Re: Keystone cancellation
|
?
touche!
Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted, especially oil tankers. Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available, yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.
------ Original Message ------
From: HomeOfLove69@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
?
<<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage.
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline, like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
The pipeline wouldn¡¯t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This ¡°extra¡± 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency (which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn¡¯t increase the total amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
?
Rhonda
?
|
