[thackney]

Putting the refinery closer to the oil fields just means you have to transport the variety of products farther distances instead of using the existing pipelines.

You can move crude oil to the existing refineries and distribution systems. Otherwise, you have to move gasoline, diesel, kerosene, chemical feedstocks, residual oil, petroleum coke, sulfur, etc from the new refinery location.

[woodbutcher1963]

I remember reading a few years back about a refinery that was supposed to be built near Sioux City/Sioux Falls. The idea was to build a refinery just to process the oil coming out of ND, MT. Enlighten us please.

[Praxeologue]

http://www.barchart.com/charts/futures/JBYX14

[Praxeologue]

International pressure may force a lifting of the U.S. crude export embargo. The embargo likely contravenes GATT and other trade agreements and is therefore subject to legal challenge. The embargo increases the cost of crude imports to Asian and European oil importers. Removing the embargo would add a potent weapon to U.S. foreign policy objectives, including weakening oil producing states that (a) export terror, such as Iran and, once again, Libya and (b) pose a military threat, such as Russia.

Supporting the embargo are U.S. voters who mistakenly think that the embargo is keeping gasoline prices from increasing and environmentalists to whom the embargo is tool to reduce the supply of hydrocarbon fuels.

The political scales may tip in favor of repeal with the new Congress in January. The Obama administration is already receptive.

The embargo may not be as big a restraint on trade as it is portrayed. The Brent/WTO spread narrowed dramatically in September as world crude prices dropped.

The $20 billion cost of refinery overhauls pales in comparison to industry E&P expenditures.

The swap with Mexico is small potatoes; the spread off Alberta Select is the big number. Keystone XL is the solution.