It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Passes Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Bill

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
This whole pipeline "debate" is nothing more then politics.....

....it will be China's oil regardless if it passes through to the CDN west coast or down through the states. Oh course some in the US want it to go through America to get their slice. The company in question says they only have agreements with refiners, not exporters....guess who has a deal with the exporters hmmmm.....the refiners.

cbsnews

Jobs according to TransCanada Pipeline:




Yet exactly how much work Keystone, a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast, would generate remains in dispute. Transcanada (TRP), the energy giant bidding to build the pipeline, projects the undertaking would create 20,000 jobs in the U.S., including 13,000 positions in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.

That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs.





Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.

Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.


Also the main construction phase is only expected to last 2yrs or so.

As for environmental concerns, it is actually safer then the current method..rail. But, if a spill occurs, it's usually larger. ( a rail tanker only holds so much oil, while a pipeline may keep leaking until detected and fixed.) How many jobs will be lost from the railway transporters?

If the Saudis' keep the price low, it won't even be economically feasible to drill for. We in Canada have known about this these oil reserves forever, but didn't start drilling it until the price / barrel went so high. Companies are laying off, projects are being cancelled.

It's all theater.........and I agree with Buster, if I was American, I'd be more concerned with that aspect.




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

In recent years, the United States has become a net-exporter of refined oil products, like gasoline, jet fuel and asphalt (meaning it exports more products than it imports), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, it is a net-importer of the crude oil it uses to make those products.




Keystone XL would transport crude oil from Canada’s tar sands through the Midwestern United States down to the Gulf Coast, and there are refineries all along the proposed route. (The map is from TransCanada, the pipeline operator.)




America gets more crude oil from Canada than any other country. Nearly all of Canada’s exports go to the United States, and this accounts for about a third of America’s total crude oil imports. Much of its oil already makes it to the United States by rail and existing pipelines


www.politifact.com...

Sure is about the politics.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.


Too funny!

So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!

Why do you hate Canada eh ?

Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.

Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.

So you support some foreign company being able to tell an American citizen we are taking your land because we want to put a pipeline on it. Some American you are. What other parts of America do you want to hand over to foreigners seeing how you think they have more right to our lands than Americans?


Oh stop being so xenophobic.

Not able to answer the question huh? Do you or do you not think foreign companies have more rights to American land than Americans?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.


Too funny!

So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!

Why do you hate Canada eh ?

Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.

Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.

So you support some foreign company being able to tell an American citizen we are taking your land because we want to put a pipeline on it. Some American you are. What other parts of America do you want to hand over to foreigners seeing how you think they have more right to our lands than Americans?


Oh stop being so xenophobic.

Not able to answer the question huh? Do you or do you not think foreign companies have more rights to American land than Americans?


Yo what's the GD different between Canada, and what our own government does ?

NOT A GD THING.

Technically speaking each state of the union is a sovereign STATE where that FOREIGN country called Washington DC takes what it wants when it wants.

Dunno why someone people here defend the current potus on this.

BY what right does he have to tell those 'countries' what they can or can't do.

You already answered your question, just ignored it.

If Canada doesn't Washington DC doesn't, and neither does our 'fearless' leader.

Then what about THIS land grab?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's 'perfectly' acceptable right ?
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
*ahem*

The US side of the construction is being handled by TC's US division.

A fully incorporated US company.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


In recent years, the United States has become a net-exporter of refined oil products, like gasoline, jet fuel and asphalt (meaning it exports more products than it imports), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, it is a net-importer of the crude oil it uses to make those products.




Keystone XL would transport crude oil from Canada’s tar sands through the Midwestern United States down to the Gulf Coast, and there are refineries all along the proposed route. (The map is from TransCanada, the pipeline operator.)




America gets more crude oil from Canada than any other country. Nearly all of Canada’s exports go to the United States, and this accounts for about a third of America’s total crude oil imports. Much of its oil already makes it to the United States by rail and existing pipelines


www.politifact.com...

Sure is about the politics.


Yes the US has the most refiners for heavy crude, hence why Venezuela/ Mexico export there. After it( unrefined heavy crude) is refined, Guess where it goes?

