14 States sue Biden Administration over Suspension of Oil and Gas leases on Federal lands.

[Roch + 537]

Could be tough one to win.  The leases are "suspended" pending review. Of course the review will go on forever. 

There is talk of a legal case to be brought against Biden for killing the Keystone XL.  Could be some legal basis for such a claim. Possible for cancelling an existing contract without cause.  If it passed environmental review how can you stop it. 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/states-sue-undo-biden-pause-us-oil-gas-76657181 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Roch

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

The federal lands leasing moratorium will not make much difference. There are thousands of leases already in the hopper. This is entirely for show. By the time any permanent stop occurs, those federal lands will be under production. 

The Keystone is a different matter altogether. Stopping it jeopardizes national security. The pipeline guys were so incredibly arrogant that it defies belief. They were advised on multiple occasions that a gentle dogleg curve would take the pipeline away from the shallowest part of the Ogallala and the Indian Reservation. There were at least a dozen iterations. So of course, they chose the one that put them in harm's way. And they don't have a leg to stand on. 

This is all part of the overall war on fossil fuels, which the administration is currently winning. Just how much the world still relies on FF's was exemplified by getting a contained ship turned catywonkis in the Suez Canal. If the Straits of Hormuz became plugged, the world as we know it would slow down to a crawl. I'm not pulling for that to happen, but it might take something that disastrous for public outrage to prevail. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

35 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

The federal lands leasing moratorium will not make much difference. There are thousands of leases already in the hopper. This is entirely for show. By the time any permanent stop occurs, those federal lands will be under production. 

The Keystone is a different matter altogether. Stopping it jeopardizes national security. The pipeline guys were so incredibly arrogant that it defies belief. They were advised on multiple occasions that a gentle dogleg curve would take the pipeline away from the shallowest part of the Ogallala and the Indian Reservation. There were at least a dozen iterations. So of course, they chose the one that put them in harm's way. And they don't have a leg to stand on. 

This is all part of the overall war on fossil fuels, which the administration is currently winning. Just how much the world still relies on FF's was exemplified by getting a contained ship turned catywonkis in the Suez Canal. If the Straits of Hormuz became plugged, the world as we know it would slow down to a crawl. I'm not pulling for that to happen, but it might take something that disastrous for public outrage to prevail. 

Mr. Maddoux I do understand the ramifications of Keystone. However it is time to look at what I call the big picture.

This administration/movement is inciting anger and discord in every corner of American society. 

Racism

Wealth inequality

Energy production 

Federal money allocations 

Border/Immigration 

PRESIDENTAL mandates @ rates never before seen

Dismantling city police forces

Standing down the entire US military.

Eliminating congressional procedures 

Federalizing US election laws

The revolution is here, it no longer lives in the shadows. 

Washington DC the nation's capital surrounded with barb wire, under the Gaurd of troops..

Mr. van Eck has a great distaste to wade into such conversations. Yet at the same time the American constitution is being smothered.

@Jan van Eck

[notsonice + 1,062]

On 3/25/2021 at 11:36 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

The federal lands leasing moratorium will not make much difference. There are thousands of leases already in the hopper. This is entirely for show. By the time any permanent stop occurs, those federal lands will be under production. 

The Keystone is a different matter altogether. Stopping it jeopardizes national security. The pipeline guys were so incredibly arrogant that it defies belief. They were advised on multiple occasions that a gentle dogleg curve would take the pipeline away from the shallowest part of the Ogallala and the Indian Reservation. There were at least a dozen iterations. So of course, they chose the one that put them in harm's way. And they don't have a leg to stand on. 

This is all part of the overall war on fossil fuels, which the administration is currently winning. Just how much the world still relies on FF's was exemplified by getting a contained ship turned catywonkis in the Suez Canal. If the Straits of Hormuz became plugged, the world as we know it would slow down to a crawl. I'm not pulling for that to happen, but it might take something that disastrous for public outrage to prevail. 

The Keystone is a different matter altogether. Stopping it jeopardizes national security.??? how much oil is being shipped into the US by rail today without the Keystone??? less than 200,000 barrels a day or around 300 rail cars a day. Do you think that without the pipeline that the US national security is jeopardized??? What a joke.  Canada's national security in the future might be affected as they cannot flood the US with oil. In the next year the expansion on Trans Mountain will be completed and you will see Canada with an excess of 500,000 barrels a day in pipeline capacity. The only reason why anyone would defend the Keystone is they want to see more Canada flood into the US. What does that do for the US? Put US Oil companies out of business? Great for US national security? what a joke.  Canada would love to being able to crank up production by another million barrels a day. More oil and the price of WTI drops, MAGA?

Edited March 27, 2021 by notsonice

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

17 minutes ago, notsonice said:

The Keystone is a different matter altogether. Stopping it jeopardizes national security.??? how much oil is being shipped into the US by rail today without the Keystone??? less than 100,000 barrels a day or around 140 rail cars a day. Do you think that without the pipeline that the US national security is jeopardized??? What a joke.  Canada's national security in the future might be affected as they cannot flood the US with oil. In the next year the expansion on Trans Mountain will be completed and you will see Canada with an excess of 500,000 barrels a day in pipeline capacity. The only reason why anyone would defend the Keystone is they want to see more Canada flood into the US. What does that do for the US? Put US Oil companies out of business? Great for US national security? what a joke.  Canada would love to being able to crank up production by another million barrels a day. More oil and the price of WTI drops, MAGA?

I'm no brilliant oil engineer, but last I checked, USA has very little heavy oil which is REQUIRED, for a gargantuan number of products... asphalt to roofing for instance.  Canadian heavy oil REQUIRES light oil to mix with it.  So, the USA gets to SELL oil to Canada and receive cheaper oil in return rather than importing from ??? clear on the other side of the world. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I'm no brilliant oil engineer, but last I checked, USA has very little heavy oil which is REQUIRED, for a gargantuan number of products... asphalt to roofing for instance.  Canadian heavy oil REQUIRES light oil to mix with it.  So, the USA gets to SELL oil to Canada and receive cheaper oil in return rather than importing from ??? clear on the other side of the world. 

Yeah, there's been some sort of flippant comments on this specific subject.  I rack it up as a little North/South tension, not so much reasonable common sense since the issue was discussed at length and it seemed everyone was in agreement (with you) a long time ago.

[notsonice + 1,062]

13 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I'm no brilliant oil engineer, but last I checked, USA has very little heavy oil which is REQUIRED, for a gargantuan number of products... asphalt to roofing for instance.  Canadian heavy oil REQUIRES light oil to mix with it.  So, the USA gets to SELL oil to Canada and receive cheaper oil in return rather than importing from ??? clear on the other side of the world. 

Canada is not importing more oil to dilute its heavy crude. Canada is not increasing its imports of US oil. Keystone is just a means to crank up exports to the US. More Canadian oil imported into the US means less demand for tight oil. Any American thinking that the  Keystone pipeline is good for the US needs to have their head examined.

[Symmetry + 109]

16 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I'm no brilliant oil engineer, but last I checked, USA has very little heavy oil which is REQUIRED, for a gargantuan number of products... asphalt to roofing for instance.  Canadian heavy oil REQUIRES light oil to mix with it.  So, the USA gets to SELL oil to Canada and receive cheaper oil in return rather than importing from ??? clear on the other side of the world. 

Canada has plenty of light oil as well.  The oil sands are just a huge reserve and dwarfs other sources.

It is also much easier to crack a heavy oil into a light one than it is to produce a heavy oil from a light one.

Canadian oil imports are for east coast refineries, the west has an excess of many forms of fossil fuels... almost a resource curse.  

Edited March 27, 2021 by Symmetry

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, notsonice said:

Canada is not importing more oil to dilute its heavy crude. Canada is not increasing its imports of US oil. Keystone is just a means to crank up exports to the US. More Canadian oil imported into the US means less demand for tight oil. Any American thinking that the  Keystone pipeline is good for the US needs to have their head examined.

Canada imports diluent, which their stats don't count as "oil". It might show up as NGL. 

[Symmetry + 109]

43 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Canada imports diluent, which their stats don't count as "oil". It might show up as NGL. 

It doesn't count as an import if the diluent is returned...

Next Ward will think that the US buys raill cars and resells them back to Canada.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Symmetry

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

21 hours ago, Symmetry said:

It doesn't count as an import if the diluent is returned...

Next Ward will think that the US buys raill cars and resells them back to Canada.

By what passes for logic in the Eejit "brain" there's no charge for the diluent, since it gets "returned". Blissfully ignorant, as always. Loses again, as always, gnashing its teeth, as always. Will pretend it didn't, as always.  🤣

[Boat + 1,315]

On 3/27/2021 at 12:59 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I'm no brilliant oil engineer, but last I checked, USA has very little heavy oil which is REQUIRED, for a gargantuan number of products... asphalt to roofing for instance.  Canadian heavy oil REQUIRES light oil to mix with it.  So, the USA gets to SELL oil to Canada and receive cheaper oil in return rather than importing from ??? clear on the other side of the world. 

Prove it. If the US did not export petrolium products just how much oil would refineries need for US consumption. 
So if those foreign refineries were shut down which are 30% of refinery production I would guess very little Canadian oil would be needed. 

[waltz + 140]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

Prove it. If the US did not export petrolium products just how much oil would refineries need for US consumption. 
So if those foreign refineries were shut down which are 30% of refinery production I would guess very little Canadian oil would be needed. 

What is it you are asking?  Which refineries?  Are you arguing that the refineries located in the US, not necessarily owned by US based companies much less the gov’t are configured to process LTO?  This is clearly not true, various grades of oil are not necessarily fungible.  The oil produced primarily in the US is NOT fungible with Canadian tar sands or Venezuelan Orinoco heavy.  This would take billions in conversions of current facilities, you okay forcing private enterprise  to make the modifications of funding it through taxes?

           waltz 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

38 minutes ago, waltz said:

What is it you are asking?  Which refineries?  Are you arguing that the refineries located in the US, not necessarily owned by US based companies much less the gov’t are configured to process LTO?  This is clearly not true, various grades of oil are not necessarily fungible.  The oil produced primarily in the US is NOT fungible with Canadian tar sands or Venezuelan Orinoco heavy.  This would take billions in conversions of current facilities, you okay forcing private enterprise  to make the modifications of funding it through taxes?

           waltz 

The eejits are clueless. They just like clattering their keyboards. You're right of course, taking API 60 "oil" and making diesel with it is an economic dead end. Blending with 12API bitumen and refining the blend works just fine. Profitability improves too. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

5 hours ago, Boat said:

Prove it. If the US did not export petrolium products just how much oil would refineries need for US consumption. 
So if those foreign refineries were shut down which are 30% of refinery production I would guess very little Canadian oil would be needed. 

World works on bunker oil, diesel, kerosene, drives on asphalt, and has bearings on rotating machinery that require grease last I checked.

Last I checked, LTO does not make bunker oil, diesel, kerosene, asphalt, or grease.  This by itself is ~40% of the USA's consumption of oil products. 

Please enlighten us morons how cutting off USA's access to Heavy crude, which the USA does not really have will produce said heavy oil products?  Hrmm?  Inquiring minds want to know. What?  Import them from China is your "solution" like all other "green" solutions... just move the problems to another country and pretend they do not exist?   And no, this sector using said products will not "electrify".  That sector that can electrify most easily is the gasoline consumption which comes best from LTO.  Going electric will be eliminating LTO, not heavy sour crude consumption which the USA does not have. 

[Symmetry + 109]

21 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

By what passes for logic in the Eejit "brain" there's no charge for the diluent, since it gets "returned".

I did not say "no charge."

Once again, your failure to read the words written is entirely your mistake.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Symmetry said:

I did not say "no charge."

Once again, your failure to read the words written is entirely your mistake.

 

 

Definition of import requires money to be paid. If it doesn't qualify as an import it must have been free. QED 

[Symmetry + 109]

17 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Is the Eejit pretending to have a brain? 

Definition of import requires money to be paid. If it doesn't qualify as an import it must have been free. QED 

 

Did you just Google import?  Haha!

Try again Ward, or just read the actual sentences in the future.

Even if all cross-borer shipments were imports (they are not) there still is very little to no net import of diluent from the USA into Canada. 

It gets returned to Canada just like our rail cars, trucks, planes, and everything else that is temporarily in the USA but is not sold as an import nor free to move.

QED

Edited March 29, 2021 by Symmetry

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, Symmetry said:

 

Did you just Google import?  Haha!

Try again Ward, or just read the actual sentences in the future.

Even if all cross-borer shipments were imports (they are not) there still is very little to no net import of diluent from the USA into Canada. 

It gets returned to Canada just like our rail cars, trucks, planes, and everything else that is temporarily in the USA but is not sold as an import nor free to move.

QED

You Lose lose lose lose

 

[Symmetry + 109]

50 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You Lose lose lose lose

 

 

Ward that link does not show what you think it does. 

Yes, it shows that a US companies helped makes some diluent when it was hard to match diluent demand.

It completely proves my point that diluent is "lent" to the the US and is not considered import or export during normal use.. You would need to have near equal imports and exports levels which match the oil trade; you do not have that, not even close. 

Sorry to tell you Ward but you just showed yourself wrong again. Diluent is more like a railcar! HaHa!  The fact that the US sold us some "railcars" changes nothing!

Furthermore, the fact that Enbride is Canadian should have been a clue. 

Lastly, the USA made diluent is almost certainly made with Canadian oil (due to proximity of both oil-in and diluent-out pipelines) and is only made so you can purchase more Canadian oil.  So yet another win.

 

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

32 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Ward that link does not show what you think it does. 

Yes, it shows that a US companies helped makes some diluent when it was hard to match diluent demand.

It completely proves my point that diluent is "lent" to the the US and is not considered import or export during normal use.. You would need to have near equal imports and exports levels which match the oil trade; you do not have that, not even close. 

Sorry to tell you Ward but you just showed yourself wrong again. Diluent is more like a railcar! HaHa!  The fact that the US sold us some "railcars" changes nothing!

Furthermore, the fact that Enbride is Canadian should have been a clue. 

Lastly, the USA made diluent is almost certainly made with Canadian oil (due to proximity of both oil-in and diluent-out pipelines) and is only made so you can purchase more Canadian oil.  So yet another win.

 

 

 

Delusional as always

Quote

Condensate has become the preferred blending agent. Blending agents are not free, and the lower density of condensate compared to other blending options, such as light conventional crude oil, means less of it is required to meet pipeline transportation requirements. 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Ward Smith