Maybe the Keystone Pipeline isn't going to be a huge economic boom.

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
What a huge shocker.

Keystone XL is facing a new challenge: The oil producers and refiners the pipeline was originally meant to serve aren't interested in it anymore.

Delayed for nearly a decade by protests and regulatory roadblocks, Keystone XL got the green light from President Donald Trump in March. But the pipeline's operator, TransCanada Corp., is struggling to line up customers to ship crude from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast, say people familiar with the matter.

TransCanada Chief Executive Russ Girling remains committed to completing Keystone XL and believes it will prove profitable in the long term, say two people familiar with his thinking. But it may be years before the company recoups its investment in the pipeline, these people say.

TransCanada has spent $3 billion to date on Keystone XL, much of it on steel pipe, land rights and lobbying. Completed, the pipeline would travel 1,700 miles from Alberta to Steele City, Neb., where it would link up with existing pipelines that run to the Gulf Coast.

The lack of interest has put the pipeline's fate in jeopardy. The company, based in Calgary, Alberta, has said it wants enough customers to fill 90% of Keystone's capacity before it proceeds. It started to aggressively court potential customers earlier this year as it seeks to meet that target, according to people familiar with the situation.

TransCanada expects the pipeline, which would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day, to cost $8 billion, compared with its initial estimate of $7 billion. The company took a $2 billion write-down related to the pipeline last year.

A TransCanada spokesman said the company is making progress with customers and anticipates it will firm up support in coming months. The company has said construction could begin next year and finish as early as 2020.

The uncertain outlook for Keystone XL stands in contrast to Mr. Trump's upbeat rhetoric in March. The president invited Mr. Girling to the Oval Office and announced he was reversing an Obama administration move to block construction, declaring, "It's going to be an incredible pipeline, greatest technology known to man."

But much has changed in the oil markets since TransCanada first filed an application with the State Department in 2008 for a cross-border permit.

Back then, the price of oil had surpassed $130 a barrel, producers were rushing to pump as much as possible and refiners were itching to secure steady supplies. Today, oil is trading around $45 amid a global supply glut caused in part by the emergence of American shale drillers.

Refiners want the flexibility of being able to buy oil from wherever it is cheapest. In a world awash in low-price oil, Canadian crude doesn't look as attractive as it once did. Many refiners thus far are unwilling to commit to long-term deals for Canadian crude, say people familiar with the matter.

"A lot of water has gone under the bridge over the last seven or eight years since we proposed that project with respect to where energy prices are today," Mr. Girling told investors in May. "So it all sort of complicates the negotiation."

Meanwhile, uncertainty about output growth from Canada's oil sands has given producers pause about signing long-term agreements for space on a pipeline they may not need, people familiar with the matter say.

While forecasters predict production there will grow into the next decade, largely due to investments already made, some analysts warn increases beyond that are far from assured. The oil-sands industry faces potential regulatory headwinds as Canada seeks to reduce carbon emissions to comply with global climate agreements.

Some shippers are choosing to move crude out of Canada by rail. Transporting crude to U.S. refineries this way is $2 to $8 a barrel more than pipeline tolls, which average around $8.50 a barrel from Alberta to Texas, according to analysts. But rail shipments generally don't require long-term commitments.

While Keystone XL stalled for years, other projects moved forward. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that Enbridge Inc.'s expansion of an existing pipeline connecting Alberta and Superior, Wis., will be completed by 2019, while Kinder Morgan Inc.'s expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia will be finished by 2020. They predict Keystone XL may not be finished until 2021.

Keystone XL still requires final approval from Nebraska and faces the prospect of additional protests from a reinvigorated antipipeline movement in the U.S. following the fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The other pipeline projects face similar obstacles.

TransCanada is betting the demand that spurred the project still exists. Analysts project that over the long term the Gulf Coast's demand for Canadian crude will rise as oil imports from Venezuela and Mexico fall.

