Keystone Pipeline

[BasketCase]

Pipe can be resold. Possibly for a profit. The reason to get started on the pipe early was to get oil (and therefore money) sooner. Instead of waiting 120 days, they could have gotten, say, a billion dollars more pumped through a pipe finished 120 days sooner. They took a gamble, and it didn't work this time. Oil companies turn a profit because most of their other gambles do work.

 

[Orka]

So, if it goes to China, it doesn't decrease our imports? That's an interesting concept.
By the way, the source you chose isn't the DoE's analysis. It is an analysis provided TOO the DoE, in draft form, by Ensys Energy. It appears to be a good source, but just wanted to clear up the misleading approach.

How does this give Canadia access to charging higher prices? They can already charge the market rate... how does this give them the ability to charge more than the market rate?

Uh, so, BCers don't like any oil, basically... big deal. How educated are they about need? They still use the oil, of course, they just want other people to dirty up their area to get it to them... pretty selfish.

So, you are suggesting, for some odd and unsupported reason, that more Canadian oil on the market will lead to higher gas prices.
You do realize that makes zero sense?

In a day and age where demand for oil is going UP, supply not going up with it leads to higher gas prices... that's pretty common knowledge.

I'm sorry, on the surface, your post seems pretty cool... but critical thinking shows that your major premises are unsupported, and therefore your point in a house of cards.

Also, the conclusion of your report given to the DoE...

Thanks for clearing the source up, I was a bit careless there.

Your central point seems to be that the pipeline will not raise oil prices, after all. Here's why I find that hard to believe:

Due to an oil oversupply in the U.S., lately the market price for WTI (West Texas Intermediate - an indicator from U.S. oil prices) has been significantly lower than Brent (more of an indicator for world prices). A main reason seems to be difficulty transporting all the new supply of Canadian oil to the Gulf Refineries, causing U.S. crude prices to be as low as around $20/barrel less than world prices (lately the gap has been closing b/c of a Seaway oil pipeline reversal to the Gulf Coast). XL would help relieve the oversupply, which seems to me would raise crude oil prices for the U.S., at least in the Midwest...

And about this quote:

A combination of increased Canadian crude imports and reduced U.S. product demand could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term. Low U.S. demand is also projected to reduce U.S. net product imports and potentially turn the USA into a net product exporter after 2020.

This seems to be an argument for reducing U.S. demand (i.e. clean energy investment and growth), since as noted Canadian crude imports are on track to increase regardless of XL.

 

[kochman]

I really don't think the pipeline will lower or decrease the price of oil substantially... it's just not how it works.

I think it will get some American families off welfare/etc and back into contributing to the tax base, and back into self-esteem. How awesome does a welfare father feel at Christmas? That's important.

It seems that the major environmental issues have been/are being dealt with (beyond the HUGEST one that we need to switch to alternative fuel)... so, reasonable prudence has been served...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! (Not you, just wanted to use that phrase).

 

[Murky]

I think it will get some American families off welfare/etc and back into contributing to the tax base.

I don't see how putting few thousand people to work while screwing up the environment for everyone is a good thing. We can do better.

 

[kochman]

I don't see how putting few thousand people to work while screwing up the environment for everyone is a good thing. We can do better.

You really are a broken record.
I believe we covered this, at great length... go back and read it.

The damage, potential damage, is minimal. The environment has been considered.
WE ALL want to move to alternative energy...

 

[Murky]

The damage, potential damage, is minimal. The environment has been considered.

No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood it's still false. Just because I've not be posting as often as you in the thread does not mean that you won the argument.

 

[kochman]

Just because you are ignoring facts, means you are wrong.

 

[Murky]

Just because you are ignoring facts, means you are wrong.

What facts? I've only see you state opinion so far.

 

[kochman]

What facts? I've only see you state opinion so far.

