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.
Good luck convincing the investment group that needs to spend billions of that claim in order to build the fantasy you desire.
Cheers