Container Ship runs aground in Prince Rupert

[quote=“MiG”]Well, at least you’ve dropped your “we can’t refine it here” argument. Because we already refine it here. And the capacity to do so keeps increasing.

[/quote]

You do this all the time. Where do I say “we can’t refine it here?” Stop making stuff up, you lose credibility.

If you watch the news or read the papers you will know that the USA will very soon become a net exporter of crude oil. That market is shrinking. If you think that we can build up graders, only export refined or upgraded products within Canada and the US, and do this while maintaining a strong economy and growth, then you should be in the business.

If it is profitable to build refineries and pipe it across Canada, then it will happen. If it isn’t, it won’t. It really is as simple as that.

Should Canada refine its own oilsands bitumen?
NDP calls for more ‘value-added jobs’ but natural resources minister says economics aren’t there

cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 … inery.html

Right here:

and here:

and here:

But you can claim that you didn’t mean that, or I don’t understand, or that you really didn’t mean to write that three times, and errr.

Or you can admit that you’re wrong, and that Alberta oil is, currently, being refined in Canada. At multiple sites.

All the sources I’ve found say that the USA is already a net exporter of refined products (diesel, gasoline, etc). Not crude oil. The USA is still importing more than half of its crude.

Do you have a source for your claim?

Container Ship Swerves. Now there’s an oxymoron. What really happened? Hope the results of investigations are public. Including how much fuel did it have on board at the time?

Funny thing is it would of been a local pilot on the ship also at the time. I heard from someone that was on that fishing boat that the container shipped turned at the wrong buoy and that is when it got into trouble.

[quote=“MiG”]

All the sources I’ve found say that the USA is already a net exporter of refined products (diesel, gasoline, etc). Not crude oil. The USA is still importing more than half of its crude.

Do you have a source for your claim?[/quote]

By BEN LEFEBVRE

HOUSTON—Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN +0.37% PLC said late Thursday it has applied for a permit from the U.S. Commerce Department to export crude oil in a sign of how a boom in U.S. oil production from shale rock is reshaping the country’s role in the energy marketplace.

Shell was seeking the permit to ship U.S. crude to Canada, Shell spokeswoman Kayla Macke said. “Crude trades on a global scale, and imports and exports will follow supply and demand,” she said.

The U.S. currently exports less than one half of 1% of the amount of crude it imports, according to the Energy Information Administration, with all of the crude going to Canada.

The move underscores how the revolution in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” technology that has coaxed large volumes of oil from shale rock has generated an unprecedented boom. The EIA says the boom will bring U.S. production next year to its highest level in nearly two decades.

Oil production in the U.S. totaled 194 million barrels of crude oil in July, the most in 14 years, according to the latest data from the EIA. Drillers in the Eagle Ford shale area of south Texas—where Shell has significant operations—and the Bakken shale region in North Dakota are producing more oil than pipelines are currently able to carry to market.

This week, the glut of oil production in the center of the country pushed the price for West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark crude contract, to its lowest level in a year relative to the international benchmark, Brent crude. West Texas Intermediate crude traded Friday at $91.81, down 0.3% from Thursday. Brent traded at $113.78, down 0.8%.

If the mostly light, sweet oil landlocked in the U.S. reaches foreign markets, its price gap with Brent could significantly narrow, said Mike Kelly, senior analyst at Global Hunter Securities. That is because the potential number of buyers of U.S. crude would expand dramatically.

A decades-old law bars export of crude oil produced in the U.S., although special permits can be given in some cases, including shipping oil to Canada. The U.S. exports about 41,000 barrels a day of oil already, according to the EIA.

BP BP.LN +0.44% PLC, which already has a license to export U.S. crude oil, sends it to Canada for refining, said a person familiar with the company’s operations.

The U.S. will become a net oil exporter but probably not until the end of the decade, said Pavel Molchanov, a Raymond James analyst. Companies now seeking an export license are most likely working to build the logistical networks needed for the future, Mr. Molchanov said.

