Keeping oil prices dear.....

Keeping oil prices dear..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MercTech -> Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 5:41:14 AM)
The article that sparked a face palm and head shake..... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?_r=0 A pipeline to take Canadian crude to existing U.S. refineries and get it on the world market cheaper and easier. Last summer I had neighbors that were working on the upgrade to the Canadian pipelines carrying oil to Vancouver, B.C. This was an expensive, lengthy project that was being undertaken because of years of U.S. delays in the shorter pipeline that would have taken Canadian crude oil to gulf states oil refineries. Who profits from making oil more expensive? Hmmmmm... If you don't like the results of an environmental impact study; order it to be done over again and again until you either get what you want to hear or it is too late to take action anyway. Will Canadian oil fields market their oil via the U.S. or straight overseas via the pipeline to the west coast?

joether -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 6:14:06 AM)
Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house?

tj444 -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 11:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech The article that sparked a face palm and head shake..... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?_r=0 A pipeline to take Canadian crude to existing U.S. refineries and get it on the world market cheaper and easier. Last summer I had neighbors that were working on the upgrade to the Canadian pipelines carrying oil to Vancouver, B.C. This was an expensive, lengthy project that was being undertaken because of years of U.S. delays in the shorter pipeline that would have taken Canadian crude oil to gulf states oil refineries. Who profits from making oil more expensive? Hmmmmm... If you don't like the results of an environmental impact study; order it to be done over again and again until you either get what you want to hear or it is too late to take action anyway. Will Canadian oil fields market their oil via the U.S. or straight overseas via the pipeline to the west coast? umm.. I believe China has money invested in certain oil fields/companies in western Canada.. and they want the oil, fer sure.. there is also a pipeline in the works going from Alberta to the east coast.. and with that one the US oil imports into eastern Canada will no longer be necessary.. I am all for the pipelines thru Canada and shipping direct to other markets.. cut out the US altogether.. Honestly, waiting for Obama or the US to approve keystone is a fools game.. forget it, Canada has alternatives that don't depend on the US and its wishy-washy time wasting merry-go-round... pffff...

DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 2:03:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they?

Aylee -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 2:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Lower energy costs benefits the poor in a direct and tangible way. Since it does not involve any redistribution of wealth . . . well. . . you can guess why that would be opposed.

enslaver -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 3:17:46 PM)
That poor Democrat was seriously deluded if he thought ONE DROP of that oil will EVER be used in this country, sure its goin to the coast ......to be loaded on tankers and shipped away

MrRodgers -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 3:27:53 PM)
The XL pipeline goes to Houston for one reason and one reason only...money. What refined oil (not crude) that is exported from Houston is being exported from a 'free trade zone' which is a TAX free zone. The Koch bros. also own 2 million acres in Canada and want to benefit from this plutocracy.

joether -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 3:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Yes, the refineries and subsequently the workers, do profit from the pipeline. I'm stating "Why should America handle the total liability and not get the total benefits with it?" As I stated, this issue is a political football were everyone uses it to score points for their base. The reality is, Republicans lost their credibility to the American people when they down voted a bill that would require all the oil shipped and refined be...ONLY...used right here in America. The refineries and the workers would benefit. Why cant the rest of America as well?

joether -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 3:41:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Lower energy costs benefits the poor in a direct and tangible way. Since it does not involve any redistribution of wealth . . . well. . . you can guess why that would be opposed. So we should not do stuff that helps the poor out? Instead, we should place as much of the burden on those that cant handle the burden, because that's 'the American way'? Right? Spoken like a true libertarian.... ....hate of all of America and Americans. Against all systems and measures meant to help Americans out....unless....you would directly benefit from it. Libertarians are against the government helping to reduce or nullify heating oil charges to the poor; unless they happen to be in the same boat, then they demand such things be freely available.

