Of course biden is to blame for the gas shortage

[surada]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

LOLOL.. Canada and China are looking to increase the profits on tarsands.. by not paying US taxes and shipping refined specialty products abroad. The Keystone XL doesn't bring any benefit to the US consumer.. or make us less dependent on foreign oil.

It was to be another US pipeline with deliveries into North and Middle America as well as to South Texas for export. The US just jgot taste of disruption to a major pipeline in the South and East and it created run on gas and inflation. Don’t tell us that Keystone or any other pipeline does not make us less dependent on foreign oil.

Nope.. TransCanada has unused pipeline capacity all over the Midwest that by passes 4 or 5 refineries that were refitted to handle refining the tarsands sludge.

Keystone XL is strictly an export pipeline that benefits Canada and the Chinese who own 50% of Canada's production. They avoid taxes by shipping to the Free Trade Zone and refining specialty products for export.

BTW.. Canada's oil is FOREIGN OIL. The US consumer will never see a drop of gasoline.

Keystone is still infrastructure that can be leveraged for domestic production even if it is not being used that way at the moment. Canada is foreign oil but if a Nation’s dependency on foreign oil is going to happen, would you want it with a Nation you share border and perhaps infrastructure with or would you want it with nations on the other side of the world whose political and economic stability is in constant uncertainty and transport is tied solely to shipping?

Canadian tarsands are dirt cheap. I think they sell it for about $29 a barrel because it is sour, corrosive and one step above soft coal in density.

They can pipe this sludge to Motiva in the Free Trade Zone for refining and then ship it overseas... and make a sizable profit.

This benefits the Canadians and the Chinese NOT the US consumer.

 

[surada]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

Oil is traded on the open market. Global supply and demand sets the price, not national.

You are saying America’s dependence on foreign oil does not impact domestic prices??

US oil is always a dollar higher than OPEC or Brent.. because the US has the highest lift costs in the world.

 

[LeftofLeft]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

Oil is traded on the open market. Global supply and demand sets the price, not national.

You are saying America’s dependence on foreign oil does not impact domestic prices??

US oil is always a dollar higher than OPEC or Brent.. because the US has the highest lift costs in the world.

If that is the case, all the more reason not to be susceptible to OPEC.

 

[danielpalos]

Upgrade the physical layer of infrastructure.

 

[Crepitus]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

LOLOL.. Canada and China are looking to increase the profits on tarsands.. by not paying US taxes and shipping refined specialty products abroad. The Keystone XL doesn't bring any benefit to the US consumer.. or make us less dependent on foreign oil.

It was to be another US pipeline with deliveries into North and Middle America as well as to South Texas for export. The US just jgot taste of disruption to a major pipeline in the South and East and it created run on gas and inflation. Don’t tell us that Keystone or any other pipeline does not make us less dependent on foreign oil.

You do know Canada is another country, right? And that Canadian oil is foreign?

 

[Crepitus]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

Lol, you've got it backwards as usual. More supply equals less.demand, not more.

And you don't know why the same ghettos are here after over a half century, only now the taxpayer is forced to pay up or pure violence will erupt in every city.

Off topic deflections are an admission of defeat.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[Crepitus]

shifting to an alternate commodity that meets the need.

Well look, there's an endorsement for green energy and electric cars all at once.

 

[Crepitus]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

LOLOL.. Canada and China are looking to increase the profits on tarsands.. by not paying US taxes and shipping refined specialty products abroad. The Keystone XL doesn't bring any benefit to the US consumer.. or make us less dependent on foreign oil.

It was to be another US pipeline with deliveries into North and Middle America as well as to South Texas for export. The US just jgot taste of disruption to a major pipeline in the South and East and it created run on gas and inflation. Don’t tell us that Keystone or any other pipeline does not make us less dependent on foreign oil.

Nope.. TransCanada has unused pipeline capacity all over the Midwest that by passes 4 or 5 refineries that were refitted to handle refining the tarsands sludge.

Keystone XL is strictly an export pipeline that benefits Canada and the Chinese who own 50% of Canada's production. They avoid taxes by shipping to the Free Trade Zone and refining specialty products for export.

BTW.. Canada's oil is FOREIGN OIL. The US consumer will never see a drop of gasoline.

Keystone is still infrastructure that can be leveraged for domestic production even if it is not being used that way at the moment. Canada is foreign oil but if a Nation’s dependency on foreign oil is going to happen, would you want it with a Nation you share border and perhaps infrastructure with or would you want it with nations on the other side of the world whose political and economic stability is in constant uncertainty and transport is tied solely to shipping?