The company's U.S.-denominated shares have risen by almost 50% since President Barack Obama blocked Keystone XL in November 2015, signaling the market's belief that the company can afford to move on.

Investors warmed to TransCanada after the company bought Columbia Pipeline Group Inc. for about $10 billion in 2016, a deal which offers the opportunity to expand its natural-gas operations in the U.S. Northeast. Revenue from TransCanada's power operations has continued to grow, as has its natural-gas pipeline business, which expanded into Mexico.

"We don't own TransCanada because of Keystone," said Rob Thummel, portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital Advisors LLC, which manages about $16 billion. "We own it because of the potential for expansion of natural-gas infrastructure in the Northeast."

Write to Christopher M. Matthews at [email protected] and Bradley Olson at [email protected]
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,563
152
63
Saw that. You'd have thought that our nation's entire economic future hinged on the completion of this pipeline.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
Saw that. You'd have thought that our nation's entire economic future hinged on the completion of this pipeline.
I remember the whackos claiming thousands of jobs created, millions in revenue, etc.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Doesn't seem at current oil prices the payback is worth the investment in the short run. 10 years ago may have been a different story. The jobs would've been created either way, if the payback time wasn't so long.
 

mule_eer

Freshman
May 6, 2002
20,438
58
48
Doesn't seem at current oil prices the payback is worth the investment in the short run. 10 years ago may have been a different story. The jobs would've been created either way, if the payback time wasn't so long.
Even if the pipeline would have been given a green light in 08, how long did oil prices stay that high, a couple of years? They would have been low shortly after the work was done.

The jobs issue always concerned me. Obviously, that project has a lot of construction work. Who gets that contract, Americans or Canadians? How many long-term jobs are involved? Who gets those?

My point is that I don't think this is the cash cow it has been painted to be.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,763
113
In this thread we see 2 members of Left celebrating the non-creation of American jobs. Pretty telling.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
In this thread we see 2 members of Left celebrating the non-creation of American jobs. Pretty telling.
Pipeline job creation would come at the expense of rail jobs. Takes fewer pipeline jobs to replace more rail jobs.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
In this thread we see 2 members of Left celebrating the non-creation of American jobs. Pretty telling.
Come on.....sustainability is a legitimate desire. Environmentalism is a legitimate cause. Don't act like liberals just want to kill jobs.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,563
152
63
I never saw how it was going to be a huge boom for the US.
Many proponents made the case for it and that's fine, their arguments are well documented. There are many, many large pipeline projects underway and on the drawing board in this country. Some will get built and some won't. With the rise in oil and gas production in the U.S., I can't imagine a better time for pipeline construction companies and their workers.
 

torontoeers

Freshman
Nov 20, 2010
13,452
71
0
Tar Sands oil requires a minimum of 60 bucks a barrel (steam assisted extraction) and 75 bucks a barrel (stand alone mine) to generate a minimal profit...no wonder the investors want to jump ship. China actually owns a good percentage of the tar sands...the trade off was their investment to create Canadian jobs, years ago. Increasing amounts are being shipped over there from what I understand, although I am unaware of the actual percentages...for those in favor of rail, many of the routes go right through cities, towns and villages. 47 dead from massive explosions and fire in Lac Megantic Quebec 4 years ago, transporting oil from Montreal to Maine...I can't imagine the horror the victims and surviving families have had to endure...not that pipelines are by any means perfect...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster
 

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
One reason we need this pipeline and others is to have energy resources readily available when the supply/demand is in the customers' favor, including at the pump. Our current oil/gas transmission system doesn't respond well to the market. This is a great time for this type of construction as well as infrastructure. Instead of shovel ready jobs that aren't there, we have shovel (with tracks) ready jobs ready to employ a broad spectrum of professionals. A lot of work, albeit FDR-ish, to be done. We should build up the transmission lines to reduce the excuses for Big Oil to control the price every time a storm pops up in the Gulf. Heck, if we could rely on steadily low priced fuel, we more comfortably tax gasoline. Libs should get behind this and start figuring ways to waste this tax revenue.
 