bounty44 -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 4:57:32 PM)
quote: ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. could you please provide evidence of that. one is, that's new to me, so id be interested in reading about it. second, it sounds too simplistic on its face, that is, if its true, i suspect theres much more going on than what you've said. quote: That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? never minding the thousands of miles of pipeline that already exists all over America... and the thousands of jobs that would be created and local economies that would benefit by the building of the pipeline...

joether -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 5:14:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. could you please provide evidence of that. one is, that's new to me, so id be interested in reading about it. second, it sounds too simplistic on its face, that is, if its true, i suspect theres much more going on than what you've said. This is only the info I could find immediately: "Most Democrats framed the bill as gift to a foreign oil company that would have little benefit for the American people, because much of the oil would be exported. They tried and failed to get amendments on the bill to construct the pipeline with U.S. steel, ban exports of the oil and the products refined from it, and protect water resources." SOURCE It did strike me as a 'compromise' that would make sense. We are handling the liability, so why not the benefit? Rather than the current plan were we hold all the liability and none of the benefit. That the oil being shipped to be refined for foreign markets was the issue. As to which Democrat brought the issue up initially, I can not remember the guy's name off hand. Sorry! quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: joether That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? never minding the thousands of miles of pipeline that already exists all over America... and the thousands of jobs that would be created and local economies that would benefit by the building of the pipeline... Yes, if there are so many pipelines, why create....ANOTHER....pipeline? That is a question Republicans are not willing to answer. The 'thousands of jobs' created is a falsehood. It would create a few hundred to a few thousand....TEMPORARY....jobs (lasting at most 3-6 months). The number of long term jobs created would be less than fifty. Local economies would not really benefit over the long term of this pipeline. Spills and ruptures are a common occurrence. With large spills being rare, they are however, very costly to the public. The only 'local' economies that might benefit from all this are the ones the refineries are located in. Even then, its hard to provide clear evidence either way that the pipeline's creation and usage would benefit/hinder that local economy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 5:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Yes, the refineries and subsequently the workers, do profit from the pipeline. I'm stating "Why should America handle the total liability and not get the total benefits with it?" As I stated, this issue is a political football were everyone uses it to score points for their base. The reality is, Republicans lost their credibility to the American people when they down voted a bill that would require all the oil shipped and refined be...ONLY...used right here in America. The refineries and the workers would benefit. Why cant the rest of America as well? No taxes will be paid? I guess those workers can rejoice that they won't have to pay any income taxes on their incomes! Lucky sob's! You are going to benefit, Joether. You just have to take off your blinders and accept the truth.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 5:49:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Lower energy costs benefits the poor in a direct and tangible way. Since it does not involve any redistribution of wealth . . . well. . . you can guess why that would be opposed. So we should not do stuff that helps the poor out? Instead, we should place as much of the burden on those that cant handle the burden, because that's 'the American way'? Right? Spoken like a true libertarian.... ....hate of all of America and Americans. Against all systems and measures meant to help Americans out....unless....you would directly benefit from it. Libertarians are against the government helping to reduce or nullify heating oil charges to the poor; unless they happen to be in the same boat, then they demand such things be freely available. You're an idiot. You demonstrate that you have no idea what libertarians truly believe in. You also demonstrate your inability to comprehend basic English. What Aylee was saying was that you were opposed because it would not redistribute any wealth, even though the poor would benefit in a direct and tangible way.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 5:58:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. could you please provide evidence of that. one is, that's new to me, so id be interested in reading about it. second, it sounds too simplistic on its face, that is, if its true, i suspect theres much more going on than what you've said. This is only the info I could find immediately: "Most Democrats framed the bill as gift to a foreign oil company that would have little benefit for the American people, because much of the oil would be exported. They tried and failed to get amendments on the bill to construct the pipeline with U.S. steel, ban exports of the oil and the products refined from it, and protect water resources." SOURCE Why shouldn't the pipeline be built with the least amount of cost? Mandating that the pipeline be built with only US Steel means that US Steel manufacturers won't have to lower their costs as much. And, you didn't present a bill a Democrat tried to push through. You presented an article about the bill that was passed by the Senate. And, it's a bill that enjoys bipartisan support. It's a project the State Department report comes out in favor of. quote: It did strike me as a 'compromise' that would make sense. We are handling the liability, so why not the benefit? Rather than the current plan were we hold all the liability and none of the benefit. That the oil being shipped to be refined for foreign markets was the issue. As to which Democrat brought the issue up initially, I can not remember the guy's name off hand. Sorry! quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: joether That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? never minding the thousands of miles of pipeline that already exists all over America... and the thousands of jobs that would be created and local economies that would benefit by the building of the pipeline... Yes, if there are so many pipelines, why create....ANOTHER....pipeline? That is a question Republicans are not willing to answer. The 'thousands of jobs' created is a falsehood. It would create a few hundred to a few thousand....TEMPORARY....jobs (lasting at most 3-6 months). The number of long term jobs created would be less than fifty. Local economies would not really benefit over the long term of this pipeline. Spills and ruptures are a common occurrence. With large spills being rare, they are however, very costly to the public. The only 'local' economies that might benefit from all this are the ones the refineries are located in. Even then, its hard to provide clear evidence either way that the pipeline's creation and usage would benefit/hinder that local economy. You have already agreed that refineries and refinery workers will benefit from the tar sands being refined in their refineries. Don't those workers spend money locally? A new pipeline should be built to carry this sludge so it doesn't mix with other types of oil, shouldn't it? This stuff isn't cheap or easy to refine, so preventing it from tainting other supplies of oil is a good idea. The argument that much of the pipeline could be built on lands currently in use with the Keystone pipeline (as opposed to the Keystone XL) is a harder argument to defeat, though I think the State Department report addressed that, too.

