Would the Keystone Pipeline be a great economic asset to the United States? Hardly.

[Luddly Neddite]

Versus the oil being sold to China, refined, and then sold back to us at a steep premium, causing the price of everything to rise.

Way to fuck over the poor for political reasons, leftists.

Would someone please explain to the rw's that this oil will be sold on the world mmarket, refined and then sold back to us or to someone else.

Why is this so hard for the rw's to grasp and understand?

No dumbass, refined oil products are the largest US export. Read for knowledge.

Oh great. Another rw who tries to cover his ignorance with childish name-calling.

You don't need to tell ME this. You need to tell this to the rw's who have said, in this thread, that we will KEEP the Keystone oil. The FACT is, the oil will be EXPORTED.

 

[saveliberty]

In a first, gas and other fuels are top US export - Yahoo! News

NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel.

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

 

[code1211]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:




http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

Gas prices have already increased and done so without the pipeline. Is it your thesis that gas price increase both with and without the pipeline?

Just a footnote for your consideration: The only jobs that are permanent are government union jobs. Those jobs go on whether they are needed or not, we can afford them or not they are a benefit to anyone or not. All other jobs are temporary.

 

[kwc57]

What is with you people in not reading the article? There is no 20,000 jobs. Only 3000 temporary ones.

what is wrong with you cheering the denial for us to get jobs and energy?

3000 temporary jobs just isn't worth the environmental toll. Had it actually been 20,000 sustainable jobs, I'd be for it. But it's not.

Hey dumbass, take a look at the map and tell me what the environmental toll has been for all of these pipelines crisscrossing our nation for decades that you aren't even aware of?

United States Pipelines map - Crude Oil (petroleum) pipelines - Natural Gas pipelines - Products pipelines

View attachment 16919

 

[Intense]

Would someone please explain to the rw's that this oil will be sold on the world mmarket, refined and then sold back to us or to someone else.

Why is this so hard for the rw's to grasp and understand?

No dumbass, refined oil products are the largest US export. Read for knowledge.

Oh great. Another rw who tries to cover his ignorance with childish name-calling.

You don't need to tell ME this. You need to tell this to the rw's who have said, in this thread, that we will KEEP the Keystone oil. The FACT is, the oil will be EXPORTED.

The fact is that part of the oil will be exported, under current conditions.

For the first time since 1949, fuel — gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel — was the United States’ biggest export in terms of dollars, the Associated Press reports.

In previous years, dating back to at least 2006, the top export had been aircraft.

At a time when oil and gas projects and processes, from fracking to tar sands extraction to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, are points of contention among environmentalists, labor leaders, Tribal leaders, Republicans and Democrats, the fact that the U.S. is actually exporting fuel can be a bit puzzling. However, it’s important to bear in mind that the nation is still the world’s largest importer of petroleum, or crude oil — the flammable liquid that is refined to make various fuel products.

International oil markets are notoriously difficult to explain, since they depend not just on supply and demand but also world politics. Yet the main reasons for the surge in fuel exports seem to be fairly simple. First, due to a poor economy and more fuel-efficient cars, there is a lessening of demand in the United States for fuel. Overseas, in Latin America, for example, demand for refined fuel products is high.

But why, if there is enough domestically-refined gasoline to export, is there not enough to bring down the prices Americans are paying at the pump? Because it is simply not profitable to do so. Oil companies may be producing fuel domestically, but they are under no obligation to sell it to U.S. consumers at any particular price. As Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, told the AP, “It’s a world market.”

Another reason for the high price of gas at the pump is the surging price of diesel fuel on the global scene. A November 12 L.A. Times article reported that demand for diesel has, in the words of the United States Department of Energy, “provided incentives to refiners to shift some production away from gasoline.”

The law of supply and demand isn’t working in U.S. consumers’ favor, and isn’t likely to anytime soon. An L.A. Times article from mid-December explained that as domestic demand for gas softened, oil refiners contracted, shuttering refineries. At the same time, international markets for gas were opening up. The net result: The supply of gas for U.S. motorists is particularly low, without the surplus or “cushion” of supply that has kept gas prices down in the past.

Read more:Top U.S. Export for 2011 Was Fuel; U.S. Gas Prices at Record High - ICTMN.com Top U.S. Export for 2011 Was Fuel; U.S. Gas Prices at Record High - ICTMN.com

 

[Mr. H.]

