Lotus Puppy
12-11-2005, 02:28
A lot of oil in the US passes through the Gulf Coast. It's cheap and easy with its central location and many waterways. But as we learned painfully from the shocks of Katrina and Rita, the US oil supply is vulnerable, and it has global ramifications. However, if oil companies are willing to make the investment, I believe that the oil supply can have a backup plan if we can allow oil to enter through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
My idea is for a joint Canadian-US project to build an offshore oil terminal on or near the Gulf of St. Lawrence. From there, there will be two ways oil gets to market. The first is that it will be sent by pipeline to East Coast refineries, and used by local markets. The second is that small barges will take the oil down the river and to refineries in Canada, the Midwest, and possibly Upstate NY. Icebreakers would keep the St. Lawrence seaway ice-free in the winter.
Would this be expensive? The initial investment would be great, of course, but in the oil business, nothing's cheap. However, once refining and distribution is shifted more towards the North of the country, oil firms would have to rely less on the volatile South. How does that sound?
My idea is for a joint Canadian-US project to build an offshore oil terminal on or near the Gulf of St. Lawrence. From there, there will be two ways oil gets to market. The first is that it will be sent by pipeline to East Coast refineries, and used by local markets. The second is that small barges will take the oil down the river and to refineries in Canada, the Midwest, and possibly Upstate NY. Icebreakers would keep the St. Lawrence seaway ice-free in the winter.
Would this be expensive? The initial investment would be great, of course, but in the oil business, nothing's cheap. However, once refining and distribution is shifted more towards the North of the country, oil firms would have to rely less on the volatile South. How does that sound?