Economics 101

[Toddsterpatriot]

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
Oh, I forgot. You are a con tool. You do not know what a jobs bill is. You just know about making the wealthy happy. Your heroes do nothing to help the middle class, or the working people of this nation. Because, like you, they do not care.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?
Do you think I am keeping track of shovel ready jobs? The only thing I am happy about is that the Stimulus has worked to slowly bring back all 8.7 million jobs lost to the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Because if we had relied on republicans, it would pretty certainly have turned into the great Republican Depression of 2008.

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center? Derp!
Why would you pump oil to a port if you were not going to load in onto tankers? Dipshit.

Why would you pump oil to a port if you were not going to load in onto tankers?

Because the refineries are there, moron.

Of course you'd build a refinery where it was difficult to bring in tankers? LOL!

 

[edthecynic]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

 

[edthecynic]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.

Yeah, just awful, buying a few feet of land to bury a pipeline.
Just awful, hasn't ever been done before in the history of the nation.

Thank goodness Obama was able to decisively protect us from that.
After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.

 

[Rshermr]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.

Yeah, just awful, buying a few feet of land to bury a pipeline.
Just awful, hasn't ever been done before in the history of the nation.

Thank goodness Obama was able to decisively protect us from that.
After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.

Bought a house in washington state with a pipeline next door. Poor neighbor who had the pipeline had a hell of a time selling his house, at well below others around, because of the restrictions, and the potential to have it leak and explode. As it did 25 miles north, killing a child. Those pipelines are, you know, just a few feet of land. All the way across peoples acreage, or lots, and when they leak (they always leak, it is just when) they sometimes leave lasting horror stories. Look up exploding pipeline in Bellingham. And then wonder why people dislike pipelines.

 

[Rshermr]

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
The people block it. The president is supposed to do what the people want. Ever here of majority rule? Oh, yeah, you are a con tool. For you, it is wealth rules.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?
As many as they could find. Did you have a point, or are you just being a con tool?

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center?

Actually, we have refineries all over the US. But I know you like to get our oil out of the US. Most of us worry about our supply of oil. Not the supply under Saudi control. But, I keep forgetting that you are a con tool You just want the oil companies to be wealthier.

Derp
Try tums, dipshit.

!

!

The president is supposed to do what the people want.

The people want an end to unlimited illegals invading.
Did you think that illegals had something to do with oil pipelines???
If we want to stop illegals, then corporations need to stop hiring them, me boy. And corporations need to stop going to Mexico to set up shops to explain to them where to go in the US to find jobs. At minimum wage, and less. Because corporations love low cost labor.

Actually, we have refineries all over the US.

And the idea that someone would ship oil to one and then ship it away is stupid, even for a liberal.

They are not shipping it to the port. They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port. Did you miss that. Question is, if you want to send crude to a refinery, say in California, why pipe it to a sea port so you could re route it to California. Sounds stupid, even for a Con. But it is what you are suggesting. Certainly not what any liberal would be dumb enough to believe. Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers. Ever think of that, con tool?

But I know you like to get our oil out of the US.

That won't be a problem, it the Canadians finally build their own to the Pacific.
Did you notice that europe and the Gulf are not in the pacific. But they could ship it to the Atlantic. Why do you suppose they don't?

 

[boedicca]

Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs. that is another of your con talking points. Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs. We needed to recover millions of jobs. And we did, with no help at all from republicans. And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference. Typical conservative logic. You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession. Yeah. That would seem fair to a con tool like you. Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?

/QUOTE]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

^^^ Typical Prog underwea-rshmeer ^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rshermr]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.

Yeah, just awful, buying a few feet of land to bury a pipeline.
Just awful, hasn't ever been done before in the history of the nation.

Thank goodness Obama was able to decisively protect us from that.
After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.

Yes it was. Very. As opposed to a con tool, who would take the money from the energy corporation, build a pipeline across sensitive aquifers and other environment, so it could go to the coast, be loaded in tankers, and become fully part of the world oil supply. And not affect petroleum prices in the us much at all. Because con tools do not believe earth scientists. They only pay attention to energy corporations, who want to be richer. So they can continue to pay the right wing lap dogs to do as they want.
And he may have paid attention to the fact that Bakken oil is among the dirtiest in the world. And could very well cause a huge impact on global climate change. You know, climate change, which the con lap dogs are paid to say does not exist. Like you, me con tool
So, we get:
1. Wealthier Oil and Energy Corporations.
2. Wealthier conservative politicians.
3. Gas at the same price as today.
4. A good chance of added catastrophic global climate change effects.
5. Potential water system disasters.
6. Land value decreases.
7. Potential deaths due to explosions.

Wow. No wonder cons love the idea so much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.

The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No.
Cornell University Report: Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50." A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]

that the pipeline "will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Whatever, me con tool. But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill". We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Probably more. So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession. That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000. Wow, me boy. That would be .00054 of the jobs lost. So small a fraction, it is hard to even say. Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost. What a help that would be. But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary. They would go away again. Completely. Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs. Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs. republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world. What a great bunch those republicans are. So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies. To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks. And pollute our world more. Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem. And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer. Probably dead, but richer.

But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
The people block it. The president is supposed to do what the people want. Ever here of majority rule? Oh, yeah, you are a con tool. For you, it is wealth rules.

But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?
As many as they could find. Did you have a point, or are you just being a con tool?

if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.

Why would you ship oil away from a refining center?

Actually, we have refineries all over the US. But I know you like to get our oil out of the US. Most of us worry about our supply of oil. Not the supply under Saudi control. But, I keep forgetting that you are a con tool You just want the oil companies to be wealthier.

Derp
Try tums, dipshit.

!

!

The president is supposed to do what the people want.

The people want an end to unlimited illegals invading.
Did you think that illegals had something to do with oil pipelines???
If we want to stop illegals, then corporations need to stop hiring them, me boy. And corporations need to stop going to Mexico to set up shops to explain to them where to go in the US to find jobs. At minimum wage, and less. Because corporations love low cost labor.

Actually, we have refineries all over the US.

And the idea that someone would ship oil to one and then ship it away is stupid, even for a liberal.

They are not shipping it to the port. They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port. Did you miss that. Question is, if you want to send crude to a refinery, say in California, why pipe it to a sea port so you could re route it to California. Sounds stupid, even for a Con. But it is what you are suggesting. Certainly not what any liberal would be dumb enough to believe. Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers. Ever think of that, con tool?

But I know you like to get our oil out of the US.

That won't be a problem, it the Canadians finally build their own to the Pacific.
Did you notice that europe and the Gulf are not in the pacific. But they could ship it to the Atlantic. Why do you suppose they don't?

Did you think that illegals had something to do with oil pipelines???

As long as we're saying "the president is supposed to do what the people want", I wanted to bring up another instance where Obama isn't.

If we want to stop illegals, then corporations need to stop hiring them, me boy.

And government needs to stop releasing them once caught, ya gay pirate.

They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port.

Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.

Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.

Because liberals are clueless.

Unless there's a port in the Nebraska-Kansas area?

Did you notice that europe and the Gulf are not in the pacific.

Did you notice that China and Japan are?

But they could ship it to the Atlantic. Why do you suppose they don't?

Because the Atlantic is about 3 times the distance as the Pacific from their oil producing areas. Derp!

I mean, seriously, can you read a fucking map you moron?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.

Yeah, just awful, buying a few feet of land to bury a pipeline.
Just awful, hasn't ever been done before in the history of the nation.

Thank goodness Obama was able to decisively protect us from that.
After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.

Yes it was. Very. As opposed to a con tool, who would take the money from the energy corporation, build a pipeline across sensitive aquifers and other environment, so it could go to the coast, be loaded in tankers, and become fully part of the world oil supply. And not affect petroleum prices in the us much at all. Because con tools do not believe earth scientists. They only pay attention to energy corporations, who want to be richer. So they can continue to pay the right wing lap dogs to do as they want.
And he may have paid attention to the fact that Bakken oil is among the dirtiest in the world. And could very well cause a huge impact on global climate change. You know, climate change, which the con lap dogs are paid to say does not exist. Like you, me con tool
So, we get:
1. Wealthier Oil and Energy Corporations.
2. Wealthier conservative politicians.
3. Gas at the same price as today.
4. A good chance of added catastrophic global climate change effects.
5. Potential water system disasters.
6. Land value decreases.
7. Potential deaths due to explosions.