Do you know who owns the major percentage of the Canadian tarsands? ......they are getting it coming and going. Do you think it's cheaper to build a pipe and refine in excisting facilites or build brand new refiners? Like I said, some in the US want to get their cut...if the oil goes directly to Canada's west coast( and on to China), no money or control goes to the US and your "safe" supply is gone, your imports will go up. China wants it ALL in the CDN north.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector



The general consensus among experts, as well as the State Department, is that American refineries would be the primary buyers of crude oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, by a vast margin. S


That is not what I read.

US refiners primary buyer.

After that other products that get made from it.

Not only construction jobs, but the jobs that make those petro products, and other jobs from them spending money.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Connector



The general consensus among experts, as well as the State Department, is that American refineries would be the primary buyers of crude oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, by a vast margin. S


That is not what I read.

US refiners primary buyer.

After that other products that get made from it.

Not only construction jobs, but the jobs that make those petro products, and other jobs from them spending money.


Your so vague most of the time, it's hard to tell when we seem to agree.

Yes...that is what I'm saying( and I think you are), the crude will go to the US and the refine is exported. Hence the "get their "slice" remark. It is cheaper for China to buy refined crude from the US then to refine it themselves ATM. If they can't get refine CDN oil from the US, they plan to say FU and build a pipe to the west coast and build their own refiners ( not sure if in CDN of China). China IS the big player in the tarsands....they've invested 10's of billions of $$$$$

Here's a good article to explain the Chinese philosophy on global energy....2 phases "go-out" "go-up".

Alberta Oil



Although the go-out, or “going global strategy”, was officially promulgated in 1999, it had already really taken effect in 1993, the year China turned from a net exporter to a net importer of crude oil. The reason behind it was the Politburo’s recognition that the time had come to empower its inward-looking state-owned enterprised (SOEs) to go overseas in their quest for the materials and energy resources necessary to drive the country’s epochal modernization. While most countries implement policies to encourage inward foreign direct investment, few do the reverse and encourage outflows. In his somewhat longwinded style, Bo writes about CNPC’s lead in following the government’s go-out policy: “In 1993, against the backdrop of liberalization reforms and economic globalization and, moreover, under the direction of the party’s and our nation’s great policy decision to extensively utilize both domestic and foreign resources and markets, CNPC, as representative of China’s oil and gas industry, initiated measures to internationalize its operations.” And CNPC got right to work. On June 15 of that same year, CNPC ventured to distant Alberta where it acquired a 15.8 per cent operating interest in the North Twining oilfield and 11 per cent equity in the associated natural gas processing plant. In Alberta CNPC cut its teeth in overseas deal-making and incrementally built up its expertise. The NOCs follow suit: Chinese contractors refer to 1991 to 1996 as the pilot phase and 1997 to 2002 as the foundation phase of the implementation of the go-out policy for these companies. Subsequently, the rapid growth phase lasted from 2003 to 2008 and had major implications for Canada’s petroleum industry. During this period, Chinese companies were involved in acquisitions of Calgary-based PetroKazakhstan (US$4.18 billion), Ecuadorian assets from Encana (US$1.4 billion) and PetroCanada’s interests in Syrian assets (US$576 million). The period from 2009 until today has been called the scaling-up phase. As the name suggests, this period involves Chinese NOCs going after larger projects and further internationalizing operations. There are numerous examples: PetroChina’s sequenced acquisition of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.’s Mackay River project for $1.9 billion and $680 million; Sinopec’s purchase of ConocoPhillips’s nine per cent stake in Syncrude ($4.65 billion); and, of course, CNOOC’s acquisition of Nexen ($15.1 billion). This scaling-up phase is the real beginning of the go-up policy that charts a path of extensive structural reform for the whole Chinese oil and gas industry.Over the past 20 years, China’s NOCs have gone out and successfully established themselves internationally; it is now time for them to start building up in size, right up and down the entire industrial value chain.


