Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thackney
Well the point might be moot with oil prices plummeting, it might not be financially viable to build....
7 posted on 11/05/2014 5:30:03 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: apillar

TransCanada Proposed the project in early 2005.

Oil was ~$50/barrel then.


8 posted on 11/05/2014 5:34:40 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: apillar

The point of the pipeline is to lower the cost/gallon of shipping the heavy crude oil to the refineries in LA, OK & TX that are most efficient in turning this oil into finished products. They are producing more oil than refineries in Alberta can handle. The oil is already getting to TX, it just costs more money to currently move it there through todays logistics. By completing either the Keystone Pipeline or the other pipeline to the BC coast it lowers the cost to move it to where it needs to go. The difference is by completing Keystone it would allow the TX & LA refineries to PAY MORE FOB Alberta than the Canadians can get for their product from other buyers in Asia. This is because the cost of moving it/gallon is greatly reduced by moving through a pipeline.

The Liberals think that the oil sand extraction in Alberta is the worst SIN against the environment in the world. They know if Keystone gets built, it lowers the cost of moving it to market. Therefore, they would increase production in Alberta and rape the Earth even more. I am speaking from a Liberals point of view(not mine). This is what the fight is all about. It really has nothing to do with Berkshires purchase of the BNSF.


12 posted on 11/05/2014 6:07:28 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson