Why aren't environmentalists upset that 1 million barrels will be traveling every day from Vancouver to Asia on the open ocean?

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

The Canadians don't want a pipeline from Hardesty to the West Coast because the environment is pristine.

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

The Canadians don't want a pipeline from Hardesty to the West Coast because the environment is pristine.

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

The Canadians don't want a pipeline from Hardesty to the West Coast because the environment is pristine.

View attachment 474791

I think the Transmountain pipeline is for crude oil and refined gasoline not tar sands.

Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will lead to $11.9B in losses for Canada, study says

www.msn.com

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

The Canadians don't want a pipeline from Hardesty to the West Coast because the environment is pristine.

View attachment 474791

I think the Transmountain pipeline is for crude oil and refined gasoline not tar sands.

Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will lead to $11.9B in losses for Canada, study says

www.msn.com

You are arguing economics and that's not your decision. That's the decision of the people financing this project. You are opposed to Keystone because you were told to oppose this project. It's not the government's job to decide what markets should do. That's called communism.

As for the project you linked... caveat emptor.

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

The Canadians don't want a pipeline from Hardesty to the West Coast because the environment is pristine.

View attachment 474791

I think the Transmountain pipeline is for crude oil and refined gasoline not tar sands.

Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will lead to $11.9B in losses for Canada, study says

www.msn.com

You are arguing economics and that's not your decision. That's the decision of the people financing this project. You are opposed to this project because you were told to oppose this project. It's not the government's job to decide what markets should do. That's called communism.

I know a bit about pipelines and the oil business. When the Keystone XL was in the news in 2011 there were so many obvious lies that I spent a lot of time looking into it. No one told me to oppose it.. That remark is quite insulting.

The issue is that the American landowners along the route don't want their property taken by the government for a boondoggle that only benefits Canada and China.

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

The Canadians don't want a pipeline from Hardesty to the West Coast because the environment is pristine.

View attachment 474791

I think the Transmountain pipeline is for crude oil and refined gasoline not tar sands.

Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will lead to $11.9B in losses for Canada, study says

www.msn.com

You are arguing economics and that's not your decision. That's the decision of the people financing this project. You are opposed to this project because you were told to oppose this project. It's not the government's job to decide what markets should do. That's called communism.

I know a bit about pipelines and the oil business. When the Keystone XL was in the news in 2011 there were so many obvious lies that I spent a lot of time looking into it. No one told me to oppose it.. That remark is quite insulting.

The issue is that the American landowners along the route don't want their property taken by the government for a boondoggle that only benefits Canada and China.

I worked in the oil and gas business for 37 years as an engineer and from what I have seen you argue tells me you don't know much about pipelines or the oil business. And you should be ashamed by your silly and dishonest arguments. In fact, your latest argument - imminent domain is even sillier than your they shouldn't do this because it's not economic argument. You are parroting the arguments of environmentalists.

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

We have 147 refineries in the US.

 

[jc456]

You're asking why environmentalists are upset about oil traveling by ship across the ocean from Canada to Asia?

Probably because the ocean has a population of *checks notes*...0.

So there's nobody who really cares to complain about boats traveling the ocean.

fk all the sea life is your answer?

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

If that oil were being sold to China there's a much much shorter pipeline route to the west coast with a much shorter shipping route to China.

The pipeline is going to the Gulf Coast refineries because that's where the refining capacity is.

View attachment 474762

We have 147 refineries in the US.

Yes, now look at the ranking of the largest ones and where spare capacity exists for long term supplies.

 

[surada]

You're asking why environmentalists are upset about oil traveling by ship across the ocean from Canada to Asia?

Probably because the ocean has a population of *checks notes*...0.

So there's nobody who really cares to complain about boats traveling the ocean.

fk all the sea life is your answer?

10 million bpd are moved in tankers on the oceans.

 

[ding]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

Tar Sands | RefineryReport.org - Oil Change International

It's a little more complicated than that for refineries. They need consistent feed stock. You should just admit you are opposed to production of petroleum from the tar sands in Alberta for environmental reasons rather than trying to justify your opposition on things you don't understand and have rationalized.

 

[ReinyDays]

I worked in the oil and gas business for 37 years as an engineer and from what I have seen you argue tells me you don't know much about pipelines or the oil business. And you should be ashamed by your silly and dishonest arguments. In fact, your latest argument - imminent domain is even sillier than your they shouldn't do this because it's not economic argument. You are parroting the arguments of environmentalists.

... as you parrot the oil industry's arguments ...

What I find offensive is your complete trust in government to do right by the environment over the interests of big business ... in 37 years of experience, you've never seen abuses, cheating or flagrant violations poo-poo'ed off by government inspectors? ... that's nuts, or should I say blind ... I was a landlord for about that long and it's obvious the government is heavily tilted towards landlords ... I took advantage but that doesn't mean I ignored the unfairness of the industry ...

If reclaiming strip mines was easy and cheap ... insurance companies would be jumping at the opportunity to underwrite those operations, that they don't is a clear sign it's too expensive, better to let the tax-payers pay ... Canada has a particularly poor history of this, just look at all the old strip mines ...

OTOH ... I'm fine with the pipelines ... properly operated and maintained, these are as safe as anything in our modern society ... and my understanding is that all blue-water oil tankers are double-hulled today ... but this is all pointless without oversight ... if no one's checking, business will ignore safety regulations in return for higher profits ... I don't believe for one second in your 37 years of experience you've never seen this ...

 

[surada]

You should actually read what I wrote. Instead of responding to something I didn't write.

Ding: "As for your ASSUMPTION that oil from Canada's oil sand are corrosive, I don't believe you know what you are talking about." ...
surada: "Its NOT an assumption.. Crude is graded .. Tar Sands are heavy, sour and corrosive."

Sounds like surada is responding to something you wrote ... not that I agree but surada's statement is in line with the article in the OP ... extraction and clean-up will cost more than the oil is worth ...

She never disputed anything I wrote in my previous post. All she did was repeat what had already been addressed. She has offered no evidence in support of her opinion.

As for the economic viability of producing the tar sands, I think it is safe to say that the operators who invested in the project and their investors who paid for the project would disagree with you.

Tar sands are deeply discounted.. about $29 a barrel, The Keystone export pipeline would make more money for the Canadians and the Chinese at the expense of the US.

And yet the producers are still producing from the fields. If they were losing money they would not be doing it.

Again... this has nothing to do with the benefit we get from importing oil from our neighbors.

We import oil from Mexico and Canada ... with about 7% coming from OPEC.

The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea. They just don't pay any taxes in the US.

I believe you have been misinformed about the Keystone Pipeline. Do you have a link that supports that The Keystone pipeline tar sands are strictly for sale oversea?

View attachment 474751


The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus, that's the whole point of by-passing the refineries in the Midwest that have been retooled to handle heavy, sour sludge to go to the Free Trade zones in Houston and Port Arthur. That's been the point since 2011.

Tar Sands | RefineryReport.org - Oil Change International

It's a little more complicated than that for refineries. They need consistent feed stock. You should just admit you are opposed to production of petroleum from the tar sands in Alberta for environmental reasons rather than trying to justify your opposition on things you don't understand and have rationalized.

I know about refineries. About 12 years ago several Midwest refineries were retooled at considerable expense to handle refining Tar sands.

 

[ReinyDays]

... You should just admit you are opposed to production of petroleum from the tar sands in Alberta for environmental reasons ...

The same reason we're opposed to outhouses built over creeks ... yes, much cheaper to keep clean, but what of the environmental damage of all the poop downstream? ...

 

[ding]

... You should just admit you are opposed to production of petroleum from the tar sands in Alberta for environmental reasons ...

The same reason we're opposed to outhouses built over creeks ... yes, much cheaper to keep clean, but what of the environmental damage of all the poop downstream? ...

At least you are being honest about your opposition.

But why do you think the Canadian government allows it if they don't believe it can be done without harming the environment?