alprova said..I've never heard of any spills by rail or by truck. Have you?
There was a train derailment and spill this year that received very little publicity. What would you consider the odds of a trucking accident or rail event compared to a pipeline issue?
alprova said...They are not obligated to hire one single solitary American if they don't want to.
The construction workers being U.S. could be included in the agreement. Obama could even require they be union workers. Also, Canadians could only work in the U.S. with approval and permit.
alprova said..That tar sands oil will never, not once, be burned for fuel in the United States. It is far too dirty to even qualify for fuel in this nation.
Tar sands oil is dirtier and more costly to refine but it can be refined to meet standards for U.S. consumption should that become a need. Have you ever purchased gas from a Sunoco station?
alprova said..Keystone Pipeline is a 100% venture by TransCanada. They own it 100%.
TransCanada is listed on the NYSE as TRP and is heavily owned by American investors, mutual funds etc. Currently around $50 a share paying 3.4% dividends.
alprova said..Nothing is more fuel efficient than railroad engines.
Are you including electrical pumps?
Are you just taking the side of the administration to further the debate here or do you really believe the statements you made? I
don't know why I said anything since I really don't care if they do or do not build the pipeline although I don't see the logic of denying it other than those special interest that oppose it that support many of the elected elite.
inquiringmind said...The CEO of the Canadian company that will pipe the oil says, "Keystone XL Pipeline will NOT export crude oil" so they plan to compete with American refiners and oil producers in the US market. The result is a zero-sum game for the user, we may hire more refinery workers but lay off oil producers.
Your interpretation makes no sense. It is not legal to export oil from U.S. sources. A few refinery jobs are better than no jobs and there will be no reduction of oil workers. How do you conclude the pipeline owners will compete with American refiners when the oil is refined in the U.S. and they do not own refinery capacity in the U.S.
You challenged one item and don't know what you are talking about on the one issue. You must own some of Buffett's railroad stock?
alprova said...The most important one was, what's in it for the U.S. if this pipeline is built?
o Less risk than hauling by rail and truck. One train event and spill already with little publicity.
o More oil on the world market helps keep prices down.
o The royalty per gallon transported collected by the U.S.
o A royalty paid to the land owners and property taxes paid to various governments can incrementally stimulate the economy.
o The construction jobs are "shovel ready" like jobs the POTUS made such a big deal of when distributing stimulus money. He later along with the GE CEO admitted the jobs he targeted were not as shovel ready as he thought. He found it funny when saying it.
o All construction jobs are "temporary" but one can fill an employment void until another project needs workers.
o American refinery workers having the jobs instead of China if the oil is shipped directly to China which is the alternative.
One question is why not the pipeline other than Buffett don't want to lose the railroad money. And, some special interest groups that don't like the way it looks and mislead people about the risk versus current transporting means. They may need to hire Gruber as a consultant....or have they already hired someone like him?
Another question is why would anyone in this area give a rip other than their political loyalty regardless of how misguided it is? It will not destroy the food source or wipe out the water supply.
Another disloyal dem? Another, the word another is not applicable. Party loyalty and generally being a puppet with never a question regarding the socialist progressive agenda is more important than respecting the views of the majority of constituents. After, as the man said, the American people are too ignorant to know what is best for them so it is the roll of those they elect to decide what they are to have or not have. The pubs are learning and doing the same, it is only a matter of who can pull it off and make people believe it is what they want.
Railroad owner Warren Buffet wins and Landrieu loses. Buffet is a major donor to democrat candidates and causes, Landrieu is likely to be a former senator from Louisiana. Another report says The pipeline would cost Buffet $2 billion dollars a year at $30 a barrel for the Canadian oil that is now shipped by rail to gulf coast refiners.
TFP...A government environmental impact statement also predicts that a pipeline would result in less damage to the climate than moving the same oil by rail.
I have no reason to care one way or the other if the pipeline is approved or not approved. Why would anyone in Tennessee be upset other than their personal political bias?
Climatologist sell articles regarding their speculative guesses. They are like paid witnesses in a trial testifying for the party paying them. Being labeled or claiming to be a climatologist does not assure intelligence. Some meteorologist imply they know what causes climate change. Hello, some of them can't use technology now available to predict tomorrows weather but claim to know what will be happening 100 years hence.
Pollution is bad and man is killing himself poisoning the air we breath. However, it is ludicrous to claim knowledge of the future climate.
Rickaroo said...We are talking about the dirtiest, most difficult to obtain, most difficult to transport crude oil on the planet.
It is already being transported by rail which is much more risky and costly. Safer rail cars have been mandated and are ordered but that is a long way off and still presents more risk than a pipeline of the design with multiple safe guards included for the Keystone line proposed.
You need look no further than the earthquake that so devastated Haiti in 2010 and what caused it to understand that man does and can have an impact on climate and nature in general.
Again, speculation and theorizing by some geologist which you grasp since it is what you want to believe. An earthquake is a totally different animal that global warming and climate impact.
I said man can impact nature, the air we breath is killing us but that is not global warming or climate change. The latest in addition to the southern polar cap ice increasing is that the north has shown incremental growth also. Darn, have we already had that much impact?
Ikeithlu said...Somehow I doubt it, since we are doing a poor job of caring for a substantial part of the population now.
The question should be why does that substantial part of the population need caring for? Why are some able to take care of themselves while others can't or don't? A large number cannot but the larger number is the will not category. The larger will not crowd drains from the care bucket that should go to those that cannot.
Ikeithlu said..Shifts in growing zones, freshwater supplies, and coastlines will push already unstable political and economic conditions past being manageable. Can our collective world leaders respond?
Those 60 and above probably need not worry. Population growth will increase exponentially. It may be slowed at times by nature in the form of illness or catastrophic events. However the growth will go on since some segments of the population proliferate like rats. The potable water supply will be exhausted before the oil supply is challenged with water becoming more expensive than oil. World leaders will react late in the game with some lame brain scheme of taxes, subsidies, grants and rants aimed at maintaining power.