Page 64 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #631
    Educator Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    12-29-12 @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    That's actually not a very good comparison at all, as 2000 was right at the height of the dotcom bubble, which boosted the economy and employment.
    I think it's a good comparison, because your looking for a time when people will be drawn out of the Not in Labor Force category. That's why I said, it won't get any better than that. The Fed will stop the economy and not allow unemployment to go lower than 4%.

    The dot.com bubble was just a stock bubble and didn't have much of an affect the labor market. The loss of the money, after it bursted, is what affected the labor market.

    I always called that time the so-called Bush recession, because it's the first time in history the NBER called a recession that didn't have three consecutive quarters of negative GDP. I think buying up those government bonds were giving the Fed problems with bank lending, because the government bonds are used for collateral. Greenspan is on record opposing paying off the national debt and so is Bush.

  2. #632
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    I think it's a good comparison, because your looking for a time when people will be drawn out of the Not in Labor Force category. That's why I said, it won't get any better than that. The Fed will stop the economy and not allow unemployment to go lower than 4%.

    The dot.com bubble was just a stock bubble and didn't have much of an affect the labor market. The loss of the money, after it bursted, is what affected the labor market.

    I always called that time the so-called Bush recession, because it's the first time in history the NBER called a recession that didn't have three consecutive quarters of negative GDP. I think buying up those government bonds were giving the Fed problems with bank lending, because the government bonds are used for collateral. Greenspan is on record opposing paying off the national debt and so is Bush.
    Please correct me if I am wrong (and I truly hope I am), but are you actually trying to place this recession on the guy who came AFTER Bush? If you can look at the mounds of Data explaining what led to this, and still pretend the guy in your Avatar did not contribute in a massive way to what we are trying to fix...Your opinion in the real world holds little value.

  3. #633
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,341

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    I keep seeing claims that it will be exported, but have yet to see any credible proof offered. I've asked several others, now it's your turn.
    1. The Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline. The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline's route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivers enhances their capacity to do so.

    2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation's top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline's capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

    3. The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing, and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand, while technological advances have opened up new sources in the United States. Increasingly, U.S. refiners are turning to export.

    These facts reveal the important truth that the Keystone XL pipeline would not in fact enhance U.S. energy security at all. The construction of Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil—rather, it will feed the growing trend of exporting refined products out of the United States, thereby doing nothing to enhance energy security or to stabilize oil prices or gasoline prices at the pump. If completed, it will successfully achieve a long-term objective of Canadian tar sands producers—to gain access to export markets.

    The oil market is fundamentally global. The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil.

    Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

  4. #634
    Educator Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    12-29-12 @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Please correct me if I am wrong (and I truly hope I am), but are you actually trying to place this recession on the guy who came AFTER Bush? If you can look at the mounds of Data explaining what led to this, and still pretend the guy in your Avatar did not contribute in a massive way to what we are trying to fix...Your opinion in the real world holds little value.
    I don't know what gave you that idea.

    What I'm talking about is the reality that what is reported for unemployment is U3 unemployment and that number doesn't decrease rapidly, because people listed as Not in the Labor Force will eventually enter to the labor force and either be counted as working or not. I showed them how to correctly estimate how many in that category would return by comparing it to a time considered full employment and adjust it with census figures of people 65 and older.

    The early blue is the so-called Bush recession:

    Last edited by Gary; 02-01-12 at 06:30 PM.

  5. #635
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    1. The Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline. The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline's route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivers enhances their capacity to do so.

    2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation's top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline's capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

    3. The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing, and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand, while technological advances have opened up new sources in the United States. Increasingly, U.S. refiners are turning to export.

    These facts reveal the important truth that the Keystone XL pipeline would not in fact enhance U.S. energy security at all. The construction of Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil—rather, it will feed the growing trend of exporting refined products out of the United States, thereby doing nothing to enhance energy security or to stabilize oil prices or gasoline prices at the pump. If completed, it will successfully achieve a long-term objective of Canadian tar sands producers—to gain access to export markets.

    The oil market is fundamentally global. The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil.

    Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed
    You obviously missed the part where I asked for a CREDIBLE source for your claims. Policy Innovations is a far left environmental organization and is obviously biased.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  6. #636
    Educator Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    12-29-12 @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    1. The Keystone XL pipeline is an export pipeline. The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline's route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivers enhances their capacity to do so.

    2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation's top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline's capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

    3. The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing, and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand, while technological advances have opened up new sources in the United States. Increasingly, U.S. refiners are turning to export.

    These facts reveal the important truth that the Keystone XL pipeline would not in fact enhance U.S. energy security at all. The construction of Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil—rather, it will feed the growing trend of exporting refined products out of the United States, thereby doing nothing to enhance energy security or to stabilize oil prices or gasoline prices at the pump. If completed, it will successfully achieve a long-term objective of Canadian tar sands producers—to gain access to export markets.

    The oil market is fundamentally global. The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil.

    Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed
    There are a few things right and wrong with that assessment. We export final product, because we have the refining capacity and other places near us don't. It isn't like you fill a supertanker with gasoline and send it around the world. You fill a barge and send it along the coast or somewhere nearby. The question then becomes, where do you send it, if it's going to be exported? The it becomes unrefined material, if it's a long distance. There is a 0.860 million (max cap.) barrel per day(mbpd) Trans-Panama pipeline that Venezuela uses to supply the Pacific markets and it runs around 0.5 mbpd. It was built because of a lack of Panama Canal size tankers and used to bring Alaskan crude to east coast markets. Now, it's flowing the other way with Venezuelan crude. The only market in the world that makes sense in the near future is our market in North America and the Asian market in the Far East. If you wanted to ship oil to the Asian markets, you wouldn't take it to the Gulf.

    Tar sands have heavy hydrocarbons, 20 carbons for pariffns, while fuels are in the 7 to 8 carbon range. The logical thing to do is to crack the large hydrocarbons into the fuel carbon range and use the solvents to extract the hydrocarbons, instead of mining them. Saturated hydrocarbons, like we use, usually have three carbons on the ends and two in the middle, so extra hydrogen is required to optimize production of fuel range hydrocarbons. This can be accomplished by using light hydrocarbons, like those in natural gas, mostly 1 and 2 carbon. Canada has tar sands equal to the known world reserves of crude oil and so does Venezuela. A cracking and alkylation facility isn't as sophisticated as an oil refinery and building them on site and using solvent extraction is the logical thing to do with tar sands.

    I see future plans to bring natural gas from Alaska, that is presently just pumped back into the ground and exploit Canadian resources, because the proposed natural gas pipelines ends, where the tar sands begins. I see future plans to build pipelines to the Pacific and Atlantic and to service the North American market.


  7. #637
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    You obviously missed the part where I asked for a CREDIBLE source for your claims. Policy Innovations is a far left environmental organization and is obviously biased.
    This should make it clear to everyone what you're doing with your time when you try to have a rational discussion with the right -- wasting it.

  8. #638
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill, replying to another View Post
    So, it is your opinion that the news releases from the governor of Nebraska's office as well as the news release from TransCanada are incorrect ???? [....]
    At this point in the thread, TransCanada's "20,000 jobs" claim has been clearly debunked. Yet, as we see above, some have missed that boat.

    So, Gill, it is not anyone's opinion that TransCanada issues incorrect news releases, it is fact.

  9. #639
    Educator Gary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    12-29-12 @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    This should make it clear to everyone what you're doing with your time when you try to have a rational discussion with the right -- wasting it.
    I discuss thing with the right, but it isn't like I'm trying to convince them. It isn't a waste of time to take what they say and refute it. There are others who haven't made up their minds or who are interested in hearing opposing views. We should be encouraging the stupidity of the right and not rebuke those who demonstate it. They are doing us a favor.

  10. #640
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    I discuss thing with the right, but it isn't like I'm trying to convince them. It isn't a waste of time to take what they say and refute it. [...]
    Agreed. My point is that it is often useless to talk to them. I did not mean to imply it was worthless to talk at them

Page 64 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... 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
  •