This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is Keystone Still Viable Amid Low Oil Prices?
Submitted by Andrew Topf via OilPrice.com,
On Monday the Keystone XL pipeline project crossed another hurdle when legislation approving construction of the proposed line to connect Canadian oil sands crude with Gulf Coast refineries was passed by the United States Senate.
The bill sailed through 63 votes to 32 in the Senate, which is now in the hands of the Republicans following November mid-term elections, along with the House of Representatives, which passed the same Keystone legislation last week.
With the bill well on its way to becoming law, it will up to President Obama to decide on whether or not to veto it, a decision he has held off for six years. Obama has criticized the project as adding to greenhouse gas emissions, despite an environmental assessment to the contrary by the State Department released a year ago, and because he argues it would help Canadian producers to deliver crude for export, against the claims of the proponent, TransCanada Corp, which maintains the oil will be processed in US refineries and consumed domestically.
While the political machinations of Keystone, with all the horse trading it inevitably entails, certainly make for some excellent headlines, an equally pressing question is whether the project is even viable with today's oil prices, which dropped further on Monday to below $46 a barrel in North America.
The rationale for Keystone was a way to bring together booming US oil production, and to a lesser extent, production from the oil sands in Northern Alberta, to Gulf Coast refineries that were facing declining imports from Mexico and Venezuela. The project was first proposed in 2008 and was supposed to begin carrying 830,000 barrels a day in 2012.
But the market didn't wait for the pipeline to be built, and landlocked Canadian crude has found its way to Texas and Louisiana refineries by rail instead. Canadian oil exports by rail tripled to a record 182,000 barrels a day in the third quarter, according to Canada's National Energy Board. The United States has also been importing Canadian oil like gangbusters, showing that the trade will happen with or without the pipeline extension (Keystone XL is an addition to the existing pipeline). Data from the US Energy Department showed US imports of Canadian crude reached a record 3.1 million barrels a day in September.
So with some of the project's goals already being met, in terms of increased production flowing from Canada to the US, the question has become, why is a pipeline needed anymore? And now, with the oil price down more than 50 percent since June, Canadian production is certain to fall, lessening demand for oil transportation and thus casting doubt on the economics of the project according to observers.
“Right now with oil prices down and a glut of oil on the global marketplace, the answer is no, we don’t need Keystone right now,” Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at the Price Futures Group in Chicago, told a reporter from the San Luis Obispo Tribune last week.
Some are predicting low oil prices could delay the project even if Obama passes it, or it could be shelved altogether.
Chris Lafakis, an energy economist for Moody's Analytics, equated the situation with Keystone to an earlier proposal to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwest. Despite being approved by then-Governor Sarah Palin, the pipeline was never built due to new gas supplies which pushed prices down by two-thirds. "If oil were to stay as cheap as it is right now, you might very well get that Palin pipeline scenario," Lafakis said.
Ironically, the low oil price could also be used as a justification by Obama to cancel Keystone, according to a low-price scenario envisioned by the State Department when it made the determination that constructing the pipeline wouldn't increase GHG emissions.
As reported by the Globe and Mail, in its analysis the State Department concluded that with prices above $90 a barrel, approval of the pipeline wouldn't affect oil sands production because the oil would find its way to market anyway through more expensive means i.e. rail.
However with a lower oil price, the State Department concluded that the project would be more attractive to producers (about $8 per barrel less than by rail), leading them to boost production and thus increase emissions:
“Oil sands production is expected to be most sensitive to increased transport costs in a range of prices around $65 to $75 per barrel,” it said. “Assuming prices fell in this range, higher transportation costs could have a substantial impact on oil sands production levels … Prices below this range would challenge the supply costs of many projects, regardless of pipeline constraints, but higher transport costs could further curtail production.”
For its part, the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, refuses to yield on its rationale for the pipeline. CEO Russ Girling told the Globe and Mail that lower crude prices make the project more attractive to producers both in Canada and the US, who are looking for the most cost-effective way to transport oil to refineries.
Further, Girling pointed out that low prices haven't reduced the need for the pipeline either. “On the contrary, TransCanada has 100 per cent of its original contracts still in place and producers are keen to reduce their transportation costs in order to increase per-barrel revenue, or netback,” the Globe reported on Sunday.
It would certainly be ironic if after six years of delay, rhetoric and political maneuvering, what really kills Keystone XL is the oil price, not Obama nor the environmental movement that has lobbied so hard against the project.
Whether or not the pipeline is passed by the White House, it appears that the economics of Keystone XL are just as muddy as its politics.
»
- 10567 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It wasn't viable with $100 per barrel oil.
Build it while labor, materials and equipment are cheap!
“we don’t need Keystone right now”
That’s why they will pass it.
Just build the goddammed thing already. Don't give a shit if we need it here, today, on some random Thursday in January. We'll be thankful to have it someday.
I didn't hear even 10% the ammount of bitching and moaning over the Alaskan Pipeline as I do over Keystone. Did the Alaskan Pipeline "ruin the environment"? No, and it was going through much more treacherous and fragile areas.
You will be happy to learn that much of the new Keystone XL Pipeline is already complete, such as the section that runs near our home, or currently under construction.
HH- I have a 50 foot rope that I need to tie between two things that are 60 feet apart.
I will bet you a corned beef sandwich that when the time comes this rope turns out to be long enough.
"Is Keystone Still Viable Amid Low Oil Prices?"
No, it isn't.
That won't stop the corporate wing of the Republican party from passing the bill.
They do not have anything else on their agenda that is meaningful.
They'll pass the bill and spend the next 2 years fund raising.
Idiot Writer. Even stoopider editor.
The Keystone is about transportation costs and safety. Nothing much to do with the short term price of oil.
It will take three years to build. Sheeeesh.
Exactly Kaiserhoff,
Just how stupid are the people running around here anyway? this is about squeezing the saudis like a ZIT some day too.
Who is stupid here?
This isn't an eco-issue.
The stuff that goes in the pipeline isn't economically feasible anymore.
And it isn't going to be in 3 years. Or 5 years.
If you don't realize that this will just be a make work project, then I've got two words for you:
Bend over.
I can't believe how many libertarians support this Trojan Horse Keystone pipeline. This is just one of many megaprojects to fulfill the SPP.
Since when did the republican party have a "non-corporate" wing?
The question I ask is cui bono from building this pipeline that will require eminent domain for a private project?
I totally understand the rail argument and Buffett benefitting from this project NOT being built, but these are just big wigs stepping on eachother's wanks.
As someone on the grassroots level, I have ZERO impact on whether this project gets built or doesn't get built.
I'm just curious WHY these ZHers support this Keystone project? Are they in desperate need of a job? I know damn well they don't give a hoot about relief at the gas pump which is the Main Street prespective on energy so I can rule that out.
How do YOU benefit from Keystone? I would like to know.
Every time costs are reduced, fewer resources are expended in achieving the thing in question. That money saved is freed up for other productive uses, and we all end up wealthier as a result. This pipeline will reduce transportation costs of oil that will be transported regardless of method by $8 per barrel x 700,000 barrels per day, and will probably do it faithfully for at least 50 years. Anyone who claims to care about the environment should want this pipeline built, because that is a LOT less oil being burned in the process of shipping it to a refinery.
I understand your disgust.
The Republican party relies on the Tea Party, libertarians and social conservatives for all of its "grass roots".
The GOP "plays" these people endlessly.
+1 people forget this basic fact... including the knuckleheads protesting the XL section...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-rou...
the big debate is over Phase 4, and the only reason we have astroturf environmentalists protesting the thing and Obama wanting to veto it is because the refiners (Valero) and Buffet (Burlington Northern) don't want it to be built...
basically, political theater
Budget cuts among energy companies are part of a widespread trend in Houston related to falling oil prices.
Houston-based oil and gas asset company Swift Energy Co. (NYSE: SFY) announced that its 2015 capital spending budget would be slashed by up to 75 percent due to slumping oil prices. Soon after, its president, Bruce Vincent, announced he would retire in February.
Houston-based Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL) announced that it will cut an undisclosed number of jobs in Houston.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2015/01/apache-announces...
Carnage in progress for O&G sector and associated cities/states.
I remember when they built the Alaskan pipeline a lot of people where desperate and grateful for the job opportunity.
... and the royalties... I don't see many natives up there turning down THAT paycheck
I don't think it's about the environmental costs, it's about not helping the Canadians lessen their costs, oil is cheap enough as it is... I don't think there's a chance Obama won't veto, so it's moot.
"The bill sailed through 63 votes to 32 in the Senate"
Read my comment below. Zero won't veto the bill. He has already stated his intentions.
but why would he not veto it? He doesn't have to be re-elected so he's gone cowboy with the pen and the phone. Maybe it's a bargaining chip to get some concessions on other issues, but it's a crappy offer anyway, tar sand oil makes no sense at current prices, they would lierally have to double.
He won't veto it because of the vote count in the senate. Too many powerful people want it. And like I said , his stated intention is not to sign it. Plus oil isn't always going to be this low. A lot of paper oil is being wiped out right now due to margin calls. There will be a lot of money making opportunities before this is over.
Oil isn't always going to be this low.
Prince Alwaleed says $100 oil is history, and I don't see too many countries leading the next big economic expansion that will require all this oil. Too many producers online, tigther fuel economy standards, and the ongoing global depression don't bode well for higher priced oil for quite some time.
Who owns the railroad? Uncle w...
I didn't hear even 10% the ammount of bitching and moaning over the Alaskan Pipeline as I do over Keystone.
The Left did not completely own the DNC as of that time, and Ecology was not yet a religion. Unlike now.
Building more infrastructure to support the movement of a resource as finite as oil is the stupidest thing humans could do at this point.
No wonder Republicans are all for it.
Is that anything like building a commuter rail line that is built to support a finite number of possible users? One that will have ongoing operating costs that will likely significantly outpace the revenues generated?
Are there rail lines that support an infinite amount of passengers? I'm not so sure you're thinking your question through. :)
Nice dodge. The word 'finite' was a bit of snark on my part. I'm sure you got my point. There are all sorts of boondoggle projects supported by both side, but ostensibly, the Keystone thing will provide infrastructure to allow for profit on someone's part. A high-speed rail line, say built in California, connecting two places that don't need a commuter rail line, is almost purely political. Keystone is absolutely political, but, in addition to the political nonsense, we can all use the products derived from that pipeline, while a rail line provides value to only those select few in that static piece of geography.
Then my answer is yes. It is similar because commuter rail lines require oil. Bad idea to build any additional transport that relies on something as finite as oil.
Great point.
That is a stupid argument against high speed rail that right-leaning libertarians always use. The rest of first world benefits from high speed rail, but the United States is stuck with 19th Century rail.
Billions in tax dollars are spent building freeways connecting cookie cutters to Walmarts, and the libertarians never complain about said freeways "not paying for themselves" even though they do because you can commute to your white collared job from your cookie cutter on them.
Instead of blowing billions supporting Israel and ISIS or worst of all QE, the US could spend money on megaprojects that provide jobs, jobs, jobs, that righties always chant about. The commerce would benefit immensly from high speed rail.
It's so stupid how they want to spend billions building Interstate 11 connecting Las Vegas to Phoenix. It's still going to be a 6 hour drive if you follow their silly speed limits. I'd rather have a high speed rail connecting Vegas to Phoenix and get there in 90 minutes.
Oh yeah, the other method is air travel. Airports cost billions to build and take up many square miles of land (Denver Intl Airport is over 50 square miles) and the "private" airline industry is constantly under Chapter 11. Where is the libertarian outrage on airports and airlines? If the "free market" argument on transportation costs and logistics were followed, we would have dirt paths that wouldn't connect because there would be too much "private property" in the way. This is why the founding fathers included the "Post Roads" clause to the Constitution, and why the classical liberal Thomas Jefferson (yeah the one that authored the Declaration of Independence and the anti-federalist papers) used federal funding to build the Cumberland Road.
Doc, I think a lot of people look at rail travel as an alien form of transportation. I rode the train 6 days a week when I lived in Japan and loved it. Admittedly, innercity rail tranist there is quite different than innercity rail trains in NY or Detroit, as examples.
But I rode the high speed train there as well and was very impressed. I'm probably one of those that would support a HSR providing the route made sense. Certainly one like a Vegas to Phoenix route.
I'm fairly certain you are not thinking at all. Just trolling.
The bit about how wasteful it would be to build infrastructure in support of a resource that is quickly depleting is the epitome of rational thought. Especially given the fact that the project would increase the rate at which the resource was depleted.
The bit about Republicans was trolling.
+1
The oil will flow regardless of method of transport, until we can all carry around Mr. Fusions in our pants. Proven worldwide reserves are higher than they've ever been. The reduced footprint involved in transporting this oil via pipeline vs rais is significant. All your arguments against the pipeline actually make a better argument for it.
Illegal labor for $8.00 / hour. Lets do this thing.
And for anybody who thinks Crude will be this low forever is just plain nuts.
With Obongo paid sick leave for all!
You're quite possibly correct. With oil this low, those $50 and $60 an hour equipment operator jobs are probably a thing of the past.
All you'll need is a decent truck, a drag-up tank, and the ability to operate a grader/dozer.
No English speaking skills required.
Sure, what not build it on stolen property acquired by eminent domain? After all the concept of private property is just an illusion in the US anyway.
Exactly - build the Keystone and F! the Saudi's
At this rate, we'll be going back to firewood anyway.
That's illegal! Put down the fire wood! .........BANG! BANG! BANG!
Can I go on vacation now?
What is this "back to" you speak of? 10 cords every year.
i admit, i dont know much of the details here. but, looking at this short term is a bad idea. in 5 or 10 years, will this make sense? afterall, it will take how long to get this thing up and running? basing the future energy needs on current oil prices is very short sighted, and exactly what i'd expect from the morons in .gov.
In five to ten years I'll be driving a fuel-cell powered car.
Oil prices won't stay here forever. Not a lot of logic going on here. Why not build it while the pipeline production is a lot cheaper?
It would at least give sheisty contractors full of illegals some work to do.
...why?
Why not buy an expensive table saw when you're about to run out of access to wood?
Until the existing infrastructure has crumbled....
Obama will veto it. Not because of the reasons he stated, but because his billionaire friend, Warren Buffet, has invested heavily in trains.
BNSF.
Obama didn't say he would veto the pipeline bill. He said he wouldn't sign it, which is a big difference. If he doesn't sign it and congress is in session it becomes law in ten days. If congress is not in session it becomes a pocket veto
I think that's semantics on what dear leader Ozero has been saying from the beginning. We know he's going to do what Uncle Warren tells him to do.
You bet your ass, even though Nebraska courts ok'd it. Frigging Crooks@@@@
Think long term people..its needed....does this mean you do not buy a Swiss knife anymore....we have to think more than just the next quarter...think 30 years from now....do we need it ..yes we do...
You are not thinking long term, my friend. Long term (within 20 years) you will have cold fusion. Oil is dead. Time to move on. Energy revolution is happening as we speak. No reason to waste the time and money on a soon to be outdated energy source. Tesla had this figured out decades ago...
See Here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-b...
And Here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/16/has-lockheed-martin-r...
Oil is bird in hand. Cold fusion is a bird in bush. For 20+ years now.
Build it.
From the article you referenced: Fusion power has long been the sun that never rises. Not happpening. Good thing we still have oil and wood along with coal, hydro and nuclear. The rest are just dreams.
Nuclear power was "just dreams" in the 1930s, so what is your point?
Can they use Keystone Pipeline for Bitcoins? ... oh wait that would require a drainpipe
Notch-8 Warren...!!!
The fight will continue. You cant stop the Lib vs Con pissing contest in mid stream. A political war/test of wills.
While the rest of the country is in all out decline these shit for brains tools argue over this shit.
Because oil prices will always be low....
Buffet loves earning that extra $8 per barrel via rail so I'm sure Barry O will be getting the call soon to veto that getting completed.
Let's see how much time compresses here, as opposed to 2007/2008 when 'no one saw it coming'. Will muscle memory kick in, or will this live train-wreck-in-progress not dawn on the money masters until 2016?
It's more environmentally friendly to ship the oil half way across the world, from Saudi Arabia. /s
It's Palin fault for advocating all that drilling.
Low oil prices must mean low steel, tires, trucks, tractors etc. prices so I guess it makes sense to call it off and let it rot. Wait until we can go over buget makes it more of an opperation of economic distruction. Harrumph!
Obama has criticized the project as adding to greenhouse gas emissions...
Never go full retard.
Maybe people are against the Keystone pipeline because they think it's proposed by the people who make Keystone beer.
Or it would produce something?
... do you ever get the feeling that Keystone is over and Canuck PM Harper didn't get the message? ...
I live in Nebraska, ground zero for the debate. You have Buffett and his train haulers fighting tooth and nail here to keep that pipeline from being built. As long as Warren owns that railroad this thing is dead in the water.
I propose taking back the train land (trains are not green) and giving the land to the oil companies for pipelines. If buffscocks wants to use his trains he'll have to buy tires from china.
If a private company wants to build a pipeline then the governments should not prevent them. Governments should not be in the pipeline business. The only thing tht they should be doing is securing each man and womans' unalienable rights.
Privatize the army too... oh, wait....
or inalienable writes.
The problem is that said "private" corporation needs eminent domain (a government power stated in the Constitution) to build their pipeline.
Maybe there's "private" property owners along the route who don't want their land taken, or want to be neighbors to a pipeline.
Yeah, screw those "private property" owners along the route, its "private" corporations that have more power than people nowadays. Right-leaning libertarians are such charlatans.
Yes, that is what the original intent, purpose & 'spirit' of the founding was all about. But C'mon man - that was old white guys time. We're so much more enlightened now...
And, of course, if we don't need it right now, we never will!
Reminds me of Clinton saying in the 90's that drilling in ANWAR wasn't practical because "it would take ten years" for it to produce and lower prices. Gee, what would be the point in that?
Bill is a savvy politician. but he's clearly NOT a smart man.
"...why is a pipeline needed anymore?"
Because a pipeline is cheaper and safer than rail, and will result in a lower cost feedstock for the Gulf refiners than what they are getting currently. End of story.
The answer is no which is why CITI is laundering frn's for the Saudis. This oil smash solves problems , lots of problems for the Bamster and the jerks ( MIC,WS,CB's, Boehner, Mcconnell)who support him..
Why certainly!...
As long as it's funded with the Ruble as the World Reserve currency!
Isn't it the cost to transport by rail VS the cost to transport by pipeline that really decides if it is viable or not?
In fact - the lower oil prices go the more important it becomes to save on transportation costs.
If it costs you $35 a barrel to get the oil out of the ground and you are selling it for $100 a barrel you can afford to pay $15 a barrel to transport it -
If it costs you $35 to get the oil out of the ground and you are selling it for $45 a barrel then paying $15 to transport it would not work.
so we'll never have a need for canadian oil?
I'm sorry, did saudi arabia get a refill of crude oil in the ground?
Politicians are fuckwits. "Don't build it. It's politically unwanted with the NIMBY crowd".
Right. Don't build it. People dont want it.... except when gas goes back up to $4 a gallon. Then, they'll be screaming "why didn't you build the pipeline? that would have lowered our prices".
Hey, congress... do your fucking job and quit worrying about your political CAREER. it's not a fucking lifetime career with tenure. You're hired to do a job. Fucking do it and build the fucking pipeline. Fucking assholes.
"Obama has criticized the project as adding to greenhouse gas emissions", so pumping it through a tube instead of driving it via train increases emissions?
Jackass of all trades, master of none.
You are only allowed to drive on coal based carbon alternative fuel. Gasoline is bad for you. Besides, we need to upgrade our electric infrastructure grid by your taxable donations.
Fucking assclowns in Washington, DC
You pretty much nailed it.
Whenever "greenhouse gases" or "climate change" are used as arguments by Big Business, it is all about shutting down their competition. Believe me, these suit and ties don't give two hoots about the environment.
If CO2 emissions and "carbon trading" are their arguments, its purely economic. These guys will do NOTHING to combat clear cutting of forests, loss of habitat, toxic waste dumping, garbage in oceans, cleaning up the Gulf oil disaster, Fukushima radiation, the release of GMOs, or anything of signifcance.
They only push hot air, pun intended.
Thank you. Now train the monkey's. Couldn't up vote you. We must be special childen. /LOL
Was there intention all along. Create a false notation of peak oil. When in fact, they are blocking new exploration projects. Can't wait for the public uproar once the muppets figured out this tactical plan.
Fugazi - Long Division
Energy East, a Pipeline Project that sends Oil, or thin Bituman to Eastern Refineries that can handle the product enviromentally responsible. The Movement of Oil , Federally Regulated.
Individual Canadians would Save in transport, middle men, taxes and Profits.
Jobs would be Created and Self Sustainability within our Country. Building Infrastuctures for Canadians.
If I only had a dollar for the amount of times my Canadian friends told me the hydro is down. Yet, the water was still following.
Put'er in low eh... Bob and Doug McKenzie
Keystone never made Economic Sense. It was always a bi product of the Voodoo Economics that apply to black gold.
It will be fun to watch you cut your lawn with a pair of toe nail clippers.
No I will use my solar powered robot lawnmover. It makes no sense to transport something as yucky as bitumen 6000 Kilometers to refine. Its like going to the store to buy a lb of hamburger and having to take a cow home.
How much oil will be needed to build and ship you a new robot every other year and what's the price of those robot lawn mowers? I can buy alot of gas for $1000 a year. If you walked your talk you'd be walking behind a rotary push lawn mower. Strike us a pose. Sustainable means you have to sustain it with moolaa.... that's what cows say!
I see, how many de-bagging trips will you make while vaccuming your lawn?
iRobot Roomba
Hope you know that I'm just fucking with you. Get a sense of humor.
It takes as much energy to produce a solar cell as that cell will produce in it's lifetime. That is why they call them solar batteries. Ponder that a moment or two.
I provided the acrylic middle tube to Solyndra. It was a safety mechanism in case a dumb asshole fell on the solar panel. A photovoltaic cell will kill you, wet both index finger and place them at each end of cell. Call me from your hospital room, if you survived. Great partnership until the FBI showed up. My competitor in California was hit with 1.5 million in unpaid inventory. I lucked out. I was 80% of supply chain, California was 20%. Do the math. Once the new manufacturing building was complete, everything went south.
Don’t school me on solar energy.
You can read thru the 145 pages of S-1, if you wish
https://gigaom.com/2009/12/20/solyndra-has-raised-close-to-1b-and-other-fast-facts-from-its-s-1/
You realize constructing such a device even in mass production would actually consume MORE bitumen/oil, including mining & machining metals, casting, etc., to do so?
In the world where the Reality Distorion field is the ultimate weapon the Keyston was killed by the hubris of Steve Harper.
That's because Steven Harper is focused on NAFTA Superhighway, shipping Heroin laced marshmallows over the border. Then declaring a war on drugs campaign. Just another Hypocrite pandering lies.
So you believe oil prices are going to stay long term low? Seems Russia is trying hard to not let that happen.
My Magic 8 Ball fortune-telling device has a crack in the screen. Honestly, not sure. I can tell you that this is a currency war, who wins is only a guess. The person that dumps US Treasuries wins. Who, not sure. Too many proxy wars going on and a tremendous amount of propaganda. I have an hint, but prefer not to share at this time.
We would be best served by thinking and moving beyond oil and nuclear. There are other ways to power the world. Yes, I dream.
Would be nice. I think your (someone) going to have to crack a few safes for that to happen. Where's anonymous when it comes to free energy tesla tech?
Tesla makes all their tech availble royalty free.
Solio,
Why not dream by pulling out your cheque book. Moving beyond will make you feel good. $10 million will enpower you. Dream of your vision. We don't accept EBT transfer payments. Sorry.
I pulled out my cheque book in, maybe 1983, so we had 240 gallons of hot water to use for whatever. In the winter we pulled the heat off of it to assist with the home heat. That home was sold years ago and nobody since then understood or maintained the system. I believe that it is still in place. Solar electric was not efficient enough to be financially viable at that time.
FWIW, Grandad had said, when I was very young, that he had solar panals on his home in Miami in the 1920's for their dhw.
Radical idea here: Why not let the market decide if this pipeline is viable or not in the long term?
Commodities are in deflation due to a collapse in investments (building boom over, companies not growing - not buying machinery...) - great time to build
but consumer goods are clearly seeing about 8% annual inflation (food, housing, taxes are all going up)- why should oil be different?
as for oil its demand is inelastic and the drop in price per barrel is being orchestrated by the Saudis refusing to drop production (at the behest of their US masters to hurt the Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans) - price drop is temporary
Because the "market" isn't allowed to make that decision, too many rules and regulations. Even after addressing every ridiculous concern, it's still being held up.
Funny how the Left never says "Let the market decide" when it comes time for a ridiculous monorail project that no one will ever ride.
We've gone 180 degrees since the beginning of the 20th Century.
Monorail projects that "no one will ever ride" because today's urban sprawl landscape is depended on these multi-billion dollar concrete ribbons called freeways connect cookie cutters to Walmarts. Those said freeways don't "pay for themselves" at all.
Before the Great American Streetcar Scandal people rode streetcars to get around. The freeway system changed all of that. Eminent domain was declared and many structures along the route were demolished. Businesses along arterial roads loss traffic and eventually went out. Even though its a cartoon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? comes to mind.
It's so bizarre how right-leaning libertarians criticize every form of transportation except freeways and automobiles, when freeways don't pay for themselves, require billions in tax revenue to build, bypass small businesses along arterial routes they replaced causing them to fail, and they even replaced the streetcar system that used to pay for itself with fares, but obviously now can't compete against Big Auto and government-funded infrastructure.
The other funny thing is the auto-eroticism of right-libertarians even though the automobile market is beyond saturated with used cars to the point where Big Auto needs bailouts just to keep the factories open churning out new cars that few need, then these righties whine about "markets" and "jobs".
Just total doublethink, and a lack of historical prespective, causes these silly right-libertarian arguments.
Market's not willing to pay. If it was they'd pay all the people who will lose clean water to a pipeline spill - in advance - so they can relocate to a safer area. Once the Ogalla aquifer is contaminated it's game over for tons of farmers & residents. The real market cost to let this happen - and the real market freedom of those using the water refusing to allow a pipeline in for too low a price - would mean a super high price for oil going through it.
Market's not willing to pay hence the politicians are saying all losses fall on the users of the water with no insurance, no compensation, no backup-plan, no protection.
Thank god oil prices are now going to stay low forever.
raise the tax and start building GTO's and RoadRunners again.
Vermont is talking about enacting a $1.35 a gallon gasoline tax. The Congress is talking about more fuel taxes as well... good thing energy will be cheap now forever! The taxes alone will make it more expensive than we can afford.
No one is as greedy as a politician, or as envious as a progressive, coveting something someone else has earned.
But then again, isn't that the plan?
My father, who lives in VT and is ultra-(read: Pelosi, Reid, etc) liberal, has banged his fist for even more gas tax. Oddly, he doesn't seem to agree when I suggest we place a 50% tax on food since we Americans are eating too much and clearly too portly as a group. Then he goes back to bitching about how high his property tax is and how it cost him $700 for his last tank of propane... two weeks after the last fill up. It exhausts me to try and tie my brain into a pretzel with him.
Same in Quebec, gasoline taxes rising fast, politicians can't believe their windfall
But you can be sure when the low oil prices disappear, the added taxes will stay
Isn't 90% of this damn thing already built? I'm tired of hearing about it. It's a done deal as far as i'm concerned.
Wouldn't it make sense to lower the cost of transportation in an environment where the profit margin is being squeezed?
Apparently, shipping oil on a train, and burning fossil fuel to transport it, will produce less carbon dioxide than shipping it through a pipe at near zero fossil fuel use. That only makes sense to Warren Buffett who owns the trains... and to environmental mentals.
BTW... I thought Obama and Biden were all about improving infrastructure? Remember Biden in China praising their ability to build anything they want without any citizen input. I guess their rhetoric doesn't match their actions... again.
Has it become uneconomic to plant corn for ethanol yet? I suppose farmers need to place their bets right around now.
At one time didn't all the animals in the forest belong to the crown? Now so do the trees. Can't use them for warmth, global warming and all. Don't mind that huge tower surrounded by mirrors that fries anything that flies into it instantly. Of course the pipeline will be profitable and feasable, after saud pumps all their's out of the ground.
The entire keystone debate is about one person, billionaire Tom Steyer and what he doles out for Democrats.
This hypocrite made his fortune in oil, now he wants to fight "Global Warming"
Oil is not going to be cheap forever, and I like the idea of Canada and the US being able to trade their resources more efficiently rather than by rail (which SURPRISE!, Warren Buffet owns)
Kind of like Al Gore, Ken Lay, and BP.
Big Oil is the main progenitor of the AGW "consensus"
keystone has been running to Kushing since 2010 and texas coast since 2013 - oil from alberta
barry blocking keystone through the midwest adds about 1.50 to the cost of oil delivered to kushing
barry is blocking this so this fucking communist can fulfil a deal with another fucking communist - George Soros - to deliver deep sea oil from Petrobras (Brazil)
and it's failling - FUCK YOU AND DIE BARRY
Let's not forget Warren Buffet almost has all 4 railroads on the board
Pipelines usually last much, much longer than a price decline. By the time it's built the price may be 50 to 100% higher.
Has there ever been a new major hydrocarbon pipeline development during the past 100 years that didn't over the life-cycle of that pipeline not make an enormous NET profit?
So much BS! Obama's refusal to sign has everything to do with deep pocketed Tom raining money on democrats. This isn't even about the environment. The crude is going to travel to refineries by truck and rail if not by pipeline, which will certainly foul the environment up more. And I couldn't give a flying fuck if this oil goes to Europe, China or any other country besides the US. I don't care because this pipeline does what should be important to all domestic and foreign consumers----Get more oil onto the world market. So many didn't believe oil prices are affected by world supply and demand. So certain it was all a fix. Well, today anyone with a brain better understand oil isn't cheap today because OPEC is so generous. Its cheap because we have an oil glut for what world demand is today. Given any level of world demand, price is relational to current supply. Flood the world with oil and/or lower demand, and prices will drop. Too many forget 1986-2002 when oil prices were depressed. In another 5 years China will be well into producing oil from their own shale deposits. China has the world's largest shale deposits. Doesn't matter if they consume it all themselves because they'll be buying that much less from other countries.
Dems = Repubs
It's a hoax.
Corn is in everything from frozen yogurt to ketchup, from mayonnaise and mustard to hot dogs and bologna, from salad dressings to vitamin pills. "Tell me what you eat," said the French gastronomist Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, "and I will tell you what you are." We're corn. - Bunny Crumpacker
They did this back in 2007, nearly every plastic resin manufacture went into Force Majeure mode. If memory serves me right, the polypropylene market was hit the hardest.
Biogas typically refers to a mixture of different gases produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Biogas can be produced from raw materials such as agricultural waste, manure, municipal waste, plant material, sewage, green waste or food waste.
The Biogas Disaster
The question, eat corn or fill your car up with flex fuel? Some of my cars are premium gas rated only.
A better question would be whether rail transport is viable amid low oil prices...
They ran that scope back in the 70- 80's. Look at the cost of diesel fuel today. Rail uses diesel. Same bullshit, different day. New choo-choo trains will be equipped for flex-fuel or Natgas. Starts out low, then becomes cost prohibitive....
How many rabbits do I need to pull at of my hat to demonstrate tulip booms?
Build Keystone. We need it.
No we don't.
If Obama says its bad, then it must be good.