Enviros rely on Reuters analysis to attack State Dept. view that rail transport is feasible alternative to Keystone for Canadian oil sands

The bad news for the enviros is that the State Dept. doesn’t have to be correct or make the optimal decision; it legally only needs to have reasonably considered the relevant facts in its decision-making process.

Read the excited enviros.

Read the Reuters analysis.

3 thoughts on “Enviros rely on Reuters analysis to attack State Dept. view that rail transport is feasible alternative to Keystone for Canadian oil sands”

  1. The bad news for, well, people is that the State Department falls under John Kerry and Barack Obama.

  2. Rail transport is not cost effective for very large volumes of oil. Pipelines are best for that. Rail transport can be efficient for smaller volumes or for temporary moves. Some years ago, the railroad I worked for had a temporary (a couple of years) movement of oil where tank cars were actually hooked together with large flexible hoses, so that 100 cars could be loaded simultaneously — increasing efficiency (but possibly increasing the risk of a spill, too). These cars ran as a “unit train” 2 or 3 times a week from the origin to destination and the process was quite effective.

    But for very large volumes of crude oil or even refined petroleum products, there is nothing that beats a pipeline for efficiency.

Comments are closed.