Canada Dry on Tap: Houston’s New Link to the Clear-Cut North

That proposed underground pipeline linking Houston to the luscious bounty of Canadian strip-mined tar sands will sneak into Houston from the east, and won’t even make it inside Beltway 8, according to this map released by the State Department. The line is scheduled to carry up to 500,000 barrels a day of crude oil to Texas alone — probably more than 8 times as much oil as the successors to the Deepwater Horizon are currently delivering directly to the Gulf of Mexico.

TransCanada plans to stitch the pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to part of Texas and much of the Midwest.

The pipeline also would cross more than 30 rivers and streams in Texas and could run underneath the Big Thicket National Preserve, said environmentalists and landowners.

Texas and Oklahoma portions of the 2,000-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline are still under review; this Friday is the deadline for public comment on the draft environmental impact statement released in April.

[TransCanada VP Robert Jones] defended the project, saying pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. The company will use pipe that has been employed safely in Canada for years and bury it 4 feet deep, he said.

Jones also downplayed concerns about Houston’s air quality, saying the Canadian crude is replacing oil from other sources and has not led to changes in the refineries’ pollution permits.

But [Matthew] Tejada, of Air Alliance Houston, found fault with TransCanada’s position. He said the tar-sands crude when refined will emit higher levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter into the air than conventional oil.

Map: U.S. Department of State

45 Comment

  • But what Matthrew Tejada doesn’t realize is that all most Texans care about is cheap gasoline at the pump.

    A little oil in our oysters ain’t gonna hurt us, a little pollution aint’ gonna hurt us either.

    And who cares about the Canadian wilderness?

  • well that’s true.
    Highways and Pipelines. It doesn’t get more Texan than that. The other white meat. what?

  • GREAT NEWS!!! If a pipeline scares you, then you should live in Houston at all. Also, pipeline companies are extremely protective and cautious with their pipelines and obsessed with maintenance. If the lines has leaks are or problems, they lose a lot of money and will have to deal with lawsuits. If you are someone who likes to see a developer get slapped around and have not power in a situation, watch them with pipeline companies. I’ve seen it many of times.

    Also, at we least see Canada is much smarter than the US. In the US we have vast reserves of the same tar sands, but individuals that would rather see middle and lower class citizens suffer to “save” the environment have had the ability to extract the oil next to impossible.

    If people would grow up and learn, they would realize that we can never get off using oil in the forseeable future. Hurt production of oil and all of our lives become exponentially more expensive and the quality of the life plummets. The rising quality of life since 1900 is due to marvel of one of earth most useful natural resourse.

    How would our lives hurt without oil? Well, first you can throw away modern medicine. Oil formed the basis of all prescription and OTC medication that in tablet form. Even capsuled medication needs it to some extent. That just one of the many uses of oil that is overlooked.

    The list of things we get from oil makes us filling up at the gas station a minor use. I just wish more people were educated on how critical oil is to their daily life versus just fuel for their car.

    Also, if we stop using oil, it just means every body else will start using it and they won’t care if they use in a clean way. If we end all drilling on our coast, it just means other countries will drill there. They’ll just go outside the limits the US has on the sea and used direction drilling to get the same oil. Welcome to the real world. China and Russia are already doing this near Florida. And do you think they have the same precautions in drilling like we do?

  • China and Russia are already doing this near Florida. And do you think they have the same precautions in drilling like we do?
    __________________________

    No. They probably have better ones.

    Whose fault is that we are still oil-dependent? The fault of those who find no fault with the oil companies. And scream their latest mantra of “drill, baby, drill…”

    Destroying the environment in order to have oil is not an option for some. Some who do care about what they will leave their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

    Brazil is a leader in oil independence. We should have followed their lead a long time ago. I believe at this point 85% of the vehicles run on clean and efficient ethanol produced from sugar cane and the bulk of their electricity comes from hydroelectric systems. They will be using the oil income from the Atlantic reserves to build more ethanol refineries and more hydroelectric systems. While we continue to destroy our environment so the oil companies can get every last dime from every last drop. And the oil companies will not care what happens when the major reserves begin to deplete and most cannot afford gasoline. Or Vaseline.

  • Matt,

    I’m glad you brought up Brazil. It makes the clear point that oil independance doesn’t NOT mean cutting back on the use of oil.

    Brazil is AGGRESSIVELY drilling on land and on their coast. They are running pipelines all over their country to transport fossil fuels. If Obama’s idiotic moratorium would have taken place, the oil rigs that are tethered to the Gulf floor would have been pulled up and moved. Several companies have already stated that PetroBras would have signed leases for them to drill off of Brazil’s coast.

    Yes, Brazil uses a lot of ethanol, but that is supplemental their oil production so they don’t have to IMPORT oil. Not because they were being pro-environmental. Brazil’s ethanol production is hurting the environment more than oil ever would have. The primary reason for clear cutting rainforest in Brazil is to develop more farm land for ethanol production since they did not want to convert their existing farmland to ethanol.

    Brazil’s energy policy (which is a good to an extent) is that they don’t not want to depend on other nations for their energy needs. It’s also the reason they built one of the larget hydro electric power facilities in the world and flooded a large expanse of jungles to do it. Yes, they are independant.

  • Peak oil is an oil company scam.

    Just like BP.

  • Yes, Brazil uses a lot of ethanol, but that is supplemental their oil production so they don’t have to IMPORT oil.
    ______________________

    I don’t know how you can claim 85% of vehicles running on ethanol is “supplemental” but whatever as they say.

    The Brazilian government, despite the impression of some, is not allowing wholesale clear cutting of the Amazon basin. But it sounds good to say it is.

    They are for the most part independent of oil. Despite your implication that they are merely “supplementing” with ethanol and hydroelectric systems.

  • Matt,

    Check your number. Very few of these cars are not running on pure ethanol. Brazil uses a range of 10-22% ethanol added to regular gasoline mandated by law in the mid-70s. This is no different than the US’s current mandate of about 10% ethanol in gasoline. Brazil still uses a LOT

  • OOPS,

    Brazil still uses a LOT of oil.

    They export a large chunk of their ethanol around the world.

  • As for the rainforest, the greatest threat is not the controlled clear cutting in Brazil but the massive contamination by Texaco and Chevron in Ecuador. But, well, hey, their attitude is the same attitude as BP’s. A little oil ain’t gonna hurt us.

    As for how it all affects us down the road it seems that Brio isn’t really so safe and isn’t really so contained and at some point, well, there go another couple of neighborhoods in the Friendswood area.

    But hey, maybe Exxon-Mobil will give them 10 cents on the dollar and they can just go buy another house somewhere. For ten cents on the dollar.

  • I love when people who have no idea how the oil industry actually works post diatribes about what is “really happening” based on a series of websites blogs that they source material… cough,cough, looking at you Matt Mystery… By the way, please count up the number of petrochemical biproducts you have used to post a comment on this blog, here’s a hint, it’s more than 10.

  • so does everyone at least agree that refining tar sands for is oil is not only more expensive than drilling offshore but more ecologically damaging as well?

    i know the gulf is currently an oil slick, but i do find it odd that nobody bats an eye at a proposition like this when there’s still plenty of drilling and jobs to be created here in the gulf. without more jobs, that deficits going to grow a lot more regardless of how many budgetary cuts are made.

    as for getting off oil within our generation, it’s not going to happen unless we start building nuclear plants right now.

  • Brazil uses a range of 10-22% ethanol added to regular gasoline mandated by law in the mid-70s.
    ____________________________________

    “Gasoline sold in Brazilian service stations needs to have at least 25% anhydrous alcohol.”

    http://www.wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&id=1109&language=english

    There was a little monkeywrench tossed in when oil prices dropped. Volkswagen, no doubt encouraged by the oil industry, introduced the “dual fuel” vehicle.

    “By the middle of the 1980s, 96% of all new cars sold in Brazil were running on ethanol. In those days, Brazil went from having a serious shortage of supply to an excess of demand. When global oil prices dropped at the start of the 1990s, Brazilians went back to buying gasoline cars. By 2003, barely 10% of all new cars sold in Brazil were using ethanol.”

    And that’s 100% ethanol. There are still millions of cars in Brazil that run on 100% ethanol. And how many in the United States?

  • Exactly joel,

    That’s what so sad about all this. We have so much oil that easily accessable and close to the shores and can be obtains safely without having to drill at that extreme depth the Deepwater Horizon was drilling.

  • And no mention of the serious air pollution problem we have in Houston. Ahh well, at least I can drive my giant F-450 around at $3 a gallon (or less).

  • Matt,

    I suggest you check out this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

    It’s extremely well sourced. Pretty much each statement has referencing.

    The 25% blend occured in 2007. The 100% ethanol claim you are referring to are utilized in commercial fleets and government vehicles. In 2008-09, 100% ethanol vehicles started making a mark on the consumer light vehicle market.

    Brazil is down to having the E25 and E100 options.

    With all that said, you’re are still completely missing the concept that PaxMcKatz is making that Brazil will still expand it’s oil exploration. Brazil still will used into the future massive amounts of oil.

    They have a growing industries that need and produce petrochemicals. Sure, they reduced the need for oil for a vehicle fuel, but they increased their usage of oil for everything else. They also need oil to expand their roadsystem. They use primarily asphalt which comes directly from oil.

  • I’ve worked on a few Canadian tar sands projects. Canada will utilize this resource with or without a pipeline to Texas. Some of the tar refinery projects in Canada have gone way over budget because of the isolated location and extreme weather. They want to refine more of the oil in the U.S. because it is much easier due to our weather and infrastructure. We’ll still use the Canadian crude even if this pipeline doesn’t get built. It will just cost a little more and there will be less jobs created in Houston. This pipeline could potentially result in multi-billion dollar construction projects in Baytown.
    —————–
    Are people actually still thinking that Ethanol is the answer? I think the consensus is that Ethanol is a failure as a transportation fuel. We’ll move to electric vehicles before Ethanol.

  • jgriff,

    The ethanol we produced in the US is purely a farm susidy for corn. Higher quality ethanol can be produced from sugarcane like in Brazil. The issues is that our sugarcane growing region in the US is much less than that of Brazil.

    The big problem with ethanol is that it cannot be transported in pipeline. It has be moved by truck and rail. This makes it very expensive and have a much larger carbon footprint to produced compared to gasoline.

  • This is like listening to a couple of guys talk about the moon and the stars…..

    More specifically, a couple of blind guys sitting in a basement with no windows at midday and wearing blindfolds.

    Stick to real estate.

  • kjb, presuumably when you stated that the US has vast reserves of the same oil sands deposits as Canada you actually meant to say that relative to Canada we have vastly smaller reserves of a type of oil sands deposit that is completely different from that extracted in Canada that cannot be economically extracted using current technology.

  • This is like listening to a couple of guys talk about the moon and the stars…..
    More specifically, a couple of blind guys sitting in a basement with no windows at midday and wearing blindfolds.
    Stick to real estate.

    ———————————
    Who are you referring to?

  • The ethanol we produced in the US is purely a farm susidy for corn.</i<
    ———————————–
    Exactly. I’m wondering why it is even brought up in this conversation. I presume no one here is getting any of this subsidy money. The only sensible people who think that Ethanol is a fuel that can stop our oil consumption are people who have a financial stake in it. I thought that environmentalists had realized this and moved on.

  • Jimbo,

    I know we have vast reserves of tar sands. Whether they are the same type of oil/sand composition as the Canadian ones is up to a geologist/petrochem expert determine.

    Many of our tar sand areas are in the west were large areas of land have been placed into National Monument status which will prevent exploration and extraction. Who would have though Utah to have a thriving oil economy? I guess they just won’t now.

    There is some work happening in the Dakotas with tar sands. As far as I’ve read and researched, it’s in the early stages and no where near production level.

