• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

E15

.........Or build the pipeline from Canada, and drill for the oil we have under our country and offshore.
Some Refineries and dismantling the EPA would dramatically help the situation too!
Ken
 
.........Or build the pipeline from Canada, and drill for the oil we have under our country and offshore.
Some Refineries and dismantling the EPA would dramatically help the situation too!
Ken

Hmmm.......if that oil was for local consumption why don't they build the refinery in Canada and sell us the refined product? They would have the profit from both the crude and the higher value refined product?
 
Hmmm.......if that oil was for local consumption why don't they build the refinery in Canada and sell us the refined product? They would have the profit from both the crude and the higher value refined product?

I thought it has a something to do with shelf life if final product. Crude can sit in a tank for a long time. Refined cant be stock piled. I could be wrong though,
 
I thought it has a something to do with shelf life if final product. Crude can sit in a tank for a long time. Refined cant be stock piled. I could be wrong though,

With the Canadian oil sand and US shale oil production in the upper mid-west, refining the product near the well site would provide a central distribution point for any domestic needs. The pipeline provides the lowest cost path to the higher profit margin export market.
 
Reminds me of the US Postal Service. To mail a bill in to the local utility....5 miles away....the bill first goes 30 miles away and then back to them.
 
I thought it has to do with who owns the raw material and the plants capable of refining it. Refining capabilities are not interchangeable. Also thought we could not export crude and were an importer but we are able to export refined products and do.

Where do you think the crude from Alaska goes? The crude is owned by the driller and sold to the highest bidder. Due to our lower labor and production costs (thank you, currency devaluation and low NG gas prices to power the refineries), we have become a net exporter of refined products. We are so cheap, some European refineries have been permanently taken off line.

In any case, the XL pipe line is the lowest cost route for Canadian crude to reach the world market. That's where the money is..
 
Let me try again and then I am out of here.

Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

http://www.eia.gov/ is the source of the information. Export of production of oil is restricted and or controlled and not fully the free market commodity you suggest.

I am not a oil chemist but based on my reading on the subject it comes in various forms often referred to as light sweet heavy etc. These are based on sulfur content and other things. refineries can not handle all forms of crude. One of the driving issues with pipelines is getting product to the proper refinery in the cheapest way.

Environmental issues complicate it even more. I can't find the epa source quickly but at this point there are something like 47 different blends approved to me a variety of air quality issues across the country. This further increases the issues related to matching product and production.
 
Let me try again and then I am out of here.

Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

http://www.eia.gov/ is the source of the information. Export of production of oil is restricted and or controlled and not fully the free market commodity you suggest.

I am not a oil chemist but based on my reading on the subject it comes in various forms often referred to as light sweet heavy etc. These are based on sulfur content and other things. refineries can not handle all forms of crude. One of the driving issues with pipelines is getting product to the proper refinery in the cheapest way.

Environmental issues complicate it even more. I can't find the epa source quickly but at this point there are something like 47 different blends approved to me a variety of air quality issues across the country. This further increases the issues related to matching product and production.

The proposed pipe line will carry Canadian produced bituminous crude from tar sand. That can be sold wherever. Later, entry points for US shale crude, light sweet crude, will be added in Montana and OK which will be regulated relative to export.

While some of the mid-west shale oil might be restricted for export, once it's refined ........ it will go to the highest priced markets. That doesn't mean a lot of money for the folks at home.
 
Frankly for some time we have been talking past each other. My apologies for being inarticulate and good night.
 
If that pipeline was really intended to make the US more energy independent it would terminate at refineries located suitable for shipment to locations throughout the United States: locations like the Dakotas or Omaha, or Kansas City. Extending the pipeline to a port location on the Gulf of Mexico as proposed certainly positions the petroleum for export overseas but is not centrally located for distribution to make the US energy self sufficient.

If the justification for the pipeline is, as claimed, the need and policy to make the US energy self sufficient then the physical reality ought to match the policy and claimed justification. It doesn't.

Fool us once shame on you. Fool us repeatedly, shame on us.
 
I'd rather rant about the price of gas. In my area it's never as high as the national average & usually a bit higher than the cheapest places but lately it has been above? What gives? My politicians promised to "fix the fixing"?:nono
FWIW, I like "the Keystone pipeline" as a job source for the people building it(many are from my area of KY who are working in the Dakotas now) but not as an energy independent factor. I've never lived in a place that didn't have pipelines running every which way, so in my simple mind it seems like just another ditch to me?
 
FWIW, I like "the Keystone pipeline" as a job source for the people building it(many are from my area of KY who are working in the Dakotas now) but not as an energy independent factor. I've never lived in a place that didn't have pipelines running every which way, so in my simple mind it seems like just another ditch to me?

Let me ask you this.....did supplying migrant labor to the US, Canada, Australia or Africa make Italy, Poland, Ireland or southern Germany more affluent in the late 1800's? Or, in today's world, is Haiti, Guatemala or Mexico really enriched by their people that have to leave to find work?
 
From Wikipedia: The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen ("dilbit") from the Athabasca oil sands region in northeastern Canada to multiple destinations in the United States, which include refineries in Illinois, the Cushing oil distribution hub in Oklahoma, and proposed connections to refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas. The 2,147 mi. long pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta to the United States refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois. The Canadian section involves approximately 537 mi of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 232 mi of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta.
The United States section is 1,379 mi long. It runs through Buchanan, Clinton and Caldwell counties in Missouri, and Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas. Phase 1 went online in June 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what IÔÇÖve been able to find, last year the U.S. imported 7.6 million barrels a day-40% of those imports come from OPEC nations such as Venezuela, Iraq and Nigeria. Keystone is expected to supply 830,000 million barrels a day, which would be a huge step toward the long-standing goal of American energy independence.
That would still reduce our crude imports by 0.83/7.6=10.9%, and be much cheaper than the imported oil from Venezuela or the middle east!
There are already tens of thousands of miles of oil pipelines that crisscross the United States. Iike it or not, this country has vehicles that rely almost exclusively on gasoline and diesel.
Pipelines have been proven to be the safest and most efficient way to move it, better than tankers, rail or trucking. And the pipeline will add to our national security, and help put Americans back to work. There will be an estimated 20,000 high-paying jobs (with benefits) created for construction, and an estimated 5,000 jobs involved in the operation, plus more than 118,000 spin-off jobs for local businesses along the route.

If the Canadians cannot ship their surplus oil to the U.S.( their preferred customer) they will be left with no choice but to build a pipeline to their west coast and ship it by tanker to other markets, particularly China and Japan.
I would much rather see this oil come to our refineries, where we have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world, and where we will have some say about where the final products are shipped. Canadian oil is the most reliable, secure source of petroleum this country has. In 2010, the Canadian Tar Sands project was producing somewhere around 1.6 million barrels per day- more than several OPEC countries. They project that this number will double over the next several years, and no policy decision from the U.S. will stop them from selling their oil...........somewhere.

I appologize to the OP for straying away from the E-15 topic.

Ken
 
Last edited:
For many of us the Keystone Pipeline issue is not a question of should it be built but where. Concerns about potential surface water contamination and more importantly to the major aquifer it would cross raised all sorts of concerns. The Alaskan pipeline history points out that you can carefully build a pipeline and reasonably protect and limit the impact of the pipeline. The major problem with it have been with what goes on at either end of pipeline and not over the length.

I have seen similar economic and job impact numbers supporting the pipeline construction. I can generally accept them. The concern for many of us is how long they will exist and how much infrastructure etc we commit for short term (less than ten years) gain. We know that many if not most of those jobs/people will move to the next project or return to their home state, while the impact of the pipeline and potential spills could remain indefinitely. I have always believed it could and would be built, where and how have been my concern.

The economic impact along the route of what passes through the pipeline (any pipeline) is minimal. On the input end lease holders are the major beneficiaries along with any real jobs created by them. At the other end it is the refiners like EXON, BP and the Koch brothers that get the big money and the jobs they create.

I am far less sanguine on what energy independence means and how to reach it. We keep worrying about imported oil and talk very little or if at all about refining capacity and who controls that. The quest for energy independence took ethanol from a more environmentally friendly component of the blend of chemicals sold as pure gasoline to E10 and now looming E15.

E15 is bad policy in my book, but we never wrote the energy policy part of the book in the first place.
 
For many of us the Keystone Pipeline issue is not a question of should it be built but where. Concerns about potential surface water contamination and more importantly to the major aquifer it would cross raised all sorts of concerns. The Alaskan pipeline history points out that you can carefully build a pipeline and reasonably protect and limit the impact of the pipeline. The major problem with it have been with what goes on at either end of pipeline and not over the length.

I have seen similar economic and job impact numbers supporting the pipeline construction. I can generally accept them. The concern for many of us is how long they will exist and how much infrastructure etc we commit for short term (less than ten years) gain. We know that many if not most of those jobs/people will move to the next project or return to their home state, while the impact of the pipeline and potential spills could remain indefinitely. I have always believed it could and would be built, where and how have been my concern.

The economic impact along the route of what passes through the pipeline (any pipeline) is minimal. On the input end lease holders are the major beneficiaries along with any real jobs created by them. At the other end it is the refiners like EXON, BP and the Koch brothers that get the big money and the jobs they create.

I am far less sanguine on what energy independence means and how to reach it. We keep worrying about imported oil and talk very little or if at all about refining capacity and who controls that. The quest for energy independence took ethanol from a more environmentally friendly component of the blend of chemicals sold as pure gasoline to E10 and now looming E15.

E15 is bad policy in my book, but we never wrote the energy policy part of the book in the first place.

US energy policy covers two issues;

1) Cheap electrical power which is provided by plentiful and cheap coal and, now, NG supplies. Current electrical rates are near 5.5 cents per KWH and preclude the upgrade or replacement of any plants or the maintenance of the transmission lines. Accordingly, it's an economic dead zone and has been since the early 1980's when I was working for the last major US manufacturer of hydroelectric turbines.

2) Military alternative transportation fuels are still being tested and researched.

Otherwise, there isn't much. America is a nation that proudly greets any drop in gas prices as a reason to add farkles to a Chevy Suburban and sell it as an Escalade to suburbanites that need 4WD to reach the mall in places like Atlanta, Dallas and LA. In that world, it makes sense to pipe tar sand crude oil over the aquifer that feeds our nation so it can get to the gulf coast refiners and the world market
 
Again it is not a question if it should be built but where and how.

Where may well end up being over the aquifer instead of around it. The players involved in that decision are concerned about more than the most direct route and its implications. The region is littered with the results of changing 'pipelines' starting with wagon train trails, railroad routes, highways, super highways and air corridors. At least show us the decency of being involved in the decisions. If the companies that are providing the raw material ad you with the refined product screw up we live with the result.
 
Let me ask you this.....did supplying migrant labor to the US, Canada, Australia or Africa make Italy, Poland, Ireland or southern Germany more affluent in the late 1800's? Or, in today's world, is Haiti, Guatemala or Mexico really enriched by their people that have to leave to find work?
Mika may have a point?
I commented on pipeline workers, many from my area going to ND,etc., to work. That IS! a job(like many if not most construction jobs) where you must travel to the job site other than a line repair most of the work is out of your home area which is different than "migrant labor" as such.
When potential welding students came before me in my tech school role-they often asked me: where were the jobs?- I would ask them, You tell me where do you think the jobs are located? The answer of course was that many were "hit the road jack, type jobs,esp. if you wanted to work on high pay rate union specified jobs. The lower paid jobs were local & factory assembly welding.
"Really enriched" is a whole 'nother ball game. The $$$ that gets sent home might qualify as enrichment? Especially to the scavenger places that transmit the money for the workers , taking a big toll on the money before it gets there. migrant labor vs. imported labor vs. illegal workers is a large territory difficult to cover in a E15 thread. I remember reading a few years back how West Germany was getting all their factory workers from places like Turkey & paying them less to do the dirty jobs. BMW's built in Germany but by whom? Back to E15 & I'm out of coffee...
 
Again it is not a question if it should be built but where and how.

Where may well end up being over the aquifer instead of around it. The players involved in that decision are concerned about more than the most direct route and its implications. The region is littered with the results of changing 'pipelines' starting with wagon train trails, railroad routes, highways, super highways and air corridors. At least show us the decency of being involved in the decisions. If the companies that are providing the raw material ad you with the refined product screw up we live with the result.
We rented a nearby farmhouse for 6 yrs before I built this one in 79-80. It had cheap NG heat(the gas bills were under $10 mo!) based on the contract the owner had with Columbia Gas Co. dated to the large pipeline that ran through the front yard-it was right in front of the house!!!-like ~75' from the front porch and ~ 24" diameter. It leaked & got a section replaced in the front yard while we lived there. That pipeline ran under/over 2 creeks on either side of that house on that ridge that comprised the 700+ acres of that farm. Like stated above, these pipelines run all over the USA & over & under everything around us. My native KS was full of them. Once in awhile a sort of spectacular flame would show when they broke, which gave me pause to think when we rented the house above, like what if... still they are a fact of life so why not build another that does promote commerce now? E15 thread, I think not?:nyah
 
Back
Top