(02-02-2014 01:21 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, do you support energy independence?

And if you don't think getting more of our oil from sources not in the hands of unstable fundamentalist loonies will not have a positive effect on prices, then you're mistaken.

Keystone XL isn't for us. Damn you guys are stupid.

This^^^^ from a guy that is proof that man can live without a brain!

(02-02-2014 01:16 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Anyone who thinks Keystone XL will drop gasoline prices isn't thinking this through or just doesn't know what they're talking about.

Gee I haven't seen anyone post that Keystone will lower gas prices. With regard to middle eastern oil, the supply is a global market, so any disruption in the supply out of the middle east will certainly have an effect on the US. I guess when you are dead set against something, you just attribute arguments for the other side that the other side isn't even invoking.

So here are some of the benefits to the US from Keystone:
1. State Department estimates 42,000 new jobs
2. steel mills in Ohio will be running the steel
3. refinery profits will remain in the US as opposed to flowing overseas (and my dividends will be safe)
4. if there is a world disruption in availability, we'll have first dibs on Canadian oil. It might cost more but we'll have it.
5. if Keystone isn't built, oil will move by relatively more dangerous rail

But I'm sure you'll respond by just calling me stupid.

If you guys don't believe that a pipeline is an environmental hazard, you are hallucinating. It may not be a problem for a number of years but it will one day be blown up or leak and it will be the tax payers that will pay to clean up the mess while we get little to no benefits from the oil which is going straight overseas.

(02-02-2014 01:16 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Anyone who thinks Keystone XL will drop gasoline prices isn't thinking this through or just doesn't know what they're talking about.

It is actually expected that the cost will increase in the Midwest because of the pipeline.

(02-02-2014 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  If you guys don't believe that a pipeline is an environmental hazard, you are hallucinating. It may not be a problem for a number of years but it will one day be blown up or leak and it will be the tax payers that will pay to clean up the mess while we get little to no benefits from the oil which is going straight overseas.

That's no way to talk to the Obama State Department, Robs.

(02-02-2014 01:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:30 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:21 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, do you support energy independence?

And if you don't think getting more of our oil from sources not in the hands of unstable fundamentalist loonies will not have a positive effect on prices, then you're mistaken.

Keystone XL isn't for us. Damn you guys are stupid.

No ****, Sherlock.

It WILL, however, put more friendly oil on the market.

You still don't get how this works. Read up on how captive suppliers affect local prices.

OK, let's play this game using your rules. Even if there's no decrease in the price of gas, the pipeline has to be built, people have to make the pipes, deliver them, put them together, maintain them, and so on. Those are JOBS. Don't we want jobs?

Are you for or against the pipeline? You certainly don't seem like an environmentalist, so if you're against it, I'd assume you're just following your political masters.

How about this - let's make lots of people mildly sick. Then we'll have more people seeking medical services and that will, in turn, create more jobs in the medical field. Don't like that? What do you have against more jobs? (This is assuming that the pipeline will actually produce a meaningful number of jobs rather than the 50 permanent jobs projected).

(02-02-2014 01:55 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:16 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Anyone who thinks Keystone XL will drop gasoline prices isn't thinking this through or just doesn't know what they're talking about.

Gee I haven't seen anyone post that Keystone will lower gas prices. With regard to middle eastern oil, the supply is a global market, so any disruption in the supply out of the middle east will certainly have an effect on the US. I guess when you are dead set against something, you just attribute arguments for the other side that the other side isn't even invoking.

So here are some of the benefits to the US from Keystone:
1. State Department estimates 42,000 new jobs
2. steel mills in Ohio will be running the steel
3. refinery profits will remain in the US as opposed to flowing overseas (and my dividends will be safe)
4. if there is a world disruption in availability, we'll have first dibs on Canadian oil. It might cost more but we'll have it.
5. if Keystone isn't built, oil will move by relatively more dangerous rail

But I'm sure you'll respond by just calling me stupid.

1. 42,000 temporary jobs over two years (which means 21,000 2 year jobs), but only 50 permanent jobs.
2. That's good, but the question is whether that one-time order is enough of a benefit to offset higher gasoline prices throughout the Midwest.
3. They're not going to refine it overseas anyway, so your point is invalid.
4. No. We will not have first dibs on that oil. It will be bound for China. China owns a significant amount of the tar sands, and that will be the destination for the tar sand oil.
5. Shipping bitumen by any means is dangerous and getting it out of the ground is incredibly dirty. Those are good reasons to stop using it as an energy source. Investment in the oil sands will dry up once it's clear that it can't be moved overseas in an efficient manner. BC is never going to let a pipeline cross to the Pacific, so the only outlet is Keystone XL. If they can't get it built, then more of that incredibly dirty oil sands will stay where it is.

(02-02-2014 01:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:30 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:21 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, do you support energy independence?

And if you don't think getting more of our oil from sources not in the hands of unstable fundamentalist loonies will not have a positive effect on prices, then you're mistaken.

Keystone XL isn't for us. Damn you guys are stupid.

No ****, Sherlock.

It WILL, however, put more friendly oil on the market.

You still don't get how this works. Read up on how captive suppliers affect local prices.

OK, let's play this game using your rules. Even if there's no decrease in the price of gas, the pipeline has to be built, people have to make the pipes, deliver them, put them together, maintain them, and so on. Those are JOBS. Don't we want jobs?

Are you for or against the pipeline? You certainly don't seem like an environmentalist, so if you're against it, I'd assume you're just following your political masters.

What is the net gain of permanent jobs? Genuinely curious. The pipeline will lead to an increase in construction jobs and perhaps jobs in steel foundries, but it may cost jobs in the trucking and railroad industry. Those jobs are permanent jobs while construction jobs are temporary.

Permanent jobs for the pipeline is estimated at around 100 in the last report I saw.

I'm indifferent to the pipeline, but I never trust job projections. They're almost always bull****.

(02-02-2014 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  If you guys don't believe that a pipeline is an environmental hazard, you are hallucinating. It may not be a problem for a number of years but it will one day be blown up or leak and it will be the tax payers that will pay to clean up the mess while we get little to no benefits from the oil which is going straight overseas.

Because shipping oil from the ME to here in tankers has never caused an environmental problem.

(02-02-2014 02:22 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:30 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:21 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Keystone XL isn't for us. Damn you guys are stupid.

No ****, Sherlock.

It WILL, however, put more friendly oil on the market.

You still don't get how this works. Read up on how captive suppliers affect local prices.

OK, let's play this game using your rules. Even if there's no decrease in the price of gas, the pipeline has to be built, people have to make the pipes, deliver them, put them together, maintain them, and so on. Those are JOBS. Don't we want jobs?

Are you for or against the pipeline? You certainly don't seem like an environmentalist, so if you're against it, I'd assume you're just following your political masters.

What is the net gain of permanent jobs? Genuinely curious. The pipeline will lead to an increase in construction jobs and perhaps jobs in steel foundries, but it may cost jobs in the trucking and railroad industry. Those jobs are permanent jobs while construction jobs are temporary.

Permanent jobs for the pipeline is estimated at around 100 in the last report I saw.

I'm indifferent to the pipeline, but I never trust job projections. They're almost always bull****.

Permanent jobs are projected at 50. It won't provide many permanent jobs and will produce higher gas prices for US consumers. It will endanger US water supplies and expand pollution in North America. So from a US perspective, it's a really bad deal. From the Chinese perspective, it's a major win. Chinese oil firms own vast amounts of the tar sands, so they'll get the upside on all the development there. Then they will get none of risk of transport since it will be pumped across the US; and they get none of the pollution headaches since it will be pulled out of the ground and refined right here in North America.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not for the US bearing all the risk and China getting all the reward. Why would any patriotic American support that?

(02-02-2014 02:22 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:30 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:21 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Keystone XL isn't for us. Damn you guys are stupid.

No ****, Sherlock.

It WILL, however, put more friendly oil on the market.

You still don't get how this works. Read up on how captive suppliers affect local prices.

OK, let's play this game using your rules. Even if there's no decrease in the price of gas, the pipeline has to be built, people have to make the pipes, deliver them, put them together, maintain them, and so on. Those are JOBS. Don't we want jobs?

Are you for or against the pipeline? You certainly don't seem like an environmentalist, so if you're against it, I'd assume you're just following your political masters.

What is the net gain of permanent jobs? Genuinely curious. The pipeline will lead to an increase in construction jobs and perhaps jobs in steel foundries, but it may cost jobs in the trucking and railroad industry. Those jobs are permanent jobs while construction jobs are temporary.

Permanent jobs for the pipeline is estimated at around 100 in the last report I saw.

I'm indifferent to the pipeline, but I never trust job projections. They're almost always bull****.

