• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Keystone Pipeline= 35 permanent jobs

RJKarl said:
Because it has zero reason to allow to be built other than jobs as none of the oil will be used here. It will delivered to Texas ans shipped to Asia.
Click to expand...

zero reason? or zero political justification
 
If it's not creating jobs, not being sold in the US and will cause spills, there aren't any good reasons.
 
DeacMan said:
And, wrong again.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/16/news/economy/keystone-oil/
Click to expand...

And, wrong again from your own article!

Unless you are going to go the rj said Asia not Latin America part, which is still an export not being consumed in the U.S. regardless. But because it's a nonsensical argument, I'm sure you will make it.

"Thanks largely to better fuel economy and higher prices, the long-term demand for gasoline in the United States is either flat or declining. That means the nation's refineries are producing more gasoline, diesel fuel and other oil products than the country needs, and exporting the rest. Gasoline is actually one of the nation's largest exports, going mostly to Latin America.

In 2008 the country exported 1.8 million barrels a day of refined products, according to EIA. By 2012 that number jumped to 3.2 million barrels.

"That trend will continue whether Keystone is built or not," said Brian Milne, a refined fuels editor at Schneider Electric, an information provider

Once refined, it'll be impossible to tell exactly where the oil that came down the pipeline went, but "with more oil, that [export] number will increase," said Milne."
 
Holy shit. You mean the article that clearly points out some of the oil will be exported and some will be used for domestic consumption actually said some of the oil will be exported. Wow. I didn't figure that out before I posted the article.

In the meantime you and RJ can continue to pretend none of the oil will be used in the United States - which the article clearly states is wrong. But nice try.
 
rj can speak for himself, but I've already referenced several articles acknowledging that some of it is being consumed in the US currently.
 
Serious question because I know next to nothing about this topic...why is exporting a bad thing? I would love to be the next silly oil country.
 
Great question. Seems to me that exporting US refined oil to the far east puts us in a better position than them getting it elsewhere. This feels like an issue being driven by the far "moderates" of the democratic party.
 
aocs3281 said:
Great question. Seems to me that exporting US refined oil to the far east puts us in a better position than them getting it elsewhere. This feels like an issue being driven by the far "moderates" of the democratic party.
Click to expand...

Our refineries are already running at 100%. We are exporting refined oil. Supply isn't the issue because we don't have the means to consume and refine what we already have.

And I don't consider exporting oil bad, but this is just making the waiting line longer for refinement not solving anything.
 
Last edited:
ONW said:
Our refineries are already running at 100%. We are exporting refined oil. Supply isn't the issue because we don't have the means to consume and refine what we already have.

And I don't consider exporting oil bad, but this is just making the waiting line longer for refinement not solving anything.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Refineries signed up to receive this oil. And if it doesn't come via a pipeline they'll just get it via rail. And the state department has already made clear that transporting the oil by rail is more dangerous than just building the remainder of the pipeline. The arguments against this project are all pretty much dumb. If we build the pipeline we reduce imports, increase exports, create 40,000 jobs for a couple of years (I thought the administration wanted more jobs) and avoid moving oil around by rail. If we don't build the pipeline, the oil still comes out of the ground and gets transported by train.
 
Like we don't already have a zillion wells already over the aquifer. I'd be much more concerned about the aquifer going dry in our lifetimes than I would it getting polluted from some pipeline.


----------
Tapatalk.
 
DeacMan said:
Not at all. Refineries signed up to receive this oil. And if it doesn't come via a pipeline they'll just get it via rail. And the state department has already made clear that transporting the oil by rail is more dangerous than just building the remainder of the pipeline. The arguments against this project are all pretty much dumb. If we build the pipeline we reduce imports, increase exports, create 40,000 jobs for a couple of years (I thought the administration wanted more jobs) and avoid moving oil around by rail. If we don't build the pipeline, the oil still comes out of the ground and gets transported by train.
Click to expand...

What part of we don't have the capacity to refine this extra shit oil regardless if it takes a cab, an airplane, or a pipeline to get to the refinery don't you get?
 
Lets figure out a way to clean the oil up when spills happen before we allow it to be transported by any means in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
DeacMan said:
The part where the refineries have previously signed up to process this oil. Said another way, why would we build a pipeline if we could not refine the product? Answer, we wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Signing up for something is a place marker. Do you really think oil companies want to flood the market with cheap oil? They haven't built a high volume refinery in 35 years for a reason.

Who is "we" by the way?
 
ONW said:
What part of we don't have the capacity to refine this extra shit oil regardless if it takes a cab, an airplane, or a pipeline to get to the refinery don't you get?
Click to expand...

Given the time it would take to build a pipeline, capacity could and would be added
 
RJKarl said:
I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about reality.

None of the oil is being sold in the US. We are putting our nation at rich to enrich companies in foreign countries with little to no benefit for our people. It doesn't make sense on any level.

The only reason to support is political. It isn't about economics.
Click to expand...

I liked it better when it was called "The Stimulus."
 
ONW said:
Signing up for something is a place marker. Do you really think oil companies want to flood the market with cheap oil? They haven't built a high volume refinery in 35 years for a reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with environmental regulations and red tape at all.

But this is all pretty amusing. Impede refining capacity, then blame the price of oil/gas on said lack of refining capacity and use it as an excuse not to build a pipeline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top