Seeking Alpha

TransCanada mulls rail bridge if Keystone delays continue

  • CEO Russ Girling says TransCanada (TRP +1.1%) could develop a rail bridge to Nebraska if the Keystone XL pipeline continues to be held up by the U.S. government.
  • Girling has been critical of the boom in crude-by-rail because it's less safe than pipelines, but with rail cars traveling unrestricted across the U.S.-Canada border, he expects rail to become a big part of TRP's future as pipelines wait for regulatory approvals.
  • 400K-500K bbl/day of oil will move out of western Canada by rail next year, increasing to 1M bbl/day by 2015, the CEO says.
  • Girling also sees opportunities to build new oil pipelines in Mexico, where TRP already has two natural gas pipelines: "What we bring to the table is obviously our capital, but probably more importantly is our expertise in some of the more difficult terrain and remote terrain in Mexico."
Comments (9)
  • keystone is dead
    18 Dec 2013, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • Just now figuring that out?? Obama had it killed years ago
    18 Dec 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Try a real short rail link. Pipe, rail, pipe into ND and add Bakken production. Sure it is a back door thing but wtf, somebody is going to do it. Better trp than Buffet and Obama.
    18 Dec 2013, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • Agreed. And make it temporary, until a friendlier administration allows the final mile of pipe to be laid across the border to join the two.
    19 Dec 2013, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • Obama is going to learn that business will get the job done without government help or appoval. As opposed to Healthcare.gov business gets things done effectively!
    18 Dec 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • The Canada-Us portion of Keystone is not needed now but one day it will be. Bakken won't last forever. So it is like the old Fram oil filter commercial, pay me now or pay me later.
    18 Dec 2013, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • Obama is to stuck in his ideology for common sense to mean anything. Depending on who's numbers you use, oil sands crude results in anywhere from 4% to 14% more green house gas intensive than regular crude and some of the heavy crude's produced elsewhere are way worse than Canadian oil sands crude. With the steady improvements being made, the producers are all moving towards that 4% number and better. When you think about it, 4% is not at all a big deal and really shows you how blinding the greens ideology is. There are far bigger sources of green house gas emissions out there and yet they put such a huge focus on the oil sands. As they say, always follow the money and so the question is - Who benefits from reduced oil sands production - Arab oil producers, Venezuela , Russia - just to name a few. The green's anti oil sands lobby is a business just like any other business and the anti oil sands stand is a much bigger money maker than all the other more worth while causes combined.
    18 Dec 2013, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • I think you are right about the benefits of stopping or delaying production. Also the business end of opposition to development.

     

    Canadian production companies have been sh1t on for decades. First by their own government and then by SWINE (Someone Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything). Their time is coming and. if delayed long enough, will be glorious!

     

    Of course some folks can not stand the thought of having 'blue eyed' sheiks to the north.
    22 Dec 2013, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Keystone arguably makes the most sense as a conduit for bitumen for existing Gulf Coast refining capacity than for exclusive transportation of light sweet crude such as that from Bakken.
    22 Dec 2013, 12:20 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)