Latest Breaking News

GitRDun

(1,846 posts)

11. I don't understand your answer

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:33 PM

Apr 2013

If they refined the tar sands up there, they can pipe large volume refined products out (safer) and truck or rail smaller volume refined product. My point was not that there would be no transport needs, just that you are transferring relatively safer refined products.

The First People reference was also puzzling. They are already piping dilbit around out there. I am merely suggesting connecting the existing pipe to some refining capacity.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Tar Sands Pipelines Should Get Special Treatment, EPA Says [View all] G_j Apr 2013 OP

It's a mistake to call what they carry "heavy crude" dpbrown Apr 2013 #1

I never saw the stuff watoos Apr 2013 #2

Simple logic should tell one that.... ReRe Apr 2013 #19

No doubt corrosive chemical reactions are also happening inside the pipe daleo Apr 2013 #41

It's not only corrosive from the toxins added to make it flow arikara Apr 2013 #42

Here's a description from an oil sands scientist daleo Apr 2013 #43

They heat it and mix it with diluting chemicals daleo Apr 2013 #22

Yep, lots of chemicals laundry_queen May 2013 #44

I wonder why GitRDun Apr 2013 #3

Exactly ... build refinery capacity up there Trajan Apr 2013 #5

Labor is cheaper in Texas than in Alberta daleo Apr 2013 #23

If they refined it in place they would still have to transport it to be shipped. Their ports freeze Vincardog Apr 2013 #6

I don't understand your answer GitRDun Apr 2013 #11

If they built refineries in Canada . . . another_liberal Apr 2013 #12

You guys are right on I think GitRDun Apr 2013 #15

Like so many other things, the current plan serves Charles and David Koch.......... wandy Apr 2013 #13

You mentioned climate... ReRe Apr 2013 #20

The largest selling product from the Tar Sands is syncrude FogerRox Apr 2013 #25

I can tell you why. kentauros Apr 2013 #32

The citizens in Alberta want that too. The climate there is not an issue laundry_queen May 2013 #45

Sheesh! GitRDun May 2013 #47

Who is paying for the Nite Owl Apr 2013 #4

They do not pay into the clean up fund because their sludge is not oil. Vincardog Apr 2013 #8

And they should pay rent EC Apr 2013 #9

I hope the EPA has some clout. Bannakaffalatta Apr 2013 #7

I don't think any agency with the word 'environmental' in it has any clout these days. olddad56 Apr 2013 #10

what`s needed is higher strength seamless corrosive proof steel . madrchsod Apr 2013 #14

Charles Pierce: Coming Down The Pipeline eridani Apr 2013 #16

guess I'm not the only with that horrible foreboding G_j Apr 2013 #24

only 45 days for public comment and they will trashcan those comments anyway. Sunlei Apr 2013 #28

I have said it 100 times for years. build refinaries right on the tar sands. Sunlei Apr 2013 #17

They have. #1 product from Tar Sands is syncrude, not bitumen. FogerRox Apr 2013 #26

good and I wish China and the Corp. investors would build their bitumen refinary there too. Sunlei Apr 2013 #27

Well, i wish you'd stop saying it then, Bannakaffalatta Apr 2013 #39

It's easy for the EPA to talk tough now that they know the fix is in byeya Apr 2013 #18

what fix G_j Apr 2013 #21

My guess is that the XL pipeline has already been approved and the EPA can seem to be byeya Apr 2013 #29

unfortunately G_j Apr 2013 #31

Tar sands are toxic, abrasive and corrosive. PDJane Apr 2013 #30

Who's going to convince the Harpoons? Bannakaffalatta Apr 2013 #40

Tar Sands kill, Oil pipelines spill riverbendviewgal Apr 2013 #33

Yes, I did know. PDJane Apr 2013 #34

Did you see the movie? riverbendviewgal Apr 2013 #35

No, I haven't. PDJane Apr 2013 #36

It is playing in the empire theatres riverbendviewgal Apr 2013 #37

wish it came out sooner in the US G_j Apr 2013 #38

That's playing right near my place laundry_queen May 2013 #46