Locator: 50190BIKING.
Smoke and mirrors:
- that new Texas refinery;
- the Iran war;
- ethanol / E15 debate,
It gets tedious. Me? Playing the long game and going biking, although it's freezing out there right now. Hyperbole.
Locator: 50190BIKING.
Smoke and mirrors:
It gets tedious. Me? Playing the long game and going biking, although it's freezing out there right now. Hyperbole.
Locator: 50189CANADA.
Locator: 50189PIPELINES.
There is so much in this article.
Note: TC Energy / South Bow. Did TC Energy change its name to "South Bow" as the article implies?
RBN Energy: how Canadian crude oil export capacity has struggled to keep upwith production. Link here. Archived.
Canadian crude oil production has nearly doubled over the past decade, with nearly all of those gains coming from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). With those volumes continuing to grow, producers, pipeline companies and politicians are discussing options to add export capacity out of the region. In today’s RBN blog, the second of a series, we review the major pipeline projects that have expanded markets for WCSB barrels since 2010 and how the timing of those pipeline capacity additions lined up with WCSB supply growth.
As we said in Part 1, Canadian production recently hit 5.6 MMb/d, and all but 4% of that output comes from the WCSB. The near doubling of production since 2010 is largely attributable to Alberta’s oil sands, as producers invested heavily in both newbuild and expansion projects, especially from the late 2000s through the mid-2010s. So far this decade, Canadian production growth has been driven more by improved capacity utilization at oil-sands projects and growing conventional heavy oil and condensate production than by major oil-sands capacity expansion projects.
Let’s start by looking at the WCSB’s current export pipeline capacity. Figure 1 below shows the six pipeline systems that transport WCSB crude oil to outside markets, along with other key pipeline systems moving Canadian crude within the U.S. The 3.2-MMb/d Enbridge Mainline system (light-pink lines) moves roughly two-thirds of all WCSB export volumes, transporting an average of nearly 3.1 MMb/d across the North Dakota border in H1 2025. The recently expanded, now 890-Mb/d Trans Mountain system (dark-purple line) is the second-largest system; it moved an average of 730 Mb/d to Pacific markets in H1 2025, while South Bow’s 610-Mb/d Keystone Pipeline (medium-blue line) moved 576 Mb/d across the North Dakota border in the same six months. The remaining three pipelines — Enbridge’s 310-Mb/d Express (medium-pink line), Plains Midstream Canada’s 100-Mb/d Rangeland (dark-green line) and Inter Pipeline’s 20-Mb/d Milk River (light-green line) — together moved around 340 Mb/d across the Montana border in H1 2025.
Western Canada’s three largest outbound pipeline systems, the Enbridge Mainline, Keystone and Trans Mountain pipeline systems, have all provided major capacity increases over the past 16 years. Unfortunately for Canadian crude producers, some of these capacity expansions started up much later than originally expected, largely because of permitting delays. These delays have played a key role in persistently steep price discounts for WCSB crude, as production in excess of demand sometimes outpaced export pipeline capacity.
Locator: 50188B.
WTI: $87.56. Up $4.11 overnight; up 4.93% overnight.
On news that after almost two weeks of heaviest bombing ever, and 90% destruction of the Iranian navy, that same navy is able to completely close the strait by laying mines.
On top of this, Iran is shipping more oil than before the war -- by letting its ships get through the strait but not ships from other countries. At least that's what I'm reading.
New wells reporting:
RBN Energy: reality sucks. E15 plays role in summer gasoline debate, but does little to boost ethanol demand. Link here. Archived.
There’s no shortage of debate around ethanol and gasoline with the summer driving season just around the corner. Farm and biofuels groups are pushing hard for policies favoring expanded ethanol use, while refiners are lobbying for changes to improve the workings of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). With winter winding down and summer gasoline planning already underway, fuel industry groups are urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to repeat the last-minute fuel rule changes it issued last year again in 2026. In today’s RBN blog, we’ll dive into the debate about ethanol blending and gasoline regulations.
Let’s start with the basics. Most gasoline available at U.S. pumps today is E10, or gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol, an alcohol typically produced from corn. E15 is gasoline blended with up to15% ethanol. It is approved by the EPA for use in flexible-fuel vehicles and all vehicles in model year 2001 and newer, although its consumer availability is far more limited. (Just 2%-3% of U.S. gasoline stations sell E15 today.) But E15’s use is prohibited in motorcycles, vehicles with heavy-duty engines (i.e., school buses and delivery trucks), off-road vehicles (boats and snowmobiles), equipment engines (chain saws and lawnmowers) and conventional vehicles older than model year 2001.
Locator: 50187SMOKEANDMIRRORS.
This is incredibly disappointing that the American public is being deceived on this one. Remember, this was being touted as a "$300-billion refinery" by some on social medai and then closer reading of what Trump actually said as a $300-billion "deal" and no one ever spelled out how that we arrived at "a $300-billion deal."
To put that $3 billion to $4 billion in perspective, Elon Musk's new LDC in Vicksburg, Mississippi is projected to cost $20 billion. And there will be lot more LDCs built than new refineries.
From AI/wiki:
Texas refinery: Trump's announcement yesterday -- "that $300 billion refinery" as reported by some on social media -- there's no way that refinery will cost $300 billion -- Mr Trump, in his usual abbreviated tweet -- implied it was a $300-billion refinery (he clearly said $300 billion deal) and those on social media that commented on it clearly stated it was a $300 billion refinery. The numbers simply don't add up. At most the refinery will cost at most $7 billion. The $300 billion must include the products that India will buy from that refinery over decades. It's a 168,000-bod refinery -- run the numbers yourself. In addition, the article at the link says projected cost for a new refinery these days is running $40,000 / refined bbl which in this case, 168,000 bbls x $40,00 / bbl = $6.7 billion. Link here to Reuters. Link here to earlier post. Archived.
In addition, if you check wiki, you can see how incredibly small this refinery is compared to the other refineries in the, particularly along the Texas / Louisiana coast. This refinery will be about the same size as the refinery that is supposedly going up in Trenton, ND.
I may have some facts and figures wrong, $4 billion vs $7 billion, but I'm pretty sure this refinery is not costing $300 billion as some on social media have suggested. This would be like Amazon valuing a new fulfillment center as the cost of the center itself plus the entire inventory it sells over the next 50 years.
And, as Mr Trump said, this only offsets the huge trade deficit we have with India. This is all smoke and mirrors.
******************************************
The Fold
Re-posting from yesterday:
Locator: 50184B.
Compare the projected prices of the North Dakota and the Texas projects below.
From today, March 10, 2026, president Trump alerted me to this today -- see below the fold -- archived —
Meanwhile, in North Dakota:
***********************************
The Fold
President Trump refers to this as $300-billion project. I'm not sure where the "$300-billion figure" is coming from!?
Has any refinery anywhere ever cost $300 billion?