Keystone XL Pipeline

[Robalo]

Obama and the environuts have poo pooed this, so "new" route is planned. This will be of great benefit to the USA-JOBS-why is Obama so blind and stupid about the pipeline? Here's some news on it:

TransCanada Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TransCanada) confirmed today the vast majority of the pipe for Keystone XL would be manufactured in North America. In addition, the company intends to purchase approximately 90 per cent of all other goods for the $7.6 billion project from companies on the continent.


"Seventy-five per cent of the pipe used to build Keystone XL in the U.S. would come from North American mills, including half made by U.S. workers in Arkansas," said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada's president, Energy and Oil Pipelines. "In addition, we have already sourced goods for the pipeline valued at approximately $800 million from U.S. manufacturers."


Pourbaix points out that the American Iron and Steel Institute recently sent a letter to the U.S House of Representatives and Senate stating its support of Keystone XL, describing it as vital to the national economic recovery. The Institute's member companies represent 80 per cent of both U.S. and North American steel capacity.


We estimate 821,000 tons of high strength line pipe will be used on the project in Canada and the U.S. TransCanada has estimated it will use 660,000 tons of steel for the U.S. portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. The following are the line pipe mills who are manufacturing the pipe:


•Welspun - Little Rock, Arkansas, USA 332,800 tons 50%

•Evraz - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada 156,266 tons 24%

•ILVA - Italy 103,147 tons 16%

•Welspun - India 69,457 tons 10%


It is important to understand pipeline companies do not purchase raw steel. Rather, we purchase sophisticated manufactured products such as high strength steel pipe and pumps that are fabricated from steel and other metals. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers of these products to source the necessary raw materials and to produce a product that meets all relevant regulations, codes and our internal specifications.


There are a number of materials and equipment items containing steel that have not yet been contracted for, which would amount to approximately 35,000 tons of steel yet to be sourced. The major items are as follows:


•Houston lateral and Nebraska re-route - line pipe and associated materials such as fittings, valves, etc.

•Cushing, Oklahoma and Baker, Montana Terminals - steel will be required for the construction of tanks plus the steel required for the other materials related to the terminal such as tanks, piping, pumps.

•Pump stations - pumps, motors and other related materials such as valves, fittings, etc. to be added at each location in the U.S.


We anticipate that virtually all of the 35,000 tons of steel products described above will be purchased from North American mills and manufacturers. TransCanada has already entered into contracts to purchase over $800 million of finished pipe and other products from United States manufacturers for Keystone XL. We anticipate purchasing additional products from United States manufacturers as we complete procurement for the project.


Continued delays of approving Keystone XL are hindering the recovery of the U.S. economy. Oil producers and state governments in Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas whose oil has been heavily discounted relative to oil imported from OPEC are feeling the effects, along with Gulf Coast refiners who are forced to buy more expensive OPEC crude oil as a result of the ongoing debate over this pipeline.

[small bites]

not to stir the pot, but is the steel that is going to be used to manufacture the pipes, coming from steel sent over seas as scrap from the us and others, and then sent back for this project? Probably doesnt mean anything, but I'm wondering about that. Hopefully, at worst the metals come from china, and system parts made to US standards by US manufacturers. US and Germany used to be THE best of the best when it came to metal manufactured products.

[Robalo]

No, it doesn't appear that way SB. Regardless of the "source", most will come from the US and Canada, with Italy and India supplying rest (pipe itself).

[Robalo]

This is interesting. perhaps if the Libs and Greenies considered the "source" of the oil they use (sort of like how folks don't like clothes made by children in 3rd World countries), then our fine Nation and idiotic Gummint (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Waters, Waxman and rest of the total, absolute, crooked basterds) would see two types of "OIL"-Ethical and Unethical-then we'd seek and get close to energy independence for DAMN Good Reasons instead of buying from killers like Qaddafi as an example or commie dictactor Hugo Chavez-from Chronicle today:

The 2012 version of blood diamonds, it seems clear to us, is "blood oil" - oil that benefits oppressive dictatorships from Iran in the Middle East to Venezuela in this hemisphere. This country uses too much of it. That's unfortunate, and it's also unnecessary.