Wow. No wonder cons love the idea so much.

After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.

Yes it was.

If it was so dangerous, 7 hours would have been enough.

7 years? What a pussy!

 

[Rshermr]

MOUNTAINS.


They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port
The majority are not.
Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.
But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska, me boy. With way more capacity than the XL. And that is what they do in Houston.
Unless the oil companies are stupider than you, which is not really possible, refining takes place once. The refined product is shipped after that point, obviously. So, you bring crude to the point of either a refinery, or a shipping location. They can be either, or both. But crude is processed one time. THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.
Take alaska. It is brought by pipeline to Valdez. It is not refined in Valdez, me boy. It is loaded on ships and sent to various refineries. The first in NE Washington state, though some goes to Japan and China. And a large part goes on to California.
So, by the way, the oil coming from Alberta and S. Dakota useing the XL pipeline would be a very small portion of the US oil. It would be more Canadian. But overall, no really big deal.

Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.
Because liberals are clueless.
Not at all, me boy. Because liberals are smart. That is exactly what they do in Valdez, Alaska. Rational people believe that. You are clueless if you think that the product, and the raw material, are not shipped from terminus locations with refineries to other locations, worldwide. Read some, it is amazing what you can learn.
Actually, because that is mostly what the XL pipeline would do. Pipe crude to Houston, where it would be refined, then loaded into tankers to be distributed worldwide. You see, tankers are not refineries. I say that because I once had a con on this board tell me I was stupid for not knowing crude was refined on tankers. But oil is commonly brought to refineries by ship, or by pipeline, and refined product is often transported by tankers to other parts of the world. As is crude, in some cases. You see, trucks and trains do not work well trans ocean.

[/QUOTE]

 

[P@triot]

Summarizes the liberal minion idiot mind-set mentality flawlessly...

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." -William F. Buckley

 

[Rshermr]

Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.

Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.

Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.

Yeah, just awful, buying a few feet of land to bury a pipeline.
Just awful, hasn't ever been done before in the history of the nation.

Thank goodness Obama was able to decisively protect us from that.
After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.

Yes it was. Very. As opposed to a con tool, who would take the money from the energy corporation, build a pipeline across sensitive aquifers and other environment, so it could go to the coast, be loaded in tankers, and become fully part of the world oil supply. And not affect petroleum prices in the us much at all. Because con tools do not believe earth scientists. They only pay attention to energy corporations, who want to be richer. So they can continue to pay the right wing lap dogs to do as they want.
And he may have paid attention to the fact that Bakken oil is among the dirtiest in the world. And could very well cause a huge impact on global climate change. You know, climate change, which the con lap dogs are paid to say does not exist. Like you, me con tool
So, we get:
1. Wealthier Oil and Energy Corporations.
2. Wealthier conservative politicians.
3. Gas at the same price as today.
4. A good chance of added catastrophic global climate change effects.
5. Potential water system disasters.
6. Land value decreases.
7. Potential deaths due to explosions.

Wow. No wonder cons love the idea so much.

After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.
It was not 7 years, of course. You see, republicans passed a bill that gave Obama 60 days to come to a decision. So, he did.

Yes it was.

If it was so dangerous, 7 hours would have been enough.
Only in the mind of a con tool. Because you had the decision given to you, so you needed no study or thought. Because cons are not capable of rational thought. And they would not care about the fact that Nebraska was refusing the right of XL to cross their state, for very rational reasons. Fear of loss of their water source caused them to want the pipeline stopped.



7 years? What a pussy

 

[P@triot]

This is the first time I even remotely considered Trump a viable option for my vote. Bringing in the Reagan Administration to recreate one of the greatest economic successes in U.S. history means Trump might not be quite the reality show idiot I thought he was.

Reaganomics Band Gets Back Together to Advise Trump on Plan

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

MOUNTAINS.


