4 ms·
According to the government of Canada, [0] typically there is enough capacity in pipeline and rail to transport all of the crude. In 2018, there was a surge in
by enkid 5y ago
According to the government of Canada, [0] typically there is enough capacity in pipeline and rail to transport all of the crude. In 2018, there was a surge in demand and they weren't able to transport it all until the rail network caught up. Transportation by truck does happen, but would be too expensive and doesn't have the capacity to be a primary component. The pipeline mostly would lower transportation costs, as trains are more expensive than pipelines, and would provide some surge capacity, while making the US and Canada's lol industry even more integrated. (Currently over half of all US oil imports are from Canada and 59% of Canada's oil exports are to just the Midwest states.)
- rascul 5y ago> According to the government of Canada, [0] The reference seems to be missing. > US and Canada's lol industry Is that supposed to be oil industry? If not, I not sure I understand. What I'm trying to understand is if this pipeline is for additional capacity or if it is meant to replace the trucks and rail? I'm trying to understand a bit of the environmental impact. If the choice is pipeline vs no pipeline then it seems clear from an environmental perspective. But if the choice is pipeline vs truck/rail than there might be some factors in play that I'm not currently aware of.