[2] Institute for Energy Research, “States Already Benefiting from Southern Leg of Keystone,” July 8, 2014, http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/states-benefitting-southern-leg-keystone-bakken-gets-pipelines/ (accessed January 6, 2015).
[3] Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “Pipelines Are Safest for Transportation of Oil and Gas,” Manhattan Institute, June 23, 2013, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.VKwRbHsYHaJ (accessed January 6, 2015).
[4] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project, Executive Summary,” January 2014, http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf (accessed January 6, 2015).
[5] Shelby Fleg and Kyle Cummings, “UNL Expert: Ogallala Aquifer Has Little Risk of Keystone Pipeline Oil Spills,” The Daily Nebraskan, April 15, 2013, http://www.dailynebraskan.com/endowment/article_2b26fc40-a547-11e2-9605-001a4bcf6878.html (accessed January 6, 2015).
[6] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on Climate Change, June 25, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change (accessed January 6, 2015).
[7] Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project, Executive Summary.”
[8] Darren Goode, “Dems Push Keystone Bill Amendments in Early Senate Test,” Politico, January 4, 2015, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/keystone-pipeline-senate-democrats-113964.html#ixzz3O4KMQDi7 (accessed January 6, 2015).
[9] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Petroleum & Other Liquids: U.S. Exports of Finished Petroleum Products,” December 30, 2014, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTPEXUS2&f=A (accessed January 6, 2015).
Halving The Price Of Oil Makes Keystone XL More Important, Not Less
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/11/halving-the-price-of-oil-makes-keystone-xl-more-important-not-less/
1/11/2015
...The basic economic concept here is that the transport costs of that oil drive a wedge between the production at the wellhead (OK, tar pit, not wellhead) price and the market price. As the global price of oil falls that wedge becomes a larger portion of that total price.....
Let’s just invent some numbers here in order to illustrate the problem. Oil is at $100 a barrel when delivered to the refinery. It costs $40 to produce it in Alberta, $30 to ship it by rail and $5 if the pipeline were built. Yes, they are entirely made up numbers (although not a million miles from reality) just in order to illustrate the decision making process.
So, at that market price of $100 the oil will be produced with or without the pipeline. There’s a $30 profit in each barrel even after paying for rail transport. Now we halve the price to $50 at the refinery. All other costs stay the same. Well, if it costs $40 to produce and $30 to ship then obviously, after a winding down period, none will be produced and none will be shipped (we’ll ignore sunk costs and so on here)....
Now think of what happens if Keystone XL is built. The mining of the tar sands goes on because it’s now $45 in total to do so and deliver but $50 can be earned by doing it....
excerpted
I love to argue the Keystone issue with my liberal friends. (Both of them).
Inevitably their argument will come down to the “environment”, as it must. The issue then becomes one of how Canadian crude will come to our refineries, by rail, or by pipeline. If the environment were the issue, then all Canadian crude must be stopped from coming across the border. I ask them to name the Democrat sponsored legislation that would achieve this end. They of course cannot name one.
So the status quo is far worse for the environment than by agreeing to build the pipeline. Liberal hypocrisy exposed.
This can't be right, maybe per year?
Due to investments already committed, oil-sands production is poised to rise 36 percent to at least 2.6 million barrels a day by 2017, Peters & Co., a Calgary-based investment bank, said in a November forecast. Projects now under construction will require 1 million barrels a day of new pipeline space, said Chris Cox, an analyst at Raymond James Ltd. in Calgary.
“What you should expect this year is that all incremental heavy oil barrels are effectively going to be transported by rail,” Cox said.