Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another train hauling oil derails

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

  • The Doctor
    replied
    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, 09:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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 ♤♤♤♤.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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 wonít 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    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 wonít 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparlingo
    replied
    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 wonít 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    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 wonít 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    This pipeline is a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of the United States
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • ace
    replied
    And another reason to fund alternate fuel sources, you really don't get a fiery explosion with hydrogen or bio-fuel cells.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    First thing People see when they visit. See clarity comment.
    I had no trouble understanding it.

    There is no other way that a pipeline system from Alberta, through the Williston Basin, to mid-west and Gulf Coast refineries could support increased production from the Williston Basin.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    The main page is a short summary.
    First thing People see when they visit. See clarity comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    See now that is a clear statement. Should plainly state that on the main page.
    The main page is a short summary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    See now that is a clear statement. Should plainly state that on the main page.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X