Summary
Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that Canada could cut off energy exports to the U.S. if Donald Trump imposes a proposed 25% tariff on Canadian goods.
Ford emphasized that 60% of U.S. crude oil imports and 85% of electricity imports come from Canada, highlighting the potential impact.
Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, criticized the tariffs as harmful to both economies, while Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland suggested broader retaliatory measures.
The dispute raises concerns over trade relations and escalating economic uncertainty for both nations.
Without knowing the specifics, my guess would be that a refinery near the Great Lakes might have a shorter distance, so fewer costs and emissions importing oil from Canada than Texas.
That said, fuckery is really everywhere, so you might be right.
Nope.
https://theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_oil_gas_and_products_pipelines.html
Just piping that shit all over the place like it’s no big deal.
I’m trying to understand your line of thinking and it seems to necessitate accepting that oil isn’t moving between inputs and outputs at the most cost effective way, which would necessitate oil and gas companies intentionally working in a way that isn’t about maximizing profit.
Am I misunderstanding your premise in such a way that I’m inappropriately needing to bake that in?
There was a shell game with aluminum a number of years back where truckload ofbit just…moved around…to raise stock prices. It wouldn’t surprise me if the same things happened with oil.
Source.
No. I’m saying because it’s slightly more profitable they pipe it all over, somehow you took the opposite message?
I assumed we didn’t need to talk about why pipelines are bad, did I overestimate?
Like…
Oil pipeline protests have been pretty big news for decades now, I thought everyone commenting on an article about gas pipelines was up to speed.
Quick edit:
Deja Vue…
We had another conversation a week ago where I went over the basics of why oil pipelines are bad, and nothing I explained seemed to have stuck. It was even about Canada/US pipelines too.
Someone else may be able to explain it differently, but I’m not gonna be able to help.
I guess this is why I was confused. The comment you were replying to was saying the justification for impor/exports existing simultaneously was based on the geographical (aka logistical) efficiencies of moving different products to different facilities with different needs.
You appeared to me to be rejecting that justification.
Why would it be more profitable to do it the less efficient way? It costs per mile/km to build pipe.
Yeah but this is America…
Pipelines are so much cheaper than truck, even with massive leaks:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/inspector-weak-pipeline-rules-put-profit-over-safety/
And when it’s bad enough taxpayers bail them out:
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-200-million-replace
The problem is they put profits over everything. I’m not sure where all this misunderstanding is coming from
Not shipping it would be cheaper yet, though.
I don’t think there’s a misunderstanding here, exactly. You want to shit on pipelines, and that’s okay, but I’m more interested in the how this all fits together economically.
I take you’ve never been affected by a tailing pond or pipeline failure then.
Look, if you have no mental bandwidth for anything but rage like that, you’re just as much a part of the problem as the other guys. Details matter, the world is complex.