Aylee -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/26/2015 6:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Lower energy costs benefits the poor in a direct and tangible way. Since it does not involve any redistribution of wealth . . . well. . . you can guess why that would be opposed. So we should not do stuff that helps the poor out? Instead, we should place as much of the burden on those that cant handle the burden, because that's 'the American way'? Right? Spoken like a true libertarian.... ....hate of all of America and Americans. Against all systems and measures meant to help Americans out....unless....you would directly benefit from it. Libertarians are against the government helping to reduce or nullify heating oil charges to the poor; unless they happen to be in the same boat, then they demand such things be freely available. You're an idiot. You demonstrate that you have no idea what libertarians truly believe in. You also demonstrate your inability to comprehend basic English. What Aylee was saying was that you were opposed because it would not redistribute any wealth, even though the poor would benefit in a direct and tangible way. Well, ya beat me to it. I was just going to ask if he was on crack.

bounty44 -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/27/2015 6:02:12 AM)
not that I trust a government entity estimate over a private industry one who would actually be working in the field, but that said....here is an estimate from the state department: "The U.S. Department of State, writing in an environmental impact statement, estimated the pipeline would create far fewer jobs that what the pipeline company, oil industry and project supporters in Congress suggest. The project, it said, “would result in hiring approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers over the three-year construction period.”" http://uspolitics.about.com/od/energy/a/Are-Keystone-Pipeline-Jobs-Estimates-Just-Pipe-Dreams.htm that many workers for that amount of time sounds pretty good to me...I suspect they, and the local economies wherein they find themselves, would be thrilled. joether I see your link in answer to me wondering about a democrat sponsoring a bill that republicans put the kibosh on, wasn't really a link to that. I know we cant always find things as quickly as we'd like, but maybe by now you've had the necessary time. and the answer to "why create another pipeline?" is pretty obvious---it's necessary to achieve the desired ends of the project. for whatever reason, the already existing lines don't suffice.

