Back in April I wrote the post "Is There Anything Behind the Delay of the TransCanada Pipeline?"
Well, it's taken a while, but the mainstream press might actually be onto something. In the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article "Study: Tar sands oil will reach US sans pipeline", from September 7, 2011, we read this:
Canadian tar sands oil will almost certainly move to U.S. refineries even if a $7 billion pipeline from western Canada to the Gulf Coast fails to achieve federal approval, a U.S. State Department consultant's report says.
How would the oil make it to the gulf?
The study commissioned by the State Department estimated that rail alone could haul 1.25 million barrels of Canadian crude daily by 2030, or nearly twice the amount of the proposed pipeline.
When will the final decision be made?
State Department spokeswoman Wendy Nassmacher said a final decision on the proposed project is slated to be made by the end of the year. The review will consider if the pipeline is in the national interest. Part of the criteria in determining that will be "what will happen if the pipeline isn't built," she said.
Who benefits by not building the pipeline and instead transporting Bakken oil via trains? Anyone who owns the North-South route from Canada to the gulf, that's who. And who would that be? Like I said in my previous post, Warren Buffett. His ownership of ConocoPhillips benefits him since he already gets oil cheaper than others who rely on Gulf oil. His eventual ownership of the transportation of this oil will grow this even more.
Do you think that Warren Buffett's latest "tax-me-more" message and assistance to Obama is a favor to convince the State Department to back off on the pipeline?
The State Department is having two meetings this week in Nebraska to discuss the pipeline. One in Lincoln, Nebraska on Tuesday, September 27th, and in Atkinson, Nebraska on Thursday, September 29th. Will there be any train talk? I doubt it.