Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
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.
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.
|
Not sure that is true, for the most part Canada is long products (jet notwithstanding. Which US refineries send products to Canada? I'm not aware of any.
Besides the refining business is not a good business to be in ... they make sense as part of an integrated strategy but refining by itself makes no sense in Canada, there are at least two groups who have proposed refineries that are struggling and have put their project on hold or are mothballing it because it's not a good business to invest in. Another public fallacy.