I Googled the job creation, and after the initial construction, the number of permanent jobs bounces up and down. Some have it as low as 35 (which is very hard to believe) and others have it in the thousands when you add in all the side industries.

(02-02-2014 02:15 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:30 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:21 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Keystone XL isn't for us. Damn you guys are stupid.

No ****, Sherlock.

It WILL, however, put more friendly oil on the market.

You still don't get how this works. Read up on how captive suppliers affect local prices.

OK, let's play this game using your rules. Even if there's no decrease in the price of gas, the pipeline has to be built, people have to make the pipes, deliver them, put them together, maintain them, and so on. Those are JOBS. Don't we want jobs?

Are you for or against the pipeline? You certainly don't seem like an environmentalist, so if you're against it, I'd assume you're just following your political masters.

How about this - let's make lots of people mildly sick. Then we'll have more people seeking medical services and that will, in turn, create more jobs in the medical field. Don't like that? What do you have against more jobs? (This is assuming that the pipeline will actually produce a meaningful number of jobs rather than the 50 permanent jobs projected).

Dude, that's a retarded comparison. Using your logic we might as just kill people and create more funeral home jobs.

This argument has gone down the rabbit hole.

Couldn't they split the difference and treat this as a broader infrastructure project? Require the pipeline be built to handle both oil and natural gas and fund the difference in cost.

(02-02-2014 12:23 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Will the price of gasoline go up or down if the Keystone XL pipeline is built?

Does it matter? Why do the simpletons here think that lowering the price of gas is the only point of building this thing? A lot of jobs will be created during and after it's construction as well.

If they approve it now, obama will get credit for it. I hope he refuses.

(02-02-2014 02:22 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:55 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 01:16 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Anyone who thinks Keystone XL will drop gasoline prices isn't thinking this through or just doesn't know what they're talking about.

Gee I haven't seen anyone post that Keystone will lower gas prices. With regard to middle eastern oil, the supply is a global market, so any disruption in the supply out of the middle east will certainly have an effect on the US. I guess when you are dead set against something, you just attribute arguments for the other side that the other side isn't even invoking.

So here are some of the benefits to the US from Keystone:
1. State Department estimates 42,000 new jobs
2. steel mills in Ohio will be running the steel
3. refinery profits will remain in the US as opposed to flowing overseas (and my dividends will be safe)
4. if there is a world disruption in availability, we'll have first dibs on Canadian oil. It might cost more but we'll have it.
5. if Keystone isn't built, oil will move by relatively more dangerous rail

But I'm sure you'll respond by just calling me stupid.

1. 42,000 temporary jobs over two years (which means 21,000 2 year jobs), but only 50 permanent jobs.
2. That's good, but the question is whether that one-time order is enough of a benefit to offset higher gasoline prices throughout the Midwest.
3. They're not going to refine it overseas anyway, so your point is invalid.
4. No. We will not have first dibs on that oil. It will be bound for China. China owns a significant amount of the tar sands, and that will be the destination for the tar sand oil.
5. Shipping bitumen by any means is dangerous and getting it out of the ground is incredibly dirty. Those are good reasons to stop using it as an energy source. Investment in the oil sands will dry up once it's clear that it can't be moved overseas in an efficient manner. BC is never going to let a pipeline cross to the Pacific, so the only outlet is Keystone XL. If they can't get it built, then more of that incredibly dirty oil sands will stay where it is.

When you simply cut and paste the talking points from the Sierra Club or Darryl Hannahs blog site you really need to cite the source and give credit...

I think that in a time with widescale unemployment, and more appropriately a 35 year low in the worker participation rate, we shouldn't parse the composition of the jobs ("42,000 temporary jobs over two years, which means 21,000 2 year jobs", seriously how lame is that argument?).

(02-03-2014 11:38 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I think that in a time with widescale unemployment, and more appropriately a 35 year low in the worker participation rate, we shouldn't parse the composition of the jobs ("42,000 temporary jobs over two years, which means 21,000 2 year jobs", seriously how lame is that argument?).

This........and we don't have to worry if these jobs make more than a minimum wage of $7.50 or $10.00.

UMGrad doesn't like it because he has determined that this is "dirty oil" and bad for the environment. Nevermind that all oil is "dirty" and currently there is NOTHING to take it's place. BTW, this country already has in the neighborhood of 200,000 miles of oil related pipelines up and running in the US right now, but this, this pipeline will signal the end of the environment here in North America.

The Zero administration needs political patronage b4 he approves anything. Holders on it so its a dirty deal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk