President Barack Obama "welcomes" TransCanada's decision to build a pipeline to bring crude oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf of Mexico. "As the President made clear in January, we support the company's interest in proceeding with this project, which will help address the bottleneck of oil in Cushing that has resulted in large part from increased domestic oil production, currently at an eight year high. Moving oil from the Midwest to the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production," the White House said in a statement.Wow, just think: this pipeline will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production. Wow. Just think what Keystone XL would have done.
Note: this is just the pipeline from Cushing, OK, to the Gulf.
One has to ask why TransCanada didn't do this all along. Once the Canadian-Montana leg is approved after the election, the next fight will be in Texas. My understanding is that the Texas ranches, the Sierra Club and other faux-environmentalists will do what they can to stop the pipeline going through Texas. I believe the proposed pipeline runs perilously close to the Edwards Aquifer underlying the second-largest city in Texas, San Antonio. TransCanada is smart to get this southern route completed.
No, what is starting to happen now is that the landowners who have not sold easements to tc think they have won the lotto a d are holding out.
ReplyDeleteTc is playing hardball and threatening condemnation ( eminent domain).
With the propositioning of pipe along the route az was previously reported as well as the continued leasing by tc, I have to assume tc is moving forward with the expectation that the republican Nebraska politicians demanded at the eleventh hour necessitating the rerouting around the aquifer (which tc said couldn't be done years ago but is suddenly possible).
It's been very interesting to watch this play out. When this was first announced, I had no intention of even blogging about it -- you can see my comments the very first time I blogged about the Keystone XL. I had no idea it would become the story it became.
DeleteMy hunch is that behind closed doors with the current administration, promises were made. If you recall, Hillary Clinton was "for" the pipeline but was very cautious the way she endorsed it. I think she, too, was caught off guard.
Hillary appears to me -- whether you like her or not -- as one of the "best soldiers" one could have. She has "carried the administration's water" with finesse and immense loyalty.
Is this pipeline for exporting Oil? Or is it being routed to refineries here in the USA?
ReplyDeleteBoth. That's the beauty of the Gulf. Not afraid of NIMBY, there are refineries and port facilities. Not just gasoline, diesel, but all refined products will be available for best price, stateside or Europe.
DeleteOne would assume that Bakken oil (WTI-NYMEX) differential from Brent will narrow as this oil gets to the Gulf. I believe the WSJ talked about that -- that the Keystone XL will bring Brent/WTI closer together in price.
Oil, like dollars, is fungible.
The tar sands crude will end up at a Houston Texas area terminal.
DeleteRefineries can/do connect to the terminal.
These refineries could export refined product or I assume a Houston customer could also export unrefined crude from the Houston terminal.
There is no requirement that the oil or refined product be marketed in the US although the demand is here and tar sand oil would presumably allow lower imports from Venezuela and Saudi and possibly other nations who would need higher (tanker) transport costs.
Exactly, great comment. Thank you for taking time to comment.
Delete