Updates
March 3, 2013: Huge apology. This a.m. I noticed that the link below was incorrect (which happens periodically, but this one was particularly obnoxious, and a big apology is in order. I apologize). It was not done on purpose, though I doubt everyone believes me (smile). I just noticed it this a.m. It has been corrected. The link, before it was corrected, took one to a Gallup poll which I was linking elsewhere. Regardless, either no one saw the wrong link or no one cared; no one sent me a comment telling me the link was wrong. Or obnoxious.
Original Post
Recently there's been a lot of talk of Bakken light, sweet oil being added to heavy oil that will be transported in the Keystone XL 2.0 pipeline (at Baker, MT). Whether that will happen is anybody's guess, but I do know a lot of readers have questioned the veracity of that conjecture. Those readers will find this interesting (from the linked article):
The second part of the project involves Enbridge removing the existing North Dakota mainline interconnection with the Lakehead system at Clearbrook. In the FERC filing, Enbridge said that would better serve Bakken producers by ensuring that their sweet crude is not mixed during transport with diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands.
Light sweet crude oil from the Bakken is valuable to many refiners because it is relatively easy to process, while the heavy sour dilbit from the oil sands is more costly to refine. By routing the two grades of crude into different pipelines, Enbridge said it will help Bakken producers get more dollars per barrel.
In addition, Enbridge said removal of the interconnection would prevent shippers from having their oil stranded in Clearbrook due to capacity apportioning when the Lakehead system is oversubscribed.
No comments:
Post a Comment