[Izzy Dunne]

intended to bring oil from Alberta in Canada to oil refineries along the Gulf Coast.

The refineries are along the coast, because the main path for oil to travel is and has been by ship.

Is there a technical reason we cannot build refineries in Montana, ND, etc.?

I know nobody would risk the political firestorm of America trying to act grown-up, but is there a technical problem with it? Cold, maybe, or dryness?

[Fightin Whitey]

>>>Is there a technical reason we cannot build refineries in Montana, ND, etc.?<<<

Not technical just political. It’s called the EPA.

The practical fact is you cannot reasonably build a refinery given the costs and interminable time-frame demanded by EPA regulations.

Supposedly a refinery has been permitted by the feds for construction on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, but everyone knows this facility will never be built, let alone operational; rather the whole charade is just another excuse to shower tax money on the ruling class blanket Indians.

[thackney]

Is there a technical reason we cannot build refineries in Montana, ND, etc.?

No, we have five refineries already in North Dakota and Montana.

But we are not short on refinery capacity. The US has become a net refined product exporter. We are short on refinery input, not refineries.

What we would also need to build, if we built a 500,000 BPD refinery near the Canadian Border, is refined product pipeline instead of the crude oil / bitumen pipeline. The demand for that refined product in that quantities is still going to be a lot of pipeline.

Refineries also produce more than gasoline / diesel / jet fuel. They produce chemical plant feedstock and that market is mostly down at the Gulf Coast.

They also produce refinery "leftovers" that don't ship by pipeline, petroleum coke or residual oil. That market is far away as well.

A modern refinery requires hydrogen for multiple units. Around the Gulf Coast we have Hydrogen Pipelines so that not every refinery needs to produce their own. But a new large refinery up there would have to add hydrogen generation units as well.

A large refinery also requires a significant amount of electrical power. That would have to be added if you are not going to use an existing refinery.

Bottom line, it would cost a lot more money to build a new infrastructure along with the new refinery compared to building the pipeline to the existing infrastructure.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

Is there a technical reason we cannot build refineries in Montana, ND, etc.?

No technical reason at all.

The EPA and the environazis simply won't allow any such thing to happen. Montana's already lost mining, logging, railroads and two-thirds of the manufacturing businesses, the farmers and ranchers are next on the hit list along with the tail end of the coal and oil operations still around.

At the current rate, Montana will be the world's largest theme park by 2015, complete with wind turbines killing off birds as far as the eye can see. Who needs oil?

(Spit on the ground and walk away)

[Melchior]

I believe that there was a large refinery to be built on an Indian reservation in South Dakota. (The Indian tribe wanted it because it would bring hundreds of jobs to people out of work.) At least, that was the plan last year. With Obama and his Luddites around, it has probably been called off.

[Zathras]

Only technical reason is a new refinery would cost over $20B and 10 years of fighting with the EPA to get it approved.

[Smokin' Joe]

There are refineries in Montana—Google Laurel, MT. There is also a lot of oil produced in the region.