3 ms·

If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.

• dragonwriter 10y ago
  If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves. So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
  • mindslight 10y ago
    Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid. Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view. In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.