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

To: mdittmar
Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

The source of the oil is Northern Alberta.

There is not enough refinery capacity in Washington State to absorb the Athabascan oil. There is in Texas.

Moreover, most of the system has already been built. Phases 1 and 2 built from Manitoba to Steele City, NE then branches to the Wood River, IL refinery complex and the pipeline terminal at Cushing, OK. Phase 3 will be from Cushing to Texas. Phase 4 is the environmentally "sensitive" project -- a cut-off directly from Alberta to Steele City, NE.

This cut-off would not only increase capacity, it would also serve the Bakken field with a terminal in Baker, MT.

This project has been in the works for a long time. It's only at the last moment the enviros and the Obama administration have seen fit to blow the whistle.

19 posted on 11/14/2011 5:33:47 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: okie01

Exactly, the pipeline isn’t ‘controversial’ because there’s some pristine ecological reason. It’s controversial for purely political/financial reasons. Cui bono?


48 posted on 11/15/2011 4:34:24 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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