U.S. steel won't be used in Keystone Pipeline

[RealDave]

The only hope the Keystone XL has to create jobs is for it to fail & pollute our major waterways. The material transported is not oil, it is dillbit. Dillbit needs an additive to be pumpable in a pipeline. When it spills, the additive quickly evaporates & the dillbit sinks. Very expensive to clean up. It is on Trump's hands now.

 

[pismoe]

Trump lied again.

In this case I hope he lied. But that's only because I see that as less of a worry than what a few folks here mentioned - he didn't know the facts before signing. Such an error that I can't see any negotiator making.

------------------------------------------ what , so you think that Trump wouldn't have signed just because of Where the steel pipe was made . That's silly , the important thing is to build the pipeline , one small but symbolic reason being so that he can feck with you anti pipeline guys '2cents' .

there will be some jobs plus more energy for the USA As already said the actual pipe has already been bought and paid for . One other good thing is that the pipeline going through is a kick in the azz to the special interests and mrobama who wanted it stopped .

OK.What jobs? A couple of hundred people will spend a few months laying the line. Hardly a big effect on the country's employment numbers. Where are the rest of the jobs? How many new businesses will open to support a couple hundred workers for a few months?

----------------------------------------------------- if you are correct it still will be a symbolic victory as we kick YOU and mrobama in the azz and thats worth quite a bit to Deplorables Bulldog .

But it won't be a victory for you. You won't get a single advantage out of it. The multi-national oil companies and wall street will make a fortune, but as usual nothing for the middle class. Aren't you proud?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- not proud , its symbolic and I'm just satisfied that we Deplorables kicked you and mrobamas 'unamerican' azzs Bulldog !!

 

[Andylusion]

The only hope the Keystone XL has to create jobs is for it to fail & pollute our major waterways. The material transported is not oil, it is dillbit. Dillbit needs an additive to be pumpable in a pipeline. When it spills, the additive quickly evaporates & the dillbit sinks. Very expensive to clean up. It is on Trump's hands now.

Do you think higher prices for energy will not harm job creation?
Do you think lower prices for energy will not boast job creation?

 

[my2¢]

------------------------------------------ what , so you think that Trump wouldn't have signed just because of Where the steel pipe was made . That's silly , the important thing is to build the pipeline , one small but symbolic reason being so that he can feck with you anti pipeline guys '2cents' .

I never saw the pipeline as affecting me and don't recall ever being wrapped up in its debate. I feel an oil would be transported best by pipeline rather than by rail, however the use by TransCanada of substandard material has compromised that advantage.

Regarding what I thought Trump would or wouldn't do, I really didn't think about it since we all knew it was coming. But he isn't an idiot and so I would figure he knew that foreign steel of questionable standard has been used in the project and is being replaced. It's disappointing that foreign steel will continue to be used after his remarks such as these about Keystone indicated that better American material would be used:

1. "If we're going to use our powers of eminent domain and all the other powers, then I want the pipe to be manufactured with United States steel."
2. "If people want to build pipelines on our land, we want the pipe to be ... manufactured here."

 

[pismoe]

------------------------------------------ what , so you think that Trump wouldn't have signed just because of Where the steel pipe was made . That's silly , the important thing is to build the pipeline , one small but symbolic reason being so that he can feck with you anti pipeline guys '2cents' .

I never saw the pipeline as affecting me and don't recall ever being wrapped up in its debate. I feel an oil would be transported best by pipeline rather than by rail, however the use by TransCanada of substandard material has compromised that advantage.

Regarding what I thought Trump would or wouldn't do, I really didn't think about it since we all knew it was coming. But he isn't an idiot and so I would figure he knew that foreign steel of questionable standard has been used in the project and is being replaced. It's disappointing that foreign steel will continue to be used after his remarks such as these about Keystone indicated that better American material would be used:

1. "If we're going to use our powers of eminent domain and all the other powers, then I want the pipe to be manufactured with United States steel."
2. "If people want to build pipelines on our land, we want the pipe to be ... manufactured here."

okay , so YOU don't care but mrobama and the other lefties and greenies care and that's who WE Deplorables and the President Trump kicked in the azz and that's good enough '2cents' .

 

[RealDave]

The only hope the Keystone XL has to create jobs is for it to fail & pollute our major waterways. The material transported is not oil, it is dillbit. Dillbit needs an additive to be pumpable in a pipeline. When it spills, the additive quickly evaporates & the dillbit sinks. Very expensive to clean up. It is on Trump's hands now.

Do you think higher prices for energy will not harm job creation?
Do you think lower prices for energy will not boast job creation?

No.
The Keystone XL is going to affect the energy prices to any measurable extent?

 

[william the wie]

Yes, it will.

 

[RealDave]

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

Here's the problem with your logic.

In order for the Keystone Pipe to NOT effect the price, you would have make the claim that the current method of transporting oil, has the exact same cost as the new method.

Obviously, if the new system of transport has the exact same net cost, as the old system.... then the price won't change.

Equally if the new system has a higher cost, than the old system... then the price will go up.

Lastly, if the new system has a lower net cost, than the old system.... then the price will go down.

Can we at least, logically, agree on this much?

Now unless you are not high on Colorado pot-candy, I am going to assume that we can agree on this.

So then the question is, do you think that the cost of the new transport system is higher, the same, or lower. And one question should answer that. Why would any company spend billions to build a system, that is the exact same cost, or a higher cost, than existing systems?

Obviously... that makes no sense. If I am Amazon, and I currently deliver using FedEx, I'm certainly not going to start delivering my goods via Taxi cab, tripling thing cost. That cost would be passed onto consumers who would find cheaper online-order companies to use.

But I might use drones to deliver packages, in order to lower the cost.

So, I believe that the pipeline will reduce prices of oil, because... there is no logical reason that any company would spend billions on a pipeline, to achieve the same price, or a higher price. No one would do that.

That is like suggesting people would by a Hybrid car for $6,000 more than the standard model, if the gas mileage was WORSE. No one would do that.

Now as to the oil sands costs, and profit margins, and so on.... Again.... If it wasn't profitable, why would any company spend an estimated $7 Billion, if the result was going to be money being lost?

Would you spend $100,000 on a project knowing you'd lose all your money?
Obviously the CEOs, and the investors, must know something you don't.

But let's even say that you are right. Then you should have no problem with this at all. After all, a bunch of wealthy people, are going to lose all their money, while working class people work on a project that pays really good cash. In the end, the pipeline will be closed, and no oil will go through it.

So rich people lose, poor people win, and no oil damages the environment. If what you say is true, then every left-winger on the planet should be completely in favor of this project.

 

[RealDave]

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

Here's the problem with your logic.

In order for the Keystone Pipe to NOT effect the price, you would have make the claim that the current method of transporting oil, has the exact same cost as the new method.

Obviously, if the new system of transport has the exact same net cost, as the old system.... then the price won't change.

Equally if the new system has a higher cost, than the old system... then the price will go up.

Lastly, if the new system has a lower net cost, than the old system.... then the price will go down.

Can we at least, logically, agree on this much?

Now unless you are not high on Colorado pot-candy, I am going to assume that we can agree on this.

So then the question is, do you think that the cost of the new transport system is higher, the same, or lower. And one question should answer that. Why would any company spend billions to build a system, that is the exact same cost, or a higher cost, than existing systems?

Obviously... that makes no sense. If I am Amazon, and I currently deliver using FedEx, I'm certainly not going to start delivering my goods via Taxi cab, tripling thing cost. That cost would be passed onto consumers who would find cheaper online-order companies to use.

But I might use drones to deliver packages, in order to lower the cost.

So, I believe that the pipeline will reduce prices of oil, because... there is no logical reason that any company would spend billions on a pipeline, to achieve the same price, or a higher price. No one would do that.

That is like suggesting people would by a Hybrid car for $6,000 more than the standard model, if the gas mileage was WORSE. No one would do that.