They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port
The majority are not.
Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.
But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska, me boy. With way more capacity than the XL. And that is what they do in Houston.
Unless the oil companies are stupider than you, which is not really possible, refining takes place once. The refined product is shipped after that point, obviously. So, you bring crude to the point of either a refinery, or a shipping location. They can be either, or both. But crude is processed one time. THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.
Take alaska. It is brought by pipeline to Valdez. It is not refined in Valdez, me boy. It is loaded on ships and sent to various refineries. The first in NE Washington state, though some goes to Japan and China. And a large part goes on to California.
So, by the way, the oil coming from Alberta and S. Dakota useing the XL pipeline would be a very small portion of the US oil. It would be more Canadian. But overall, no really big deal.

Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.
Because liberals are clueless.
Not at all, me boy. Because liberals are smart. That is exactly what they do in Valdez, Alaska. Rational people believe that. You are clueless if you think that the product, and the raw material, are not shipped from terminus locations with refineries to other locations, worldwide. Read some, it is amazing what you can learn.
Actually, because that is mostly what the XL pipeline would do. Pipe crude to Houston, where it would be refined, then loaded into tankers to be distributed worldwide. You see, tankers are not refineries. I say that because I once had a con on this board tell me I was stupid for not knowing crude was refined on tankers. But oil is commonly brought to refineries by ship, or by pipeline, and refined product is often transported by tankers to other parts of the world. As is crude, in some cases. You see, trucks and trains do not work well trans ocean.

Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.

But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska

Because they produce much more than they can refine.

THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.

You got one right. They do that even without adding Keystone.

 

[P@triot]

A billion dollars just to process the freaking paperwork for approving food stamps. The kind of efficiencies and cost effective processes that could only come from government. Unbelievable...

Approving Food Stamps Costs the Economy $1 Billion

 

[Rshermr]

MOUNTAINS.


They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port
The majority are not.
Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.
But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska, me boy. With way more capacity than the XL. And that is what they do in Houston.
Unless the oil companies are stupider than you, which is not really possible, refining takes place once. The refined product is shipped after that point, obviously. So, you bring crude to the point of either a refinery, or a shipping location. They can be either, or both. But crude is processed one time. THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.
Take alaska. It is brought by pipeline to Valdez. It is not refined in Valdez, me boy. It is loaded on ships and sent to various refineries. The first in NE Washington state, though some goes to Japan and China. And a large part goes on to California.
So, by the way, the oil coming from Alberta and S. Dakota useing the XL pipeline would be a very small portion of the US oil. It would be more Canadian. But overall, no really big deal.

Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.
Because liberals are clueless.
Not at all, me boy. Because liberals are smart. That is exactly what they do in Valdez, Alaska. Rational people believe that. You are clueless if you think that the product, and the raw material, are not shipped from terminus locations with refineries to other locations, worldwide. Read some, it is amazing what you can learn.
Actually, because that is mostly what the XL pipeline would do. Pipe crude to Houston, where it would be refined, then loaded into tankers to be distributed worldwide. You see, tankers are not refineries. I say that because I once had a con on this board tell me I was stupid for not knowing crude was refined on tankers. But oil is commonly brought to refineries by ship, or by pipeline, and refined product is often transported by tankers to other parts of the world. As is crude, in some cases. You see, trucks and trains do not work well trans ocean.

Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.

But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska

Because they produce much more than they can refine.
Hardly, me boy. It is simply easier All crude from the alaka pipeline is simply sent onward, mostly to Washington Refineries or California refineries. Because it is simpler. But, here is the other thing you need to understand. They can increase refining capacity to match supply of crude, should they want to. Which is easy for rational people to know.
But it does give conservatives the opportunity to say something classless about a sitting US President. Oh, wait, they do not need a reason. Because they are classless. IE, without integrity.

THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.

You got one right. They do that even without adding Keystone.
Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center. Glad you cleared up your error. Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

MOUNTAINS.


