It would be if the pipeline existed, which would be a good thing. While the spread has fallen (probably due to Europe falling into recession), Brent is still trading at a $9 premium to WTI. Why would you argue in favor of such a market inefficiency?
Originally Posted by justabubba
The pipeline will greatly reduce transportation costs and help to alleviate the price differential that exists between different crude oils. This is basically saying that it will make the oil market more efficient. So saying that there is no financial benefit because the pipeline will cause this price differential to exist is really dishonest because that would be a good thing for consumers, workers, the world, etc, in and of itself (hence the word value added). You are literally arguing against efficiency by saying this.
as was noted above, once the cost of transport to the end market is added to the $80 per barrel well head price, that $3.6 billion is lost to cover the expense of transport before a pipeline becomes available
there is NO financial benefit which will accrue
I thought you just said there was no financial benefit. So are you agreeing with me now, that this project creates value? If so, please explain to me why it would be bad for a company with operations in the US to be making a reasonable profit on its US operations.
$1 billion in wages (assuming a $50K annual wage) would go to the workers during the total span of construction leaving $3.6 billion in additional profit for the oil company
As noted in the article, emissions from processing crude are much smaller than emissions from the actual combustion of gasoline. In addition, blocking the pipeline does not prevent the sale of this crude else where, so your position is not really putting a stop to these increased emissions. So, while I will agree with you that crude oil from oil sands is associated with increased emissions, I disagree with you reasoning as it being a net negative for the project.
it was estimated by a cite earlier provided, that the price of gasoline is expected to be reduced by $1 per barrel, 1%, due to the resulting additional supply in the world's marketplace. hardly a savings worth the added environmental problems that are expected to result (20-40% increased emissions above that resulting from processing common crude)
Yes, as noted in my original post, the benefits will go to "workers who build the pipeline,
i don't see any benefits going to the workers, other than those man years required to construct the pipeline. maybe you will point out how workers other than the pipeline builders will benefit
motorists who buy the gasoline, workers and companies that produce the oil, and the government that collects taxes from all the rest."
I personally do not see the added risks as needless, the project adds efficiency and value, that will benefit many people in my view. I believe the risk are reasonable, and it is a fact that much has been done to mitigate the risk of spills. In fact, this project will have a higher degree of safety than a typical pipeline already found in the US. As noted in the article:
yes, the oil companies will accrue an additional $3.8 billion annually while our citizens are subject to loss of use of their properties thru eminent domain, our nation is subjected to additional environmental toxicity, and our aquifers and habitats are placed at needless risk, to allow the oil inductry to generate those additional profits
DOS calculated that there could be from 1.18 to 1.83 spills greater than 2,100 gallons per year for the entire Project.Although small spills will still occur, pipelines are by far the most efficient way to transport petroleum, and we could hardly do without them. The United States already has over a quarter million miles of oil and natural gas transmission lines, and millions more in gas distribution lines.TransCanada, the company that proposes to build the Keystone extension, claims:There are currently 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, including 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. Many of these pipelines co-exist within the Ogallala aquifer.
If you agree with me (which at times it seems you have when it fits your argument), this project will add value to the marketplace. That will increase real income and wealth, thereby expanding the tax base.
sorry. we are going to use X amount of oil no matter where it comes from. the taxes on X amount of oil consumed will not change if the pipeline is allowed to be constructed