3 Pipelines battle for Tar Sands oil

[FogerRox]

Do not mistake the Tar Sands partners for political neophytes, they are politically savvy and from all appearances are planning for all contingencies. The Keystone pipeline is one proposal to get tar sands oil to market, the US market? Don't be so sure. Loading a supertanker @ Houston and heading to Asia is not competitive because of the long distance traveled. Loading Supertankers on the west coast of Canada makes far more sense, in fact the distance is sightly less than the distance from the Persian Gulf to Asia.

There are 2 more pipeline proposals, both from the tar sands to the west coast, but via 2 different routes. The Enbridge proposal runs just about due west from the tar sands, thru First Nation lands to Kitimat on the coast where a supertanker loading facility is proposed. Supertankers are the first choice to ship oil long distances, carrying up to 4 million barrels of crude, in this case analysts say Asia.

There exists another west bound pipeline the Morgan Kinder line. It runs to port at Burnaby, British Columbia. The Burnaby terminal handle tankers up to 650,000 barrels, and Morgan Kinder is looking to add another facility to handle tankers capable of carrying up to 1 million barrels. These smaller tankers head south to California with the tar sands crude.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/kindermorgan-idUKN1E76512Z20110706

Integrated plan to deliver tar sands crude oil to market.
Distilled down, there 3 pipelines with 3 distinct goals. The Enbridge proposal would deliver 550,000 barrels a day to Kitimat, where supertankers would take the oil to Market in Asia. Keystone goes to the heart of US oil country, Texas, slated to deliver 900,000 barrels a day. The Morgan Kinder Trans Mountain pipeline in operation since 1953, delivers 300,000 barrels a day to Burnaby B.C., where smaller coastal tankers head south to deliver oil to the West Coast if the US.


The Keystone proposal.


The Enbridge proposal in relation to the Alberta Tar Sands.



Image from Carol Linnitt showing the Enbridge proposal in relation to First Nation lands.
http://www.desmogblog.com/if-you-build-it-they-will-spill-dene-first-nation-opposes-enbridge-tar-sands-pipeline

The Yinka Dene Alliance expressed in May that, under no circumstance, were they interested in negotiating with Enbridge.

The larger picture.

The Kinder Morgan presentation says the Transmountain pipeline branch to Kitimat would cost $4 billion, compared to the $5,5 billion that Enbridge has budgeted for the Northern Gateway project. The Transmountain pipeline would have a capacity of 450,000 barrels a day compared to the Northern Gateway capacity of 550 million barrels a day. http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2011/06/kinder-morgan-proposes-second-kitimat-bitumen-pipeline.html

The Vancouver end of the project would require the dredging of Second Narrows to allow large supertankers to visit the port. Tanker traffic in Vancouver would increase, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-kindermorgan-idUKTRE76571020110706

An expansion of the Trans Mountain system using its existing right of way is likely to face less opposition than the Northern Gateway has received, with First Nations along that line's planned route pledging to block access to their lands http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2011/06/kinder-morgan-proposes-second-kitimat-bitumen-pipeline.html

Kinder Morgan has long discussed plans to expand the Trans Mountain system, which it ultimately hopes to bring to 700,000 barrels a day. In 2008, it completed a $750-million project that added 40,000 barrels of pipe capacity by twinning the system through Jasper National Park. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-kindermorgan-idUKTRE76571020110706

The expansion is underway, the twinning or adding a second parallel pipeline.By adding a northern route that heads to Kitimat, that pipeline avoids the First Nations lands, and a supertanker loading facility at Kitimat means an expansion of the Vancouver facility to handle supertankers isn't as necessary.

So the Alberta Tar Sands partners are reaching out to gain 3 supertanker ports, Burnaby, Houston and Kitimat, fed by a web of pipelines that deliver tar sands crude oil to shipping facilities. Supertankers loaded in Houston can head for Europe, while supertankers loaded on the west coast face only a 4500 mile trip to Asia (note, The Persian Gulf to Asia is 5000 miles).



Over 200,000 people have signed the petition telling President Obama to stop the Keystone pipeline. If you haven't done so yet, please sign the petition to stop the Keystone pipeline:
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/keystone_obama/index2.html?rc=fb_share1

[upi402]

1. i signed petitions

but have no illusions where Obama's sympathies lie.

[myrna minx]

2. If the EPA move was a signal of where the President is tracking on the environment,

I'm not feeling too positive either.

[FogerRox]

3. Thanks, and yes that is the reality of the situation.

[FarCenter]

4. There are a couple other options

The problem is not so much getting oil from Alberta to Oklahoma and other Midwestern areas as getting oil to the Gulf refineries.

One possibility is to reverse direction of one of the existing pipelines between the Gulf and Cushing.

Another possibility is to expand refinery capacity in the Midwest in order to use more Canadian crude there.

[FogerRox]

5. PADIII has the least catalytic cracker capacity in the US

Makes more sense to load supertankers in Houston and send them to Europe.

[FarCenter]

6. PADD III has the most catalytic cracker capacity of all the PADDs

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXP/is_2006_Jan/ai_n26769576/

Table 29. Refinery net input of crude oil and petroleum products by PAD and refining districts, November 2005

[FogerRox]

7. Wow, really wrong, thanks.

[FogerRox]

8. And largely increased since then. thanks, I really hate being wrong, and you corrected me,

wrong, thanks again.

SO thats about 4mbd total US catalytic cracker capacity.... do I read that right?