They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port
The majority are not.
Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.
But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska, me boy. With way more capacity than the XL. And that is what they do in Houston.
Unless the oil companies are stupider than you, which is not really possible, refining takes place once. The refined product is shipped after that point, obviously. So, you bring crude to the point of either a refinery, or a shipping location. They can be either, or both. But crude is processed one time. THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.
Take alaska. It is brought by pipeline to Valdez. It is not refined in Valdez, me boy. It is loaded on ships and sent to various refineries. The first in NE Washington state, though some goes to Japan and China. And a large part goes on to California.
So, by the way, the oil coming from Alberta and S. Dakota useing the XL pipeline would be a very small portion of the US oil. It would be more Canadian. But overall, no really big deal.

Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.
Because liberals are clueless.
Not at all, me boy. Because liberals are smart. That is exactly what they do in Valdez, Alaska. Rational people believe that. You are clueless if you think that the product, and the raw material, are not shipped from terminus locations with refineries to other locations, worldwide. Read some, it is amazing what you can learn.
Actually, because that is mostly what the XL pipeline would do. Pipe crude to Houston, where it would be refined, then loaded into tankers to be distributed worldwide. You see, tankers are not refineries. I say that because I once had a con on this board tell me I was stupid for not knowing crude was refined on tankers. But oil is commonly brought to refineries by ship, or by pipeline, and refined product is often transported by tankers to other parts of the world. As is crude, in some cases. You see, trucks and trains do not work well trans ocean.

Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.

But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska

Because they produce much more than they can refine.
Hardly, me boy. It is simply easier All crude from the alaka pipeline is simply sent onward, mostly to Washington Refineries or California refineries. Because it is simpler. But, here is the other thing you need to understand. They can increase refining capacity to match supply of crude, should they want to. Which is easy for rational people to know.
But it does give conservatives the opportunity to say something classless about a sitting US President. Oh, wait, they do not need a reason. Because they are classless. IE, without integrity.

THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.

You got one right. They do that even without adding Keystone.
Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center. Glad you cleared up your error. Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!

Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center.

Yes, after they refine it. Derp!

Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!

But you won't.

 

[Rshermr]

MOUNTAINS.


They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port
The majority are not.
Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.
But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska, me boy. With way more capacity than the XL. And that is what they do in Houston.
Unless the oil companies are stupider than you, which is not really possible, refining takes place once. The refined product is shipped after that point, obviously. So, you bring crude to the point of either a refinery, or a shipping location. They can be either, or both. But crude is processed one time. THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.
Take alaska. It is brought by pipeline to Valdez. It is not refined in Valdez, me boy. It is loaded on ships and sent to various refineries. The first in NE Washington state, though some goes to Japan and China. And a large part goes on to California.
So, by the way, the oil coming from Alberta and S. Dakota useing the XL pipeline would be a very small portion of the US oil. It would be more Canadian. But overall, no really big deal.

Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.
Because liberals are clueless.
Not at all, me boy. Because liberals are smart. That is exactly what they do in Valdez, Alaska. Rational people believe that. You are clueless if you think that the product, and the raw material, are not shipped from terminus locations with refineries to other locations, worldwide. Read some, it is amazing what you can learn.
Actually, because that is mostly what the XL pipeline would do. Pipe crude to Houston, where it would be refined, then loaded into tankers to be distributed worldwide. You see, tankers are not refineries. I say that because I once had a con on this board tell me I was stupid for not knowing crude was refined on tankers. But oil is commonly brought to refineries by ship, or by pipeline, and refined product is often transported by tankers to other parts of the world. As is crude, in some cases. You see, trucks and trains do not work well trans ocean.

Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be Obama level stupidity.

But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska

Because they produce much more than they can refine.
Hardly, me boy. It is simply easier All crude from the alaka pipeline is simply sent onward, mostly to Washington Refineries or California refineries. Because it is simpler. But, here is the other thing you need to understand. They can increase refining capacity to match supply of crude, should they want to. Which is easy for rational people to know.
But it does give conservatives the opportunity to say something classless about a sitting US President. Oh, wait, they do not need a reason. Because they are classless. IE, without integrity.

THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.

You got one right. They do that even without adding Keystone.
Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center. Glad you cleared up your error. Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!

Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center.

Yes, after they refine it. Derp!
Or before they refine it, as crude.

Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!

But you won't
Really. You should actually admit your own mistake. Like people who have integrity. Except, obviously, you have no integrity.