Look out guys! She's backing up!

 

[danielpalos]

Thank goodness we don't have to put up with women insisting on equality and telling us to stand up against the wall so we won't back out of it, because it is her turn.

 

[Crepitus]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

Oil is traded on the open market. Global supply and demand sets the price, not national.

You are saying America’s dependence on foreign oil does not impact domestic prices??

US oil is always a dollar higher than OPEC or Brent.. because the US has the highest lift costs in the world.

If that is the case, all the more reason not to be susceptible to OPEC.

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically. If we produce enough it can lower the market price world wide, but it will.go back up when someone else cuts production to offset the increase and support the price.

 

[jknowgood]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

How exactly can a pipeline that isn't even built help us????
No wonder Tramp says he loves the STUPID!!!!!

Lol, Obama loves the ignorant, he said he relied on you loons ignorance to get obamacare through.

 

[danielpalos]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Crepitus]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

 

[danielpalos]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

You are begging that question and is usually considered a fallacy.

Why would greater domestic availability (supply) not affect domestic markets (demand) in some manner?

 

[Crepitus]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

You are begging that question and is usually considered a fallacy.

Why would greater domestic availability (supply) not affect domestic markets (demand) in some manner?

Because the price is set by international trade, not domestic.

 

[surada]

If biden had not gotten rid of the Keystone pipeline we would be in much better shape regarding the gas shortage.

Keystone wasn't gonna carry gas, it was for crude oil. It also was gonna go from Canada to the gulf coast, not the northeastern US.

This thread fails miserably.

it was still another pipeline in the US which put pressure on other countries to increase output.

LOLOL.. No it wouldn't. How stupid.

Supply and Demand, market pressures. Look it up.

I don't think I'm following you.. If the ppb goes low, US producers get hurt first because we have the highest lift costs in the world.

If you have too much oil on the market Russia, KSA, Kuwait etc will cut production.

who is cutting production? Now?

Yahoo Search - Web Search

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

in.finance.yahoo.com

how does that benefit US?

Why would.you think that was supposed to benefit the US? Nobody was even talking about anything resembling that. You make no sense, as usual.

the less dependent US is on foreign oil, the more it benefits US. How does that not make sense to you?

Oil is traded on the open market. Global supply and demand sets the price, not national.

You are saying America’s dependence on foreign oil does not impact domestic prices??

US oil is always a dollar higher than OPEC or Brent.. because the US has the highest lift costs in the world.

If that is the case, all the more reason not to be susceptible to OPEC.

OPEC isn't the enemy..The first oil cartel was the Texas Railroad Commission.

US production just isn't very stable. Its too often boom or bust and that's not any president's fault.

 

[surada]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

You are begging that question and is usually considered a fallacy.

Why would greater domestic availability (supply) not affect domestic markets (demand) in some manner?

Because Keystone XL isn't for domestic consumption.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

You are begging that question and is usually considered a fallacy.

Why would greater domestic availability (supply) not affect domestic markets (demand) in some manner?

Because Keystone XL isn't for domestic consumption.

Could it be? Wouldn’t that be good for us?

 

[surada]

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

You are begging that question and is usually considered a fallacy.

Why would greater domestic availability (supply) not affect domestic markets (demand) in some manner?

Because Keystone XL isn't for domestic consumption.

Could it be? Wouldn’t that be good for us?

The oil belongs to Canada and the Chinese not the US.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Upgrade the physical layer of infrastructure.

E

You're not getting it. Producing more oil domestically doesn't lower the price domestically.

How did you reach that conclusion?

You gots ta read the whole post, Son. It's all there.

You are begging that question and is usually considered a fallacy.

Why would greater domestic availability (supply) not affect domestic markets (demand) in some manner?

Because Keystone XL isn't for domestic consumption.

Could it be? Wouldn’t that be good for us?

The oil belongs to Canada and the Chinese not the US.

Wake up and smell the coffee boyos!!!