Now as to the oil sands costs, and profit margins, and so on.... Again.... If it wasn't profitable, why would any company spend an estimated $7 Billion, if the result was going to be money being lost?

Would you spend $100,000 on a project knowing you'd lose all your money?
Obviously the CEOs, and the investors, must know something you don't.

But let's even say that you are right. Then you should have no problem with this at all. After all, a bunch of wealthy people, are going to lose all their money, while working class people work on a project that pays really good cash. In the end, the pipeline will be closed, and no oil will go through it.

So rich people lose, poor people win, and no oil damages the environment. If what you say is true, then every left-winger on the planet should be completely in favor of this project.

You pretend that the oil sands oil is more expensive just because of vtransport costys? Really?

Let's compare.

Typical oil is pumped from the ground after drilling a well. Once that well is drilled & developed, the cost of the oil is in the pumping, transport costs.

The Oil sands oil requires constant mining of these sands, transport to a facility where it must be heated to get the product out of the "sands". This is not oil but dillbit.

These oil sands production costs are more than typical oil well oil.

You think it is just transport. That's some funny chit.

 

[FJO]

Building the pipelines kicks Venezuela, Iran and Russia in the teeth without sanctions.

by helping Canada sell their oil.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

 

[RealDave]

Building the pipelines kicks Venezuela, Iran and Russia in the teeth without sanctions.

by helping Canada sell their oil.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

Canada can build a pipeline across their own country & use their own refineries & pollute their own air & risk their own waterways & aquifers.

Russia is Trump"s & Tillerson's buddy. Halliburton & Exxon have been helping all those countries produce oil. If that was really such an issue with you, why do you support Trump, Tillerson, Exxon & Halliburton?

 

[TNHarley]

Trump didn't shoot himself in the foot. No one told him the steel was already bought and paid for.

He didn't bother to ask? Doesn't seem like that move was justifiable.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 30 permanent jobs this creates will be yuge

It will create millions. Lower cost of energy is a boast to the entire economy.

Except when the US starts producing lots of energy itself and then those producing it want higher prices to be able to compete with the Middle East.

 

[Fang]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

 

[frigidweirdo]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

 

[Fang]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

 

[frigidweirdo]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

No idea. But you have to remember the things that get controlled here. The President isn't the most powerful person. If you're going to make a pipeline you'll have the things in place long before, I would assume.

This is politics, it's a dirty, dirty business where people will do everything they can to get what they want.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

Here's the problem with your logic.

In order for the Keystone Pipe to NOT effect the price, you would have make the claim that the current method of transporting oil, has the exact same cost as the new method.

Obviously, if the new system of transport has the exact same net cost, as the old system.... then the price won't change.

Equally if the new system has a higher cost, than the old system... then the price will go up.

Lastly, if the new system has a lower net cost, than the old system.... then the price will go down.

Can we at least, logically, agree on this much?

Now unless you are not high on Colorado pot-candy, I am going to assume that we can agree on this.

So then the question is, do you think that the cost of the new transport system is higher, the same, or lower. And one question should answer that. Why would any company spend billions to build a system, that is the exact same cost, or a higher cost, than existing systems?

Obviously... that makes no sense. If I am Amazon, and I currently deliver using FedEx, I'm certainly not going to start delivering my goods via Taxi cab, tripling thing cost. That cost would be passed onto consumers who would find cheaper online-order companies to use.

But I might use drones to deliver packages, in order to lower the cost.

So, I believe that the pipeline will reduce prices of oil, because... there is no logical reason that any company would spend billions on a pipeline, to achieve the same price, or a higher price. No one would do that.

That is like suggesting people would by a Hybrid car for $6,000 more than the standard model, if the gas mileage was WORSE. No one would do that.

Now as to the oil sands costs, and profit margins, and so on.... Again.... If it wasn't profitable, why would any company spend an estimated $7 Billion, if the result was going to be money being lost?

Would you spend $100,000 on a project knowing you'd lose all your money?
Obviously the CEOs, and the investors, must know something you don't.

But let's even say that you are right. Then you should have no problem with this at all. After all, a bunch of wealthy people, are going to lose all their money, while working class people work on a project that pays really good cash. In the end, the pipeline will be closed, and no oil will go through it.

So rich people lose, poor people win, and no oil damages the environment. If what you say is true, then every left-winger on the planet should be completely in favor of this project.

You pretend that the oil sands oil is more expensive just because of vtransport costys? Really?

Let's compare.

Typical oil is pumped from the ground after drilling a well. Once that well is drilled & developed, the cost of the oil is in the pumping, transport costs.

The Oil sands oil requires constant mining of these sands, transport to a facility where it must be heated to get the product out of the "sands". This is not oil but dillbit.

These oil sands production costs are more than typical oil well oil.

You think it is just transport. That's some funny chit.

I don't think understands the part about mining. It is dug up with machines like dirt, and put in dump trucks to be hauled to the facility that heats it and mixes it with liquid petroleum so it can be pumped through a pipe. It's not even a liquid before the mixing and heating

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

Here's the problem with your logic.

In order for the Keystone Pipe to NOT effect the price, you would have make the claim that the current method of transporting oil, has the exact same cost as the new method.

Obviously, if the new system of transport has the exact same net cost, as the old system.... then the price won't change.

Equally if the new system has a higher cost, than the old system... then the price will go up.

Lastly, if the new system has a lower net cost, than the old system.... then the price will go down.

Can we at least, logically, agree on this much?

Now unless you are not high on Colorado pot-candy, I am going to assume that we can agree on this.

So then the question is, do you think that the cost of the new transport system is higher, the same, or lower. And one question should answer that. Why would any company spend billions to build a system, that is the exact same cost, or a higher cost, than existing systems?

Obviously... that makes no sense. If I am Amazon, and I currently deliver using FedEx, I'm certainly not going to start delivering my goods via Taxi cab, tripling thing cost. That cost would be passed onto consumers who would find cheaper online-order companies to use.

But I might use drones to deliver packages, in order to lower the cost.

So, I believe that the pipeline will reduce prices of oil, because... there is no logical reason that any company would spend billions on a pipeline, to achieve the same price, or a higher price. No one would do that.

That is like suggesting people would by a Hybrid car for $6,000 more than the standard model, if the gas mileage was WORSE. No one would do that.

Now as to the oil sands costs, and profit margins, and so on.... Again.... If it wasn't profitable, why would any company spend an estimated $7 Billion, if the result was going to be money being lost?

Would you spend $100,000 on a project knowing you'd lose all your money?
Obviously the CEOs, and the investors, must know something you don't.

But let's even say that you are right. Then you should have no problem with this at all. After all, a bunch of wealthy people, are going to lose all their money, while working class people work on a project that pays really good cash. In the end, the pipeline will be closed, and no oil will go through it.

So rich people lose, poor people win, and no oil damages the environment. If what you say is true, then every left-winger on the planet should be completely in favor of this project.

You pretend that the oil sands oil is more expensive just because of vtransport costys? Really?

Let's compare.

Typical oil is pumped from the ground after drilling a well. Once that well is drilled & developed, the cost of the oil is in the pumping, transport costs.

The Oil sands oil requires constant mining of these sands, transport to a facility where it must be heated to get the product out of the "sands". This is not oil but dillbit.

These oil sands production costs are more than typical oil well oil.

You think it is just transport. That's some funny chit.

I already answered that. I said I don't know, but I would assume that the company which is investing billions of dollars into this pipeline knows that it can save money, and be profitable.

If you are suggesting that it will cost more money, and be less profitable, then the entire project should go bankrupt. If the project goes bankrupt, then the pipeline will remain unused.

I don't think I know for certain, anything about the price of the oil. But if the price of the oil was in fact far more expensive, then no one would buy it over cheaper sources.

If no one is buying it, why would the company invest $7 Billion, to create a pipeline for oil no one wants?

Your position is the illogical position. Not mine.