MercTech -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/28/2015 1:10:44 AM)
Extending the existing Keystone pipeline from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast would open more refineries and more markets for oil from Canada. Who would that hurt... well, it might drop the price for the oil brought up from fraking the Permian Basin for one. And, horrors, it might increase profits for those evil oil companies.

joether -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/28/2015 2:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Funny thing with politics... ...A Democrat tried to push a bill through that would allow the US Market to obtain all 100% of the oil shipped from Canada. It was destroyed by Republicans! That's right, America should take on all the expenses and liabilities, but obtain none of the benefits or profit. That is what this issue is about. We have nothing to really gain from this stupid pipeline, but stand to loose much if something, somewhere, fucks up! Would you allow a pipeline carrying toxic material through your backyard in which you gained no benefit from, but if there was a problem, you would stand to lose your yard and house? Let's just ignore that the State Dept's report identified the greatest US capacity to refine that goop as residing in the Gulf Coast refiners, ok? That's why Keystone XL goes to the Gulf Coast. That's where we have refinery capability and capacity to refine the tar sands. The refineries (and those workers) will surely see some profit, won't they? Yes, the refineries and subsequently the workers, do profit from the pipeline. I'm stating "Why should America handle the total liability and not get the total benefits with it?" As I stated, this issue is a political football were everyone uses it to score points for their base. The reality is, Republicans lost their credibility to the American people when they down voted a bill that would require all the oil shipped and refined be...ONLY...used right here in America. The refineries and the workers would benefit. Why cant the rest of America as well? No taxes will be paid? I guess those workers can rejoice that they won't have to pay any income taxes on their incomes! Lucky sob's! You are going to benefit, Joether. You just have to take off your blinders and accept the truth. Ok, DS, we are going to play a game. Its called 'Reality'. I want you to spot in....EITHER....of my posts you were responding to, were I mentioned taxes? Because that is the whole 'thrust' of your 'argument' here. Reality shows quite clearly that I did not mention taxes. Or that the workers would not pay taxes. And why did I not say this? BECAUSE IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP IN EITHER POST! A first grader could point that out; what's your excuse? I already benefit from low oil and gas prices, DS, its called 'President Obama'. The Republicans stated in the last general election that if President Obama was re-elected, the price at the pump would have been $5.50/gallon in January of 2015. Reality? It was $2.19/gallon in that same month. By how much were Republicans off in their 'calculation'? Now, let's keep going with reality. ALL the oil. That would be 100%, DS. That comes from Canada, is going to....FOREIGN MARKETS. Foreign markets mean 'places outside the 50 states in the nation'. Meaning, 0.0% of that oil will be used within the USA. Further, the money the refineries make will already be deduced from being taxed in a number of ways. I really hate having to explain this stuff like your a fucking 1st grader, DS. I sincerely do! Maybe I'm expecting to much of you, of all people, to have a basic level of understanding of what this topic is all about. When you clear away the political bullshit and look at this objectively, you understand what is really being discussed. One more pipeline of many already existing in the nation. That will carry oil from Canada to a Gulf state refinery system. That oil, once conditioned, will be put on transports to be set to markets outside of the United States of America. That's the basics. That the project will require 'X' number of workers to construct the pipeline. And these jobs are unfortunately, temporary positions lasting nor more than 3-6 months. After the pipe is finished, less than fifty workers will be needed to maintain the system. That in essence the country handles all the liability and none of the benefits. Its been shown by quite a few other examples of pipelines leaking and even rupturing. An the damage that befalls locations. Historical and finacial records show these damage levels far exceeded the benefits the locations gain from pipelines running through their backyards. That Democrats tried to place a bill requiring this oil being shipped be used within the USA, rather than foreign markets. Thereby we gain the benefits....AND....the liabilities. That is often known as 'sound business thinking'. Republicans shot down that bill. These are the facts, DS. They are indisputable. I have the evidence and history books to back up all these points. So in order for you to make a case that this pipeline benefits me directly, requires you to come up with the burden of evidence. That has not happen yet. You can call me names, insult my intelligence and education, and even behave like a child. None of these will help your case worth shit. So the ball's in your court, DS....

joether -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/28/2015 2:33:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why shouldn't the pipeline be built with the least amount of cost? Mandating that the pipeline be built with only US Steel means that US Steel manufacturers won't have to lower their costs as much. Two questions here: 1: The purpose of this pipeline is to carry 'X' amount of oil per hour of operation. Should a leak (or dare I say rupture) occur, this flow of oil is stopped while repairs are performed. When projects are done with cheap materials, poor engineering, and 'cutting corners', results in faulty problems and people getting pissed off. Sometimes you can get away with this sort of business model. Unfortunately its not a 'one size fits all' viewpoint. 2: Would you rather we use steel from outside the nation? Do you not support the US Economy? ARE YOU LOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Because that is how conservatives have attacked others when the shoe was on the other foot. The pipeline serves the Republican base; the use of US Steel benefits the Democrat's base. You have a problem with one side doing something to appease their base but not the one you support? That's called 'being a hypocrite', DS. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, you didn't present a bill a Democrat tried to push through. You presented an article about the bill that was passed by the Senate. And, it's a bill that enjoys bipartisan support. It's a project the State Department report comes out in favor of. Oh, I'm sorry, do I need the HR# of the bill a Democrat pushed to have the oil be sold only in US markets, and got shot down by Republicans? From a guy who has never done that, I call 'bullshit'! The bill didnt 'enjoy' bipartisan support. If you sit down and study things in Washington, D.C., things are never quite what they appear. That one side agrees to one thing, if the other side agrees to something else a few weeks/months down the road. Its messy, trashy, and back-stabbing' but that's what us American's are 'happy' with apparently.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You have already agreed that refineries and refinery workers will benefit from the tar sands being refined in their refineries. Don't those workers spend money locally? Yes, that would be called 'logical'. I didn't feel the need to explain the fucking obvious stuff. The problems with this project are not about the 'end point'. And that you keep evading the real issues, shows the dishonesty in your arguments. What's wrong here? Cant talk about the issues at the core of the issue because you do not have any decent and convenient answers? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A new pipeline should be built to carry this sludge so it doesn't mix with other types of oil, shouldn't it? This stuff isn't cheap or easy to refine, so preventing it from tainting other supplies of oil is a good idea. Do you know how many pipelines exist in the United States? Go look that up. You do not transport 'sludge' by pipeline, DS, you do that with rail cars. The reason (from an engineering perspective) is that it 'gums' up the pipeline. Requiring days if not weeks of in-operations to clean the thousands of miles of piping. Do you have any idea how expensive that is? Oil, being a liquid base material, is much easier to transport by pipeline. Granted it has properties that will 'stick' to the piping and cause some minimal problems over the lifetime of the structure; its 'cleaning' costs will be dramatically cheaper. You can transport oil by rail car as well. However, I don't think a rail system exist in quite the connection needed from Canada's facilities to the Gulf. Hence, why the creation of the pipeline. As a bonus question, can you name the other four types of transport for materials other than the fifth one here (that of a pipeline)? (logistics question) quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The argument that much of the pipeline could be built on lands currently in use with the Keystone pipeline (as opposed to the Keystone XL) is a harder argument to defeat, though I think the State Department report addressed that, too. The State Department is allowed its views. I dislike the project because of the 'benefits verse liability' isn't in America's favor. Pipelines have been shown to leak and rupture. This has been shown many times. The cost of clean up in communities is pretty expensive. I'm misusing out the 'political bullshit' and 'football game' here, and simply looking at the cost analysis based on historical information from financial, scientific, economic, and utility sources. Demonize me all you want, DS. I just dont see the 'gain' to America past a tiny minority of individuals. An that 'gain' I do see is quickly and nightly over shadowed by the liabilities this nation will incur.

MercTech -> RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... (2/28/2015 5:04:06 AM)
Just for the record... oil from the tar sands is not a "sludge" And you can pipeline a "slurry" of coal even.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125