Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another train hauling oil derails

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Doc, they would not mix the two types oil in one pipeline would they? Bakken is sweet, light crude and the Canadian Tar Sands oil in very heavy and toxic. If they mixed them that would make the Bakken less valuable, correct?

    Or would a new pipeline just take pressure off of the already existing pipeline and let one handle Canadian Oil and one handle Bakken? I understand that the refineries at Alton, Ill which is across the Mississippi River from my county are expanding their technology and capacity to be able to handle Canadian Tar Sand oil or bitumen. As I understand it an existing pipeline runs just about the same route as the XL line, is that correct?

    If bitumen is more difficult to refine surely they won’t mix the oils in one pipe? So is what they are wanting to do, is just to run another pipeline parallel to an existing pipeline? One story I read some time ago implied that, but there is so much stuff being tossed out there in the press and among the anti-pipeline propagandists that I am not for sure what to believe.
    Homo homini lupus

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jannie View Post
      Doc, they would not mix the two types oil in one pipeline would they? Bakken is sweet, light crude and the Canadian Tar Sands oil in very heavy and toxic. If they mixed them that would make the Bakken less valuable, correct?

      Or would a new pipeline just take pressure off of the already existing pipeline and let one handle Canadian Oil and one handle Bakken? I understand that the refineries at Alton, Ill which is across the Mississippi River from my county are expanding their technology and capacity to be able to handle Canadian Tar Sand oil or bitumen. As I understand it an existing pipeline runs just about the same route as the XL line, is that correct?

      If bitumen is more difficult to refine surely they won’t mix the oils in one pipe? So is what they are wanting to do, is just to run another pipeline parallel to an existing pipeline? One story I read some time ago implied that, but there is so much stuff being tossed out there in the press and among the anti-pipeline propagandists that I am not for sure what to believe.
      That's probably why Keystone XL uses the term "support" the movement of Bakken crude by taking some of the pressure off or freeing up some capacity some where else.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jannie View Post
        Doc, they would not mix the two types oil in one pipeline would they? Bakken is sweet, light crude and the Canadian Tar Sands oil in very heavy and toxic. If they mixed them that would make the Bakken less valuable, correct?
        Yes, different products can be sent through the same pipeline. They put a "pig" between the different liquids being sent:


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

        Different types of "pig."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
          Doc, they would not mix the two types oil in one pipeline would they? Bakken is sweet, light crude and the Canadian Tar Sands oil in very heavy and toxic. If they mixed them that would make the Bakken less valuable, correct?

          Or would a new pipeline just take pressure off of the already existing pipeline and let one handle Canadian Oil and one handle Bakken? I understand that the refineries at Alton, Ill which is across the Mississippi River from my county are expanding their technology and capacity to be able to handle Canadian Tar Sand oil or bitumen. As I understand it an existing pipeline runs just about the same route as the XL line, is that correct?

          If bitumen is more difficult to refine surely they won’t mix the oils in one pipe? So is what they are wanting to do, is just to run another pipeline parallel to an existing pipeline? One story I read some time ago implied that, but there is so much stuff being tossed out there in the press and among the anti-pipeline propagandists that I am not for sure what to believe.
          The technology to send different fuels through the same pipeline has been around for a long time, I remember them doing that when I was just a kid in the 50s and was totally amazed.
          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jannie View Post
            Doc, they would not mix the two types oil in one pipeline would they? Bakken is sweet, light crude and the Canadian Tar Sands oil in very heavy and toxic. If they mixed them that would make the Bakken less valuable, correct?

            Or would a new pipeline just take pressure off of the already existing pipeline and let one handle Canadian Oil and one handle Bakken? I understand that the refineries at Alton, Ill which is across the Mississippi River from my county are expanding their technology and capacity to be able to handle Canadian Tar Sand oil or bitumen. As I understand it an existing pipeline runs just about the same route as the XL line, is that correct?

            If bitumen is more difficult to refine surely they won’t mix the oils in one pipe? So is what they are wanting to do, is just to run another pipeline parallel to an existing pipeline? One story I read some time ago implied that, but there is so much stuff being tossed out there in the press and among the anti-pipeline propagandists that I am not for sure what to believe.
            They already mix the tar sand oil with lighter hydrocarbon liquids. It won't flow otherwise. The liquid that flows through the pipeline is diluted bitumen (Dilbit).

            The only problem with intermingling the two oils is that it could reduce the price paid to the Bakken producers. Operators would have to weigh the lower sales price against the higher cost of truck and rail transport.

            Enbridge is building a dedicated pipeline for Bakken production.

            http://blog.ihs.com/new-pipe-caters-...oil-sands-flow

            70% of Bakken oil is transported by truck and/or rail. So there is a deep market for pipeline capacity in the Williston Basin.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Andy H View Post
              Hi Dave

              Just how does the pipeline enhance US energy security?

              Whilst I can appreciate the ease of derailing a train, its no harder to blow a hole in a pipeline etc.

              Regards

              Andy H
              Hi

              It seems that the phrase enhance US energy security was just an exercise in sophistry, which ticks some 'important consideration' boxes as detailed out by some PR or Focus group but actually means nothing of any meaningful consequence.

              Regards

              Andy H
              "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

              "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Andy H View Post
                Hi

                It seems that the phrase enhance US energy security was just an exercise in sophistry, which ticks some 'important consideration' boxes as detailed out by some PR or Focus group but actually means nothing of any meaningful consequence.

                Regards

                Andy H
                It enables us to import more oil from Canada and less from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and other less North American countries. This enhances US national security in ♤♤♤♤.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  It enables us to import more oil from Canada and less from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and other less North American countries. This enhances US national security in ♤♤♤♤.
                  Hi Dave

                  Given that there's no credible threat to Canadian imports, its a false flag and you know it.
                  The pipeline only increases the flow, which you know is not what that phrase is implying.
                  You could just as easily argue that running more trains would enhance US energy security, but that wouldn't serve the Pipelines advocates would it?
                  Its a phrase that's been thrown in because they know it will play well to a certain segment of the audience.

                  Regards

                  Andy H
                  "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                  "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Andy H View Post
                    Hi Dave

                    Given that there's no credible threat to Canadian imports, its a false flag and you know it.
                    The pipeline only increases the flow, which you know is not what that phrase is implying.
                    You could just as easily argue that running more trains would enhance US energy security, but that wouldn't serve the Pipelines advocates would it?
                    Its a phrase that's been thrown in because they know it will play well to a certain segment of the audience.

                    Regards

                    Andy H
                    My post was actually written in English.

                    Keystone XL will increase the capacity to move crude oil from Canada to the United States.



                    Last edited by The Doctor; 09 Mar 15, 08:10.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X