With the Keystone XL Pipeline debate still in full voice, and the possibility of stoppages of the oil flow through the Straits of Hormuz, we're starting to hear the term "ethical oil" more frequently.

It's not a new term. It was the title of a book by a Canadian journalist and commentator, Ezra Levant, that was published in 2010. In that work, Levant was making the case for using his country's vast oil-sand reserves, often condemned by environmentalists and other opponents as dirty oil. He argued that it was, in fact, ethical oil by comparison with supplies from the likes of Moammar Gadhafi and Hugo Chavez.

Crude from oil sands is the stuff that would flow from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which President Obama put on hold recently. We share Levant's view that such a resource, flowing from the country that is our peaceable neighbor and best friend in the world is far preferable to rolling the dice with dictators.

But that is a mere sidebar point, important as the 700,000 to 800,000 barrels that would flow daily through Keystone to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast would be.

The most ethical oil and gas this nation can tap is our own. Given the global uncertainties, efforts to expand use of these resources ought to be a national priority on the order of the Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb that eventually ended World War II.

It will mean well paying jobs, increased tax revenues, reduced expenses for national security and, in the case of natural gas, benefits for the environment. Something the Obama Administration has no clue about.
We want to hear ethical oil debated often and widely in the coming presidential election season. We'd like to hear one good reason why we should knowingly continue our reliance on bloody oil. There isn't one.

[Robalo]

Trucks and rail, plus likely piped to various spots. Those jobs will still exist-plus 1000s more. It is just a shame that our Government just cannot deal with Oil & Gas-for years and years we strived for a true Energy Policy, yet have none. Just stupid IMO. We need to develop our own oil and gas to our best ability, taking environmental precautions. Obama prefers that we indebt our country to dictators and unstable governments while implementing more regs and preventing drilling on our own lands-yeppir, that makes for a secure supply-NOT.

[Moe]

I really do not want to create chaos here, but i'm wondering what is the real deal with this pipeline. I could care less about the politics, I want to know facts! If this pipeline is only going tp produce a little less than 2 million barrels a day and we as a nation consume 20 million barrels a day, that math does not look promising to me. Yes the building of the pipeline will create jobs, but how many of those will really be permanent? My co-workers and I have read quite a bit on this topic. It's hard to find real facts. TransCanada is going to paint a real pretty pic, because they stand to profit the most. The elephants and donkeys are just going to say what is politically expedient! The tree huggers, well we know what they are going to say. I have read some disturbing things about what has been going on in Canada concerning the part of the line that is already in operation. I keep reading that the majority of the oil will be exported. Once again, the amount will not make much of a difference and the price of gas will only increase. I'm just asking that we not get too personal. I want to know facts, regardless of the politics! We vote and it does matter, however what actually happens is that decisions are based on money, not what is best for the American people, regardless of party lines! We will continue doing our homework!
For those who want to know, I vote for people I believe will do the job right, never according to party lines. The number of folks in this dicussion group are about 20. 12 are Repubs, 3 Indeps, and 5 are Dems. That's the ones who are actively involved. History, science, math, and special ed folks make up our group. We work hard at keeping the politics out of the mix, because that crap can(and has) really destroy some relationships. That is not good when you work with kids everyday. Google "Keystone Pipeline" and read fo yourself. We tend to read them all and the one thing we all agree on is WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTH BY EITHER SIDE!

Keystone pipeline: How many jobs really at stake?


ByAlain Sherter

• (MoneyWatch) President Obama's move Wednesday to reject a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline drew fire from supporters of the project, with a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner telling CBS that the decision threatens to "destroy tens of thousands of American jobs."
  
  
  Yet exactly how much work Keystone, a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast, would generate remains in dispute. Transcanada (TRP), the energy giant bidding to build the pipeline, projects the undertaking would create 20,000 jobs in the U.S., including 13,000 positions in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.
  
  That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs.
  But subsequent analysis suggests that Keystone's job-creating potential is more modest. The U.S. State Department calculated last year that the underground pipeline would add 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs. One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.
  
  Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.
  
  Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.
  
  The Cornell researchers concluded:

The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates....

The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the U.S.

