Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 82

Thread: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

  1. #11
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    It's from here



    Just a gut feeling and a long line of historical evidence.
    Sounds like it's the law.

    I guess you'll have to change the law.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #12
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.
    The envirowackos won't allow anymore refineries to be built.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #13
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    #1 Because of Environmental regulation, very few new refineries have been built in the last 30 years.
    Iirc, another factor is that we haven't needed to build any more. We have had excess capacity for a while.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I can answer parts of the question, but you likely will not like the answer.
    #1 Because of Environmental regulation, very few new refineries have been built in the last 30 years.
    #2 The expertise to refine specialty oil, is already in Texas.
    #3 The infrastructure for the refined products, are already in Texas.
    #4 If it could be done easily up north, the Canadians would be doing it, and selling us refined product.
    Yes, but none of those answers show why it cannot be done in North Dakota or Montana. We are going to sink lots of money into building a risky pipeline that can end up polluting a lot more over longer distances to get a physical item to texas. We could also sink some money into upping the ability of the northern states to be able to process the oil and bring much needed revenue to one of our weaker states. If one of the key selling points to this pipeline is the jobs it creates, then it could create jobs for expanding the oil infrastructure of the US while making the pipeline less polluting and more efficient. It has to cost more money to pump the oil the extra distance even when the pipeline is made. Think fo the jobs we could create by making oil refineries in a place like ND or Montana and all while eliminating the objectional environmental impact of the pipeline. Texas would still have it's oil industry given it is on the gulf shores and it is also pumping oil from itself.

    i am just saying like most of the time it seems the government is focussing on a piss poor solution that benefits a couple of individuals. If they really wanted to get it done and eliminate risk they would put the refineries in ND or montana and make the idea much better all around since most of the major objection comes from getting the oil to texas.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    The envirowackos won't allow anymore refineries to be built.
    Then fix that problem. Instead of fighting them on a pipeline they don't want, fight them on getting oil refineries in ND or montana. i can also tell you that it would not be juist the environwackos doing this because I am quite sure texas would like the revenue from processing that oil, and there are specific companies who want that oil going to their processing plants that are already built. Both sides are fighting against new refineries. The oil industry likes limited supply as it raises prices and produces shortages for bigger markups. I agree with you the environmentalists are a problem, but they are not the only ones. I am trying to illustrate that this pipeline should be a non-issue since we should not need it to refine the oil in a northern state.

    There is only one limitation my research has come up with and it is that refining requires water. I am not sure how much, but it would seem this is why many refineries are built on big rivers or seaside. You could put the new refineries by the great lakes. It allows for water access, some sea shipping, a middle of the country distribution point, the low population areas preferred for refining, and limit the environmental impact the pipeline produces. It solves every problem from producing jobs, getting the gasoline, and even minimizing the environmental impact. The only thing the idea might screw up is the profits for a particular big oil tycoon or two. This is why i don't believe it is anything but a blame game with the environmentalists because it would make a lot more sense to fight for new refineries than the pipeline. In a choice between the evil pipeline and the refineries for people who are environmentalists you could pitch the refineries much easier as an alternative that pollutes less.

  6. #16
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,360

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Yes, but none of those answers show why it cannot be done in North Dakota or Montana. We are going to sink lots of money into building a risky pipeline that can end up polluting a lot more over longer distances to get a physical item to texas. We could also sink some money into upping the ability of the northern states to be able to process the oil and bring much needed revenue to one of our weaker states. If one of the key selling points to this pipeline is the jobs it creates, then it could create jobs for expanding the oil infrastructure of the US while making the pipeline less polluting and more efficient. It has to cost more money to pump the oil the extra distance even when the pipeline is made. Think fo the jobs we could create by making oil refineries in a place like ND or Montana and all while eliminating the objectional environmental impact of the pipeline. Texas would still have it's oil industry given it is on the gulf shores and it is also pumping oil from itself.

    i am just saying like most of the time it seems the government is focussing on a piss poor solution that benefits a couple of individuals. If they really wanted to get it done and eliminate risk they would put the refineries in ND or montana and make the idea much better all around since most of the major objection comes from getting the oil to texas.
    The pipeline is considered less risky than moving the oil by rail.
    If you refined the oil in ND or Montana, how would you then transport the refined products?
    If we do not buy the oil, Canada has already said they will pipe it to Vancouver, and ship it to China.
    The Companies who built and own the refineries, have decided it is more profitable, to ship the oil
    to existing refineries, than to build new ones.
    The Government is not actually part of the solution, but rather an impediment to the solution.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Environmental regulation has little to do with it

    Alberta would love to see new refineries built, and given that the oil is being extracted here (with the environmental costs) the regulations to build a new one would be minor. It is the economic costs of building a new refinery that has seen very few new ones being built, (just large expansions of existing ones)
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    The pipeline is considered less risky than moving the oil by rail.
    If you refined the oil in ND or Montana, how would you then transport the refined products?
    The same way you would get it out from texas. You could put the refineries on the great lakes, and then you would have the shipping access. It is really just taking out the huge cross country pipeline. Not to mention you would be putting the refining much closer to the ever popular northeast which consumes lots of oil. It actually makes sense from a distribution standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    If we do not buy the oil, Canada has already said they will pipe it to Vancouver, and ship it to China.
    Did you read because I never said anything about not getting the oil. Did you just want to say china out of the imaginary fear the word inspires in so many conservatives. Pay attention to the argument i am making, it will help you. Knee jerk pointless fearmongering doesn't help your case when no one is suggesting what you are arguing against.
    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    The Companies who built and own the refineries, have decided it is more profitable, to ship the oil
    to existing refineries, than to build new ones.
    How does that work, anyway? Thinking about that logic i would have to wonder how the hell it would be more profitable for them to have more pipeline that needs to be maintained, a closer manufacturing point to the highly populated oil consuming northeast, and eliminating the expenditures on actually shipping oil thousands of miles out of the way to refine it and ship it back. I am glad they told you it would be cheaper to build a pipeline across the US, but that is a really bad excuse. I cannot even imagine that in the short run it would be cheaper to build a thousand or so miles of pipeline that needs to be maintained just to avoid the cost of new refineries more local. The only place i see it being better for conomically is texas, and perhaps it helps an individual oil company over certain others.

    But please do show me the costs of new refineries as opposed to the costs of the pipeline, and if you want some extra credit the costs of shipping the finished product from the texas coast as opposed from the northeast in comparison with a multiple distribution point model where the northeast is supplied by the northeast refineries while texas would supply southern areas. Sorry, if you want to make the claim please do provide some support for it aside from the oil companies say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    The Government is not actually part of the solution, but rather an impediment to the solution.
    Yes, now you are just saying what i just did without the understanding of why you said it. Stay out of my crackers.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Environmental regulation has little to do with it

    Alberta would love to see new refineries built, and given that the oil is being extracted here (with the environmental costs) the regulations to build a new one would be minor. It is the economic costs of building a new refinery that has seen very few new ones being built, (just large expansions of existing ones)
    i hear this a lot, but what is the actual cost of a refinery to build? If it really were that costly to build a refinery why do we have any to begin with? What I do see being costly is the extra supply of the refinery lowering profit margins on gasoline and other oil products. By actually increasing conversion you increase supply which would lower costs of gasoline. That is not costly from any other position but an established low demand and the perspective of a huge profit markup.

    In other words, if the texas refineries have a certain physical production cap of gasoline products we actually do not increase our supplies of gasoline and lower our costs by pumping more oil. What we do is we eliminate the possibility of China buying the oil without increasing supply and lowering gasoline costs. We are playing grabby with the oil while not decreasing our own costs for gasoline because the oil companies want more money. All the while we get to suffer the effects of the pollution because they want to avoid more gasoline production through new refineries in the north.

    This is what happens when you allow collusion and price fixing, and decrease regulations on big industries capable of keeping competition out in a free market.

  10. #20
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.
    You can build a refinery anywhere - point is, you need the refinery to be in a place where the refined end product can be easily shipped to market - a refinery in North Dakota would require pipelines to the west or gulf coast or shipment by truck and/or rail to the coasts, both of which are more expensive and more prone to accident.

    There are currently many refineries in Texas and the Gulf because of its easy shipping lanes to those who provide the unrefined oil and those who use the refined oil. Many here in Canada would like to see us expand the refineries we have on the east coast as well as build new ones on the west coast. It's my understanding that the building of a refinery actually takes about a decade after all the necessary building and environmental approvals have been acquired making new refineries a long term prospect that previous governments have not gotten into.

    Texas is the spot that currently has the capacity that can handle the influx of oilsands product. We do have pipelines in Canada that run east/west that transfer refined oil from New Brunswick to the central and western provinces and discussions and studies are being done to reverse those pipelines to allow oilsands product to flow east to the refineries in New Brunswick and then shipment from there. Also, pipelines are in the works going west to the west coast for shipment by tanker to China and Asia for refining.

    BTW, it's not just Canadian oilsands product that would be flowing with Keystone - there are northern states who will use the pipeline to send their oil production to the gulf coast for refining too.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •