One of the facts disbelieved by MAGA is that the Keystone pipeline was to move Canadian oil to Texas refineries and the fuel sent mostly overseas.
What is Canada doing with the oil Keystone would have carried?
Transporting it by railroad.
Diesel locomotives put more carbon into the atmosphere than pipelines.
Trains wreck and spill their cargo more often than pipelines leak.
Look up Lake Megantic. ( Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia )
Allegedly part of the contribution to the disaster was that the fracking crude included more volatile chemicals.
Well, you don’t need to move it to Texas, since the purpose was for export. And Canada has miles and miles of oil pipelines. 840,000 kilometres to be precise.
There is already a Keystone pipeline running from Alberta to Houston. The New Keystone pipeline was just a second one.
Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia.
So, no, they don’t need to move the oil by rail due to one poorly planned pipeline being canceled.
Nor would that pipeline do anything at all for “American Energy Independence” since:
- It is Canadian oil, not USA oil
- It was mostly for export
Nor did the cancellation of the new Keystone Pipeline have anything at all to do with the current gas price issue, since the pipelines wasn’t planned to be completed until 2023 or maybe later.
You preach to the choir, Sir.
That oil was from the Bakken rock formation in North Dakota. Oil from there is notorious for having highly volatile fractions. The Keystone XL pipeline was going to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta. That tar sand oil is notorious for being the opposite, very thick with no highly volatile fractions.
Well, maybe. Nobody knows how much pipelines leak. There are leak detectors, of course, but the threshold at which they detect a leak is quite high: Smaller leaks would go unnoticed.
Do train wrecks spill more or less than a pipeline leak?
Like I said, we don’t know, because we don’t know how bad leaks are. Last I heard, the threshold of detection for the leak detectors was the equivalent of one traincar per day.
The equivalent of a car sets off the leak detector?
They shut the closest valves on either side of the leak, and some more leaks out before a repair crew can get to it.
But the valves are never closed, and the repair crews never get there, if the leak isn’t detected.
I would imagine that the owners want leak detectors to work so that they will lose less oil. They want to prevent environmental damage to save money.
So a pipeline could steadily leak 364 traincars worth of oil a year, every year and it would be recorded as “no leaks”, is what I’m hearing. And there are multiple pipelines.
How many train cars are involved in oil spills each year, @mbh?
Except there’s probably some minimum cost to fixing leaks, regardless of how small. Pay for a crew of workers to drive to the site, and fix things, and associated costs like fuel. So, if the leak is small enough, the costs associated with the leak may be less than the costs of repairing the leak.
"Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source.” – Rick Perry, during the 2012 GOP primary
I would seriously hope that someone would notice a “seepage” equivalent to 100 rail cars, let alone 364. Most pipelines parallel roads, and by the time they leave the oilfields are in “civilized” areas. I think a mess in Montana or the Dakotas would be obvious immediately. South of Edmonton, most Canadian pipelines would be through farm country. Even in the Rockies, they pretty much parallel the highway so that they can be inspected and repaired. Ditto from the route from the Tar Sands. North of Superior driving you constantly intersect the trans-Canada pipeline (although I believe that’s gas).
The natural gas pipelines are more spectacular, since they tend to be visible from the after-effects of leaks even at night.
Yes, thanks, I thought I had read in the news it was North Dakota. Which shows just how mixed up oil transport is. The difficulty with thick oil, though would be the higher pressure needed to pipe it.
One of the points of contention with the new Keystone was the plan that “Hey, who cares about the Indian Reservation, we’ll just plough through that using eminent domain and ignore the protests. As long as it’s crossing the river downriver from white habitation…”
Yes, plenty of existing pipelines. However, the amount of rail traffic carrying oil has apparently climbed significantly in the last decade. Plus the contention that some of the existing pipelines are showing their age.
One article I read said there was an extra cost of $40 on the price of Alberta crude, since it was so hard to get it all to market. Anything that helped get the oil to market in volume, cheaper would add money into the producers’ pockets.
Didn’t answer the actual question I asked you.
They dilute the bitumen with a solvent to make a synthetic crude that can be pumped.