How Keystone Pipeline Project Impacts US Energy Independence

The Keystone pipeline and the Keystone XL extension is an important element to help secure a future for North American energy independence.

setxind.com

The Keystone Pipeline Is Good for America

As a fourth-generation Oklahoman, I know the importance of the oil and gas industry to the state and region. Killing the Keystone XL pipeline does no tangible good and will doubtless cause harm to countless Americans, and even to the environment that the decision pledges to protect. Throughout...

news.yahoo.com

7 reasons why the keystone pipeline was good for America


1. The Evolution of Society Depends on the Conversion of Energy
In his 2006 article “History of Energy” for The Franklin Institute, Dr. James Williams wrote that the “standard of living and quality of civilization are proportional to the quantity of energy a society uses.” As a consequence, societies will not willingly reduce the quantity of energy necessary to maintain their existing economies. The pursuit, acquisition, and protection of long-term, stable energy sources are fundamental to the United States’ economic and geographical security.

2. The Oxidation of Carbon Will Remain the Primary Energy Source for the 21st Century
From the dawn of the species, firewood (renewable biomass) provided the energy to heat our homes and cook food, gradually being replaced by fossilized fuels beginning with the Industrial Revolution. According to the International Energy Agency’s 2012 Key World Energy Statistics, carbon fuels continue to supply more than 90% of the world’s total energy consumption of 8,677 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent), or almost 14.1 trillion kilowatt hours. Coal, oil, and natural gas remain the primary source of energy for the world, providing two-thirds of the world’s energy today versus biofuels’ estimated 12.7%. The United States consumes about 20% of the world’s energy, with only about 4.5% of the world’s population.

3.Trillions of Dollars Are at Stake
Trillions of dollars are invested in facilities and machines around the world that are dependent upon existing carbon fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). These assets cannot be economically abandoned, nor easily converted to other energy sources. As a consequence, industrialized countries (including the United States) seek to gradually transition to more environmentally friendly energy sources while maximizing the efficiency of the carbon oxidation process and minimizing harmful emissions. At the same time, new sources of hydrocarbons, particularly oil, within U.S. borders and the North American continent, will continue to be sought, developed, and exploited for economic and geopolitical purposes.

4. It May Help the U.S. Become Energy Independent
Oil and gas production from new horizontal drilling techniques and fracking technology may make the U.S. energy independent by 2020. The International Energy Agency predicted in November 2012 that the United States would replace Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by the end of the decade. Some analysts believe that the United States will stop importing oil as a result of the new supplies. The northern extension of the XL Pipeline is needed to transport “light tight oil” from Montana and other western states in addition to the heavy crude oil of the tar sands of Athabasca.

5. Oil From the Athabasca Tar Sands Will Be Produced Regardless
As the world price of oil has risen, unconventional sources of oil and natural gas have become economical. Approximately 1.7 million barrels per day of heavy crude oil was produced from the Athabasca oil sands in 2011, and production will increase in future years. The oil sands of Alberta account for 98% of Canada’s proven oil reserves (more than 188.7 billion barrels) – more than 30% of the GDP of Alberta – and generated more than $3 billion in royalties to the government in 2010 and 2011.

Engineers project that the oil sands can sustain daily production of 2.5 million barrels for 186 years. As a result of the delays in approval for the Keystone XL Pipeline, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has proposed an alternative pipeline within Canadian borders that would carry the oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia to be shipped by tankers to China.

6. Controlling Access to the Canadian Oil Is Strategically Important to the United States
While domestic sources of petroleum have been rising, the need for energy is also increasing worldwide. Refining the tar sands oil within the United States for domestic use or export reinforces the economic cooperation between Canada and the United States while maintaining important options for the latter to direct the refined product to “friendly” allies. However, a Canadian pipeline to British Columbia as proposed by the Canadian Prime Minister eliminates potential oil resources and reduces United States influence.

7. A Pipeline Is the Best Way to Transport Oil Over Long Distances
The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline will transport approximately 800,000 barrels of crude per day, roughly the equivalent of 3,750 tanker truck loads, delivering a load every 25 seconds around the clock, not including those trucks in transit to and from refineries over highways and bridges badly in need of repair and replacement. Some have advocated railroad tanker cars to transport the oil if the pipeline is not approved. While more expensive, railroads offer delivery flexibility not available with a pipeline, simply by redirecting trains to different terminals.

However, replacing the XL Pipeline’s capacity would require ten 225-car trains per day (five loaded and five unloaded), not including those trains in transit traveling in some cases more than 1,000 miles between loading and unloading. Each train would be approximately two and a quarter miles in length and require five to six locomotives with corresponding emissions. Also, pipelines have a lower spill rate per barrel transported than either trains, trucks, or barges.