Re: Keystone cancellation
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýOn? Monday, March 21, 2022 at 13:33 re:
?Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellati ¡
?Pat Trivers <[email protected]>said:
>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,
Cleanest oil????
>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.
>Pat
>
> >------ 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
>
>
>
--
Absum! -- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
|