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
"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? No, actually I'm not saying that. I'm saying the shipment of products would happen largely by rail and existing pipeline infrastucture, which defuses the only argument the green weenies have, which is "new pipeline might contaminate groundwater reserves".
"I don't agree that caving into unreasonable demands by idiots is the only option."
Sometimes politics forces "non-optimum" choices. See California, which has all the oil, market, and infrastructure you might want, but can't meet their own needs due to the green weenies. I suspect I like that situation about as little as you do, but reality is reality.
"The Washington Refineries serve rather local markets. And they built a small pipeline to economically serve that area."
And what percentage of refinery output moves through those pipelines??
"You brought this up to serve the Midwest Market, much farther away.
And which already has more infrastructure in place than the Washington refineries ever did. Your own map shows a quite large number of pipelines heading directly across ND and into the Midwest mega-market cities. There is a similar map showing major rail lines with precisely the same pattern.
"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."
Yes I did. I pointed out that sometimes pure economics are not the ultimate deciding factor. Your failure to acknowledge that reality isn't "my" problem.