torontoeers

Freshman
Nov 20, 2010
13,452
71
0
One reason we need this pipeline and others is to have energy resources readily available when the supply/demand is in the customers' favor, including at the pump. Our current oil/gas transmission system doesn't respond well to the market. This is a great time for this type of construction as well as infrastructure. Instead of shovel ready jobs that aren't there, we have shovel (with tracks) ready jobs ready to employ a broad spectrum of professionals. A lot of work, albeit FDR-ish, to be done. We should build up the transmission lines to reduce the excuses for Big Oil to control the price every time a storm pops up in the Gulf. Heck, if we could rely on steadily low priced fuel, we more comfortably tax gasoline. Libs should get behind this and start figuring ways to waste this tax revenue.
In all seriousness Priddy...then we all better hope for more cost effective ways to extract this Alberta oil from the sand. And ideally fairly environmentally responsible ones...as I have understood it is getting better but nowhere close to making a 45 dollar barrel profitable not sure they even break even at that rate....2nd largest oil reserve in the world and incredibly difficult to profit from it for anyone at this stage....I tend to agree somewhat on being pro active on this now however...although pro active isn't exactly what anyone has seen with this file in the past...on both sides of the border....this will be interesting.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
Even if the pipeline would have been given a green light in 08, how long did oil prices stay that high, a couple of years? They would have been low shortly after the work was done.

The jobs issue always concerned me. Obviously, that project has a lot of construction work. Who gets that contract, Americans or Canadians? How many long-term jobs are involved? Who gets those?

My point is that I don't think this is the cash cow it has been painted to be.
It would have been huge had it been built prior to 2014.
 

American Fabius

Redshirt
May 21, 2017
246
0
0
In this thread we see 2 members of Left celebrating the non-creation of American jobs. Pretty telling.
The reality is you see smart Americans exposing Republican party ignorance. The GOP pretended for years that pipeline was an economic boon being sabotaged by money hating tree huggers and welfare loving, job hating Dems. The reality though, is right in front of your face, as it has been all along. Now your ignorance is exposed. Still trying to use that fake job hating card though. Go for it. You look as stupid using it now as you did then.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
The reality is you see smart Americans exposing Republican party ignorance. The GOP pretended for years that pipeline was an economic boon being sabotaged by money hating tree huggers and welfare loving, job hating Dems. The reality though, is right in front of your face, as it has been all along. Now your ignorance is exposed. Still trying to use that fake job hating card though. Go for it. You look as stupid using it now as you did then.
It was an economic boon that was sabatoged by idiot liberal envirowhackos. Billions of dollars that were there to be made were blocked by idealistic morons.
 

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
The reality is you see smart Americans exposing Republican party ignorance. The GOP pretended for years that pipeline was an economic boon being sabotaged by money hating tree huggers and welfare loving, job hating Dems. The reality though, is right in front of your face, as it has been all along. Now your ignorance is exposed. Still trying to use that fake job hating card though. Go for it. You look as stupid using it now as you did then.
That's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Typical of you.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,763
113
The reality is you see smart Americans exposing Republican party ignorance. The GOP pretended for years that pipeline was an economic boon being sabotaged by money hating tree huggers and welfare loving, job hating Dems. The reality though, is right in front of your face, as it has been all along. Now your ignorance is exposed. Still trying to use that fake job hating card though. Go for it. You look as stupid using it now as you did then.
5-10 years ago when gas $3-4 a gallon at the pump on average, it was a great idea. It's still a great idea.
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
Perhaps. Rail jobs are pretty flexible because multiple industries use rail.
Too bad that we all cannot see into the future as a few have been able to access the past. Did the US take a great loss in the construction? Were well paying jobs not available when sorely needed by the procrastination of government officials? All is not lost by acting on the project. It was all about future of an industry that has a history of substantial fluxuation