WashPost Editor calls Keystone rejection an insane act

That's exactly the kind of thing Sarah Palin was doing in Alaska.

Ther report you cited is surprising to me. The U.S. is a major importer of petroleum and the word price for this ubiquitous but essential commodity is well established, varying in individual cases only in terms of the particular variety (heavy or light) crude involved, local supply/demand variations, and the transportation costs to its market. Thus new sources of heavy crude delivered to one of the world's largest existing heavy crude refining centers in east Texas and Louisiana seems a very naturally immediately useful product. There is always some local transshipment countrercurrent in the movement and exchange of commodities of all types. However the basic patterns are easy to predict. It may well be that the pipeline would enable some distributors here and in Canada to reduce their need (based on variations in demand) for locally stored inventories. However, eliminating such fixed inventories adds to the overall efficiency of the system, and the transitions involved are one time events of little lasting consequence.

Whether you are for or against the exploitation of the tar sands bitumen by Canadians, it is abundantly clear that the decision is theirs to make and they have chosen to develop it. Since they will be the first to experience the effects of the coming ice age, perhaps they welcome the existence of forces that may delay it.

Thanks for your input, I shall continue to research the issue of where the oil is intended to be used.

A question - how do they get this bitumen to flow down the pipe? From what I've read it's pretty thick stuff.

Cycloptichorn

It is kind of difficult to res[ond to that position, but let me try.
1You dont just change pipeline route cause you or spurt think its easily done. IT isnt. Several levels of review and impact statements must be approved (after a siting and ROW study is done). If we dropped everything and went fast ahead, it would still be about 3 years away from any shovel or dozer.
The material being pumped will be different than any we know (similar tar sands from places like the retorts at Montrose Colo have been fraught with problems due to gasket leaks etc. The keragen based stuff from Canada is less viscous, and higher solubility . As I understand from incidental papers by AAPG they can either partially distill it at the sites or pump it ata higher viscosity but using heaters (like Alieska).
AS far as its targeting for the foreign market, cyclo and Butterfl are correct in their understanding . Economics defines the materials path into world markets, not some jingoistic view in some "entitlement" we have to the resource. AS you see now, for exasmple, the Chinese are exploiting contracts from oil fields in middle east countries where weve recently spent huge amounts of our national capital and lives of our youngsters.

Your analogies are simply not valid. Putting down a pipeline is more like building a pyramid not a motorcar. Anyway the P-51 had the advantage of being a "HAWKER HURRICANE/SPITFIRE knockoff' and even wound up using the Rolls Merlin XX engines. The Mustang was in the works from 1938 till its rollout with the first generation Merlins that were used in the HAwker Hurricane

Good question. I'm not sure how they do it, but I know there are existing pipelines that operate with the stuff. Even moderately viscous fluids like bitumen or even various syrups can be pumped through smooth pipes. The higher viscosity delays the onset of turbulent flow and in a not-very-obvious way contributes somewhat to lowered flow resistance. They could also add some lighter hydrocarbons to optimize the flow conditions if necessary.

If I am correct about the inventory matter then it may well be that the Fox news report is technically accurate in that some fuel may be initially export, but positively deceptive in that the long term effect is tthe opposite of what is implied. If so that wouldn't be the first time a journalist has knowingly or merely out of ignorance used partial truths to paint an inaccurate picture.

The 51's wing was substantially different from those of English fighters of the day and there were other advances as well. The 51 was one of the super weapons of WW-II, the spitfire and hawker were just other airplanes.

so you believe that the Mustang was a ground up design? Youre nuts. It was a mod of the SPit and theonly reason the wing and the Packard engine mounts were added (plus the heat dissipation intercooler) and the new props config, WAS because of new NACA wind tunnel designs ON THE SPITFIRE.
Anyway, the Packard mounted (Tightgrip) , intercooled MerlinXX engine was what made the Mustang its long range performance. (PS, it was the Brits that named it since only Northrop had a contract on the 100 day design mod to produce, essentially, a long range Spit).
I dont consider you an aviation historian. Neither am I. Ive got books by Graham White (redbaron) whose restored allied warbird s and several Merlins, and hes written about them extensively. Ill believe his schorlaship over your bullship.

