• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

You might also ask what lies between the oil sands region and Canada's west coast. They call'em the Rocky Mountains for a reason; they're rocky, and they're mountains. ;)
 
Last edited:
Politico is reporting that Republicans will get what they wanted: the administration is set to formally anounce the rejection of the pipeline permit.

You think thats what Republicans want?
 
You think thats what Republicans want?

I think it must be what they want, because they were told in advance that the time limit they insisted on was too short for a full review and that the permit would be rejected if they insisted on it. So they either wanted this result, or they are irrational. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
 
Talk about cronyism, BHO rejects the pipeline and who will benefit?

If the pipeline is rejected, there are some companies that will profit, according to Andrew Lipow of Lipow Oil Associates in Houston…Railroads, including Burlington Northern, a unit of Berkshire Hathaway…are expected to benefit because they will be hauling more of the oil not flowing through the pipeline.

News Headlines

Way to go Warren!
 
I'll make this as simple as possible.........

You said:

You can prove your theory very easily. What was U.S. Oil consumption in the 1990s, let's say 1995 for arguments sake, and what is U.S. oil consumption today?

Which is higher ???

Yes, and after a brief bit of data analysis, i found that oil consumption continually decreased on a per capita basis between 1999 and 2002, then increased (per capita) in 2003, then deceasing again continually (per capita) between 2004 and 2009.

Aggregate consumption fell in 2001, and then continued to fall between 2005 and 2009.

Aggregate consumption in 2010 is lower than it was in 1999 (19519000 barrels per day in 1999 vs 19180000 barrels per day in 2010), even though there are now 36 million more Americans, which is why per capita consumption is important.
 
Aaahh, it's a Buffett conspiracy!!

Aren't you going to talk about how Obama is screwing over the unions?
 
Aaahh, it's a Buffett conspiracy!!

Aren't you going to talk about how Obama is screwing over the unions?

No, I'll leave that to you...:mrgreen:
 
And we need more clean coal power plants.

Clean Coal? What an oxymoron. There is no such thing in use today and no cost effective designs even on the drawing boards.
 
Last edited:
You might also ask what lies between the oil sands region and Canada's west coast. They call'em the Rocky Mountains for a reason; they're rocky, and they're mountains. ;)

And there is no way through them? The Trans Canada highway runs right through Calgary which is 160 miles to the south of Hardisty. Then right through the Rocky Mountains, going 430 miles west to the Salish Sea, and the Port Metro Vancouver, which is Canadas largest port. You are saying its easier for Canada to pipe their oil all the way through the continental united states so they can load it onto tankers there, versus going just over 500 miles to their own port city of Vancouver? That port is not currently set up to handle super tankers, but it does handle Panamax class vessels.
 
And the alternative is what, if they want to sell their oil to China? Build a canal to the middle of Canada?

They are looking into building a pipeline to the Pacific coast.
 
Common sense used to tell people that the world was flat. You still buyin' that one?

Ask your common sense why they are piping it all the way to the Gulf Coast to be refined? Why not refine it much closer to the Canadian border? Do we not have any refineries other than on the Texas Gulf Coast?

Then ask your common sense how much supertanker traffic there is on Canada's west coast compared to the U.S. Gulf coast? Does Canada's west coast have offshore mooring points that allow supertankers -- ships that are much too large to enter a normal port -- to load/offload cargo?

If you ever come up with any proof that the oil will be shipped overseas without being refined, please feel free to post it. Up to now, you've just posted your opinion which is worthless. There are dozens of refineries in the Houston area, but very few in the midwest.

If they want to ship it overseas, they could simply build the pipeline to the Great Lakes.
 
You might also ask what lies between the oil sands region and Canada's west coast. They call'em the Rocky Mountains for a reason; they're rocky, and they're mountains. ;)

Regardless of how it gets there it appears Canada’s intention is to expand their export to Asia:

“decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,”

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline - Bloomberg
 
If you ever come up with any proof that the oil will be shipped overseas without being refined, please feel free to post it.
Interesting challenge... you seem to be conceding that the oil will be refined here and then shipped overseas. Would you care to confirm that?

In the meantime, if you ever come up with any proof that the oil will be consumed domestically, please feel free to post it.

Up to now, you've just posted your opinion which is worthless.
Your opinion of my opinion is worthless. We can do this all day long if you like.

There are dozens of refineries in the Houston area, but very few in the midwest.
Kansas - three, total capacity 320,000 barrels per day (bpd).
Indiana - two, total 425,000 bpd.
Illinois - four, total 820,000 bpd.
Oklahoma - six, total 505,000 bpd. See List of oil refineries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they want to ship it overseas, they could simply build the pipeline to the Great Lakes.
Do a little research on supertankers and get back to us on that one.

The Saint Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes Waterway opened the Great Lakes to ocean-going vessels. The move to wider ocean-going container ships — which do not fit through the locks on these routes — has limited container shipping on the lakes. Most Great Lakes trade is of bulk material and bulk freighters of Seawaymax-size or less can move throughout the entire lakes and out to the Atlantic.

Great Lakes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term Seawaymax refers to vessels which are the maximum size that can fit through the canal locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway.[1] Seawaymax vessels are 740 feet in length, 78 feet wide, and have a draft of 26 feet and a height above the waterline of 116 ft.

Seawaymax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Panamax size tanker has a draft up to 39.5 feet. A Suezmax size tanker, 66 feet. These are far from the maximum oil tanker size. Compare that to the 26 feet that can fit into the Great Lakes thru the Seaway.

Do you require education in any other areas? ;)
 
Regardless of how it gets there it appears Canada’s intention is to expand their export to Asia:

“decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,”

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline - Bloomberg
Other than the 5,500 or so direct, temporary construction jobs for the pipeline extension, what difference does it make where the oil goes?

If it goes to China, do you think that will make our gas prices higher?

If it is pipelined to the U.S. Gulf Coast, do you think that will make our gas prices lower?

I understand the strategic considerations -- it is better to get oil from Canada rather than countries that may wish us ill will -- but give that this is very dirty oil, creates more than usual pollution in order to refine, and is a total rape of the environment to get out of the ground, wouldn't it be better if we just reduced oil consumption by 5% rather than dealing with such nasty stuff? Let the Chinese pollute and poison their citizens....
 
Interesting challenge... you seem to be conceding that the oil will be refined here and then shipped overseas. Would you care to confirm that?

Only logically. Currently the #1 US export is refined crude oil. If we increase our import of crude it only stands to reason that we will increase the export of the refined output.

Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export

In the meantime, if you ever come up with any proof that the oil will be consumed domestically, please feel free to post it.

To the point above, if we are increasingly exporting refined products wouldn’t the imported CRUDE be consumed domestically as an input to the domestic refining industry?

Kansas - three, total capacity 320,000 barrels per day (bpd).
Indiana - two, total 425,000 bpd.
Illinois - four, total 820,000 bpd.
Oklahoma - six, total 505,000 bpd. See List of oil refineries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Per you link Texas – 27 total (twice the total of those you listed) 4,518,640bpd (over twice the capacity of the total of those you listed). This point is just as useless as the one you made as it is not the total count or capacity but rather the current AVAILABLE capacity. Deductively if Texas has twice the refineries with twice the capacity the probability of their ability to handle the additional crude supply would be greater.
 
Interesting challenge... you seem to be conceding that the oil will be refined here and then shipped overseas. Would you care to confirm that?

If you'd bother to read the thread, you would have seen that I said I don't care if refined products are used domestically or exported. We are already a leading exporter of refined petroleum and thousands of American jobs would be produced.
In the meantime, if you ever come up with any proof that the oil will be consumed domestically, please feel free to post it.

You're the one claiming it won't be, so I'll be waiting on your proof.

Kansas - three, total capacity 320,000 barrels per day (bpd).
Indiana - two, total 425,000 bpd.
Illinois - four, total 820,000 bpd.
Oklahoma - six, total 505,000 bpd. See List of oil refineries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas
Baytown Refinery (ExxonMobil), Baytown 560,640 bbl/d (89,135 m3/d)
Big Spring Refinery (Alon USA), Big Spring 61,000 bbl/d (9,700 m3/d)
Beaumont Refinery (ExxonMobil), Beaumont 348,500 bbl/d (55,410 m3/d)
Borger Refinery (ConocoPhillips/Cenovus), Borger 146,000 bbl/d (23,200 m3/d)
Corpus Christi Complex (Flint Hills Resources), Corpus Christi 288,000 bbl/d (45,800 m3/d)
Corpus Christi Refinery (Citgo), Corpus Christi 156,000 bbl/d (24,800 m3/d)
Corpus Christi West Refinery (Valero), Corpus Christi 142,000 bbl/d (22,600 m3/d)
Corpus Christi East Refinery (Valero), Corpus Christi 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)
Deer Park Refinery (Shell Oil Company), Deer Park 333,700 bbl/d (53,050 m3/d)
El Paso Refinery (Western Refining), El Paso 120,000 bbl/d (19,000 m3/d)
Houston Refinery (Lyondell), Houston 270,200 bbl/d (42,960 m3/d)
Houston Refinery (Valero), Houston 83,000 bbl/d (13,200 m3/d)
Independent Refinery (Stratnor), Houston 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
McKee Refinery (Valero), Sunray 158,300 bbl/d (25,170 m3/d)
Pasadena Refinery (Petrobras), Pasadena 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Port Arthur Refinery (Total), Port Arthur 174,000 bbl/d (27,700 m3/d)
Port Arthur Refinery (Motiva Enterprises), Port Arthur 285,000 bbl/d (45,300 m3/d)
Port Arthur Refinery (Valero), Port Arthur 325,000 bbl/d (51,700 m3/d)
Penreco (Calumet Penreco LLC), Houston
San Antonio Refinery (NuStar Energy), San Antonio 10,300 bbl/d (1,640 m3/d)
Sweeny Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Sweeny 229,000 bbl/d (36,400 m3/d)
Texas City Refinery (BP), Texas City 460,000 bbl/d (73,000 m3/d)
Texas City Refinery (Marathon Petroleum Company), Texas City 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
Texas City Refinery (Valero), Texas City 210,000 bbl/d (33,000 m3/d)
Three Rivers Refinery (Valero), Three Rivers 90,000 bbl/d (14,000 m3/d)
Tyler Refinery (Delek Refining Ltd.), Tyler 62,000 bbl/d (9,900 m3/d)

Mine's bigger than your's.