  • jgriff,

    Some environmentalist have. Have a couple of friends of the environmentalist bent that detest ethanol with a passion.

    They rather farmers take the refuse from the fields and turn it into bio-diesal. You’re ridding of waste and creating fuel. Not a bad concept. I don’t think the farmers have much incentive to do so since the decaying plant material enriches their soil.

  • Neither China or Russia are directionally drilling off the Florida Coast. China is currently negotiating an offshore exploration lease with Cuba but that is a hell of a long way from drilling. Other companies who have offshore leases with Cuba are based in Spain, Norway, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Brazil.

    It’s also funny you should bring up pipeline safety. 47% of the pipe that has been used in the Keystone project to date was sourced from an Indian manufacturer who the Federal government has determined were shipping pipe that did not meet Federal standards for almost two years up to the end of 2008. That pipe has now been buried without being pressure tested.

  • I really don’t consider wikipedia a reliable source of information and there are still pumps at gas stations that people with their personal vehicles, as opposed to their business vehicles, pull up to and pump 100% ethanol into. That’s from someone who lives part of the year in Sao Paolo. But what do they know, you know?

    Petrobras is building a pipeline. To transport ethanol. Any other questions?

  • Matt Mystery said:

    http://www.wharton.universia.n…..ge=english

    [Wharton (Business?) School said]:
    “…In those days, Brazil went from having a serious shortage of supply to an excess of demand. …”

    ——————————
    Wha?

  • Petrobras is building a pipeline. To transport ethanol. Any other questions?
    Yes. Is this ethanol pipeline less evil than a crude pipeline?

  • Just to clear up some facts and let you folks keep discussing this entertaining debate:

    – Chinese and other national companies indirectly or non-operating partnerships own many many leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, no one publicizes that.
    – Technically speaking pipeline industry is safer than production in terms of safety, public health and environmental effects. Unfortunately, as regulated as the pipeline industry is here, it is at least an order of magnitude less than Canadian and other Westernized nations. More accidents happen here per pipeline than anywhere else in the western world. Of course, it is better than in Indonesia or China.
    – Oil sands or tar reserves in the US including very limited National Monument lands are a small fraction of what is in Canadain tar sands.
    – To do US tar sand extraction, you will have to move millions of people in the Mountain West states.
    – If you think the current unregulated hydraulic fracking for shale gas is bad and damaging health & enviornment, think a couple of more orders of magnitude. This extraction and synthetic processing is worse than coal mining.
    – You need gasoline to be permenantly over $4 (in current prices) to see new major Canadian tar sands activities. Plus not to mention the environmental regulatory hurdles for new fields in Canada are getting tougher.
    – You can get more oil of the ground from many many exiting oil reserves/wells but it is cost prohibitive with current technology.
    – Govt gives you money to make ethanol. without which vegatables would be cheaper than soy! (Note: Our subsized soy, corn, cash crops etc are cheaper here than anywhere else in the world including sub-Saharan Africa)
    – Mandatory 10% Ethonal blend reduces your car gas mileage efficiency by 10-20%. Hence you put in more gasoline and we grow more ethanol. Win win for farmers & oil companies.
    – Rainforest destruction has gotten worse in Brazil since the sugar cane ethanol craze started. Plus there is a serious waste disposal cost.
    – Brazil has a lot of oil but it is sour, deeper underground, deeper offshore, more viscous, high sand content. Of of these factors contribute an increase to gasoline price.
    – US has one of the lowest taxes on gasoline consumption in the world … 38 cents per gallon which was enacted with gas was under a dollar.

  • I have a friend in Cuero (DeWitt County) who just leased their property for oil/gas. There is a great deal of lease activity in that whole area so maybe domestic drilling will pick up.

    I know, a lease does not a well make but a quick look at the RailRoad Commission web site does show recent drill permits granted in South Texas. It seems to be inching up from south of I-10, slowly making it’s way north of I-10.

  • It’s also funny you should bring up pipeline safety. 47% of the pipe that has been used in the Keystone project to date was sourced from an Indian manufacturer who the Federal government has determined were shipping pipe that did not meet Federal standards for almost two years up to the end of 2008. That pipe has now been buried without being pressure tested.
    _______________________

    Probably pipe Enron didn’t use in Bhopal…

  • Yes. Is this ethanol pipeline less evil than a crude pipeline?
    ____________________________

    Considering that ethanol from sugar cane is 90% “clean burning” as in doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gases, I would say, yes, it’s less evil.

  • Brazil has a lot of oil but it is sour, deeper underground, deeper offshore, more viscous, high sand content. Of of these factors contribute an increase to gasoline price.
    ________________________

    Makes you wonder why then all the companies are planning to drill there. Maybe because they know the major reserves of “sweet crude” is finally being depleted?

    Let’s get back to real estate. And Brio. The Texas version of Love Canal. Coming soon, no doubt, to a backyard near you if you live near it.

  • And by the way this is the second time the government in Brazil has said “wait a minute” with regard to the rainforest. The first time was when American billionaire DK Ludwig thought he could make another billion off all the lumber in the Amazon. And Brazil said, “wait a minute.” The government of Brazil is not allowing the rainforest to be compromised but it certainly is a good diversionary tactic for the oil company apologists who don’t want anyone to know what they’ve done to the rainforest in Ecuador.

    What the apologists don’t know is even the beer-swilling bubbas who supported George W Bush have finally figured out the oil companies lie. Along with our government.

  • I’ve ‘enjoyed’ this discussion. It concerns us all. I concur, Matt Mystery, that no company is looking out for the fish, frogs, apes or rainforest. No fish, frogs, apes or trees are on Boards of Directors.

  • A few corrections for Matt Mystery:

    Texaco no longer exists. It was bought by Chevron in 2001.

    Chevron doesn’t operate in Ecuador. Texaco operated there some time ago, cleaned up the waste, and turned the operations over to the Ecuador national oil company, which is the entity wholly responsible for the pollution in the jungle.

    ExxonMobil was not responsible for the Brio site, although it was near an Exxon operated oil field. There’s no reason for ExxonMobil ot have to pay to buy out houses in that area.

    Enron had nothing to do with Bhopal. That was a Union Carbide (now part of Dow Chemical) disaster.

    Brazil has lots of ethanol because lots of rain forest was cut down to grow sugar cane. The area in the US that can grow sugar cane is small, and unable to supply enough sugar for food, much less fuel.

    Brazil may be building a pipeline for ethanol. That’s the only thing that line can ship, as ethanol doesn’t play well with other liquids. In the US, pipelines are used for multiple products, making ethanol shipment impossible, as there’s no way to eliminate the water those liquids contain. Building an ethanol only pipeline isn’t economic in the US due to the dispersed nature of ethanol plants, and the geographic distance to the users.

  • http://www.chevroninecuador.com
    http://www.chevrontoxico.com
    http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/25/a-16-billion-problem.html

    Funny how Chevron is still in court in Ecuador.

    http://www.ultimateclearlake.com/2010/06/nov-14-2003-superfunds-brio-cleanup-completed-after-14-years

    Sorry I thought Exxon-Mobil was part of the “task force” of “responsible parties” but it was, well, Chevron!

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/123001a.html

    I confused Dabhol with Bhopal.

    http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Brazil_Says_Ethanol_Having_Little_Impact_On_Amazon_Basin_999.html

    I guess it depends on who you want to believe. I believe the government. If the government didn’t believe in the importance of preserving the ecosystem of the Amazon, DK Ludwig would have cut down the Amazon a long, long time ago.

  • From jgriff:
    “Petrobras is building a pipeline. To transport ethanol. Any other questions?
    Yes.”


    Is this ethanol pipeline less evil than a crude pipeline?
    ———————-
    Putting aside the ridiculous idea of whether or not a pipeline can be evil, I think that an ethanol spill could be in many circumstances worse for the environment, depending on the type/extent of the spill and the location of the spill.
    Ethanol is miscible in water, so if it spilled into a water body, I would expect immediate fatalities of nearly all nearby non-benthic species under water. Oil doesn’t do this.
    Ethanol would be able to reach the groundwater more quickly than nearly all, if not all, components in crude oil. You would barely have any time to react to a spill in an area with shallow groundwater.
    And if there’s a significant amount of methanol in the ethanol, you’re screwed. Hello blindness.

    True, the ethanol would evaporate much more quickly, so that would be one advantage, but let’s not pretend it’s environmental friendly either.

  • From Matt Mystery:
    Yes. Is this ethanol pipeline less evil than a crude pipeline?
    ____________________________

    Considering that ethanol from sugar cane is 90% “clean burning” as in doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gases, I would say, yes, it’s less evil.
    —————————————
    So you’re saying there’s no emissions of GHGs attributable to the energy needed to fertilize, plant, harvest, process, tranport, and distribute ethanol?

    I think when the GHG accounting rules take effect soon, you’ll see how untrue this is.

  • Considering that ethanol from sugar cane is 90% “clean burning” as in doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gases, I would say, yes, it’s less evil.
    __________________________

    Some will argue with anything. Clean-burning as in what comes out of the tailpipe of the cars. I think ethanol from corn is only 30% clean burning. But we can only produce ethanol from corn. How dare the Brazilians be able to produce it from sugar cane. And make us pay for it. Some of the ethanol at your gas pump is from Brazil. No doubt at some point the bubbas will scream that it is OUR ethanol and demand we liberate it.

  • From Matt Mystery:
    “Some will argue with anything.”
    ————————————–
    Then I’ll take that you now accept my point. And, yeah, I do have this CRAAAAAZY tendency to offer facts and a counterargument when I see someone trying to pass of a bunch of BS as fact.

    “Clean-burning as in what comes out of the tailpipe of the cars. I think ethanol from corn is only 30% clean burning.”
    ————————————-
    What (?!?!?!?!?) are you talking about?
    Define “clean burning”. Are you saying that 30% of “corn ethanol” would exit the tailpipe as uncombusted ethanol? And with “sugar cane ethanol” burned in the very same engine, only 10% of the ethanol leaves uncombusted? How can two forms of ethanol be chemically different? Does ethanol have two structural isomers I’m not aware of?
    Or perhaps the other non-clean portion of corn ethanol is something besides uncombusted ethanol, like soot? If so, it must have been measured from the exhaust of THE most inefficient R.I.C.E. ever known to mankind. In that case, I think they could use this engine to make carbon black and forget about powering cars with it. Again, how would sugar cane ethanol be significantly different from corn ethanol when burned in the engine?

    Please explain where you’re getting your science from, without blaming Bubba or the government.

  • What (?!?!?!?!?) are you talking about?
    ____________________________________

    I did the google and links thing last night. You’re on your own. Clean burning as in how much of the emissions contribute to “greenhouse gases.” Only 10% of the emissions from ethanol produced from sugar cane contribute to the “greenhouse gases.” Much less than the 70% of the emissions from ethanol produced from corn. As in less polluting. I don’t have the percentage for pure gasoline. But you’re more than welcome to find them on their own.

  • “I did the google and links thing last night. You’re on your own.”
    ——————
    You have no leg left to stand on. Your argument in #44 is back to the same as in #32, which I already refuted in #39. You have no arguments left.
    Stick to real estate; don’t dabble in science when you don’t understand it. Without really comprehending the content within these articles when you find them, all the links in the world won’t help.

    When it comes to science/engineering-related articles like this, it might help to ask more questions and make fewer strong assertions. I, for instance, have no business comparing the relative merits of Art Deco vs. Modern, or which style would be the best for which neighborhood in Houston (but I have become interested as a result of Swamplot and HAIF) because I would be lost.

  • Environmentalist = anti-humanist, an odd off-shoot of the human species, that theortically should perish from Darwinism but thrives as a life-threatening parasite to regular humans.