Niagara Bill Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 rumors are swilling that Obama will end the potential oil pipeline (known as XL) from Canada when congress takes vacation in August. As a Canadian what appears to have happened is he has chosen the oil from Iran (and the terrorists and enemy of Israel) over his friends from Canada. Well, Canada will then have to build the pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China. I certainly hope Obama gets his second Nobel Peace prize, (he did nothing for the first) and is remembered fondly when the middle east blackmails the US again, as it most certainly will. (sarc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Good. China was going to be the primary beneficiary of the pipeline regardless (along with India, Canada and the Saudis). Let them take on the enormous ecological risk of transporting the crude across Canada rather than expecting Americans to take that risk for a project that does not benefit Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Good. China was going to be the primary beneficiary of the pipeline regardless (along with India, Canada and the Saudis). Let them take on the enormous ecological risk of transporting the crude across Canada rather than expecting Americans to take that risk for a project that does not benefit Americans. Just because the OP is inane doesn't mean you need to double down. With or without the pipeline, the oil will be produced and shipped to the ultimate buyers. Are you happier with that oil moving over 2,000 miles of railroad track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Nixing the keystone pipeline is a nod to the Enviro nuts. Makes no sense on so many levels to not go ahead with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Just because the OP is inane doesn't mean you need to double down. With or without the pipeline, the oil will be produced and shipped to the ultimate buyers. Are you happier with that oil moving over 2,000 miles of railroad track? The primary beneficiaries of Keystone would be the Chinese, the Indians (providing the steel), the Canadians, and the Saudis (doing the refining with a joint owned US company). America gets little to no benefit from taking on the added burden of a potential environmental disaster over the nation's most important aquifer. That's not something that should be easily dismissed. I'd prefer the crude get to the gulf by ship -- which means transporting it by rails in Canada. If the only choice is between the pipeline and rails, I'll take the rails. Nixing the keystone pipeline is a nod to the Enviro nuts. Makes no sense on so many levels to not go ahead with it. It won't create the jobs promised or lower the price of crude. There's no benefit to Americans for building this pipeline, only possible disasters. Cost benefit analysis of the situation shows this to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The primary beneficiaries of Keystone would be the Chinese, the Indians (providing the steel), the Canadians, and the Saudis (doing the refining with a joint owned US company). America gets little to no benefit from taking on the added burden of a potential environmental disaster over the nation's most important aquifer. That's not something that should be easily dismissed. I'd prefer the crude get to the gulf by ship -- which means transporting it by rails in Canada. If the only choice is between the pipeline and rails, I'll take the rails. It won't create the jobs promised or lower the price of crude. There's no benefit to Americans for building this pipeline, only possible disasters. Cost benefit analysis of the situation shows this to be the case. The ND crude would also be carried by a leg of the pipeline, but don't let that get in your way. The refined oil would also increase US capacity for use in the ... US. More Canadian oil going to China simply means there's another major source of a GLOBAL COMMODITY going to a major buyer of that GLOBAL COMMODITY, which means the price of said GLOBAL COMMODITY will remain low for all other buyers of that GLOBAL COMMODITY, including US. You're also delusional to think that the oil will not be transported over US rails to US refineries in the south. But I think we've discussed this before. Edited July 30, 2015 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Good. China was going to be the primary beneficiary of the pipeline regardless (along with India, Canada and the Saudis). Let them take on the enormous ecological risk of transporting the crude across Canada rather than expecting Americans to take that risk for a project that does not benefit Americans. you have a pipeline now from Nebraska to the south coast. So by your point that should now stop? Just because the OP is inane doesn't mean you need to double down. With or without the pipeline, the oil will be produced and shipped to the ultimate buyers. Are you happier with that oil moving over 2,000 miles of railroad track? you are missing the whole point....give your enemies strength...makes no sense and Iran is an enemy. Giving Iran the power to put sanctions on the US economy one day is not smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 you are missing the whole point....give your enemies strength...makes no sense and Iran is an enemy. Giving Iran the power to put sanctions on the US economy one day is not smart You are tying completely separate points into one argument. Obama's obsession with the pipeline is not related to the gift to the Iranians, nor does Iran have enough sway in the oil markets to affect US economy, since US is now producing a lot more oil than it imports and can ramp up more production if oil prices go up (which would happen if Iran decided to play "tough") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Good. China was going to be the primary beneficiary of the pipeline regardless (along with India, Canada and the Saudis). Let them take on the enormous ecological risk of transporting the crude across Canada rather than expecting Americans to take that risk for a project that does not benefit Americans. What kind of energy do lefties like? Oil: Nope Fracking: Nope Nuke: Nope Coal: Nope Solar: Yup Wind: Yup Some freakish weirdo algae growing monstrosity: Yup Imaginary cold fusion: Yup Corn: Yup Burning garbage: Yup Star Trek Warp drives: Yup Basically if it works, they hate it, if it doesn't they love it. In order to save the world from global warming all humans must die? I have nothing against animals but let's face it mammal farts are causing a big chunk of the gasses that are blamed for fake global warming. I don't want anything to die but before we change out energy sources and kill ourselves how about we kill off all mammals so that humans may live? Somebody is going to burn that Canadian oil. It night as well be us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 What kind of energy do lefties like? Oil: Nope Fracking: Nope Nuke: Nope Coal: Nope Solar: Yup Wind: Yup Some freakish weirdo algae growing monstrosity: Yup Imaginary cold fusion: Yup Corn: Yup Burning garbage: Yup Star Trek Warp drives: Yup Basically if it works, they hate it, if it doesn't they love it. In order to save the world from global warming all humans must die? I have nothing against animals but let's face it mammal farts are causing a big chunk of the gasses that are blamed for fake global warming. I don't want anything to die but before we change out energy sources and kill ourselves how about we kill off all mammals so that humans may live? Somebody is going to burn that Canadian oil. It night as well be us. Hey I think you're on to something. Burn all the mammals to create energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The primary beneficiaries of Keystone would be the Chinese, the Indians (providing the steel), the Canadians, and the Saudis (doing the refining with a joint owned US company). America gets little to no benefit from taking on the added burden of a potential environmental disaster over the nation's most important aquifer. That's not something that should be easily dismissed. I'd prefer the crude get to the gulf by ship -- which means transporting it by rails in Canada. If the only choice is between the pipeline and rails, I'll take the rails. It won't create the jobs promised or lower the price of crude. There's no benefit to Americans for building this pipeline, only possible disasters. Cost benefit analysis of the situation shows this to be the case. Of course there are, there is a short-term economic stimulus and longer term tax royalty windfall. The president was all for an economic stimulus funded by tax payers, he should be really happy about one funded by the private sector. In regards to the safety issues, even the president's own environmental study from the state department shows that there are negligible risks. Also, many of the refineries that are here in the U.S are set up to refine heavy crude oil, which that is exactly what the oil from Canada would be. Plus there are constant shortages from some of the independent refineries up in the midwest, that would remedy that problem. Meaning that regionally, specially in the midwest there would be more price stability when it comes to gasoline prices. The crude oil that would be brought from Canada would stay here in the U.S and refined. Which means that the refineries would be purchasing oil from an ally, Canada. In turn, that means we would be purchasing less oil from Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. That's a positive. Also, most independent analysts believe that there would be an overall reduction in the price of gasoline, nothing huge but a drop none the less. Not to mention, who knows what the future will bring us. Much better to secure oil coming from our northern neighbors when potentially oil from other countries could be cut off due to a number of reasons. What makes it even worse is that not only would we lose out on that stable flow of oil from one of our strongest allies, but China would then have that oil. I worked as an oil trader for a number of years, I can tell you that commodities are very cyclical. We recently went through perceived oil shortages in the oil markets that helped push prices higher. The more oil we can secure from reliable partners, the more price stability we will see. There is no disputing that the economic benefits are a net gain for the country. Edited July 30, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The ND crude would also be carried by a leg of the pipeline, but don't let that get in your way. The refined oil would also increase US capacity for use in the ... US. More Canadian oil going to China simply means there's another major source of a GLOBAL COMMODITY going to a major buyer of that GLOBAL COMMODITY, which means the price of said GLOBAL COMMODITY will remain low for all other buyers of that GLOBAL COMMODITY, including US. You're also delusional to think that the oil will not be transported over US rails to US refineries in the south. But I think we've discussed this before. We have, and in the past two years of studying the benefits of this project I've yet to see one that warrants the risks being asked of every day Americans. As you said in your next post, crude production has never been higher domestically, and adding more oil into the market isn't going to lower prices (because those prices are not set by the market in a traditional sense). The only thing the pipeline would do is increase profits for China, Canada and Saudi Arabia. We don't get jobs, we don't get lower prices, all we get is the risk. And yes, I realize that the oil will get there one way or the other, which is why I answered if the only choice is between a pipeline and rails -- both of which have long histories of spills -- give me the rails. you have a pipeline now from Nebraska to the south coast. So by your point that should now stop? A pipeline of oil running over arguably the most important agricultural land in America's heartland is a dangerous proposition when the benefits are virtually non existent to every day Americans. Of course there are, there is a short-term economic stimulus and longer term tax royalty windfall. The president was all for an economic stimulus funded by tax payers, he should be really happy about one funded by the private sector. In regards to the safety issues, even the president's own environmental study from the state department shows that there are negligible risks. Also, many of the refineries that are here in the U.S are set up to refine heavy crude oil, which that is exactly what the oil from Canada would be. Plus there are constant shortages from some of the independent refineries up in the midwest, that would remedy that problem. Meaning that regionally, specially in the midwest there would be more price stability when it comes to gasoline prices. The crude oil that would be brought from Canada would stay here in the U.S and refined. Which means that the refineries would be purchasing oil from an ally, Canada. In turn, that means we would be purchasing less oil from Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. That's a positive. Also, most independent analysts believe that there would be an overall reduction in the price of gasoline, nothing huge but a drop none the less. Not to mention, who knows what the future will bring us. Much better to secure oil coming from our northern neighbors when potentially oil from other countries could be cut off due to a number of reasons. There is no disputing that the economic benefits are a net gain for the country. Incorrect. The crude is owned by China and Canada, not just Canada. The processing plants where it's headed are co-owned by the Saudis and Americans. And it will not lower the price of gas. It will not promote job growth in the United States. It's all risk for America with very little gain. There are better ways to go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 We have, and in the past two years of studying the benefits of this project I've yet to see one that warrants the risks being asked of every day Americans. As you said in your next post, crude production has never been higher domestically, and adding more oil into the market isn't going to lower prices (because those prices are not set by the market in a traditional sense). The only thing the pipeline would do is increase profits for China, Canada and Saudi Arabia. We don't get jobs, we don't get lower prices, all we get is the risk. And yes, I realize that the oil will get there one way or the other, which is why I answered if the only choice is between a pipeline and rails -- both of which have long histories of spills -- give me the rails. A pipeline of oil running over arguably the most important agricultural land in America's heartland is a dangerous proposition when the benefits are virtually non existent to every day Americans. Again you are using an ostrich analysis in that if the pipeline isn't built, the evil will go away. The pipeline is not a major determinant in how much oil the Canadians are going to produce. If the demand is there, they will extract oil and deliver it. Oil over rail is more dangerous than oil in a pipeline. A big chunk of the pipeline already carries cargo through pristine lands, and is not in danger of being shut down. The argument over enrichment of Chinese, Saudis & Canadians is shallow because they will get rich anyway, and maybe richer if Canada doesn't transport any oil through US, depriving US from refining the crude nor the $$ for transporting that oil. Less oil in the pipeline means more oil on trains, which is a far worse environmental and human risk. But keep buying the garbage analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Again you are using an ostrich analysis in that if the pipeline isn't built, the evil will go away. The pipeline is not a major determinant in how much oil the Canadians are going to produce. If the demand is there, they will extract oil and deliver it. Oil over rail is more dangerous than oil in a pipeline. A big chunk of the pipeline already carries cargo through pristine lands, and is not in danger of being shut down. The argument over enrichment of Chinese, Saudis & Canadians is shallow because they will get rich anyway, and maybe richer if Canada doesn't transport any oil through US, depriving US from refining the crude nor the $$ for transporting that oil. Less oil in the pipeline means more oil on trains, which is a far worse environmental and human risk. But keep buying the garbage analysis. I'm not though. I'm under no delusions that the tar sands won't be drilled. I'm under no delusions that the oil from the tar sands will be processed in the Gulf of Mexico. But don't sell me the pipeline as the only way to do it, especially when virtually every positive talking point about the pipeline has been proven to be wrong over the past two years. First it was promoted as a jobs program -- but that turned out to be incorrect. Next they talked about how it's going to lower the price of gas -- also proven to be incorrect (because the oil is going to get to market with or without the pipeline). It's about risk and reward. The risks are there and they're potentially catastrophic to what used to be the bread basket of America. If there was more to gain from it, I'd be on board. But so far no one has been able to sell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Just because the OP is inane doesn't mean you need to double down. With or without the pipeline, the oil will be produced and shipped to the ultimate buyers. Are you happier with that oil moving over 2,000 miles of railroad track? It's almost like Obama has a good friend who stands to benefit greatly from transporting the oil via train. But that can't be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Under $75 dollars a barrel there is no economic case for tar sand oil period, moved by rail you need $100+ and with Iranian oil hitting the market soon we are likely to have oil under $50 for awhile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It's almost like Obama has a good friend who stands to benefit greatly from transporting the oil via train. But that can't be... Warn me next time you saddle up to the easy buffet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Under $75 dollars a barrel there is no economic case for tar sand oil period, moved by rail you need $100+ and with Iranian oil hitting the market soon we are likely to have oil under $50 for awhile Oh...good thinking. Because we all know that the price of oil will stay at these levels or lower for the rest of our lives. There is no talking to T greggy about this subject, because he refuses to acknowledge that the oil will provide a large short-term economic stimulus for the economy, FUNDED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. He refuses to acknowledge that many local and state economies will get very sizable tax windfalls for the lifetime of the pipeline. He refuses to acknowledge that most of the gasoline will be sent to our refineries , (mostly owned by US companies and not US/Saudi joint ventures...not that it matters anyway, considering that the jobs are American and taxes collected are mostly U.S based as well, so it's a total non sequitur) Refuses to acknowledge that purchasing oil from Canada is better for us and our allies than purchasing oil from Nigeria, Venezuela and Mexico. Refuses to acknowledge that the world, specially the oil producing regions of the world are very economically and politically unstable, and that securing oil from a secure ally is a much better option than relying on unstable countries that aren't our friends. You have gone down hill over the past few days man. Edited July 30, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Oh...good thinking. Because we all know that the price of oil will stay at these levels or lower for the rest of our lives. There is no talking to T greggy about this subject, because he refuses to acknowledge that the oil will provide a large short-term economic stimulus for the economy, FUNDED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. He refuses to acknowledge that many local and state economies will get very sizable tax windfalls for the lifetime of the pipeline. He refuses to acknowledge that most of the gasoline will be sent to our refineries , (mostly owned by US companies and not US/Saudi joint ventures...not that it matters anyway, considering that the jobs are American and taxes collected are mostly U.S based as well, so it's a total non sequitur) Refuses to acknowledge that purchasing oil from Canada is better for us and our allies than purchasing oil from Nigeria, Venezuela and Mexico. Refuses to acknowledge that the world, specially the oil producing regions of the world are very economically and politically unstable, and that securing oil from a secure ally is a much better option than relying on unstable countries that aren't our friends. You have gone down hill over the past few days man. Explain to me how stable and preferable a partner China is, since they own the oil in question. Not Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Explain to me how stable and preferable a partner China is, since they own the oil in question. Not Canada. No they don't. Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts