(11-04-2014 12:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 11:08 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:59 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:37 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Wow, could you be more hysterical.

I'm being factual. It's pretty sad how the right-wing can't recognize such things anymore.

One through five are false. The whole world gets more oil. Our oil companies make more money. Simple facts. Smarten up and stop try being an arrogant know-it-all, who knows nothing.

1-6 are absolutely true. If you think otherwise, then you're ignorant.

1 is questionable. I think you could make a better argument that it is bad for the environment of Canada. There's the risk of a spill in the States I suppose

2 is absolutely true.
3 is questionable. I would think the pipeline would reduce costs for all refiners as it would increase total supply. Whether that translates into any lower prices at the pump, well - that's a different question (I think the refiners might expand the spread more than anything else - that becoming the real constraint). The real reason that the Upper Midwest has really high gasoline prices is more related to deficiencies with refining and transport capabilities in that region.
4 is unlikely. However, I seriously doubt that the pipeline will result in much lower prices either.
5 is partially true. What would be more true is to say that it creates a lot of jobs in Canada, as well as a few jobs here.
6 is true but it doesn't really matter whether Keystone gets built, China will purchase the oil that it needs.

1 is not questionable. Look up the diluted bitumen spill in the Kalamazoo River and you will see why pumping that trash through the USA undeniably increases our environmental risks.

2 is undeniably true. Tar sands oil is dirtier than other forms of oil, which is saying a lot.

3 is undeniably true since tar sands oil is currently being shipped to midwest refineries at a discounted price since there is no export market outside of those midwest refineries. If Canada finds a way to ship it to overseas markets, then that discounted price goes away.

4 is also true because the loss of that discounted supply to midwest refineries means an increase in the price at the pump. If you pay more for the inputs without some adjustment to the process, then you pay more for the output. The increase in supply won't be nearly enough to compensate for the price increase that American refineries will have to absorb.

5 is true since we are analyzing this from a US perspective. I don't care about creating jobs in other countries. Very few jobs get created here.

6 is true since the market Canada is targeting with KXL is China. So the USA will bear the environmental risks and the increased pollution from the refining process, but China will get oil. No thanks. There's nothing good in the KXL deal for the USA.