Enbridge’s Bakken pipeline projects will add 145,000 barrels per day of capacity from North Dakota into Enbridge’s main line, said Perry Schuldhaus, Enbridge vice president of regional business development.This article is chock full of data points. A huge thanks to the Bismarck Tribune folks. Great reporting.
Once constructed, the Beaver Lodge Loop project will add up to 148,500 barrels per day of pipeline capacity into Enbridge’s Berthold station in North Dakota. The company has reversed the Seaway Pipeline flow and will expand the 150,000-barrel-a-day pipeline’s capacity to 400,000 barrels a day in the first quarter of 2013.
The company plans to reverse Line 9A from Sarnia, Ontario, to Westover, Ontario, and Line 9B from Westover to Montreal to serve refineries in Quebec.
Go to the link.
Some of the data points --
From Williston Basin to ultimate destination
- 56 percent: pipeline
- 28 percent: rail
- 10 percent: to the Tesoro refinery in Mandan, North Dakota
- 6 percent: trucked to Canada
- 74 percent transported by truck from wells to rail or pipelines
- 26 percent into pipeline at the wellhead
- Dunn County: 78 truck/22 pipeline
- Mountrail County: 55 truck/45 pipeline
- Williams County: 95 truck/5 pipeline
- McKenzie County: 89 truck/11 percent
Some random comments:
- look at the "out-of-state" destination numbers. It takes awhile to put in interstate pipeline, and yet oil production is increasing at the rate of 3 - 5 percent month-over-month; expect to see rail increase (on a percentage basis and a raw number basis) in the near term
- the Keystone XL 2.0N could carry a lot of Bakken oil, but if it's mixed with Canadian oil sands oil, producers won't put it in the Keystone; I don't think the original plan included separate pipeline for Canadian oil and Bakken oil going down the Keystone (but I don't know)
- look at the deltas between the various counties
The Keystone XL was never planned to include Bakken oil. It was only when it became a political football that the Bakken was added to the mix and even then I don't think there was any serious intent to add Bakken oil.
ReplyDeleteI like much of this site but the political comments will keep it from reaching its potential.
1. You are correct. The original plan did not include Bakken oil. However, if I'm not mistaken, the original application that was sent to the SecState and/or the White House included the Bakken oil, as you say, after "it" became a political football. I was referring to the plan that was submitted.
Delete2. That's why I've tried to keep track of the various plans, and follow them now as Keystone XL 1.0; Keystone XL 2.0; Keystone XL 2.0N; Keystone XL 2.0S. I forget if I've named the "gap." If I haven't named it, it would be Keystone XL 2.0G (for gap). Keystone XL 2.0S is the section from Cushing to the Gulf coast, which I believe was the first of the revised applications to be submitted. Keystone XL 2.0N is the section from Canada to Cushing. The portion through Nebraska, to connect the gap between the northern pipeline and the southern pipeline, I believe is yet to be submitted.
3. Only 16% of current North Dakota production is coming from the Bakken. The rest, including the 45% of North Dakota production coming from the Madison, could be transported in the Keystone XL based on the little I know.
4. There is a bit of irony in "political football" and your last statement.
5. I don't think I would have added the political statement to this particular note but while writing this post, I was watching a video clip on CNBC (Kudlow report) in which the president was pitching renewal of tax incentives for solar and wind energy for the JOBS it would provide. The facts speak for themselves regarding jobs in the domestic solar and wind industries, and the jobs in the domestic oil and gas industry. It is impossible for me to separate out such incongruities when posting. I post on the fly with minimal editorial changes.
6. I don't know if I posted this before and I don't recall where I recently saw it, but: if I'm not catching flak, I'm not over the target.
This is all very interesting. CNBC, to the best of my knowledge, bills itself as a business cable channel. The segment I find most interesting is the 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. "Squawk Box." I enjoy because of the personalities. If the three hosts did not interject their personalities into the commentary, I would find the segment rather boring. In fact, much of the rest of CNBC throughout the day I find boring.
DeleteThat also holds true for the Wall Street Journal. I enjoy the Journal for its excellent writing and its editorial slant. If it was strictly business, I would not read it. The Journal is now the only print medium I subscribe to. The fact that it has a very definite political slant makes it all the more enjoyable to read. The journal has personality.
I also enjoy very much the New York Times, because of its excellent writing. I do not care for the editorial slant of the Times but that does not keep me from reading it. [An aside: I learned to enjoy the Times a whole lot more when I realized the front page was their editorial page. The news was on the inside.] As mentioned, I don't care for its editorial slant, but I can always count on the Times for having personality.
My hunch is that if I simply transcribed the NDIC daily activity report it would become a very boring blog.
I'm sure one can find all kinds of inconsistencies in my rationale for following Squawk Box, the WSJ, and the NYT but it is what it is.