This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50.
> This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50.
That's a gasoline price, but don't they typically pump crude through pipelines? So more like $1.50 a gallon, based on my calculations.
I didn't know before trying to find online sources for what I remember hearing on the radio. But apparently there were/are some pretty crazy schemes people thought up out there.
How much of the cost of an oil pipeline is tied up in fighting opposition to it getting made and mitigation against the catastrophic effects of leaking oil? Surely a water pipeline would be cheaper to build, given the lower risks involved and the obvious benefits to everyone living near its path.
That's a gasoline price, but don't they typically pump crude through pipelines? So more like $1.50 a gallon, based on my calculations.
I suppose if they built such a pipeline, they'd have to charge a lot more than 2-3 a gallon for the water. Though as a project, it seems less ambitious than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Tran....
Edit: I wonder if this was the (defunct) North American plan that was being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power....