(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.

(11-04-2014 08:32 AM)QuestionSocratic 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.

Oh please. Intelligent people know the difference between facts and opinions. The intellectually challenged consider their opinions as facts. The intellectually vacuous argue talking points as factual sources. You seem to fall into the latter category.

You have no argument, just personal attacks. Sad.

(11-04-2014 09:04 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  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.

1. I have a hard time understanding why the Alaskan Pipeline is OK but the KXL would be a disaster. Regardless, at this point the oil will either move by train or the Canadians will build a pipeline to the East.

2. I don't see how the quality is an issue since the market has determined that it is valuable enough to be extracted.

3. I can't argue with this one since I'm not well versed in this aspect of the subject.

4. Gas prices at the pump fluctuate based on factors that transcend whatever marginal influences KXL would provide. The geopolitical aspects of such a resource are in fact far more important than the pump prices.

5. Someone would have to build the pipeline which would see a construction bump that would last for 3-5 years. Maintaining the KXL would result in some number (500-1000) of permanent jobs.

6. Canadians are looking for customers in general, be they American, Chinese or European. As Tom said, if China wants oil, they will get it. It's no different than the market distortion for concrete when China was building the Three Gorges Dam.

(11-03-2014 07:57 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  KXL is an export project. The tarsands oil is currently being kept in the USA. KXL will allow that oil to be refined and shipped overseas. Gas prices will rise in the USA and there are very few permanent jobs associated with the project.

Recap:
1) Environmental risks increase for USA
2) More incredibly dirty oil makes it out of the ground
3) Midwest refiners lose a cheap source of oil
4) Americans pay more for gas
5) Only a handful of permanent jobs get created
6) China gets more oil

It's a bad deal for America. Thank goodness we have rational leaders who haven't approved this terrible project.

1) True- However, the US is already criss-crossed by millions of miles of pipelines. The increase is minuscule at best.
2) True- Fair enough
3) True- However, refining it into product is more expensive than lighter sweet crude in the US and bought off the world market.
4) False- It will have no appreciable impact on gas prices in the US. There is no such thing as more oil higher prices.
5) False-
6) True- However, so does the rest of the world. The oil will be sold on the world market.

Bringing unrefined product to the Gulf has the potential to create thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs, by creating even more opportunity to refine product for the world market.

(11-04-2014 09:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 09:04 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  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.

1. I have a hard time understanding why the Alaskan Pipeline is OK but the KXL would be a disaster. Regardless, at this point the oil will either move by train or the Canadians will build a pipeline to the East.

2. I don't see how the quality is an issue since the market has determined that it is valuable enough to be extracted.

3. I can't argue with this one since I'm not well versed in this aspect of the subject.

4. Gas prices at the pump fluctuate based on factors that transcend whatever marginal influences KXL would provide. The geopolitical aspects of such a resource are in fact far more important than the pump prices.

5. Someone would have to build the pipeline which would see a construction bump that would last for 3-5 years. Maintaining the KXL would result in some number (500-1000) of permanent jobs.

6. Canadians are looking for customers in general, be they American, Chinese or European. As Tom said, if China wants oil, they will get it. It's no different than the market distortion for concrete when China was building the Three Gorges Dam.

The Canadians are already looking at two options if this doesn't get built. One is a pipeline to the BC coast for Pacific export markets. That pipeline has been stalled over First Nation objections and other issues local to BC. The other is called Energy East and would be an all Canadian pipeline going to the East. That is a few years off.

I don't see the massive job growth or price benefits from the pipeline. I also don't see the environmental danger to the US (although the backers could stop trying to gut US environmental protections and regulations if they wanted to be more honest brokers in that regard). The growth and the environmental costs will largely be bourne by Canada.

Either way, it will get built or it wont. I don't think many of us will see much resulting from that decision one way or another. The refiners are already constrained (artificially as the US allows the importation of oil from elsewhere and the export of the products) as there is a world deficit in refining capacity. Spreads are increasing. Whats more likely is that the refiners just take more of a spread from the pipeline and try to eek out another shift at their refineries. New jobs - sure. Tens of thousands? I'm not seeing it. And it could threaten jobs in US production fields. Here in Houston, there are layoffs coming in energy, especially in Exploration and Production. More oil isn't helping here. I don't think it will help in Louisiana (offshore drilling is really expensive) either. If built it will create winners and losers.

(11-04-2014 01:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The Canadians are already looking at two options if this doesn't get built. One is a pipeline to the BC coast for Pacific export markets. That pipeline has been stalled over First Nation objections and other issues local to BC. The other is called Energy East and would be an all Canadian pipeline going to the East. That is a few years off.

I've got to imagine that crossing the Canadian Rockies would make the western option untenable. Like I said, CN Railroad owns a truck line from Canada down to the Gulf coast. I figure they'll use that transport option until a final decision in made between KXL and the Eastern Access Route.

(11-04-2014 01:44 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 01:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The Canadians are already looking at two options if this doesn't get built. One is a pipeline to the BC coast for Pacific export markets. That pipeline has been stalled over First Nation objections and other issues local to BC. The other is called Energy East and would be an all Canadian pipeline going to the East. That is a few years off.

I've got to imagine that crossing the Canadian Rockies would make the western option untenable. Like I said, CN Railroad owns a truck line from Canada down to the Gulf coast. I figure they'll use that transport option until a final decision in made between KXL and the Eastern Access Route.

The Canadian Rockies are easy to punch through. They're much lower than the US Rockies. And they've got good gaps.

KXL loses steam without Harper as PM. He's on his way out next fall. The BC route is mired in legal issues and the eastern route has just as many problems since it has to pass through provinces not hospitable to a bitumen pipeline. I know the Chinese are dying to get that dirty stuff out of the ground, but it's not looking good for them. A Trudeau administration won't be nearly as friendly to the Alberta oil interests.