State Department to pause its review of the project:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/transcanada-state-department-keystone-215462

It's dead!

Until the price of oil goes back up again.  The way the oil market is at present, it makes perfect sense for TransCanada to do what it can to delay the start of construction without causing a permanent halt.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Uhh, something Obama goes to the left on, I disagree with him.

why?

I believe it can provide many jobs, especially if we provide construction jobs around the area, as well as with some modifications with the bill, we can get the profits of the oil for american people. Also, it's better to get oil from Canada then the middle-east and Arabian states.

We weren't doing that anyway. Our OPEC purchases were from Ecuador and Venezuela.