Do a little research on supertankers and get back to us on that one.

Why do you think supertankers would be required ?

Do you require education in any other areas? ;)

Not from you. You remind me of a unionized public school teacher.... more concerned with BS than facts.
 
Other than the 5,500 or so direct, temporary construction jobs for the pipeline extension, what difference does it make where the oil goes?
Would you agree that whatever the job count ANY increase in the US is good? If the oil goes to a refinery ANYWHERE in the US presumably this increase would sustain SOME amount if increase in domestic labor which would substantiate where it goes.

If it goes to China, do you think that will make our gas prices higher?

If it is pipelined to the U.S. Gulf Coast, do you think that will make our gas prices lower?

Maybe and maybe, crude is a commodity thus an increase of it in the world market will (should) have an effect of reducing the price (notwithstanding OPEC’s price control).

I understand the strategic considerations -- it is better to get oil from Canada rather than countries that may wish us ill will -- but give that this is very dirty oil, creates more than usual pollution in order to refine, and is a total rape of the environment to get out of the ground, wouldn't it be better if we just reduced oil consumption by 5% rather than dealing with such nasty stuff? Let the Chinese pollute and poison their citizens....

Yes, we should reduce ALL energy consumption by the maximum % available. Sloth and gluttony are both irresponsible and non-sustaining.
 
Only logically. Currently the #1 US export is refined crude oil. If we increase our import of crude it only stands to reason that we will increase the export of the refined output.

Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export

To the point above, if we are increasingly exporting refined products wouldn’t the imported CRUDE be consumed domestically as an input to the domestic refining industry?
Semantically, yes. But how does this help the country? I will agree that it will help the oil companies... and Lord knows they need it :roll:

Per you link Texas – 27 total (twice the total of those you listed) 4,518,640bpd (over twice the capacity of the total of those you listed). This point is just as useless as the one you made as it is not the total count or capacity but rather the current AVAILABLE capacity. Deductively if Texas has twice the refineries with twice the capacity the probability of their ability to handle the additional crude supply would be greater.
The point I was countering was that the midwest could not utilize the oil due to a dearth of refineries, therefore a pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast must be built. That you now wish to move the goalposts does not change the effectiveness of my counterpoint.
 
Semantically, yes. But how does this help the country? I will agree that it will help the oil companies... and Lord knows they need it :roll:

Guess you forget about the people that will work for those horrible oil companies, as well as all the auxiliary employment from support companies.


The point I was countering was that the midwest could not utilize the oil due to a dearth of refineries, therefore a pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast must be built. That you now wish to move the goalposts does not change the effectiveness of my counterpoint.

Size of the midwest refineries is tiny compared to ones in Texas. They can't handle the volume. You even list some in Indiana. It's closer to Houston than it is to Indiana.
 
Last edited:
The point I was countering was that the midwest could not utilize the oil due to a dearth of refineries, therefore a pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast must be built. That you now wish to move the goalposts does not change the effectiveness of my counterpoint.

First of all, there are more refineries in the midwest than you claimed... Check out this link of oil refineries within the United States.

Second, the dearth of refineries is another problem. The last large refinery built in the United States was in 1976... Almost 40 years ago...
 
First you say:

Ask your common sense why they are piping it all the way to the Gulf Coast to be refined? Why not refine it much closer to the Canadian border? Do we not have any refineries other than on the Texas Gulf Coast?

I understand your position to be ‘Why pipe it to Texas (unnecessarily) there should be refineries closer to Canada’, paraphrased of course.
To which Gill replies:
There are dozens of refineries in the Houston area, but very few in the midwest.
Which I interpret to be ‘few closer to Canada’.
Then you counter with:
Kansas - three, total capacity 320,000 barrels per day (bpd).
Indiana - two, total 425,000 bpd.
Illinois - four, total 820,000 bpd.
Oklahoma - six, total 505,000 bpd.
Which I understood you to support your ‘closer to Canada’ presumption.
And I, and Gill countered with a comparison of the capacity of those in Texas to the ones you posted. Then you espouse that:
The point I was countering was that the midwest could not utilize the oil due to a dearth of refineries, therefore a pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast must be built. That you now wish to move the goalposts does not change the effectiveness of my counterpoint.

HUH? Refineries closer to Canada cannot handle it and thus we MUST pipe it to Texas. It doesn’t appear that the goal post moved but rather your position.
 
Yep, any new jobs are good, no question. But of course they have to be weighed against the risks. Otherwise, hell, let's just build a string of nuclear reactors along the San Andreas fault? Think of all the jobs!
 
Yep, any new jobs are good, no question. But of course they have to be weighed against the risks. Otherwise, hell, let's just build a string of nuclear reactors along the San Andreas fault? Think of all the jobs!


We damned well should be building more nuclear in this country.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom