Not having followed Keystone in detail, what was the reason for phase 4 having such a radically different route than phase 1? Surely it would have been much easier to gain approvals on land where those phase 1 deals were already in place. Obviously it's shorter, and I see that there was a plan to access the Bakken formation fields in Montana. Are those the only reasons? Was it thought that approval on the phase 4 route would be easier than additional capacity along the phase 1?
In retrospect, would a larger-capacity along the phase 1 line, combined with a connector line with the Bakken fields as a later phase have been better?
|