President Barack Obama was silent on the issue of the XL pipeline that proponents want to build between Alberta and Texas.

His silence on the issue is seen to be favourable toward the pipeline because it appears that he is trying to distance himself from comments he made earlier in his presidency where the said that overland pipelines could be a threat to the environment.

Canada has large oil reserves in the form of tar sand oil, and it is this tar sand oil that is expected to be transported to Texas via the XL pipeline. Texas has lots of unused refining capacity for that oil. Proponents of the pipeline point out that building the pipeline is a win-win situation for both the US and Canada both because of the jobs it would provide in the near term and the energy independance it would provide the US over the medium and long term. The US gets a reliable supply of oil and Canada gets a customer for it's oil without having to run the much greater environmental risks of transporting that oil by sea.

I'm hoping that within the next few months, your president will make an announcement saying that he's approving the building of that pipeline.

Nestork,

Proponents of the pipeline point out that building the pipeline is a
win-win situation for both the US and Canada both because of the jobs it
would provide in the near term and the energy independance it would
provide the US over the medium and long term.

How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:45:20 -0500, "David L. Martel"
wrote:

How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

Lesser dependence on OPEC and oil from people that want to kill us?
Maybe?

David M:

Perhaps nobody will be dependent on anybody.

Perhaps this pipeline is part of some "north American union"?

Our socialists and oil tycoons want to irritate the world and keep prices
high.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Gil" wrote in message
...

Good point. At one time we were like two peas in a pod. Not any more
though. Since the USA became paranoid about 'security' and started
treating us like complete strangers I'd just as soon we kept our oil
instead of selling it to you guys at well below world market prices. But
I guess that since the investors, many of whom are from the USA, want to
maximize their return we won't have any choice since they see it as good
for both of us.

Gil

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:45:20 -0500, "David L. Martel"
wrote:

How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The
USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

Lesser dependence on OPEC and oil from people that want to kill us?
Maybe?

The refined fuel has been promised as export. That was in the orginal
announcement when the pipeline was first proposed.

Well, so far, none of our Prime Ministers have gone to the General Assembly at the UN and called your President George W. Bush "the Devil'.
2006 Chávez speech at the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, there aren't quite as many Canadians that have taken a solumn vow to martyr themselves waging holy war against the American infidel.

Canadians speak the same language as Americans.

We live under a similar democratic system of government as Americans.

We have much the same culture as America.

We inherited the same legal system, the British Common Law, from Britain.

We practice the same major religions as Americans.

The Canadian military and coast guard regularily train with the American military and coast guard and those of other member countries of NATO. Our police forces and spy agencies share information with each other as well.

And there are literally millions of personal, professional and business relationships between the people and businesses in our two countries.

I could go on, but you can see why a state of friendship would normally be expected to arise between countries with so much in common and so many ties between them.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:50:28 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:45:20 -0500, "David L. Martel"
wrote:

How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The
USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

Lesser dependence on OPEC and oil from people that want to kill us?
Maybe?

The refined fuel has been promised as export. That was in the orginal
announcement when the pipeline was first proposed.


Isn't the oil different in quality? Export for those that need or use
it....

Gil wrote:

Good point. At one time we were like two peas in a pod. Not any more
though. Since the USA became paranoid about 'security' and started
treating us like complete strangers I'd just as soon we kept our oil
instead of selling it to you guys at well below world market prices.
But I guess that since the investors, many of whom are from the USA,
want to maximize their return we won't have any choice since they see
it as good for both of us.


Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying to enter
the U.S. from Canada.


If you keep your oil, what will you do with it? Collect it and trade it with
your friends?

A 2,000 mile pipeline is horrendously expensive, but the cost is a mere drop
in the bucket compared to building a refinery in Canada necessary to turn
this oil into something you could, you know, actually USE.

Another other alternative is Canada's OWN pipeline to move the oil from
central Canada to west coast ports for eventual shipment to China. One thing
stands in the way of that possibility: The Rocky Mountains. The highest peak
in the Canadian Rockies is about 13,000 feet. (The highest elevation for the
Alaskan pipeline is 4,700 feet.) Another obstacle is that (probably) no one
in Canada has enough money to build such a pipeline, including the national
government.

NotMe wrote:

These is not that much 'excess capacity' in the USA. The oil that XL
will bring to the gulf coast is intended to be sold (if contracts are
no already in place) as export which will reduce the available
refinery capacity for those in the good old USA. This equates to an
increase fuel cost.

