OIL, what do you know about it?? (Page 16): Can you tell me what the map means ? Straight up is arguing that the cancelling of the XL pipeline has no effect on the amount of Canadian...

son of witless

WinkyTink wrote:

Note the green, proposed XL.

Can you tell me what the map means ? Straight up is arguing that the cancelling of the XL pipeline has no effect on the amount of Canadian oil going to international markets. I am trying to figure out how in the heck that can be true.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

It shows existing pipeline that is currently delivering Canadian oil from Hardesty to Steel City, Patoka (phase 1), Cushing (phase 2) and Port Arthur, Houston (phase 3).

The green line represents Phase 4 (Keystone XL) which is not constructed, from Hardisty through Baker to Steele City.

I'm not certain but the Phase 1 pipeline is 30 inch pipe while the proposed Phase 4 (XL) is 36" pipe.

StraightUP is correct (dying here). Canadian heavy Oil is traveling via existng pipe right now (+-10 yrs).
It is also traveling to Gulf coast refineries via rail and truck.

The speed and volume of delivery would go up significantly upon the green (XL) pipeline completion. Yes, with it's inherent hazards.

son of witless

WinkyTink wrote:

It shows existing pipeline that is currently deliv... (show quote)

So then Straight up is lying ? The XL shutdown cut the future delivery of Canadian Oil ?

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

son of witless wrote:

So then Straight up is lying ? The XL shutdown cut the future delivery of Canadian Oil ?

I won’t comment on the t***hfulness of SU. I’m too tired to read the 15 pages of blubber in this thread.

I can say that Canadian Oil is moving through 30” Keystone Pipeline to several refineries in Illinois and Texas.

I can speculate that when/if the 36” Keystone XL is completed, more oil will move faster, assuming flow bottlenecks are engineered out. So that would improve the future delivery of product to refineries or export terminals.

son of witless

WinkyTink wrote:

I won’t comment on the t***hfulness of SU. I’m too tired to read the 15 pages of blubber in this thread.

I can say that Canadian Oil is moving through 30” Keystone Pipeline to several refineries in Illinois and Texas.

I can speculate that when/if the 36” Keystone XL is completed, more oil will move faster, assuming flow bottlenecks are engineered out. So that would improve the future delivery of product to refineries or export terminals.

This was my point. If Canadian oil is flowing at a maximum then why build the new section that President Biden cancelled ? Why spend huge amounts of money if it does not increase to amount of product that you will get paid for ?

This is what I can't stand about our little Liberal Brothers. They post crap that can't be true. Why would Biden cancel a pipeline that didn't matter ? Yet that is what he is selling.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

son of witless wrote:

This was my point. If Canadian oil is flowing at a maximum then why build the new section that President Biden cancelled ? Why spend huge amounts of money if it does not increase to amount of product that you will get paid for ?

This is what I can't stand about our little Liberal Brothers. They post crap that can't be true. Why would Biden cancel a pipeline that didn't matter ? Yet that is what he is selling.

I think they place higher priority on 1) eliminating the oil & gas industry and 2) the overblown environmental concerns over the pipeline itself.

son of witless

WinkyTink wrote:

I think they place higher priority on 1) eliminating the oil & gas industry and 2) the overblown environmental concerns over the pipeline itself.

All of the highway infrastructure that Joe Biden brags he got the money for, likely has a bigger environmental impact than that pipeline.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

son of witless wrote:

All of the highway infrastructure that Joe Biden brags he got the money for, likely has a bigger environmental impact than that pipeline.

That is most likely true.... at least equivalent.

The Alaska Pipeline (800 miles, 48") has operated for 50 years with only one serious incident. An unknown person shot a hole in it allowing 16000 barrels of oil to flow out before the pipeline was shut down. Repairs took 21 hours. Most of the spill was recovered, the rest cleaned up.

I worked on the slope for 2 years. If we spilled a teaspoon of fuel, regulations required us to report it and take prescribed remedial action. The risks can be mitigated.

son of witless

WinkyTink wrote:

That is most likely true.... at least equivalent. ... (show quote)

I knew a guy who worked on that pipeline. He made so much money, that he was able to buy a nice piece of property back here in Pennsylvania.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

son of witless wrote:

I knew a guy who worked on that pipeline. He made so much money, that he was able to buy a nice piece of property back here in Pennsylvania.

My father-in-law worked it for two years as a pipe fitter. He came back to Detroit and bought a 14 unit apartment building.

Many of the guys squandered their money on expensive living while on the job.

son of witless

WinkyTink wrote:

My father-in-law worked it for two years as a pipe fitter. He came back to Detroit and bought a 14 unit apartment building.

Many of the guys squandered their money on expensive living while on the job.

I imagine the pipeline work was rough, and some wanted to party, when they weren't working.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

WinkyTink wrote:

I think they place higher priority on 1) eliminating the oil & gas industry and 2) the overblown environmental concerns over the pipeline itself.

The left EPA even signed off on the pipeline

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

jack sequim wa wrote:

The left EPA even signed off on the pipeline

Is that the epaulets? Organization as the right epa?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Tiptop789 wrote:

Is that the epaulets? Organization as the right epa?

Ot was Obama's scurrilous EPA that signed off, leaving him and his administration in knots.
The EPA had long been political, fulfilling the agendas of America's most extremist eco freaks, ignoring science.
Another example of state run political EPA can be found in California.
I am pro protecting California's Redwood forest. Because of extremists measures not allowing a single Redwood tree be cut, no forest thinning has occurred and the result, thousands of Redwood trees unnecessarily burned in forest fire's. Which is exactly the same policies for all but a small fraction of all California's forest,, which every year hit new record's of acres buying from lack of thinning prohibited by California EPA

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

jack sequim wa wrote:

Ot was Obama's scurrilous EPA that signed off, lea... (show quote)

I swear my phone has a mind of its own. I was trying to type "is that the same as the right EPA"? Not sure what happened. I agree, there's a lot of politics in these organizations. But it's the best we got.