Analysis: Oil by train may not be substitute for Keystone XL pipeline

in.reuters.com Published: April 18, 2013
Advertisement

The prospects for bringing large amounts of Canadian heavy crude oil into the United States by train is a contentious issue as the U.S. government weighs whether to allow the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to go ahead.


An assumption that oil would move by rail without Keystone was a key part of a U.S. State Department report in March that found development of Canada's oil sands region will proceed at roughly the same rate, with or without the pipeline.

That finding undercut warnings from environmentalists that the pipeline would lead to a spike in greenhouse gas emissions.

Proponents for the roughly 1,200 mile pipeline, delivering the oil in Canada's Alberta province to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, say moving huge volumes of crude by rail would be dirtier and more prone to mishap than a pipeline and the market would adopt rail if the project were halted. The State Department report endorses that view.

But some industry officials, energy analysts and recent data raise questions about whether the industry is really eager to adopt crude-by-rail should the U.S. government rule against the TransCanada Corp pipeline.

They say train transport is so expensive that Canadian heavy crude, produced by processing bituminous sand, isn't likely to reach Texas and Louisiana in Keystone-like quantities by rail.

H/T: Reuters
Read the rest of this post on in.reuters.com