Ok, let me label the facts I have used, and you tell me why it is only opinion.
1) Oil will continue to be consumed for the immediate/foreseeable future (whether we partakte or not)
2) This specific canadian oil will be processed, whether we are involved or not
3) The pipeline will bring jobs to Americans
4) The more Americans that have jobs, the less are receiving public funds, but instead they are contributing to the tax base
5) The have shifted the proposed route due to environmental concerns
6) The less transport of oil (since it WILL be transported, see #1), measured in miles, the better for the environment
7) Per the report provided to the DoE, this will essentially free of us dependance on ME oil (assuming we do start using alternatives), at a minimum, it will lessen the dependance
8) The less money we send to the ME, the more we can use domestically
9) Warren Buffet's railroad company will profit more if the pipeline is denied

I'll just stop there... and you can have fun with it however you want. You speak of only opinion, and you have not been using many sources to back up your claims, just ideology.

 

[Murky]

Ok, let me label the facts I have used, and you tell me why it is only opinion.
1) Oil will continue to be consumed for the immediate/foreseeable future (whether we partakte or not)

So you have a crystal ball? Source? Does consuming oil mean the Tar Sands oil?

2) This specific canadian oil will be processed, whether we are involved or not

I'm sure someone will be murdered somewhere in the immediate future, whether we are involved or not. Doesn't make it right.

3) The pipeline will bring jobs to Americans

Not enough to make it worth the potential environmental impact.

4) The more Americans that have jobs, the less are receiving public funds, but instead they are contributing to the tax base

Lots of people who have jobs are recipients of public funds. Oil subsidies for one.

5) The have shifted the proposed route due to environmental concerns

So do they have a plan to clean up the toxic waste pools, that can be seen from space, in Alberta yet? I haven't heard that.

6) The less transport of oil (since it WILL be transported, see #1), measured in miles, the better for the environment

False because it would still be transported to sell it on the open market.

7) Per the report provided to the DoE, this will essentially free of us dependance on ME oil (assuming we do start using alternatives), at a minimum, it will lessen the dependance

Source? What proof do you have of this claim?

8) The less money we send to the ME, the more we can use domestically

What indicates that the money sent to Canada's oil companies would be used domestically in the USA? Doesn't the company that owns the rights to the Tar Sands have foreign investors? Who's really benefiting from it?

9) Warren Buffet's railroad company will profit more if the pipeline is denied

I've not heard this. Source?

I'll just stop there... and you can have fun with it however you want. You speak of only opinion, and you have not been using many sources to back up your claims, just ideology.

I posted references for my claims as I recall.

 

[kochman]

So you have a crystal ball? Source?

Are you serious with this reply? You really need a source to be sure that we aren't going to continue to use oil tomorrow or a year from now? Then you are beyond my patience to debate...

I'm sure someone will be murdered somewhere in the immediate future, whether we are involved or not. Doesn't make it right.

I thought this was about refuting fact, not debating morals/opinions.

Not enough to make it worth the potential environmental impact.

In your opinion...

Lots of people who have jobs are recipients of public funds. Oil subsidies for one.

True, so what? Would this increase the tax base and reduce the entitlement payouts?

So do they have a plan to clean up the toxic waste pools, that can be seen from space, in Alberta yet? I haven't heard that.

I'll let Canadia decide what they are going to do in Canadia.

False because it would still be transported to sell it on the open market.

True or false... focus like a laser beam here...
1. The oil in the TX refineries is transported on the open market to wherever it is going regardless of where it comes from...
2. The oil BEFORE refining can come from different sources
3. Canadia is closer to TX than S Arabia

Source? What proof do you have of this claim?

Orka provided the source for this several posts above. Here is the link again. Page 124.
http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/AssmtDrftAccpt.pdf

The study has shown that reduction in U.S. petroleum product demand would not appreciably cut WCSB crude flows into the U.S. Rather, a low U.S. demand outlook would substantially reduce U.S. dependency on foreign (non-Canadian) crudes and products. A combination of increased Canadian crude imports and reduced U.S. product demand could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term. Low U.S. demand is also projected to reduce U.S. net product imports and potentially turn the USA into a net product exporter after 2020.

What indicates that the money sent to Canada's oil companies would be used domestically in the USA? Doesn't the company that owns the rights to the Tar Sands have foreign investors? Who's really benefiting from it?

Some of the money goes into the pipeline maintenance, staff, etc... some of which would be in the USA.

I've not heard this. Source?

It's a minor point, and I don't think it is why Obama took his stance... but it is worth considering.
http://www.iwf.org/blog/2786787/Cho...tt's-Railroad-Profits-From-Keystone-Rejection
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/fe...buffett-profit-rejection-keystone-xl-pipeline
http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/LocalNews/story.aspx?ID=1644570
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/24/buffett-would-profit-keystone-cancellation/

 

[Murky]

Are you serious with this reply? You really need a source to be sure that we aren't going to continue to use oil tomorrow or a year from now? Then you are beyond my patience to debate...

There is a high probability but no certainty of any common event in the future. The Sun will probably rise in the morning but I can't say for certain that it will.

I thought this was about refuting fact, not debating morals/opinions.

Without morals there would be nothing to worry about because we would most likely not be here. We would have already used up all the planets resources and/or destroyed ourselves.

In your opinion...

No it isn't. It could poison the drinking water in the plains with up to 5 million gallons of toxic oil.
https://motherjones.com/files/stansbury-worst-case-keystone-spills-report-summary-key-findings.pdf

True, so what? Would this increase the tax base and reduce the entitlement payouts?

The individual entitlement payouts pale in comparison to oil subsidies.

I'll let Canadia decide what they are going to do in Canadia.

What happens in Canada in terms of the environment has global consequences. The rest of the world should have a say in what happens there that would affect them don't you think? Especially if they want to maintain good international standing.

True or false... focus like a laser beam here...
1. The oil in the TX refineries is transported on the open market to wherever it is going regardless of where it comes from...
2. The oil BEFORE refining can come from different sources
3. Canadia is closer to TX than S Arabia

The Tar Sands has more GHG emissions per barrel of oil. Our biggest contributions to carbon emissions are from the dirtiest sources. If we're serious about slowing the rate of global warming we need to eliminate the worst offenders first.

Some of the money goes into the pipeline maintenance, staff, etc... some of which would be in the USA.

It would only create about 20 permanent jobs in the US. The rest would just be temporary construction jobs.
http://www.onearth.org/blog/chamber-speech-lies

It's a minor point, and I don't think it is why Obama took his stance... but it is worth considering.

Well, if I had my way there would be no Tar Sands oil crossing our borders. Just we as don't allow human trafficking for moral reasons would shouldn't allow trafficking in the morally bankrupt Tar Sands oil.

 

[kochman]

There is a high probability but no certainty of any common event in the future. The Sun will probably rise in the morning but I can't say for certain that it will.

Wow.

Without morals there would be nothing to worry about because we would most likely not be here. We would have already used up all the planets resources and/or destroyed ourselves.

We were talking facts. You are not talking facts.

No it isn't. It could poison the drinking water in the plains with up to 5 million gallons of toxic oil.
https://motherjones.com/files/stansbury-worst-case-keystone-spills-report-summary-key-findings.pdf

That's why they are re-routing it.

The individual entitlement payouts pale in comparison to oil subsidies.

Not arguing against that. I don't think we should be subsidizing most industries...

What happens in Canada in terms of the environment has global consequences. The rest of the world should have a say in what happens there that would affect them don't you think? Especially if they want to maintain good international standing.

Somehow, I tend to think Canadia will be more responsible than most nations about this... that's opinion, based in fact.

The Tar Sands has more GHG emissions per barrel of oil. Our biggest contributions to carbon emissions are from the dirtiest sources. If we're serious about slowing the rate of global warming we need to eliminate the worst offenders first.

So, you completely ignore my question, because you were wrong, and just change the subject? Does that make this fun for you? It doesn't for me.

It would only create about 20 permanent jobs in the US. The rest would just be temporary construction jobs.
http://www.onearth.org/blog/chamber-speech-lies

That's what one source says, another says another... Oh well, screw those temporary jobs that could have been helpful to the families until the economy was finally unscrewed and offering other opportunities... they can eat gubbamint cheese.

