Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 18:31:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 12:30:28 GMT -5
Stopping the construction of the pipeline will not stop the oil from coming to the US. However, other problems could be coming to light in regards to rail/oil, starting in Canada. Quote; The ripple effects of US President Joe Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline aren’t just being felt in the energy sector, farmers are keeping a watchful eye on how it’ll affect rail demand long-term.
“If the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline inevitably results in more oil-by-rail shipments, that creates a question of capacity and obviously we’re concerned about having sufficient takeaway capacity to get our commodities to market,” United Farmers of Alberta president Scott Bolton said.
The US project green-lighted by the Trump administration was designed to carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Alberta to Nebraska.
Without it, Canada’s rail resources will have added demand.
“Most of the oil rail goes north-south, heading towards the Gulf Coast…where as most of the grain trains head east-west. There’s less worry about congestion on rail lines and more competition for crews and resources,” Richard Masson, U of C. School of Public Policy Executive Fellow, said. globalnews.ca/news/7596107/farmers-concerned-over-rail-demand-following-keystone-xl-cancellation/
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 29, 2021 12:40:52 GMT -5
I know very little about this.
I do know that we already have a keystone pipeline, and this extension or whatever cuts through native land to be a shorter trip.
Is the existing Keystone pipeline functional? Why do we need an additional pipeline? Are they going to abandon the pipes that are there, or is this additional capacity?
After we build this one, do we need additional pipelines built to get it to Texas?
If we don't build it, and the oil is transported, do they need to use trains and trucks, or can they use the existing pipes. If they do use trains and trucks, will they go on existing railways and highways? Are those railways and highways through the same native land, or are they located elsewhere?
Could Canada build additional pipelines to relieve their train load, but match up with our existing infrastructure?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 29, 2021 13:10:16 GMT -5
We're not terribly fond of transporting it by train. In the early morning of 6 July 2013, a runaway train hauling 72 tankers filled with crude oil derailed as it approached the centre of the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The tanker cars exploded and the oil caught fire, killing 47 people and destroying many buildings and other infrastructure in the town centre. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lac-megantic-rail-disaster
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 18:31:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 13:11:06 GMT -5
Bolded is reference to the new 36" phase IV in construction that just had it's permit revoked. Quote; TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd,[14] abbreviated here as Keystone, operates four phases of the project. In 2013, the first two phases had the capacity to deliver up to 590,000 barrels (94,000 m3) per day of oil into the Midwest refineries.[15] Phase III has capacity to deliver up to 700,000 barrels (110,000 m3) per day to the Texas refineries.[16] By comparison, production of petroleum in the United States averaged 9.4 million barrels (1.5 million cubic meters) per day in first-half 2015, with gross exports of 500,000 barrels (79,000 m3) per day through July 2015.[17]
The proposed Phase IV, Keystone XL (sometimes abbreviated KXL, with XL standing for "export limited"[18]) Pipeline, would connect the Phase I-pipeline terminals in Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska, by a shorter route and a larger-diameter pipe.[19] It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added[12] to the Keystone's throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada. The pipeline became well known when Phase IV KXL attracted opposition from environmentalists, becoming a symbol of the battle over climate change and fossil fuels. In 2015 KXL was temporarily delayed by President Barack Obama. On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order[20] to revoke the permit[21] that was granted to TC Energy Corporation for the Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4).en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#:~:text=The%20Keystone%20XL%20Pipeline%20Project%20%28Phase%20IV%29%20revised,primarily%20to%20refineries%20in%20the%20Gulf%20Coast%20area%22.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,083
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 29, 2021 15:28:10 GMT -5
|
|