Page 18 of 83 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #171
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,149

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    You feel secure about oil from the ME ? Why ?
    you under the belief that we are going to be denied access to the world's oil marketplace
    that's silly
    we will be importing until we become energy self sufficient
    it does not matter where that world oil supply originates, we will be there buying it at commodity prices like china and every other oil importing nation
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you under the belief that we are going to be denied access to the world's oil marketplace
    that's silly
    we will be importing until we become energy self sufficient
    it does not matter where that world oil supply originates, we will be there buying it at commodity prices like china and every other oil importing nation
    At this point, I can say with confidence that I know better than you.

    Were you a gasoline purchaser in 1973 ?

  3. #173
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Yeah, its such rocket science. A pipeline running dead down the center of the US. Pumping oil from our buddies in Canada. Couldn't possibly be a part of our energy independence from ME oil equation.

    We have to pretend its not there, it would seem. Move along.

    I thank God daily that when I was born, the doctor had a good grip, and did not drop me on my head. Lest I be so stupid so as to think that pipeline is not a part of our solution. I'm serious as a heart attack.
    So much for self-sufficiency, lets import even more oil even if it is not for us. And let's make it the dirtiest most expensive to produce oil on the planet. That makes sense to you? Are you sure about that doc?

  4. #174
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    At this point, I can say with confidence that I know better than you.

    Were you a gasoline purchaser in 1973 ?
    Have you been asleep since then? It's not 1973 anymore granpa. There will be no oil embargos from the middle east or OPEC. Money talks much louder now.

  5. #175
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Have you been asleep since then? It's not 1973 anymore granpa. There will be no oil embargos from the middle east or OPEC. Money talks much louder now.
    GREAT POINT! Now remind me who has the money to 'talk louder' with...OH, that's right CHINA...and how's that gonna help us kiddo?

  6. #176
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,149

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    GREAT POINT! Now remind me who has the money to 'talk louder' with...OH, that's right CHINA...and how's that gonna help us kiddo?
    and what does this have to do with the rejection of the proposal for the keystone oil sands pipeline?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  7. #177
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    let's examine these allegations:

    that $20 differential represents the additional expense needed to transport the oil to the oil market place. once it arrives there, its cost will be at parity with the other oil on the international market
    in short, what may appear to be a bargain at the well head is no longer discounted at the marketplace
    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?

    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
    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.

    $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 annually thereafter
    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.

    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)
    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.

    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
    Yes, as noted in my original post, the benefits will go to "workers who build the pipeline,
    motorists who buy the gasoline, workers and companies that produce the oil, and the government that collects taxes from all the rest."
    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
    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:

    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.
    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
    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.

  8. #178
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    and what does this have to do with the rejection of the proposal for the keystone oil sands pipeline?
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, identically the same as Iguanaman's #174 post...

  9. #179
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Have you been asleep since then? It's not 1973 anymore granpa. There will be no oil embargos from the middle east or OPEC. Money talks much louder now.
    LOL ......... once again, the pusilanimous attempts of the liberals to feebly go ad-hom when they can no longer debate.

    So you are asserting that we will no longer face issues in the future being dependent on oil imported from such as the ME.
    That for some reason our money "talks much louder now".

    That is one misinformed and hairbrained notion.

  10. #180
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,167

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Moderator's Warning:
    Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected Let's keep it civil, gentlemen.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 18 of 83 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •