ExpressLane
Verified User
Just fine with me if they pay for it. And if they operate it to US standards
KXL dead!
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
If this is a refinery issue, then why doesn't TransCanada just build more refineries in Canada instead?
For the hundredth time, that sludge is already being refined in the US.
So much is being refined that it's discounted because it's oversupplied.
What a fucking idiot.
Yes it is!
That is specifically what TransCanada said in their permit application for why they wanted this stupid thing in the first place.
You're the one who stupidly believes KXL means more oil for the US.
1. No it isn't. Even TransCanada says it isn't.
2. If it was, then why don't they just build more refineries in Canada?
You are really fucking stupid.
It is already going to the US and is being refined.
And there she blows. It never takes long for a lying leftist mental case to go full retard.
Hard to sell a commodity when the primary method of getting it to market is canceled. Try to be less of a lying, triggered, mental case.
I've made nothing BUT coherent, consistent arguments here.
You're the one who stupidly said that a larger market means increased supply. LOL...boy was that a doozy of a quote.
You, however, have changed your position no less than half a dozen times on this thread, abandoning tactics and resorting to fake quoting because you can't stand it that someone makes you look like the piece of trash you truly are.
I understand that I make you feel small and insignificant.
That's it, I had nothing else to say.
They seem to have no problem selling it to US refineries in the midwest...
I'm not the first person on this thread to raise this point with you, and both times you avoided it.
So if this is simply a refinery issue, why doesn't Canada just build more refineries up there?
How's that working out for you? Not well.
Your life must be pretty awful if you have to resort to these kinds of face-saving posts on JPP...
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Why don't you explain why they would need to and why it would be a bad idea?
Pipelines are a risky deal anyway as they are subject to environmental and/or terrorist disasters and cyber attacks. And when they leak, they end up causing serious environmental disasters.
For instance, PEMEX could sign a deal to supply Canada with gasoline or petroleum, and it would need a pipeline across America to transport it!
As the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, Canada sells almost all of its oil to one customer: the United States. Canada’s government and oil industry saw Keystone XL as an important export opportunity for the country. Canada has battled with pipeline bottlenecks that squeezed regional oil prices and forced producers to transport more of their oil south by rail.
The U.S, which has benefited from the rise of its domestic shale oil industry, still gets half of its oil imports from Canada (56% in 2019) because it’s cheaper to get it from our next-door neighbor than from Venezuela, OPEC or Russia. In addition, refiners in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast generally use the type of heavy oil that Canada produces. The lack of additional Canadian imports could force refiners to buy more oil from adversarial states.
The U.S. will likely continue to be an important and growing final destination for Canadian oil -- if not by the Keystone XL pipeline -- mostly by truck and rail, both avenues being more carbon-intensive means of transport. America’s rail capacity, which is also needed for other types of freight, could be stretched, possibly raising the cost of all rail capacity. The amount of crude oil shipped via rail from Canada to the U.S. increased from 7.8 million barrels in 2012 to over 110 million barrels in 2019. It can cost up to three times as much to ship oil by rail than by pipeline. It is projected that without the Keystone XL pipeline, at least 400,000 barrels per day will have to travel by rail.
Market demand for crude oil, not pipeline capacity, determines how much is produced and transported to refineries. Stopping the pipeline’s construction will not reduce the production or consumption of the additional market demand.
https://www.pumpsandsystems.com/why-did-us-canada-want-keystone-xl-pipeline
The U.S, which has benefited from the rise of its domestic shale oil industry, still gets half of its oil imports from Canada (56% in 2019) because it’s cheaper to get it from our next-door neighbor than from Venezuela, OPEC or Russia. In addition, refiners in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast generally use the type of heavy oil that Canada produces. The lack of additional Canadian imports could force refiners to buy more oil from adversarial states.
The U.S. will likely continue to be an important and growing final destination for Canadian oil -- if not by the Keystone XL pipeline -- mostly by truck and rail, both avenues being more carbon-intensive means of transport. America’s rail capacity, which is also needed for other types of freight, could be stretched, possibly raising the cost of all rail capacity. The amount of crude oil shipped via rail from Canada to the U.S. increased from 7.8 million barrels in 2012 to over 110 million barrels in 2019. It can cost up to three times as much to ship oil by rail than by pipeline. It is projected that without the Keystone XL pipeline, at least 400,000 barrels per day will have to travel by rail.
Market demand for crude oil, not pipeline capacity, determines how much is produced and transported to refineries. Stopping the pipeline’s construction will not reduce the production or consumption of the additional market demand.
https://www.pumpsandsystems.com/why-did-us-canada-want-keystone-xl-pipeline
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Do you mean US REPUBLICAN LACK OF STANDARDS or DEMOCRAT INDUCED STANDARDS?
So why would you want to change that?
Why would you want us to have to compete with China for Canada's oil?
And why do you care about Canadian oil companies?
So you believe that transport by rail, truck or ship is less risky? The FACTS are proven by the Allaska pipeline. The environmentalists made all kinds of lie filled claims of what would happen. None of them proved to be true. It is far safer and more economical to deliver oil by pipeline. Thise are the basic FACTS, and no amount of flailing or lying can change that.
Canada isn't an importer of oil. They priduce far more than their tiny population could ever consume. They are a major EXPORTER. Get some facts.
The one thing your copy-and-paste doesn't mention is that because of current supply lines, US Midwest refineries enjoy a steep discount on Canadian crude.
And those refineries would never need to import from adversarial states because TransCanada has nowhere else to sell their oil...womp womp.
Also, no one cares about the costs of transportation for a foreign oil company.
It never fails; debating with leftists always comes down to childish pratlle and lie filled rants.