There’s something askew with my understanding of this. Of course it makes sense to locate refineries as close to the source as possible. Since refined products are far more valuable, Canada is effectively shipping the potential profits to Texas. Are refined products more volatile or difficult to transport?
@stanleybmanly Refineries are expensive and costly to operate and maintain, and yes we (Canada) are effectively shipping potential profits to the US.
Doesn’t make any sense to us Canadians either, put a damn refinery at the tar sands and at least refine it to a state that isn’t so harmful to the environment if and when a pipe line fails, but both Governments don’t seem very keen on that idea.
Commie libs are making a big deal out of nothing over this pipeline. If there’s one industry that’s proven it can be trusted to safeguard the environment it’s the oil industry.
@Darth_Algar, I can only presume that you are being facetious. I am sure you know that all energy companies have a long history of damaging the environment and go to great lengths to avoid the cost of mitigating the problems they create. Their bottom line is short-term profits, a reality that pervades most if not all corporations. It seems that their business is more to profit from selling shares of stocks than from the production of goods and services.
I suspect the real reason there’s no eagerness for refineries close to the source has to do with the flaws involved with today’s version of capitalism, and the mania around profit and expenses in the short term. And when you think about it, this is almost exactly the same reason that there is no longer any urgency these days to construct the pipeline itself. There’s not a hint of the frantic urgency from proponents and predictions of certain doom without the pipeline that were howled at us a couple of years ago. And this is because of the volatility in oil prices and the marked decline in the price of the stuff.