Without a double lined pipeline, the sand will put a hole in it within 18months.

[CK_John]

Especially at any curve or too rapid a change in elevation. This stuff is a pure abrasive, then the refinery will separate the oil and the sand.

The sole purpose for this pipeline is to dump that sand in the gulf and not in Canada.

[Champion Jack]

1. K&R

[Coyotl]

2. Huh? That makes very little sense.

The purpose is to profit. To profit, you need to get the product to a market. In this case, downhill is south.

[CK_John]

3. Why not refine it in Canada and send the oil to a BC port(a lot shorter) but the

problem is then sand.

[Coyotl]

5. Pump heavy crude over the Rockies via Banff? No problem.

[ROFF]

4. You have got to be kidding.

The people that control the pipeline do not want to put any product that will damage their property into their equipment.
Think of it this way.
1. Would you purchase any fuel that had any sand in it? I doubt that you would. So the sand has to be removed at some point in the process. Why not before it is shipped?

2. Sand has weight, why pay for moving it if the sand is just going to be discarded?

3. If the pipeline owners accept oil that contains sand, they either have to remove it themselves or find a refiner that will take it.

There are good and valid arguments against any oil-sands pipeline, this isn't one of them.

[CK_John]

6. Canada will not let them dump the sand there so they want to send it and dump it in the gulf.

What do you think this is all about? This is untreated tarsand.

[kentauros]

11. There's no sand in it.

I know it's often called "tar sands" but that's just a layman's derogatory name to make sure it pushes all the right buttons in those that are against the pipeline. I'm against pulling the bitumen out of the ground to begin with, but I don't have the clout to tell that corporation to leave it there. Only the Canadian government could do that and I don't think they will.

So, the "sand" supposedly in this piped product. First off, it's bitumen, commonly called asphalt in this country. No, it's not yet a road-surfacing material, only that in the oil cracking process, asphalt is at the very bottom of the cracking, with tar just a tad lighter and above it. And while this naturally occurring bitumen has sand in it, that will be removed by a preliminary processing before it's pumped through the pipeline.

The pipeline is a $7 billion project. If you honestly believe they'd actively ruin their new and expensive pipeline by putting unprocessed bitumen through it, then you need to talk to both a petroleum and a pipeline engineer on why that would never happen. Hopefully, they won't laugh at you

[GeorgeGist]

7. For the Keystone, sand would be removed in Alberta.

http://corpethics.org/article.php?id=2659

Hopefully, Obama will tell Harper to keep his dirty oil. Once refined, it's going to Asia anyway.

[CK_John]

8. Maybe the first week, but there is no committment from Trans Canada to do so

[penultimate]

9. Is this speculation on your part or do you have a source or inside information on this?

[CK_John]

10. If you find any commitment to remove sand in Canada let me know.