Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I understand that it's safer when transporting oil but her point is the fact that we aren't transporting oil, we are transporting bitumen.
The concern that I have is that we were doing just fine up until the drop in oil prices, everyone was making money and everyone was happy. Now (and this seems to be the last 3 or 4 years) it seems that we need more, more, more but I'm unsure as to why.
And as far as Elizabeth Mays party or where she leans I was simply looking at arguments against what she is saying.
|
Bitumen is what comes out of the ground, but it gets upgraded. By the time it gets into the Keystone pipeline, it is a heavy oil, but not unlike other blends of heavy oil that is transported all across the world. Transporting bitumen-based heavy oil blends is no different than any other type of crude oil.
You can read about how oil is classified here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity
You are correct in saying that bitumen isn't great for transport, but every bit of oil going into transport pipelines (currently mostly enbridge and original keystone) has been upgraded. TransCanada (and Enbridge and Alliance and Kinder Morgan) has extremely strict guidelines on the quality of the product that flows through their pipelines - this includes API gravity, water, chemical, sediment etc. I know for a fact that no long range transmission pipeline would transport bitumen in its raw form.
For your other point, Keystone was started in 2006, Keystone XL was started in 2008 and Energy East was in 2014. While it's clear that the demand for capacity drives the design of the projects, the execution of the project is not predicated on current oil prices. These lines are supposed to last for 50 years, and once the need has been identified and the capital set aside, it really doesn't matter what the current oil price is at.
It only seems like a big deal because for some reason, Keystone XL became this massive political hand grenade, which makes it seem like any capacity expansion seem like "a big deal" or "wanting more." Otherwise, as has been noted, the length of ten KXL's have been built in the states in the last 8 years - it's really not as big of a deal as the media wants you to think it is, but it is great at getting clicks at the moment.
Edit: I re-read your question, and there have been multiple studies done that show diluted/upgraded bitumen behaves in exactly the same way as a heavy conventional oil. Here's a quote from the energy east website (take it for what it's worth, you can click through to the academic papers on the actual website if you care to):
Quote:
|
Oil sands bitumen has a consistency similar to that of peanut butter so it needs to be reduced in viscosity through the addition of a diluent in order to flow through the pipeline. Some opponents claim that pipelines carrying diluted bitumen – or “dilbit” – have more internal corrosion, and are therefore presenting safety risks. That is not true. Year after year, multiple studies conducted by some of the world’s leading and most respected scientific research organizations (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Battelle Memorial Institute, Penspen Institute and Natural Resources Canada…) have all concluded that dilbit behaves the same way as conventional crude oils and does not pose any additional risk when transported through pipelines.
|