In the recent past, American SEABEES made a name for themselves turning bombed-out islands into major air bases and doing any number of similarly impossible tasks in days or at most weeks, you can find examples of that easily enough on youtube, e.g.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIkgvQymIw4

Put that sort of an approach into the picture and that pipeline would be there now and nobody would be arguing over it. That is, it would be there around the aquifer and not over it.

you just dont understand the process of NEPA and state requirements. THE people of NEbraska are hugely against the route. Its already got GOPs and Dems working together (Thats a first). Your examples of "Can Do" americans is a lame comparison. Its like"We went to the moon, why cant we make a no cal beer"

The 51 was originally used as a low-level ground attack aircraft with an Allison engine and pilots noted that because of the laminar-flow wing and several other features, it appeared to lack only a more serious engine in being a super fighter of sorts, capable of taking on and defeating the most advanced German designs. The Merlin engine was substituted for the Allison and the theory proved out. If anybody could have made a long range escort fighter out of the spitfire they'd have done it in 1940 and the war would have been over by 42 or 43.

so youve agreed with me that the Mustang is merely an improved SPit.
NACA did all the laminar flow calscs from the wind tunnel data and gave that to the Brits and Northrop.

These are some of the existing pipelines already used in N. America. The keystone pipeline is far from unusual.

As I understood, because of the unique characteristics of this stuff, the pipeline needs design mods , like pressure and seal integrity assurances. AND either a high vis/ high temp or a low vis/high solubility option needs to be selected.
In any case, the sand hills is a truly dumb route. SOrry Canada but youve got me and George ob agreeing, a liberal and a conservative. OY the evils of compromise.

Sometimes, you just have to acknowledge that a clock that's stopped is right twice a day and move on. Even I don't agree with George 100% of the time.

I think putting an oil pipeline through an aquifer is plain stupid. As I've said, I think it was very lazily planned. We had the same problem with putting the Alaskan pipeline through the Nahani and the Mckenzie valley.
Water is sacred, plain and simple...

Why does this new pipeline have to go all the way to the Texas coast anyway?

According to the petroleum industry's maps, there are refineries right there on the border with Canada. If the fuel products were to only be used internally, there's no need for them to go to the shipping channels on any of our coasts.

The Americans wanted this. More jobs.. We have refineries but our population won't let us keep up with the demand. This was supposed to be a group effort. Instead it's turned into beating us up for a service you wanted and asked for. When the US started wars for oil in places like Iraq, this was seen as the answer - politically safe but dirty oil, not that any oil production is clean, or for that matter any type of mining. In fact, there are oil sands in the Dakotas, and they are at the beginning of production, but you don't see Hollywood stars picketing these sites, do you? Hopefully, they'll learn from our mistakes.
It's cheaper in the long run to build pipelines. Sure it could be trucked or brought by train, but this is also cause for environmental concerns as well as elevated prices. Regardless, the oil, where ever it is refined will still be brought to the major shipping areas of the US, always has and will till it runs out.
This product can be used for many purposes. Gas, diesel, asphalt, propane and so on. These are commodities we all use, like it or not.Roads are not built for bicycles. They are built and funded by home owners and businesses. It's what drives the economy.
When the oil sands were first developed, there was no eye on the environment. Many of the companies that came here were multi-nationals. Not just Canadian companies. Oil companies are rarely family owned businesses, they are owned by the share-holders and many of them, not only Canadians took advantage of the lax laws. These laws are being tightened and hopefully one day, the promise to reclaim the land are fully realized. Until that day, that oil has made a lot of people rich. The jobs that oil brings are high paying, at this time in the US, this is badly needed. So, we will see what the future brings.

I'm not asking about the oil sands and I'm not disputing that it is something the US wants to boost jobs and petroleum reserves.

My question is about the location, route and distance of this proposed new pipeline. If this is supposed to be filling the needs of the US internal demand for petroleum products, why does this new pipeline need to extend all the way to the Texas coast? There are US petroleum industry refineries right up there in the northern USA along the border with Canada and those oil sands in the Dakotas you mentioned. The US should be building new and much shorter distance pipelines to those refineries. It will create the same boost in jobs, petroleum reserves, and profits for both of our countries.

That I don't know. Maybe the companies involved have interests that lay there. This has been in the works for a least a decade. The map I showed only shows some of the pipelines, not nearly all of them. The US, like Canada, is normally split between eastern and western interests. I'm not sure what the oil reserves are like in Texas, maybe they're running dry and they already have the infrastructure, the trained staff in place. I'm not privy to that info, but I do know that many of the Texas businesses run hand in hand with Alberta's.
This in not the only disputed pipeline being proposed at the moment, but it's definitely the biggest/longest and as far as I know, the first to bring raw bitumen to the US.