% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC Message Board

  • sandonthebeach47 sandonthebeach47 Mar 28, 2013 8:44 PM Flag

    OT/ for RLP.....the info you asked for

    COPY FOR YOU as you asked....
    That search window seems to work pretty fast.

    This was the relevant part of your misinformed post:

    "an OIL PIPELINE, which does not justify the economics" in this post:

    "Note this is an NGL PIPELINE , not an OIL PIPELINE, which does not justify the economics. Again, not matter how hard one tries, some people just don't get it."

    are there any pipelines expanding Williston Basin OIL takeaway capacity?

    Here are just a few to start with and the quantities of their pipeline takeaways.

    Butte Pipeline expanded up to 160,000 Bbls/day in 2012

    Butte Loop Pipeline expanding to 100,000 Bbls/day by 2014
    Tesoro Refinery expanded to 68,000Bbls/day in July 2012

    Enbridge Mainline North Dakota expanded to 210,000 Bbls/day in 2012
    Enbridge Bakken Expansion Program expanding to 145,000 Bbls/day in Q1, 2013

    Plains Bakken North expanding to 75,000 Bbls/day in 2013
    High Prarie Pipeline expanding to 150,000 Bbls/day in 2014
    Enbridge Sandpiper expanding to 225,000 Bbls/day in Q1, 2016

    ALL of those above building the extensions or added OIL pipelines in the Williston basin do not agree with your silly post.....right?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Yes, and I stand by it, because you left out the "rest of the story" as you typically do when you're attempting (futilely, in every case) to discredit me. Here's "the rest of the story" that I posted:

      "There is no "emphasis" on NGL pipelines. I merely was pointing out that more NGL pipelines are being built in the Williston than there are oil pipelines because:
      1) It is not economical to bulid a pipeline to every well in North Dakota;
      2) Rail is more efficient than pipelines are because it can carry it to more markets even though it is more expensive to do so;
      3) Pipelines are permanent; rail is not and is more flexible. IE, Rail can carry wheat, but pipelines cannot; After the surge of production in North Dakota wanes, pipelines will be underused and useless, and an expensive proposition for investors. Kudos to ONEOK to cancel a pipeline yet commit to build an NGL processor and the accompanying infrastructure.

      I never said there wasn't going to be an increase in pipeline takeaway - what I DID say was that pipelines will have a lesser role in Bakken oil transport than rail. "

      Now, let's try again with my earlier question, which I said you'd never answer, and so far I am correct, as always:

      "Total up all the pipelines and new processing plants under construction in North Dakota, Montana and South Dakota, and compare them to the same in PA, OH, and WV. Come back to me with the information. "

      • 1 Reply to rlp2451
      • I am not interested in discrediting anyone, so stop saying that each time you are caught.

        And that post/info that you posted is NOT THE ORIGINAL POST but was written sometime AFTER the eight OIL pipelines were posted for your review which clearly showed that your original claim was incorrect.

        Please feel free to search and post the entire ORIGINAL post of yours since you say that only part of the story was told....that is not correct....what you posted was something that came later on after you saw the proof that your original post was indeed incorrect....

        We are all waiting to see your ENTIRE original post of yours with the date so everyone can go take a look at exactly what you said about a gas pipeline in ND and that an oil pipeline would not be buitl......and some just do not get it ....etc.

        Show us exactly and only what you originally posted.

3.30+0.40(+13.79%)Aug 28 4:00 PMEDT