I'm in Texas and keep up with this sort of thing. Within 200 miles of
Houston, we have about 9% excess refining capacity. Nine percent is a HUGE
number. At full capacity, Texas' 27 refineries can refine about five million
barrels per day. About 10% of that is 500,000 bbls. The XL pipeline, can
supply about 435,000 to 591,000 bbl/day.


BTW the folk who operate the XL pipe line have a very bad reputation
for safety and have had something on the order of 13 'incidents' in
the first year of recently new pipe lines that they have build.

So what? You can't build a house without making sawdust.

On Feb 13, 10:50*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:45:20 -0500, "David L. Martel"
wrote:

* How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The
USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

Lesser dependence on OPEC and oil from people that want to kill us?
Maybe?

The refined fuel has been promised as export. *That was in the orginal
announcement when the pipeline was first proposed.

I would like to see your reference for that announcement,
because I don't believe it exists.

I have seem the libs trying to block it, try to turn it into
that, cobbling together their case from any scrap they
can. Oil is a fungible commodity. It will ultimatley find
it's way onto the word market one way or another.
It's hard for me to believe someone building a pipeline
stated that the oil will only be exported. Is it likely that
after it's refined, some of it gets exported? Sure.
But if that's the benchmark, then might as well stop
a lot of the oil sources in the USA.

On 14/02/2013 7:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Gil wrote:

Good point. At one time we were like two peas in a pod. Not any more
though. Since the USA became paranoid about 'security' and started
treating us like complete strangers I'd just as soon we kept our oil
instead of selling it to you guys at well below world market prices.
But I guess that since the investors, many of whom are from the USA,
want to maximize their return we won't have any choice since they see
it as good for both of us.


Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying to enter
the U.S. from Canada.

Three, eh? Over how many years? And that out of tens of thousands of
border crossings every day. How many of your own citizens have you
caught in that same time planning on carrying out terrorist acts?

If I was a foreign terrorist intent on doing the USA harm, guess which
border I'd be coming across. Probably the one with thousands of illegals
sneaking across every year and entering the USA undetected.



If you keep your oil, what will you do with it? Collect it and trade it with
your friends?

No, keep it in the ground until we need it. Fifty or so years from now
when you guys don't have any left we'll still have more than enough to
meet our needs,...that is if you haven't invaded us by then to take our
oil and fresh water resources by force.


A 2,000 mile pipeline is horrendously expensive, but the cost is a mere drop
in the bucket compared to building a refinery in Canada necessary to turn
this oil into something you could, you know, actually USE.

Actually Canada has refinery capacity in the east that could make use of
this oil instead of using foreign oil as we do now. Of course there are
the environmentalist that think transporting oil eastward is
unacceptable - just look at the uproar going on at present about
reversing the flow of oil in an existing pipeline to move western oil
eastward.


Another other alternative is Canada's OWN pipeline to move the oil from
central Canada to west coast ports for eventual shipment to China. One thing
stands in the way of that possibility: The Rocky Mountains. The highest peak
in the Canadian Rockies is about 13,000 feet. (The highest elevation for the
Alaskan pipeline is 4,700 feet.)

Yeah, but guess what? You still have to run a pipeline through Canada,
across the US border and then south to your refinery stations. (That is
unless you plan on tankering it down the coast.) So the same basic 'pipe
line' problems and challenges still exist.

Another obstacle is that (probably) no one
in Canada has enough money to build such a pipeline, including the national
government.

Probably true, but there's lots of foreign capital willing to invest in
such just as there is now.

Gil

On Feb 14, 10:59*am, Gil wrote:
On 14/02/2013 7:53 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Gil wrote:

* Good point. At one time we were like two peas in a pod. Not any more
though. Since the USA became paranoid about 'security' and started
treating us like complete strangers I'd just as soon we kept our oil
instead of selling it to you guys at well below world market prices.
But I guess that since the investors, many of whom are from the USA,
want to maximize their return we won't have any choice since they see
it as good for both of us.

Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying to enter
the U.S. from Canada.

Three, eh? Over how many years? And that out of tens of thousands of
border crossings every day. How many of your own citizens have you
caught in that same time planning on carrying out terrorist acts?

If I was a foreign terrorist intent on doing the USA harm, guess which
border I'd be coming across. Probably the one with thousands of illegals
sneaking across every year and entering the USA undetected.


It would be an interesting day to see what the libs who don't
want to enforce security on that border have to say, if and when
it happens...... The vast majority just have pictures of hordes
of Mexican gardeners coming across. In fact, tens of thousands
are from other countries, including places like eastern europe.
But it appears the far easier path for terrorists is to just come
in as a tourist, student, etc because a whole lot of them are
not identified and on a list.

Gil wrote:

Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying
to enter the U.S. from Canada.

Three, eh? Over how many years? And that out of tens of thousands of
border crossings every day. How many of your own citizens have you
caught in that same time planning on carrying out terrorist acts?

If I was a foreign terrorist intent on doing the USA harm, guess which
border I'd be coming across. Probably the one with thousands of
illegals sneaking across every year and entering the USA undetected.

ONE is too many! So say some.




If you keep your oil, what will you do with it? Collect it and trade
it with your friends?

No, keep it in the ground until we need it. Fifty or so years from now
when you guys don't have any left we'll still have more than enough to
meet our needs,...that is if you haven't invaded us by then to take
our oil and fresh water resources by force.

The money you'd get now, invested for 50 years, would far exceed the value
you'd get five decades hence. Further, in 50 years, we'll be using something
more efficient and plentiful than oil, leaving you with a gooey mess that
has no market.



A 2,000 mile pipeline is horrendously expensive, but the cost is a
mere drop in the bucket compared to building a refinery in Canada
necessary to turn this oil into something you could, you know,
actually USE.

Actually Canada has refinery capacity in the east that could make use
of this oil instead of using foreign oil as we do now. Of course
there are the environmentalist that think transporting oil eastward is
unacceptable - just look at the uproar going on at present about
reversing the flow of oil in an existing pipeline to move western oil
eastward.


Another other alternative is Canada's OWN pipeline to move the oil
from central Canada to west coast ports for eventual shipment to
China. One thing stands in the way of that possibility: The Rocky
Mountains. The highest peak in the Canadian Rockies is about 13,000
feet. (The highest elevation for the Alaskan pipeline is 4,700 feet.)

Yeah, but guess what? You still have to run a pipeline through Canada,
across the US border and then south to your refinery stations. (That
is unless you plan on tankering it down the coast.) So the same basic
'pipe line' problems and challenges still exist.

But it's a LEVEL route (actually somewhat downhill). Half as many pumping
stations and so forth.

wrote:

These is not that much 'excess capacity' in the USA. The oil that XL
will bring to the gulf coast is intended to be sold (if contracts
are no already in place)

Please show us where the companies involved stated
this......


I believe the intention is to sell gasoline, kerosene, and other refined
products, some (most?) overseas.

That scenario is no different than the idea of importing raw materials and
exporting a finished product, which everybody champions.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
NotMe wrote:

These is not that much 'excess capacity' in the USA. The oil that XL
will bring to the gulf coast is intended to be sold (if contracts are
no already in place) as export which will reduce the available
refinery capacity for those in the good old USA. This equates to an
increase fuel cost.

I'm in Texas and keep up with this sort of thing. Within 200 miles of
Houston, we have about 9% excess refining capacity. Nine percent is a HUGE
number. At full capacity, Texas' 27 refineries can refine about five
million barrels per day. About 10% of that is 500,000 bbls. The XL
pipeline, can supply about 435,000 to 591,000 bbl/day.


BTW the folk who operate the XL pipe line have a very bad reputation
for safety and have had something on the order of 13 'incidents' in
the first year of recently new pipe lines that they have build.

So what? You can't build a house without making sawdust.

Sawdust is not toxic. I paid for my engineering degree working in the oil
patch and more times than I care to mention in the refineries around the
Ship Channel. The one that has been mentioned most in the plans for the XL
oil was (is) owned in part by BP and has a horrendous history of bean
counter screw ups that have resulted in big fines and more than a few
deaths.

Need I mention that refinery availability is a fungible number and often
used to justify high fuel prices.

On Feb 14, 3:19*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

These is not that much 'excess capacity' in the USA. The oil that XL
will bring to the gulf coast is intended to be sold (if contracts
are no already in place)

Please show us where the companies involved stated
this......

I believe the intention is to sell gasoline, kerosene, and other refined
products, some (most?) overseas.

That scenario is no different than the idea of importing raw materials and
exporting a finished product, which everybody champions.

I don't doubt that SOME of it may go overseas. What I don't
believe is the companies involved stated that it was intended
that all or most of the products would go overseas. I mean,
why would they? Oil in fungible. And while right now it's
profitable for some of certain products to go to fill oveseas
demand, who knows what will happen by the time the
pipeline is built. I agree it's like any other business.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:40:53 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


Need I mention that refinery availability is a fungible number and often
used to justify high fuel prices.


That pipeline will be another excuse. When gasoline prices spike 50
cents a gallon, Wall Street oil "analysts" will pontificate about how
a break in the pipeline, or just a broken pump, has kept oil from the
refineries. The same "not enough refinery capacity" refineries that
exist right now without the supply from the pipeline.