I've posted this at least 3 times in other threads, but it bears repeating here. It reinforces the insanity of the discussion...

A similar such pipeline, the Alberta Clipper, was approved by the Obama administration in 2009.

After considerable review and evaluation, on August 20, 2009, the Department issued a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership for the Alberta Clipper pipeline. In evaluating the Enbridge application, the Department worked in consultation with all relevant agencies and parties and with extensive public and stakeholder participation and outreach.

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Some background on the project:

Enbridge Energy and its affiliates (collectively Enbridge) intend to construct and operate a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Superior, Wisconsin. Construction in the United States will consist of two components that would have independent utility: the Alberta Clipper Pipeline and the Southern Lights Diluent Pipeline (view project map, 93 kb). The 36-inch Alberta Clipper Pipeline will carry up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Canada to refineries in the U.S. In the U.S., the Alberta Clipper Pipeline will extend 326 miles from the U.S.-Canadian border near Neche, North Dakota across northern Minnesota to an Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. The Southern Lights Diluent Project will consist of a new 20-inch pipeline extending 191 miles from Superior, Wisconsin to an Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minnesota. In the U.S., these pipelines will be constructed at approximately the same time in the same right-of-way, and this right-of way would almost entirely be located along an existing Enbridge pipeline right-of-way.

All of the above is from the U.S. Department of State website:

U.S. Department of State

 

[saveliberty]

Would someone please explain to the rw's that this oil will be sold on the world mmarket, refined and then sold back to us or to someone else.

Why is this so hard for the rw's to grasp and understand?

No dumbass, refined oil products are the largest US export. Read for knowledge.

Oh great. Another rw who tries to cover his ignorance with childish name-calling.

You don't need to tell ME this. You need to tell this to the rw's who have said, in this thread, that we will KEEP the Keystone oil. The FACT is, the oil will be EXPORTED.

No ignorance here. Exporting creates and maintains jobs. Exporting oil is a good thing. You have lost every debate point you have brought up here. I could have just called you a liar. Take your pick.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

The voters have rejected high speed rail on several occasions.

Obama paid for alternative energy projects with our money and they failed miserably.

Environmentally sensitive?? Lol ok

Who are we going to goto war with over this? Nebraska?

 

[code1211]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

High speed rail? In the United States? You recommend this because of the various High Speed Rail concerns already operating at a profit in the USA?

In case you haven't noticed, this project is being financed by private money and is going to bring money into the USA from outside of the USA.

Pipelines are a potential hazard to the environment? We currently have enough crude oil pipeline within the border of the USA miles to circle the Earth twice at the equator. Throw in the Natural gas lines and the refined oil products lines and that number rises geometrically.

How many stories are there of pipeline spills?

As a Liberal you are once again stopping real life process by citing dreamworld problems.

What's wrong with progress?

Crude Oil Pipelines
What is the circumference of the earth?

 

[code1211]

Cornell study is correct. The failure to report that the pipeline will be thinner than usual and be pumping at higher pressure and will be run over areas that have had an earthquake of a magnitude of 4.0 as recent as 2002 directly over a fresh water source that supports millions of homes and tens of billions of dollars of agriculture is a huge oversight. How would they clean a major spill up from an underground water source, not to mention the soil? I would not support that much for short gains in employment. Who benefits the most?

How do they do it now? There are currently more than 50,000 miles of Crude oil pipeline installed and operating in the USA.

 

[daveman]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:




http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

Only temporary jobs? Then the pipeline runs and maintains itself?

 

[code1211]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

Interesting to note that the "productive projects" you advocate can't compete on their own and require government money.

Entirely laughable considering how much tax payer funding goes into the energy sector..including big oil.

How much is that exactly?

 

[Intense]

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

Only temporary jobs? Then the pipeline runs and maintains itself?

You have got to ask yourself, why these Left Wing Ass Hats are obsessed with blocking All advancement of Infrastructure? It never ends.

 

[code1211]

Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions.

well for sure. because of all that lets just DENY ourselves and OUR COUNTRY energy, and jobs..

nothing like cutting of your nose to spite your face

amazing

Which goes back to alternative energy sources, infrastructure building/re-building and high speed rail.