From the Wall Street Journal . Tried just a link, but you need a subscription to open. ** Edit (not Washington Post)**

[quote=“MiG”]

Right here:

This true, none of the refineries refine bitumen.
and here:

Again, true.
and here:

Yawn, once again, true.
But you can claim that you didn’t mean that, or I don’t understand, or that you really didn’t mean to write that three times, and errr.

Or you can admit that you’re wrong, and that Alberta oil is, currently, being refined in Canada. At multiple sites.[/quote]

Now you should look up the difference between a refinery and an up grader, and then you can admit you were wrong.

[quote=“MiG”]

Or you can admit that you’re wrong, and that Alberta oil is, currently, being refined in Canada. At multiple sites.[/quote]

Wow, you did it again. Never, not once have I said “Alberta oil is not being refined in Canada.”

Not those exact words, no. you said:

Right, so you didn’t think Alberta oil could be processed in Alberta, and it is. Sure, it’s upgraded first, often right at the same site. So? It’s still being refined here.

Anyway, here’s where you really lose credibility:

The USA uses 18-19 millions of barrels per day, and it produces about 6-7 million barrels per day. You think they’re going to double or triple production “very soon” ? How soon is “very soon” ?

Sorry, but the USA will be importing crude oil for a long time. There’s no way it will become a net exporter of crude oil anytime soon. What’s your definition of “soon” anyway>

Sure, they’re exporting more refined product than they’re importing. But they’re still using twice the amount of crude that they can produce.

Now the headlines I’ve been reading talk about the USA exporting refined products, not crude, as you claim. They do talk about North America exporting more crude than it consumes, but that’s not the USA.

There’s no way that graph is going to negative percentage points “soon” as you claim.

Why the US is Not About to Become an Oil Exporter: " It is easy to confuse “net oil exporter” with “net oil product exporter” “In 2011, the US became a net oil product exporter.”

[quote=“MiG”]
Anyway, here’s where you really lose credibility:

"[/quote]

Ok, not sure how that makes me lose credibility. I posted a column from the Wall Street Journal and you posted some facts and a graph. Anyway, it is all speculation and I’ll leave it at that. I have read the same articles as you and these are just opinions.

I will leave my comments regarding the refining of light crude by Canadian refineries as is. I think most people will understand what I am saying without contorting it.

This thread has gotten way off topic (guilty), so I will end my participation in it with this;

Many people subscribe to the theory that we should not ship crude oil or bitumen, and that we should build new refineries and up graders and refine all of our oil. I call this the " If You Build It They Will Come" subscribers. As much as that would be nice, I don’t believe it will happen. And the people that matter are the oil companies, banks, investors, and government. If they think it will be worth it, they will come up with the money. I wouldn’t bet on it.

[quote=“Speedy”]

Funny thing is it would of been a local pilot on the ship also at the time. I heard from someone that was on that fishing boat that the container shipped turned at the wrong buoy and that is when it got into trouble.[/quote]

Hey Speedy,

Did you know that ‘local pilots’ are dispatched from Vancouver, and are based in Nanaimo?
Did you know that anybody in charge of, wheel-turning/running a commercial fishing vessel has to be MOT-certified? Maybe they can make mistakes in their local waters, too.

Did you hear anything from that ‘someone that was on the fishing boat’ that the fishing boat changed course from the agreed action plan discussed with the pilot aboard the container ship?

How would you and your fellow anti-tanker traffic ranters rationalize the choice the pilot must have made: a collision, capsizing and potential loss of fishing vessel crew vs. the pilot taking evasive action and hitting a sandbar instead?

I understand that Coast Guard has the incident on ‘tape’, so maybe everybody should get off their pious soapboxes until the facts come out. All I am saying, imho, is that apples should be compared to apples instead of apples to oil sludge.

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

I doubt oil tankers would be entering our inner Harbour.

A little off topic but I find it some what strange that discussion regarding the pipeline has turned to Rupert as a destination instead of Kitimat to avoid bringing tankers through the Douglas channel. The risk is greater through the Skeena valley as far as I’m concerned.[/quote]

Ahhh but during big storms they will shelter in the harbor at the newly planned anchorages