re: #211 Indy GOP Refugee

Well then tell me what happens instead of the pipe if it is not built that is beneficial for the environment. What better way to produce and use that energy comes into play instead? Show me the better alternative.

Leave it alone and invest in alternatives that don’t suck nearly as much.

The latest company to pull out of the tar sands is Norwegian oil giant Statoil. But just in the last year, Shell, the French energy company Total, and SunCor Energy of Canada have all cancelled tar sands projects.

…

That pipeline is crucial to tar sands projects becoming profitable, Palmer says. Without it, “a marginally profitable business [turns] into a completely unprofitable business — and that’s scaring oil producers off of tar sands projects,” Palmer explains.

Because tar sands oil is a much lower-quality version of crude oil, it sells at $20 to $30 dollars less than conventional crude. With conventional crude oil now selling for about $80 a barrel, the price of tar sands oil has fallen to around $60 a barrel. It also costs about $25 per barrel to move tar sands crude by rail from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, Palmer says. The Keystone Pipeline would cut that transportation price from $25 to $9 a barrel, which is why oil companies are so eager to see the pipeline move forward.

If the price of tar sands oil continues to drop, and companies have to pay that extra $15 to $20 for oil-by-rail indefinitely, then suddenly the long-term viability of tar sands project looks very dubious, Palmer says.

Is there a compelling reason for the government to get involved, to grease up this pig just to make one private industry project profitable?