Well, if I had my way there would be no Tar Sands oil crossing our borders. Just we as don't allow human trafficking for moral reasons would shouldn't allow trafficking in the morally bankrupt Tar Sands oil.

Opinion... that has nothing to do with the fact presented. The reason Buffet profits is his trains will be transporting more oil if the pipeline isn't built... including tar sands oil.

Have you ever been to this type of place? Where oil is literally bubbling up from the surface? I have, I lived there, Kirkuk, Iraq. It was awful, and contaminatory... the air quality was terrible, respiratory illness was higher, etc.
It is actually better, in these locations, since we are using it anyhow, to get it OUT of the local environment... where it naturally comes to the surface anyhow.

 

[Murky]

That's why they are re-routing it.

Have you seen this re-routing plan? I haven't. Until proved otherwise, I'll have to assume it poses just as much a risk of a devastating spill on the local ecology.

Somehow, I tend to think Canadia will be more responsible than most nations about this... that's opinion, based in fact.

What fact is your opinion based on?

So, you completely ignore my question, because you were wrong, and just change the subject? Does that make this fun for you? It doesn't for me.

It was an unintentional tangent argument but still valid.

That's what one source says, another says another... Oh well, screw those temporary jobs that could have been helpful to the families until the economy was finally unscrewed and offering other opportunities... they can eat gubbamint cheese.

There's no way I could justify working for a morally bankrupt corporation like the one that wants to build this pipeline. You cannot justify an immoral act because it would make you less in need of help from the community. If that were the case, meth dealers and gangsters would be morally justified.

There are better opportunities to be had with renewable energy or energy efficiency projects. Let me know when that sinks in.

Have you ever been to this type of place? Where oil is literally bubbling up from the surface? I have, I lived there, Kirkuk, Iraq. It was awful, and contaminatory... the air quality was terrible, respiratory illness was higher, etc.
It is actually better, in these locations, since we are using it anyhow, to get it OUT of the local environment... where it naturally comes to the surface anyhow.

The people downstream from the Tar Sands are the most impacted by it. It pollutes their water. People have had more health problems in the region since the development began. The government of Canada just gives the tar sands a free pass and turns a blind eye to the concerns of the citizens. It's the worst sort of immorality I can think of. Whole families of a region are affected.
http://oilsandstruth.org/rare-cancer-strikes

 

[kochman]

I'm done with discussing this with you. You've not refuted my facts, only taken a moral stance against it... I don't really care to argue with you until blue in the face about your morals, because you are not going to change your morals, nor do I want you to.

I appreciate the need for having people like you, it tempers the other side... it's just that characterizing all things oil as evil reminds me of Nazi propaganda charactatures of Jews... it's false and not based in reality. There are a-holes out there that put their greed above everything else, but that's why we have government. All you are doing is assuming the worst, and it's based firmly in opinion, not fact... emotional argument.

In the below poster, change "Jude" to "Oilman"... that's your stance... we get it.

Moderator Action: That's completely uncalled for.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Murky]

I find this last post especially offensive.

Are you seriously comparing me to Nazis?

 

[kochman]

Just saying... the statements preceeding were a little over the top... demonizing...

Just we as don't allow human trafficking for moral reasons would shouldn't allow trafficking in the morally bankrupt Tar Sands oil...

You cannot justify an immoral act because it would make you less in need of help from the community. If that were the case, meth dealers and gangsters would be morally justified...

It's the worst sort of immorality I can think of...

 

[Murky]

I'm done with this thread.

 

[useless]

Rich businessmen are in a similar posistion as the Jews in around 1930-45? What?

Is this seriously the narative of today? That the wealthy are being "unfairly demonized"?

 

[CaptainF]

Rich businessmen are in a similar posistion as the Jews in around 1930-45? What?

Is this seriously the narative of today? That the wealthy are being "unfairly demonized"?

Yes. What's worse, said rich crony capitalists actually believe they are doing no harm.