On 14/02/2013 3:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Gil wrote:

Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying
to enter the U.S. from Canada.

Three, eh? Over how many years? And that out of tens of thousands of
border crossings every day. How many of your own citizens have you
caught in that same time planning on carrying out terrorist acts?

If I was a foreign terrorist intent on doing the USA harm, guess which
border I'd be coming across. Probably the one with thousands of
illegals sneaking across every year and entering the USA undetected.

ONE is too many! So say some.




If you keep your oil, what will you do with it? Collect it and trade
it with your friends?

No, keep it in the ground until we need it. Fifty or so years from now
when you guys don't have any left we'll still have more than enough to
meet our needs,...that is if you haven't invaded us by then to take
our oil and fresh water resources by force.

The money you'd get now, invested for 50 years, would far exceed the value
you'd get five decades hence. Further, in 50 years, we'll be using something
more efficient and plentiful than oil, leaving you with a gooey mess that
has no market.

I hope you're right about something more "efficient and plentiful".
Don't know what it may be, but I don't expect to be around to see it.

By the way, that "gooey mess" has already been there for tens of
thousands of years.




A 2,000 mile pipeline is horrendously expensive, but the cost is a
mere drop in the bucket compared to building a refinery in Canada
necessary to turn this oil into something you could, you know,
actually USE.

Actually Canada has refinery capacity in the east that could make use
of this oil instead of using foreign oil as we do now. Of course
there are the environmentalist that think transporting oil eastward is
unacceptable - just look at the uproar going on at present about
reversing the flow of oil in an existing pipeline to move western oil
eastward.


Another other alternative is Canada's OWN pipeline to move the oil
from central Canada to west coast ports for eventual shipment to
China. One thing stands in the way of that possibility: The Rocky
Mountains. The highest peak in the Canadian Rockies is about 13,000
feet. (The highest elevation for the Alaskan pipeline is 4,700 feet.)

Yeah, but guess what? You still have to run a pipeline through Canada,
across the US border and then south to your refinery stations. (That
is unless you plan on tankering it down the coast.) So the same basic
'pipe line' problems and challenges still exist.

But it's a LEVEL route (actually somewhat downhill). Half as many pumping
stations and so forth.

It might be a 'level route' but you'd still have to run it through a
'foreign country' that you apparently don't trust anymore. Further, I
expect the environmentalist and First Nations people, both Canadian and
American, would have a fit with that since it's still a 'pipeline'. It
would probably take years to get approval if at all.

Just a couple of comments on what's been said in this thread so far.

1. While I and most Canadians would prefer to sell our oil to the USA rather than China, and I expect most Americans would prefer to buy their oil from Canada rather than Venezuela, the bottom line is that we are separate countries and each of us will do what's in our own best interest when the time comes to make those important decisions. It's always been that way since the guys in charge have always been "economics" and "politics".

2. The XL pipeline MIGHT be part of a larger North American free trade zone agreement, but there hasn't been any discussions involving Mexico (who also produce oil), and you'd think the politicians would get all those ducks in order before they started making decisions on where to build long expensive pipelines. The cart seems to be before the horse if that were the case.

3. A pipeline through the Rocky Mountains would be a very expensive and controversial proposition, but the Canadian government would not have to fund the building of that pipeline even if it is built on Canadian soil. As often happens, foreign investors would simply incorporate a company in Canada to pay lobby groups in Ottawa to push to have the pipeline built, and eventually hire other individuals and other companies with expertise in building pipelines to build it. In the case of a pipeline through the Rockies, I'd prefer those foreign investors would be Japanese and/or Korean companies rather than Chinese and/or Indian companies.)

4. While it's true that Canada has enough tar sand oil to last it 400 years, and we'll undoubtedly be fueling our cars with more environmentally friendly fuels well before then, gasoline is not the only thing made of crude oil.

Most plastics start life as crude oil, and we make everything from textiles to car bumpers to paint to eyeglass lenses out of those plastics nowadays.

Most chemical pesticides and herbicides are made from chemicals derived from refining crude oil. And, since agriculture in the developed world has become an industry heavily dependant on machinery, lubricants in the form of oils and greases (as well as fuel) are important to maintain food production in developed countries.

When you refine crude oil, you basically distill it. A refinery is really just a big moonshine still that can separate out various condensates depending on their boiling temperatures, and send each condensate through different processing equipment. However, what you're left with at the end of the day when you're finished boiling the oil is a product called "asphalt". Asphalt is critical to cities and rural areas for building and maintaining roads and highways. And, of course, it's used in waterproofing the roofs and basements of buildings.

There are many experts that think we should move to alternative environmentally friendly fuels sooner rather than later so that we can save our crude oil for making all these other important products if and when crude oil reserves become depleted. That's because we have available alternatives to gasoline that we can use as gasoline (like ethanol), but we don't have an alternitive to crude oil for making plastics, lubricants, greases and asphalt.

So, I don't believe Canadian oil will go "unused" because of a worldwide lack of interest in the stuff. But, of course, refining it into fuel is still the most obvious market for the stuff.

5. I also don't believe that if the XL pipeline is built, that the oil shipped through it will be refined in Texas and the resulting products exported from Texas to other countries. But, I believe that something to that effect was said by someone to either help get the pipeline built, or help kill the idea of building it. Those kinds of statements by lobby groups or companies with an interest in building it are for public consumption only and belong in the same bag as election promises. The oil will be sold, pipelined to Texas, and the resulting products sold and used throughout North America (and very possibly on other continents as well).

On Feb 14, 8:04*pm, Gil wrote:
On 14/02/2013 3:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:





Gil wrote:

Heh! We've caught any number (three, I think) of terrorists trying
to enter the U.S. from Canada.

Three, eh? Over how many years? And that out of tens of thousands of
border crossings every day. How many of your own citizens have you
caught in that same time planning on carrying out terrorist acts?

If I was a foreign terrorist intent on doing the USA harm, guess which
border I'd be coming across. Probably the one with thousands of
illegals sneaking across every year and entering the USA undetected.

ONE is too many! So say some.

If you keep your oil, what will you do with it? Collect it and trade
it with your friends?

No, keep it in the ground until we need it. Fifty or so years from now
when you guys don't have any left we'll still have more than enough to
meet our needs,...that is if you haven't invaded us by then to take
our oil and fresh water resources by force.

The money you'd get now, invested for 50 years, would far exceed the value
you'd get five decades hence. Further, in 50 years, we'll be using something
more efficient and plentiful than oil, leaving you with a gooey mess that
has no market.

I hope you're right about something more "efficient and plentiful".
Don't know what it may be, but I don't expect to be around to see it.


It might be here sooner than you think. Remember Cold Fusion
from the 80s? Pons and Fleichman, who claimed they had produced
power from paladium rods in heavy water were ridiculed. But since
then there has been continual research into it by everyone from NASA
to major universities. And while back in the 80s no one could
reproduce
the experiment, now most of these researchers are saying they too
are getting excess power out of carefully monitored experiments.
Energy that can't be accounted for by any conventional means.
Which is exactly what P & F had claimed.
The new name being used is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. A
whole lot of credible scientists now believe something is going on
that can't be accounted for. Current thinking is that it's some
kind of low energy nuclear reaction and there are some theories
as to what might be happening.

Research is continuing to try to determine what exactly is going
on. And the problems that lead to the intial rejection in the 80s
continue. It appears to occur somewhat spontaneously, can't
be reproduced repeatedly, etc. But enough of these scientists
appear to be witnessing and recording something that chemical
reactions alone can't account for. So, there is a chance that
once understood, we might have a whole new cheap energy
source.

On Feb 13, 7:50*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:45:20 -0500, "David L. Martel"
wrote:

* How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The
USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

Lesser dependence on OPEC and oil from people that want to kill us?
Maybe?

The refined fuel has been promised as export. *That was in the orginal
announcement when the pipeline was first proposed.

Yep, last I heard the US is a net EXPORTER of oil. IOW words we are
shipping
more oil out than we are bringing in.

Harry K

On Feb 15, 11:55*am, Harry K wrote:
On Feb 13, 7:50*pm, "NotMe" wrote:





"Oren" wrote in message

.. .

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:45:20 -0500, "David L. Martel"
wrote:

* How does buying oil from Canada give the USA energy independence? The
USA
will be depending on Canada. Canada is a foreign country.

Dave M.

Lesser dependence on OPEC and oil from people that want to kill us?
Maybe?

The refined fuel has been promised as export. *That was in the orginal
announcement when the pipeline was first proposed.

Yep, last I heard the US is a net EXPORTER of oil. *IOW words we are
shipping
more oil out than we are bringing in.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That isn't true. We are producing a lot more oil today then
10 years ago. And imports have dropped. But the USA still
imports about 40% of it's oil. Part of that is when you have an
economy that sucks, demand is reduced from what it otherwise
would be. The bigger part is new production though.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:37:57 +0000, nestork
wrote:


Just a couple of comments on what's been said in this thread so far.

1. While I and most Canadians would prefer to sell our oil to the USA
rather than China, and I expect most Americans would prefer to buy their
oil from Canada rather than Venezuela, the bottom line is that we are
separate countries and each of us will do what's in our own best
interest when the time comes to make those important decisions. It's
always been that way since the guys in charge have always been
"economics" and "politics".

2. The XL pipeline MIGHT be part of a larger North American free trade
zone agreement, but there hasn't been any discussions involving Mexico
(who also produce oil), and you'd think the politicians would get all
those ducks in order before they started making decisions on where to
build long expensive pipelines. The cart seems to be before the horse
if that were the case.

3. A pipeline through the Rocky Mountains would be a very expensive and
controversial proposition, but the Canadian government would not have to
fund the building of that pipeline even if it is built on Canadian soil.
As often happens, foreign investors would simply incorporate a company
in Canada to pay lobby groups in Ottawa to push to have the pipeline
built, and eventually hire other individuals and other companies with
expertise in building pipelines to build it. In the case of a pipeline
through the Rockies, I'd prefer those foreign investors would be
Japanese and/or Korean companies rather than Chinese and/or Indian
companies.)

4. While it's true that Canada has enough tar sand oil to last it 400
years, and we'll undoubtedly be fueling our cars with more
environmentally friendly fuels well before then, gasoline is not the
only thing made of crude oil.

Most plastics start life as crude oil, and we make everything from
textiles to car bumpers to paint to eyeglass lenses out of those
plastics nowadays.

Most chemical pesticides and herbicides are made from chemicals
derived from refining crude oil. And, since agriculture in the
developed world has become an industry heavily dependant on machinery,
lubricants in the form of oils and greases (as well as fuel) are
important to maintain food production in developed countries.

When you refine crude oil, you basically distill it. A refinery is
really just a big moonshine still that can separate out various
condensates depending on their boiling temperatures, and send each
condensate through different processing equipment. However, what you're
left with at the end of the day when you're finished boiling the oil is
a product called "asphalt". Asphalt is critical to cities and rural
areas for building and maintaining roads and highways. And, of course,
it's used in waterproofing the roofs and basements of buildings.

There are many experts that think we should move to alternative
environmentally friendly fuels sooner rather than later so that we can
save our crude oil for making all these other important products if and
when crude oil reserves become depleted. That's because we have
available alternatives to gasoline that we can use as gasoline (like
ethanol), but we don't have an alternitive to crude oil for making
plastics, lubricants, greases and asphalt.

So, I don't believe Canadian oil will go "unused" because of a
worldwide lack of interest in the stuff. But, of course, refining it
into fuel is still the most obvious market for the stuff.

5. I also don't believe that if the XL pipeline is built, that the oil
shipped through it will be refined in Texas and the resulting products
exported from Texas to other countries. But, I believe that something
to that effect was said by someone to either help get the pipeline
built, or help kill the idea of building it. Those kinds of statements
by lobby groups or companies with an interest in building it are for
public consumption only and belong in the same bag as election promises.
The oil will be sold, pipelined to Texas, and the resulting products
sold and used throughout North America (and very possibly on other
continents as well).

XL pipelines East and West are on hold, for now?

_The Keystone Pipeline Controversy Continues_

Sierra Club Executive Director Mike Brune on his efforts to stop the
completion of the Keystone Pipeline.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html?intcmp=onairexpnav#/v/2165321833001/the-keystone-pipeline-controversy-continues/?playlist_id=87060

On Feb 15, 12:21*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:37:57 +0000, nestork





wrote:

Just a couple of comments on what's been said in this thread so far.

1. *While I and most Canadians would prefer to sell our oil to the USA
rather than China, and I expect most Americans would prefer to buy their
oil from Canada rather than Venezuela, the bottom line is that we are
separate countries and each of us will do what's in our own best
interest when the time comes to make those important decisions. *It's
always been that way since the guys in charge have always been
"economics" and "politics".

2. The XL pipeline MIGHT be part of a larger North American free trade
zone agreement, but there hasn't been any discussions involving Mexico
(who also produce oil), and you'd think the politicians would get all
those ducks in order before they started making decisions on where to
build long expensive pipelines. *The cart seems to be before the horse
if that were the case.

3. A pipeline through the Rocky Mountains would be a very expensive and
controversial proposition, but the Canadian government would not have to
fund the building of that pipeline even if it is built on Canadian soil.
As often happens, foreign investors would simply incorporate a company
in Canada to pay lobby groups in Ottawa to push to have the pipeline
built, and eventually hire other individuals and other companies with
expertise in building pipelines to build it. *In the case of a pipeline
through the Rockies, I'd prefer those foreign investors would be
Japanese and/or Korean companies rather than Chinese and/or Indian
companies.)

4. *While it's true that Canada has enough tar sand oil to last it 400
years, and we'll undoubtedly be fueling our cars with more
environmentally friendly fuels well before then, gasoline is not the
only thing made of crude oil.

Most plastics start life as crude oil, and we make everything from
textiles to car bumpers to paint to eyeglass lenses out of those
plastics nowadays.

Most chemical pesticides and herbicides are made from chemicals
derived from refining crude oil. *And, since agriculture in the
developed world has become an industry heavily dependant on machinery,
lubricants in the form of oils and greases (as well as fuel) are
important to maintain food production in developed countries.

When you refine crude oil, you basically distill it. *A refinery is
really just a big moonshine still that can separate out various
condensates depending on their boiling temperatures, and send each
condensate through different processing equipment. *However, what you're
left with at the end of the day when you're finished boiling the oil is
a product called "asphalt". *Asphalt is critical to cities and rural
areas for building and maintaining roads and highways. *And, of course,
it's used in waterproofing the roofs and basements of buildings.

There are many experts that think we should move to alternative
environmentally friendly fuels sooner rather than later so that we can
save our crude oil for making all these other important products if and
when crude oil reserves become depleted. *That's because we have
available alternatives to gasoline that we can use as gasoline (like
ethanol), but we don't have an alternitive to crude oil for making
plastics, lubricants, greases and asphalt.

So, I don't believe Canadian oil will go "unused" because of a
worldwide lack of interest in the stuff. *But, of course, refining it
into fuel is still the most obvious market for the stuff.

5. I also don't believe that if the XL pipeline is built, that the oil
shipped through it will be refined in Texas and the resulting products
exported from Texas to other countries. *But, I believe that something
to that effect was said by someone to either help get the pipeline
built, or help kill the idea of building it. *Those kinds of statements
by lobby groups or companies with an interest in building it are for
public consumption only and belong in the same bag as election promises.
The oil will be sold, pipelined to Texas, and the resulting products
sold and used throughout North America (and very possibly on other
continents as well).

XL pipelines East and West are on hold, for now?

_The Keystone Pipeline Controversy Continues_

Sierra Club Executive Director Mike Brune on his efforts to stop the
completion of the Keystone Pipeline.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html?intcmp=onairex....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The hippies aren;t just against XL. They are against
virtually any energy project of sigificance. They even
reject solar and wind when it finally comes time to
actually build one. Remember the old cereal commercial?
They are line Mikey. They don't like anything.....

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:30:01 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

The hippies aren;t just against XL. They are against
virtually any energy project of sigificance. They even
reject solar and wind when it finally comes time to
actually build one.

A follow-up from yesterday. Stuart gets an answer...

_Green Energy’s Gray Reality_

Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Steve Goreham on the
limits of alternative energy in today’s utility needs

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html?intcmp=onairexpnav#/v/2165321833001/the-keystone-pipeline-controversy-continues/?playlist_id=87060

On Feb 15, 1:00*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:30:01 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
The hippies aren;t just against XL. *They are against
virtually any energy project of sigificance. *They even
reject solar and wind when it finally comes time to
actually build one.

A follow-up from yesterday. *Stuart gets an answer...

_Green Energy’s Gray Reality_

Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Steve Goreham on the
limits of alternative energy in today’s utility needs

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html?intcmp=onairex....

Quite amazing isn't it? The exec director can't answer two
simple questions:

1 - What percent of the total USA electricity comes from wind?

2 - What percent comes from solar?

Stuart asked him about 6 times. Just another brainless
hippie. If I went on a program to advocate against
conventional power, I sure as hell would know the answer
to those questions. Either he's a dummy or afraid to
tell the truth.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:15:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 15, 1:00*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:30:01 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
The hippies aren;t just against XL. *They are against
virtually any energy project of sigificance. *They even
reject solar and wind when it finally comes time to
actually build one.

A follow-up from yesterday. *Stuart gets an answer...

_Green Energy’s Gray Reality_

Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Steve Goreham on the
limits of alternative energy in today’s utility needs

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html?intcmp=onairex...

Quite amazing isn't it? The exec director can't answer two
simple questions:

1 - What percent of the total USA electricity comes from wind?

2 - What percent comes from solar?

Stuart asked him about 6 times. Just another brainless
hippie. If I went on a program to advocate against
conventional power, I sure as hell would know the answer
to those questions. Either he's a dummy or afraid to
tell the truth.