All of which would create jobs, efficient uses of energy and a reduction in the need for fossil fuel.

This project is being financed on the dime of the private sector, not the subsidized losers propped up by the Libs who want the windmills balanced on the rainbows.

 

[daveman]

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

Only temporary jobs? Then the pipeline runs and maintains itself?

You have got to ask yourself, why these Left Wing Ass Hats are obsessed with blocking All advancement of Infrastructure? It never ends.

No, it doesn't. And all the left's talk of wanting jobs and energy independence is code for giving taxpayer money to Democrat special interest groups.

 

[code1211]

Entirely laughable considering how much tax payer funding goes into the energy sector..including big oil.

How much government money is Keystone asking for?

Upfront? Not sure.

But over the long term..the government is impacted by infrastructure wear and tear, providing security..and other costs that generally don't become apparent until the project is underway.

Think Alaska pipeline. And the boomtowns.

Care to provide a link to show the financial disaster that you're predicting? As I understand it, the State of Alaska is reaping a pretty big windfall even now from the oil business.

Can you demonstrate the costs in excess of revenue to the State of Alaska based on the oil business?

Please be sure to explain why there is no State income tax up there and why there is a state rebate of the oil revenue to the citizenry.

 

[Sallow]

How much government money is Keystone asking for?

Upfront? Not sure.

But over the long term..the government is impacted by infrastructure wear and tear, providing security..and other costs that generally don't become apparent until the project is underway.

Think Alaska pipeline. And the boomtowns.

Care to provide a link to show the financial disaster that you're predicting? As I understand it, the State of Alaska is reaping a pretty big windfall even now from the oil business.

Can you demonstrate the costs in excess of revenue to the State of Alaska based on the oil business?

Please be sure to explain why there is no State income tax up there and why there is a state rebate of the oil revenue to the citizenry.

What?

Boomtowns aren't enough for you to check on? There was high crime..and many problems that came along with that.

Add in the Exxon Valdez..was an indirect result of the pipeline.

And right now..they are in the process of decommissioning them. But are trying like the dickens to make sure they don't have to pay to dismantle what will eventually need to be discarded.

And that fact there was "no income tax" is a travesty. Alaska is one of the biggest gimme states in the Union.

 

[daveman]

How much government money is Keystone asking for?

Upfront? Not sure.

But over the long term..the government is impacted by infrastructure wear and tear, providing security..and other costs that generally don't become apparent until the project is underway.

Think Alaska pipeline. And the boomtowns.

Care to provide a link to show the financial disaster that you're predicting? As I understand it, the State of Alaska is reaping a pretty big windfall even now from the oil business.

Can you demonstrate the costs in excess of revenue to the State of Alaska based on the oil business?

Please be sure to explain why there is no State income tax up there and why there is a state rebate of the oil revenue to the citizenry.

Hey, no fair asking questions that might lead to the revelation that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about!

 

[Toro]

The funny thing about this topic is that liberals make the argument that we should spend on infrastructure, because that will create jobs and get the economy going. Yet, when that infrastructure is a pipeline - and a pipeline IS infrastructure - then the jobs are only temporary and won't have much of an affect.

Which one is it?

 

[code1211]

Are we facing oil shortages now? Or for the next 2 decades or so?

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. Oil companies are looking for ways to slow production. Why? They want to keep prices high.

And no 'transportation' is cost efficient. I find it interesting you mention Amtrak and completely leave out Airlines..which are privately owned and heavily subsidized by the government. They also cost us big. Like on 9/11.

What did you mean Airlines cost big on 9/11?
Did you mean because an airplane piloted by a hijacker?
Or after 9/11 3 days no flights cost airlines business?
Or after 9/11 passenger traffic down 20%?

What did you mean "9/11 costs"?

No. I mean that private airlines fought tooth and nail not to implement a new security bill introduced by Al Gore.

And I mean the costs incurred by four airplanes..hijacked in the SAME FUCKING DAY..that got used by hijackers..which were OWNED BY PRIVATE AIRLINES..WHO FUCKING FAILED TO STOP THEM IN ONE OF THE MOST HAIRBRAINED SCHEMES IN HISTORY.

Got it?

Gore introduced a security bill in 2001? By what authority? to whom?