[Moe]

Trucks and rail, plus likely piped to various spots. Those jobs will still exist-plus 1000s more. It is just a shame that our Government just cannot deal with Oil & Gas-for years and years we strived for a true Energy Policy, yet have none. Just stupid IMO. We need to develop our own oil and gas to our best ability, taking environmental precautions. Obama prefers that we indebt our country to dictators and unstable governments while implementing more regs and preventing drilling on our own lands-yeppir, that makes for a secure supply-NOT.

I can see the trucking and rail jobs positively effected, but not the others. The number was 10,00 jobs, now its 100,00 to 250,000. What's the truth and what's the lie? The number of platforms and drilling sites in the Gulf, despite the moratorium, has almost quadrupled in the past three-four years, yet the projections for how much is produced is miniscule compared to what we consume. If indeed we consume 20 million barrels a day and the Keystone Line + Guld Production= Less than 5 million barrels a day, the only people truly profiting are gas companies and foreign countries, because gas prices are not going down anytime soon. What do you think about the "Ethical Oil" debate and wind farms? I read yesterday a new nuclear plant has been approved as well. I have no idea what is the right thing to do, but something must be done.

[Robalo]

I think we need to encourage energy self-reliance-not hamper the industry with unnecessary regulations. Why buy oil from Venezuela (Chavez), Iraq and other countries that basically see us as their enemy and want to kill Americans-why are we basically paying for them to train and arm terrorists? Enough Civil Law and Regulation exists to prevent an idiot from going out and purposefully polluting-no company wants multi-million dollar judgements against them and if ya look at what is happenning, most oil drilling is on private lands, not Federal, so all the regs that are promulgated by the Feds apply to Federal lands (BLM, Indian and Offshore; however, States use Federal Guidelines for drilling in State waters in general). If my company polluted some landowner's tract, he'd sue the crap out of us. We spend about $25,000/year monitoring air quality at our wellsites-all 11 of them, per EPA Air Emissions guidelines that went into effect several years ago! We don't put oil in earthen pits or run it down slews or creeks like in the 1900's-we all learned better (but that is how a lot of third world countries work-especially the nationalized oil ones). If Obama supported Natty Gas as a clean energy source to run vehicles (which he does not), you bet gasoline prices would fall-the gasoline issue is a mix between market factors (Commodity Exchange) and supply and demand. With all the Natty Gas now being found, nat gas prices are running about $2.31/mcf at the wellhead (6 months ago we got about $4.20/mcf) and likely you've noticed lower electricity costs and certainly lower nat gas heating bills-that's because of an abundant supply-same could happen to gasoline (except the EPA laws affecting Refineries and the low profit margin associated with refining and all our Refineries are antiques) if Government promoted clean natural gas-but instead they promote Nuclear (a meltdownm of S.T.N.P. would devastate the whole upper Texas Coast and all the towns within 50-100 miles) and wind and solar-which are quite expensive and have limited capacity-geez just look at how much a solar battery maintainer cost for your boat - very expensive, so how many 50s of thousands of dollars would you have to spend to solar panel your house? Wind turbines catch on fire, are expensive and most say "unsightly and make lands FUGLY" and even the "Greenies" oppose them because they kill migratory birds-look at how the King Ranch has fought its neighboring ranches against wind turbines. We can easily convert cars to LNG-look at how many farmers and ranchers did that-remember when you'd see a old Ford pick-up with a propane tank in it's bed like a tool box-plus the Government gave tax incentives at one time to convert to propane/LNG (not sure if they still do). The issue on energy is fairly easy to solve, but Obama hates Texas, Oil and Gas is a hated industry by most Americans because the blame companies for high prices when price is a factor mainly affected by supply and demand, plus a lack of refining capability (partly because they are a PITA to build, operate and have poor profit margins in the USA), plus no "decent" alternative exists except nat gas to run vehicles. It amazes me that Government pushes "electric" cars-just where in the name of God does electricity come from?-mainly gas generated or coal generated power plants, so by promoting electric cars, they fail to see the "carbon footprint" associated with using an electric car-very blind and ignorant, if not stupid. It's like playing a bait and switch game is all-and calling an apple an orange.