Pages

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Update on Keystone XL in Montana; Montana Approves Pipeline To Nowhere

Updates

December 17, 2012: Montana approves pipeline to nowhere.
Montana on Monday approved easements to let the Keystone XL pipeline cross state-owned land, including the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. 

The Land Board, chaired by Gov. Brian Schweitzer, running his last meeting before leaving office, sold the package of 50-year easements to TransCanada for $741,000. The board also finalized approval for land leases for the completion of the Montana-Alberta Tie Line.
Original Post

Nice map of where the Keystone XL will go through Montana. Does not go through North Dakota, and actually misses the state by quite some distance, except in the far southwest corner.

Unless there is "twinning," no Bakken oil is going to go in that heavy oil sands pipeline. Just saying.

*************************

Added later: The most definitive layperson's description of the Keystone XL mentions a single pipeline; there is no mention of "twinning." But this is a layperson's description; without technical details I do not know if there will be two pipelines. I am quite sure that in the original plans there was no "second" pipeline for light sweet crude. So, we'll see. I am still looking for a source to answer the question.

Added later: In addition, a cursory review of the description of the pipeline provided by TransCanada says nothing about a second pipeline to carry light sweet Bakken crude oil, including the official document describing the pipeline. 

Added later: In addition, a landowner in Texas recently sued to stop the construction of the pipeline across his Texas property because the easement permit was for a crude oil pipeline, not a bitumen pipeline. The court stopped construction for a short period, but then allowed construction to continue. There was no mention of a second pipeline.

*************************

A reader provides these links regarding the Keystone: I see no reference to a dual pipe.
TransCanada documents related to the on ramp aka the Bakken Marketlink, http://www.transcanada.com/search_results.html?q=Bakken+on-ramp&x=0&y=0
If the link is not live by the time you get it, use “Marketlink” at the TransCanada website search engine, you will find 8 documents including the note from Governor Brian Schweitzer and Senator Max Baucus.
Links to good route maps at TransCanada’s web site, http://www.transcanada.com/5730.html
KeystoneXL project e-mail address, http://www.transcanada.com/5736.html

4 comments:

  1. the orginal proposal mandated by the MT govenor requires this pipeline to carry 100,000 of bakken oil a day on it. The on ramp port would be near Baker,Mt. another pipeline would have to be constructed from Sidney,mt or Williston to this on ramp in baker..
    This pipeline map os the same as the orgina pipeline mt thru MT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know the details of the Keystone XL, if they will be putting two pipelines side by side -- for newbies: the pipelines are sophisticated "industries" of their own, with pumps, valves, pressuring monitoring, etc. But Bakken-centric operators won't mix their light sweet with heavy oil sands based on what I've read.

      Delete
  2. I know nothing about the pipeline business.

    But at the location of the WB on ramp port would they build enough storage capacity to hold say 800,000 barrels of bakken plus 800,000 barrels of tar sands so they could stop the flow of tar sands for one day while they send a 800,000 barrel shot of bakken oil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a word, "no."

      If they don't put in a "twin" pipeline for light sweet (Bakken) oil, whether or not Bakken is mixed with heavy oil at "the ramp" would depend on profit margin compared to other options: Enbridge pipelines or rail.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.