Some years ago the Sierra Club filed law suits because Las Vegas
traffic jams were causing "pollution".

NDOT started widening the highway (buying right of ways, homes etc.)
with additional lanes. Then the fools sued again because of
environment (insert craziness) reasons. They can't make up their
mind. But I know that :-\

wrote:

The US recently became a net exporter of GASOLINE. It still takes
oil to make the gas and that is imported (more than not).

The US is not necessarily a NET exporter of Gasoline.

It is true that you export gasoline:

===================
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...r-in-2011.html

Feb 29, 2012

Refiners are expanding on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest, even as
unprofitable plants along the East Coast were shut. Operable capacity in
the U.S. climbed 0.8 percent to 17.7 million barrels a day in December
from a year earlier.

U.S. refineries in the Gulf Coast, where about half of U.S. capacity is
located, operated at 88.8 percent last year, up from 88.6 percent in
2010.

“It helps keep refinery utilization rates up in this country,” Bill Day,
a spokesman for Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) in San Antonio, said in a
telephone interview. “Otherwise we would see what we’re seeing on the
East Coast, where refineries are shutting.”

In the fourth quarter, Valero, the largest U.S. independent refiner with
14 North American plants, exported about 5 percent of its gasoline
output and 17 percent of its heating oil and diesel production, Day
said.

Gasoline demand in the U.S. sank 2.9 percent to 8.736 million barrels a
day last year as pump prices averaged $3.521 a gallon, the highest in
records dating back to 1919.

“The reason we can export so much is demand in the U.S. is weak,” Cohan
said. Since 2005, the U.S. has lost nearly 2 million barrels a day of
total product consumption, he said.
===================

But according to this, you are also importing gasoline:

=====================
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=wgtimus2&f=4
=====================

Up to 1.6 million barrels of gasoline a day in 2006, declining to about
600k barrels as of a year ago, and 400k barrels today.

And by the way, your ability to export gasoline (from some of your PADD
zones) is not because your domestic refinery situation has improved over
the past 5-10 years. It's because your economy has gone into the toilet
over the past 5 years (thanks to Bush's illegal wars).

Europe uses more diesel fuel in cars and other personal vehicles than is
the case in North America, and vice-versa. Hence Europe has relatively
more gasoline as a result of their refining operations that can be
exported to North America, and that's also why more diesel vs gasoline
is exported from the US.

I would guess that your gasoline imports happen primarily on the east
cost, with some small amount on the west cost (and no gasoline imports
into the gulf states). You don't seem to have an efficient way of
getting Texas-refined gasoline to the Eastern Seaboard states, hence
their reliance on either imported gasoline, or refining more expensive
european brent in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other east-cost
refineries (at least those that are still operating).

Well, I'm not exactly "in the loop", but the feeling up here is that Obama is going to be making a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline within the next few weeks, and everyone is waiting for that decision before making future plans.

Note that the "Keystone" pipeline system already exists. The "XL" portion of the Keystone pipeline system is and expansion to the existing pipeline; albeit long additions that would take the pipeline system all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

The Keystone pipeline (and the proposed XL additions) are owned by TransCanada Pipelines, which is the largest pipeline operator in Canada.

http://missouri-news.org/wp-content/...p-KWD2.jpg.jpg

But, I agree with the general gameplan that TransCanada Pipelines is taking on this. The Athabasca tar sands are going to be producing huge quantities of oil for decades to come, and it doesn't make sense not to plan for that future by building expensive pipelines to transport that oil in the most economical way over the long haul. So, as it stands right now, the fact that the oil will be moved by pipeline is more certain than where or when that pipeline will be built.

" wrote:

It might be here sooner than you think. Remember Cold Fusion
from the 80s? Pons and Fleichman, who claimed they had produced
power from paladium rods in heavy water were ridiculed. But since
then there has been continual research into it by everyone from NASA
to major universities.

This was news to me, but you're right. I read the original Pons and Fleichman
paper and got excited. Over the next few months, I learned a lesson. But here
we go again. This time, I'm more intrigued than excited.

From:
http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.go...reactions.html

" There are estimates using just the performance of some of the devices under
study that 1% of the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the
world's energy requirements at the order of 25% the cost of coal.

"No promises, but some seriously "strange" things are going on, which we may be
closer to understanding and if we can optimize/engineer such, the world changes.
Worldwide, it is worth far more resources than are currently being devoted to
this research arena. There is a need to core down and determine "truth" and if
useful, the need to engineer and apply."
-- Doug