Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OUT WITH KEYSTONE XL, IN WITH ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY
Breitbart ^ | June 28, 2014 | Thomas Rose

Posted on 06/28/2014 11:45:02 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer

Claiming it could no longer abide the Obama administration's five-year refusal to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline designed to bring 830,000 barrels a day of much-needed Alberta shale oil to U.S. refineries, the Canadian government recently approved plans for a huge new pipeline and port project to ship that oil to Asia instead.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; oil; pipeline
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: DoodleDawg

Only after the feedstock has been refined....they are considering a relaxation of the definition of refined...in any event this oil replaces diminished supply fro Mexico, Venezuela and reduces dependency on mid eastern crude and is going to the gulf refineries because they are designed to accommodate heavy crude.


21 posted on 06/29/2014 7:25:12 AM PDT by albertabound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

Although a Pacific port is closer to the tar sands...a pipeline west means crossing the Rockies and Coast ranges....and building it in areas with few people. Keystone a longer pipeline....but pretty much had a path thru the Great Plains...and all downhill (lower elevation). That western pipeline needs more pumping and booster stations along way


22 posted on 06/29/2014 8:01:12 AM PDT by DisorderOnBorder (Hollywood...Washington DC for pretty people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
Claiming it could no longer abide the Obama administration's five-year refusal to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline

That was not in anyway part of the justification. Both projects have been under review for years and both projects have companies that have made commitments to move oil on those pipelines.

This is not an either/or proposal. Both projects need to be completed.

23 posted on 06/30/2014 4:54:22 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DisorderOnBorder; rodguy911

NAFTA requires Canada to send 2/3 of its oil to the US

- - - - - -

FALSE.

Article 605 of NAFTA has been interpreted by some to mean that Canada is required to sell a certain percentage of its energy output to the United States, even in the face of a severe domestic shortage. Moreover, they argue that NAFTA prevents this percentage from falling over time.

Neither of these statements is true. Canadian producers are free to sell as much oil as they wish to whomever they wish, including, for example, overseas customers. As a result, the share of total output exported to the United States can rise or fall according to the normal forces of supply and demand.

The only condition that NAFTA imposes on Canadian energy products is that all buyers in North America must have equal rights to buy those products.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0633-e.htm


24 posted on 06/30/2014 4:56:48 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson