Tom Kirkman

Greta Thunberg sets sights on Keystone XL pipeline

Recommended Posts

Will there be a rant about losing her childhood due to oil pipelines?  Who exactly is funding Greta's trips overseas to make these publicity stunt?

3cma40.jpg.0974c26f85bd212f7e47554ba879fb46.jpg

 

Greta Thunberg sets sights on Keystone XL pipeline

PINE RIDGE, S.D. — A 16-year-old climate activist who garnered international attention when she scolded world leaders at the United Nations is visiting American Indian reservations in the Dakotas to talk about oil pipelines.

Greta Thunberg attended the panel discussion on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota Sunday and will discuss the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota on Tuesday.

The Lakota People’s Law Project says Thunberg is concerned about the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline through South Dakota and plans to double oil flowing through the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota.  ...

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Does no one find it odd that a random teenager was even in the room? Or who is funding this crap? It's mental. Oh, just a random girl scolding leaders of nations ... completely normal ... nothing to see here ...

Even I know more about the oil industry than her, and trust me, that's saying something. 

Hint - I know FA.

Edited by DayTrader
  • Like 5
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greta aside the US does not need most of the Canadian oil imports. Why add more imports that are not needed? For more campaign contributions to the swamp I suppose.

If I live in the states that the pipeline is built on why take on pollution risk to help Canada who refuse to build their own pipelines.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boat said:

Greta aside the US does not need most of the Canadian oil imports. Why add more imports that are not needed? For more campaign contributions to the swamp I suppose.

If I live in the states that the pipeline is built on why take on pollution risk to help Canada who refuse to build their own pipelines.

Isn't it also transporting oil from ND as well? We did a lot of work in the Bakken field and I believe it was all being freighted by train.

As far as I understood the tar sand oil from Canada was very cheap and being used to blend in refineries but I don't know much about that side of things.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Greta Thunberg attended the panel discussion on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota Sunday and will discuss the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota on Tuesday.

Oh to be a fly on the wall ...

''ER ... OIL BAD! YOU'VE STOLEN MY DREAMS''

''Yes Greta, well put! We should listen everyone.''

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, El Nikko said:

Isn't it also transporting oil from ND as well? We did a lot of work in the Bakken field and I believe it was all being freighted by train.

As far as I understood the tar sand oil from Canada was very cheap and being used to blend in refineries but I don't know much about that side of things.

Canada has several pipelines that export around 3.4 mbpd to the US while on paper the US is a net importer of around 1 mbpd. So the question is why add another 600,000 per day pipeline.

The US already had a large trade imbalance with Canada that this pipeline would would only make worse.

To your point all oil is mixed to around 32 API for refineries. So heavy crude from Canada is a good match with light oil from US fracking. But in my view who cares when we don’t need much of the oil in the first place.

30% of refinery capacity in the US is foreign owned. Much of that capacity is on the gulf. The US also does not need the imports from the Saudi and Venezuela or anybody else either to satisfy US consumption. I say drain the swamp and stop polluting our air and water so foreign big oil can make a buck on our soil. At least beyond consumption needs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Boat said:

Canada has several pipelines that export around 3.4 mbpd to the US while on paper the US is a net importer of around 1 mbpd. So the question is why add another 600,000 per day pipeline.

The US already had a large trade imbalance with Canada that this pipeline would would only make worse.

To your point all oil is mixed to around 32 API for refineries. So heavy crude from Canada is a good match with light oil from US fracking. But in my view who cares when we don’t need much of the oil in the first place.

30% of refinery capacity in the US is foreign owned. Much of that capacity is on the gulf. The US also does not need the imports from the Saudi and Venezuela or anybody else either to satisfy US consumption. I say drain the swamp and stop polluting our air and water so foreign big oil can make a buck on our soil. At least beyond consumption needs.

 

I'm not really argueing in favour of Canadian oil, when I've read about the Keystone pipeline it was when everything was going down the tube in 2015 and we had a few clients drilling there. I believe that the lack of a pipeline was the reason their breakeven was so high and also why loads of them went bust.

So is it a dual purpose pipeline which takes oil from North Dakota and then also some from Canada or have I got it wrong?

Thanks for the info on the refineries as well, I do agree that the US would benefit in the long run if it didn't sell all it's oil off so fast and cheep...in years to come I have a feeling we'll all being shaking our heads about how much of the oil we produce was sold so cheap.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boat said:

Greta aside the US does not need most of the Canadian oil imports. Why add more imports that are not needed? For more campaign contributions to the swamp I suppose.

If I live in the states that the pipeline is built on why take on pollution risk to help Canada who refuse to build their own pipelines.

If you knew the first thing about refining, you'd understand the US Does need Canadian heavy oil. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boat said:

Canada has several pipelines that export around 3.4 mbpd to the US while on paper the US is a net importer of around 1 mbpd. So the question is why add another 600,000 per day pipeline.

The US already had a large trade imbalance with Canada that this pipeline would would only make worse.

To your point all oil is mixed to around 32 API for refineries. So heavy crude from Canada is a good match with light oil from US fracking. But in my view who cares when we don’t need much of the oil in the first place.

30% of refinery capacity in the US is foreign owned. Much of that capacity is on the gulf. The US also does not need the imports from the Saudi and Venezuela or anybody else either to satisfy US consumption. I say drain the swamp and stop polluting our air and water so foreign big oil can make a buck on our soil. At least beyond consumption needs.

Trade balance with Canada, the US is winning, what do you mean by "large trade imbalance"? Context would indicate you think we're losing. We're not, nor have we been behind since 1985, and then not by much (pre oil too).

Much about refining, mostly wrong. Bottom line, refineries exist to make a profit, not float your boat Boat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, El Nikko said:

I'm not really argueing in favour of Canadian oil, when I've read about the Keystone pipeline it was when everything was going down the tube in 2015 and we had a few clients drilling there. I believe that the lack of a pipeline was the reason their breakeven was so high and also why loads of them went bust.

So is it a dual purpose pipeline which takes oil from North Dakota and then also some from Canada or have I got it wrong?

Thanks for the info on the refineries as well, I do agree that the US would benefit in the long run if it didn't sell all it's oil off so fast and cheep...in years to come I have a feeling we'll all being shaking our heads about how much of the oil we produce was sold so cheap.

The super light, tight oil coming primarily from fracking is 100% USELESS for refining into jet fuel, kerosene and diesel. It REQUIRES addition of long chain molecules to make the kind of products refineries are geared to produce. Boat can't wave his arms and tell refineries with $billions in potentially stranded assets (such as delayed cokers) they just need to do something else. That's not how it works, they made those capital investment decisions with an eye to capitalizing on their utility for decades. Right now, in many places heavy oil sells at a Premium to WTI and Brent, because the refineries need those long chain molecules. Vastly cheaper to crack a long molecule than try to combine via Fischer Tropsch methods.  

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boat said:

Greta aside the US does not need most of the Canadian oil imports. Why add more imports that are not needed? For more campaign contributions to the swamp I suppose.

If I live in the states that the pipeline is built on why take on pollution risk to help Canada who refuse to build their own pipelines.

Because US refineries need the heavier crudes that the US doesn't produce, so it's Mexico, Canada or the Middle East.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never had any problems with imported oil to satisfy US consumption. But all that extra imported oil creating profit for foreign countries is also importing pollution for profit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Boat said:

I never had any problems with imported oil to satisfy US consumption. But all that extra imported oil creating profit for foreign countries is also importing pollution for profit. 

Given that we all live on the same planet, where do you think the pollution should go? Your argument reminds me of the stupidity of having a no smoking section in a restaurant, which makes exactly as much sense as having a no peeing section in a swimming pool. 

Meanwhile, which countries are more likely to have, and enforce, stringent environmental regulations? The US or some Third World sh-thole? So you want the oil to go there? Really? 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Boat said:

Greta aside the US does not need most of the Canadian oil imports. Why add more imports that are not needed? For more campaign contributions to the swamp I suppose.

If I live in the states that the pipeline is built on why take on pollution risk to help Canada who refuse to build their own pipelines.

Our trans mountain expansion construction has started. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Boat said:

Canada has several pipelines that export around 3.4 mbpd to the US while on paper the US is a net importer of around 1 mbpd. So the question is why add another 600,000 per day pipeline.

The US already had a large trade imbalance with Canada that this pipeline would would only make worse.

To your point all oil is mixed to around 32 API for refineries. So heavy crude from Canada is a good match with light oil from US fracking. But in my view who cares when we don’t need much of the oil in the first place.

30% of refinery capacity in the US is foreign owned. Much of that capacity is on the gulf. The US also does not need the imports from the Saudi and Venezuela or anybody else either to satisfy US consumption. I say drain the swamp and stop polluting our air and water so foreign big oil can make a buck on our soil. At least beyond consumption needs.

 

Most of the Canadian oil will end up refined and shipped out to other countries. Canada's refining capacity is horrible and the added capacity to the one refinery here in central Illinois is a good thing. This has been in the works for well over 5 years!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Given that we all live on the same planet, where do you think the pollution should go? Your argument reminds me of the stupidity of having a no smoking section in a restaurant, which makes exactly as much sense as having a no peeing section in a swimming pool.

Damn good analogy, hehehe

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Damn good analogy, hehehe

Your argument reminds me of those who would kill US citizens while supporting Communist Venezuela and the Saudi extremism. Drain the swamp of mafia type government leaders who were bought off by foreign governments to the detriment of those who suffer from the result. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my understanding from a Canadian perspective is that were selling our oil to you dirt cheap and you go and resell it or mix or refine it then sell and make a profit. You may run a deficit to canada but run a major profit off the sales and it's a net win. If it wasn't for your stong dollar / our weak dollar our oil companies would be SOL. My one stock sells oil from NA at wcs price and my other sells from SA ( both to usa ) at brent -3$ . In the quarterly report one clears 30$ us a barrel the other 18-25$ cad. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Trade balance with Canada, the US is winning, what do you mean by "large trade imbalance"? Context would indicate you think we're losing. We're not, nor have we been behind since 1985, and then not by much (pre oil too).

Much about refining, mostly wrong. Bottom line, refineries exist to make a profit, not float your boat Boat. 

https://www.international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/performance/monthly-mensuel.aspx?lang=eng

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greta thumberg pretty much is another puppet of the social-democrat liberal movement, a movement that used Every tool in order to impose their political ideas in the population when it sees the death of liberalism, it used the LGBT movement for that, it used the feminist movement for that, and it's using the ecologist movement for that, they don't really care about the enviroment, if they cared about the enviroment they would be planting trees and composting their food waste not bitching around.

The worse thing is that their fathers, because they knew everybody would laugh at them if they said what Greta said in the UN, because they knew they are stupid, they used their Daughter because they knew they wouldn't criticize a 16 year old girl with Asperger syndrome. How disgusting, morally bankrupt, and gutless you have to be to use your Daughter as a moral shield?


Deforestation in Haiti?, no is not a problem
image.png.c5d9be834f4afb0b3a593c883ada28b6.png
Thrash dumped in Africa, no is not a problem
image.png.3a6196d80b18b4b4a431876a23835cf0.png
Extinction of species in south asia? no is not a problem
image.png.0d0ffc766a2a068869f2c2edcf0bf273.png

Oil sands extraction in middle of Alberta's Forest: Oh yeah, that has to end NOW

image.png.fa217feeca1ae6839688ab16f9a85fd7.png
image.png.6415dbdc6b31489ee0b0ecd184c11f12.png

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

If you knew the first thing about refining, you'd understand the US Does need Canadian heavy oil. 

Well i think the whole idea of Keystone XL is that the Canadian super-heavy crude can mix with the American Super-light crude, creating a blend that is not that different from the average oil imported from the Gulf and in that way you don't have to put too much money to rebuild ALL the refineries in the USA in order to make the switch from Heavy Crude to Super-Light.  Plus the Canadians can save lots of money in not upgrading the crude from toothpaste consistency to viscous liquid since they can just mix it.

In the other hand the Canadians are now selling their crude at the most overly-saturated oil market in the planet at 20$ discount, Canadian crude is selling at Half the price it would sell in the international market because keystone is not built. Canadian Crude is selling at 35$ a barrell, and that's the cheapest oil price since the 60's (excluding price crashes)offered by the most energy intensive way of producing oil

Taking in mind that Keystone it moves at a snail pace... Is likely that you will never see the Canadian oil production never, EVER getting over 5 million barrels per day, because there's nobody in all of North America to buy it. Mexico supplies itself, the USA supplies itself (and will for at least 70 years) the only market for canadian crude is in Britain, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Spain, Central America and the Caribbean islands, Albertans wan't to build a pipeline to a export terminal in BC to the wider world but BC said "screw yourself"

As a result of keystone not happening you will see the albertans getting angrier and wanting to separate from canada, and top of that Canada will raise taxes in order to mantain the bloated welfare state after they wasted all the Capital from alberta in welfare.

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

That's a "merchandise" trade report. As my link showed, there's more than one way to look at the numbers. Furthermore, not all "trade" is "merchandise". Total capital flows are what matter, merchandise it's perhaps 40% of that total. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The super light, tight oil coming primarily from fracking is 100% USELESS for refining into jet fuel, kerosene and diesel. It REQUIRES addition of long chain molecules to make the kind of products refineries are geared to produce. Boat can't wave his arms and tell refineries with $billions in potentially stranded assets (such as delayed cokers) they just need to do something else. That's not how it works, they made those capital investment decisions with an eye to capitalizing on their utility for decades. Right now, in many places heavy oil sells at a Premium to WTI and Brent, because the refineries need those long chain molecules. Vastly cheaper to crack a long molecule than try to combine via Fischer Tropsch methods.  

I think is possible to make a refinery work on SUper Light crude and oil condensate, and be able to produce high quality LPG, Chemicals, Gasoline, Kerosene and Light Diesel, the problem isn't making a refinery that runs on super light oil, Algerian refineries do run on gas condensate the problems will be that you can't produce motor oil, or wax, you can't produce asphalt, you can't produce bunker diesel fuel, (most of the diesel demand) so while Ultra-Light crude refineries are cheaper to build and operate there's the elephant in the Room


The Elephant in the room is that nearly all USA refineries are made to work on heavy crude because in the 70's it was assumed that future oil would become consistently heavier, so heavy crude US refineries can take at best medium-heavy crude, it IS the world's largest Refinery system in the planet and the most advanced maybe with the exception of Italy, and is valued at well over 1 trillion dollars, and just throwing the result of 40 years of work and engineering away it seems like kinda a waste to me.

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.