Anti-pipeline activism isn't generating more investment in renewable energy

15 hours ago, Boat said:

All those imports from other foreign countries are not needed either. Let's clean up some Texas air and free up some traffic congestion.

 

hmm... which foreign imports? I'm not sure I'm following your logic or figures. Can you walk me through it again, citing any figure sources? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people will buy the lowest priced energy available. If solar panels and battery storage become cost efficient many will be able to afford to install them. Right now they are still more of a novelty than anything else. 

Home solar is not a good investment for people who do not intend to stay in their home long enough to pay for their system unless they are willing to deal with some possible loss of money on resale. Many might not like the aesthetics of them either. As a bit of a prepper, I am OK with them. 

California has begun the grand experiment of requiring them in all new homes. It will be fun to watch how this goes. I am now sitting in a home with a few solar panels on it, and no battery storage or option since it is a lease deal of some sort. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/business/energy-environment/california-solar-power.html

The downside will be for the middle class who want to buy an affordable new home. They do not exist in California unless you are upper middle class. The average home sale price (not new) is over half a million dollars. This article says $600,000 https://www.businessinsider.com/california-home-price-hits-record-high-2018-6

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2018 at 4:27 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Yes.  I have not followed the developments there, but was under the impression that they were shipping out.  Don't know where to. 

Again, none of the gas would go to Boston as there are no LNG tankers built in the USA.  so it ends up in say India, or even Japan, who knows?   There have been several loads from Louisiana into the new terminal in Poland, right on the Poland-Germany border in the Baltic. 

 

On 12/21/2018 at 7:58 AM, Rodent said:

hmm... which foreign imports? I'm not sure I'm following your logic or figures. Can you walk me through it again, citing any figure sources? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EIA puts out an import/export report every week of crude and petroleum products. the US net imports lately have been below 1.5 Mbpd. Our gross imports is close 6+ Mbpd.

So bottom line we let foreign countries refine in the US at the cost of mainly Texas dirty air to make a buck to the tune of over 4+ mbpd. 

We get net over 3 mbpd from Canada alone. At this time we need less than 1.5 mbpd. So why pollute my air so the Saudi can make a buck with the worlds largest refinery among others.

This is also why no new pipeline is needed from Canada. More than 1/2 of what they supply to the US goes on to other countries. The US has replaced that demand with our own oil. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2018 at 9:48 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

So why are they buying new oil trains if there's no need?

Canada has oil to sell. They have more oil than they can ship. As a result oil prices have tanked. Because of Canadian politics they don't build pipelines. But they will let trains and truck haul oil. 

Where does it go? The EIA lists every country we ship oil and products to. Try there.

There is money to be made providing an end around for the oil guys fighting those pesky greenies in Canada. I think you know that. Lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2018 at 2:31 PM, Boat said:

Canada has oil to sell. They have more oil than they can ship. As a result oil prices have tanked. Because of Canadian politics they don't build pipelines. But they will let trains and truck haul oil. 

Where does it go? The EIA lists every country we ship oil and products to. Try there.

There is money to be made providing an end around for the oil guys fighting those pesky greenies in Canada. I think you know that. Lol

Sorry, Boat, the oil trains being built at National Rail Car in Hamilton (Ontario) are to ship WCS to refineries in Eastern Canada.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/20/2018 at 10:48 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

So why are they buying new oil trains if there's no need?

Marina, here is the "longer" of the short version of what is happening.  There is more capacity to mine and process WCS than there is current take-away capacity.  There are three routes out by pipe: the Trans-Mountain into Burnaby, B.C., the harbor area of Vancouver;  the Keystone or equivalent line heading South to the Gulf area; the Enbridge line across Northern Michigan and into Sarnia, Ontario  (across the St. Clair river from Detroit).  

The WCS needs lots of diluent to be able to get it to flow (and keep flowing, in the harsh winter months).  You can dump naphtha in there, but that costs money and consumes valuable product.  I forget the numbers, but I recall that WCS has an API of around 8.  When it finally arrives at the refineries in Sarnia and Montreal, it will have to be boosted by diluting with something compatible to get the API up there, to around 32. Whatever you use is going to cost you; it is typically a refined product from the USA.  Plus, that WCS will have sulfur in it that has to be removed. 

If you put the WCS into a jacketed railcar then you can roll the product with the only energy input being a steel wheel on a steel rail, which is about as cheap to do as is possible. Compared to the pumps you need to push oil through a pipeline, and the heating plants you need to keep it fluid, a rail locomotive fuel bill is tiny.  Yes you have to buy the railcars; no you do not spend a ton to build that pipe.  Using pipe is faintly ridiculous, from a technical view, unless you are doing it in a mild climate. When you get into these discussions of pipe vs. rail, that aspect tends to not be considered.  

When the railcar gets to destination, a heating fluid is introduced into the jacket and the oil bitumen flows out  (unless you have already diluted it with lots of naphtha). So far, easy enough to do. 

The real debate inside Canada is whether or not the current protocol of Eastern Canada spending some $3.5 billion on imported oils, both crude and refined product, should b e replaced by crude sourced only from Alberta/Saskatchewan/Newfoundland, thus making Canada independent of at least crude imports and creating an internal captive market.  I predict that this is what will happen, irrespective of relative costs, as the politics will permit no other solution.  Instead of the East paying $3.5 billion for imports, it will pay $3.2 billion to Alberta, but continue to receive some $20 billion back in equalization payments from the federal royalties on Alberta crude production. In order to make that work, you need either the Energy East pipeline  (not going to happen) or you need a large fleet of railcars, and installation of passing trackage into the Canadian rail system.  And that is what is now happening. 

Nobody is going to admit that Canada will go to an exclusion policy of US and Norway crude;  but that is the way it is going to end up. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

If you put the WCS into a jacketed railcar then you can roll the product with the only energy input being a steel wheel on a steel rail, which is about as cheap to do as is possible. Compared to the pumps you need to push oil through a pipeline, and the heating plants you need to keep it fluid, a rail locomotive fuel bill is tiny.  Yes you have to buy the railcars; no you do not spend a ton to build that pipe.  Using pipe is faintly ridiculous, from a technical view, unless you are doing it in a mild climate. When you get into these discussions of pipe vs. rail, that aspect tends to not be considered.  

It really doesn't. Thanks for clarifying this, it's a very important point.

In truth, I have never seen anything about oil independence, now I think about it. It's all about export markets and more export markets, and stop hanging on to just the U.S. Oil independence would make perfect sense. Thanks for the valuable perspective, Jan!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buried pipelines do not need much heat to keep the content liquid .

Utter nonsense to claim , long distance transport by railroad would be a better alternative .

I doubt that Alberta has perma frozen soil until 40 yards of depth .

One could build a railroad track that is only in use by oil trains , but it would need a second track to travel back empty from the destination . A pipeline does not need an empty second tube .

 

I think , that I had read about costs of $10-15 per barrel for rail transport , $2-3 for ocean shipping , and $1 for pipeline transport .

So Canada should probably start to build water ways and canals .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites