According to a State Department report, rail (or rail/tanker combo) is a viable alternative to Keystone XL.
From the Washington Post's Brad Plumer:
There are also the economics to consider. The State Department report estimates that shipping Alberta’s heavy crude by pipeline costs about $10 per barrel, with rail in the $15 to $18 per barrel range. Yet some producers are telling Reuters that shipping by train to the Gulf Coast could cost as much as $30 per barrel.
Now, even at those higher prices, shipping tar sands by rail can still be viable — it all just depends on the demand for oil and available alternatives. Here’s one illustrative example: In March, refiners in Texas could buy Mexico’s Mayan heavy crude for around $106 per barrel. Meanwhile, Canadian heavy crude was selling for about $83 per barrel up north. At those prices, for tar-sands product to be competitive down in the Gulf Coast, transport costs would need to stay under $23 per barrel. Not impossible, but harder without a pipeline.
Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to predict what will happen. If the White House does block Keystone XL, that will certainly make life more difficult for tar-sands producers at the margins. There’s a reason why Canada’s oil industry strongly supports this $5.3 billion pipeline project. But it’s impossible to say for sure that the industry won’t find a way to bring that extra oil to market — especially since the rewards are so lucrative.
“There’s no test case,” writes Schor. “Either Keystone XL will get approved or it won’t.” And how you think about this question goes a long way toward how you think about the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline.
What I find most interesting is the selective cost and environmental comparisons of Keystone XL pipeline pathway alternatives and "no action" (i.e. no pipeline alternatives .
But instead of summarizing, how about I just give you this link to the whole report, and show the "no action" alternative report section below:
