Environment & Energy

wtmusic

(39,166 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:34 PM Mar 2013

No impact from Keystone? The Canadian petroleum industry disagrees.

From the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers's Crude Oil Forecasts, Markets, and Pipelines:

Production from oil sands currently comprises 59 per cent of western Canada’s total crude oil production. In this forecast, oil sands production rises from 1.6 million b/d in 2011 to almost double at 3.1 million b/d by 2020 and 4.2 million b/d by 2025 and 5.0 million b/d by the end of the forecast period in 2030. If the only projects to proceed were the ones in operation or currently under construction, oil sands production would still increase by 54 per cent to 2.5 million b/d by 2020 and then remain relatively flat for the rest of the forecast.

Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska:

Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built. The State Department's assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the--not a--but the lynchpin for the expansion of tarsands. Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 million barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day. The President has the ability to keep a million barrels of tarsands in the ground a day. With a stroke of a pen he can protect property rights, water and make a dent in climate change. This report is laughable using the wrong assumption and therefore the wrong science.

A cynic might think this "report" was a foregone conclusion.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No impact from Keystone? The Canadian petroleum industry disagrees. (Original Post) wtmusic Mar 2013 OP

I will admit that I do not read every thread about the XL pipeline... Buzz Clik Mar 2013 #1

Actually a 100% increase by 2030 wtmusic Mar 2013 #3

Keystone U.S. is about buying refinery capacity from the Koch bros in order to harness patrice Mar 2013 #2

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

1. I will admit that I do not read every thread about the XL pipeline...

Reply to wtmusic (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:40 PM

Mar 2013

... nor every post in the threads I open, but this is the first time I have heard someone express concern about the rate of develop of the tar sands as being a primary point of objection.

This concern is the first legitimate drawback of the pipeline I've encountered, but I wonder just what sort of impact we're really talking about. Fifty percent increase from the area is more than nothing, but in the grand picture... not a big deal.

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

3. Actually a 100% increase by 2030

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:50 PM

Mar 2013

but even that is not a primary point of objection.

The objection is that we're going the wrong way in a truly desperate situation. The tar sands won't give us energy independence and they won't give us jobs. It's wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with Obama's big energy cronies, and it's only kicking the carbon can down the road.

patrice

(47,992 posts)

2. Keystone U.S. is about buying refinery capacity from the Koch bros in order to harness

Reply to wtmusic (Original post)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:44 PM

Mar 2013

the U.S. economy to the world economy, which is our sentence for fucking everyone with the toxic financials that are now part of a $900T BUBBLE in world finance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737642

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/opinion/republicans-must-bridge-the-income-gap.html?hp&_r=3&

Reply to this discussion