"Please understand that the economic comparison needs to be based upon existing infrastructure already in place, only needing additional crude transportation capacity to the refineries. We don't need additional capacity, just replace the crude imported from overseas with more North American produced crude." Unfortunately, not all decisions end up being made solely on the basis of economic factors.....that YOU need to understand. If the eco-idiots politically prevent the construction of the necessary pipeline(s), then putting in a new refinery closer to the source of feedstock will be the only possible alternative to make use of that source of crude here in the US. I'm sure the Canadians will quite happily sell to the Chinese, Japanese, and/or anyone else that pulls up a tanker at the outlet of the proposed pipeline in British Columbia if we shoot ourselves in the foot.
"The Washington example was to meet a refinery shortage, not just a new supply of oil."
Any major plant construction is based on multiple factors. The key point is that none of the Washington refineries had access to the "pipeline infrastructure" that you say is absolutely needed to transport product, yet they were built and continue to operate, in spite of having to use "other than pipeline" means to get their products to market.
A ND refinery would undoubtedly ship mostly by rail, but there are plenty of gigantic customer bases within quite short rail distances, and a quite good rail infrastructure already in place.
Don't get me wrong...I'm all in favor of pipelining the oil to the Gulf Coast, but one needs to keep other possibilities in mind and not blindly focus on only one alternative.
If the eco-idiots politically prevent the construction of the necessary pipeline(s), then putting in a new refinery closer to the source of feedstock will be the only possible alternative to make use of that source of crude here in the US. So if a pipeline construction is held up by the democrats, we should build new refineries AND new pipelines to deliver the product to market? Why do you the product pipelines would go through any easier?
will be the only possible alternative
I don't agree that caving into unreasonable demands by idiots is the only option.
he key point is that none of the Washington refineries had access to the "pipeline infrastructure" that you say is absolutely needed to transport product
The Washington Refineries serve rather local markets. And they built a small pipeline to economically serve that area.
You brought this up to serve the Midwest Market, much farther away.
A ND refinery would undoubtedly ship mostly by rail,
You still don't address the fact we already have surplus refining capacity. This refinery would need to economically compete with other refineries that already have the existing infrastructure in place to deliver via pipelines, a more cost effective delivery.
Also keep in mind we are no longer talking about a pipeline to the Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL pipeline expansion now stops in Steel City Nebraska. The existing Keystone pipeline already from this point also runs east through Missouri for deliveries into Wood River and Patoka, Illinois.
The TransCanada pipeline expansion from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast, along with several other pipeline projects is already moving forward.
US pipelines map
http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/pipelines_in_usa.pdf