Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
Well I think he was referring to a nuke plant so I think your post doesn't really make much sense. The nuke plant would supply the heat to allow for the processing and upgrading to be handled locally.
|
Yup. Thanks. Although I personally don't know where I'd put it, since that would require more knowledge than what I have. Honestly, I'd probably put it fairly close to the oil sands, since I'm not as concerned about terrorism as you are. AFAIK, all the separation and upgrading is in Alberta anyways because bitumen is too viscous to efficiently move long distances, but once it's up to synthetic crude we pipe it out. That wouldn't change, but what would change is the carbon intensity of these processes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
And right now would be a great time to stop throwing stones at him. You don't understand the discussion going on here and you don't understand the economics of upgrading. All these resources at the end of the day need to cross a border and preferably the US border so I don't get your sensitivity to crude going to Montana. If you do, please do yourself a favor and never research where almost every single crude line leaving Edmonton ends up ... it's not a pretty sight for those who want the crude to stay here.
|
Which bring up another point. It would be best for the environment if we upgraded and refined at least a portion of the bitumen in Alberta, since sending it to the US for refining and then bringing it back to Alberta as final products is energy wastage. However, with our economy as hot as it is, creating final products here is uneconomic as our costs of business are so much higher.
But anyways, I posted in this thread simply to explain the situation a bit better to some who clearly don't understand it, not to debate the finer points with someone who clearly does.