And incase your unclear on my opinion. I think for the long run, the pipeline is a better alternative then rail. I'd rather see our ( not really now) oil go down there then straight to China. At the same time, it will not create any great # of long term jobs and that is one component being used for political purposes.

Dude...this MUCH bigger then Obama or even Washington. This "show down" over CDN oil started in the late '80s when it was slowly become cost effective.
edit on 29-1-2015 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
To add.....why you think it will create more jobs in spin off industries.....I have no idea. The oil is ALREADY flowing down at basically the same rate it is now using, rail. The pipeline only for, to supposedly to save money in transport, be more reliable and cause less environmental disasters.

The only way this will effect longterm jobs is if China does the west coast pipeline...then you may lose jobs in the US.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connector
The oil is ALREADY flowing down at basically the same rate it is now using, rail.

Rail is currently shipping just over half of what XL can carry.
2nd.

Edit:

I lied, rail is currently shipping just over 25% of what XL can carry. My apologies. I knew the rail guys had missed their goals, just didn't realize by how much.
edit on 29-1-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Not to worry Neo, to quote a post of yours from another thread;

"How can a minority block anything"

"Answer; they can't"

Now you're gonna get a little taste of what it feels like. For your sake, let's just call it "Democrat obstructionism." Just sit back and watch this one person block the hell out of this.

I hope he vetoes the piss out of this cronie legislation.

edit on 29-1-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I have no dog in this fight. Do it or not. I think we rely too much on oil for our economy as it is. From my reading on this here's a few points:

This isn't down political lines. Some Red states don't want this. It's not all the "environazis".

Canada needs this more than the States imo. Everyone says, "Well if this isn't shipped to the States we'll build a pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China."

BS on the last. Too many environmental and First Nations concerns, provinces, etc. It would take off if it went to the States AND they take all of the risk. Pipeline to the west coast is a pipe dream.
edit on 29-1-2015 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Connector
The oil is ALREADY flowing down at basically the same rate it is now using, rail.

Rail is currently shipping just over half of what XL can carry.
2nd.


You've been on ATS long enough to know current, unbiased links are king
Regardless, it doesn't affect my post's point. These jobs already exist.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector

You are correct! I am remiss...

Canadian Crude Oil Shipmenst by Rail - Quarterly (NEB)


2014 Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Rail - Quarterly Data
Volume
(m³) Volume
(m³ per day) Volume
(bbl) Volume
(bbl per day)
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 2,363,453 26,261 14,872,875 165,254
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 2,358,023 25,912 14,838,705 163,063
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 2,661,655 28,931 16,749,414 182,059

Edit to add: The chart just doesn't copy over very well as a quote, it's at he bottom of the linked page.

XL is rated for 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 cubic meters/day).

4th quarter counts are not 100% firm, but my sources tell me that they are not much better than the 2nd-3rd growth, putting early estimates around 32,000 cubic meters per day.
edit on 29-1-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Connector

You are correct! I am remiss...

Canadian Crude Oil Shipmenst by Rail - Quarterly (NEB)


2014 Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Rail - Quarterly Data
Volume
(m³) Volume
(m³ per day) Volume
(bbl) Volume
(bbl per day)
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 2,363,453 26,261 14,872,875 165,254
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 2,358,023 25,912 14,838,705 163,063
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 2,661,655 28,931 16,749,414 182,059

Edit to add: The chart just doesn't copy over very well as a quote, it's at he bottom of the linked page.

XL is rated for 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 cubic meters/day).

4th quarter counts are not 100% firm, but my sources tell me that they are not much better than the 2nd-3rd growth, putting early estimates around 32,000 cubic meters per day.


TY......ok the capacity of the pipe is larger, but do we even have the ability to export at capacity?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Uh oh!! Warren Buffet is going to be PISSED.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Canada needs this more than the States imo. Everyone says, "Well if this isn't shipped to the States we'll build a pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China."

Intrepid, this is actually false.

The southern US refineries, that are built for heavy, desperately need a firm and steady supply to maintain profitability.

Keystone provides that in ways that rail transportation can never guarantee.

Canada's need for a major capacity increases are very relevant, just not as large of an issue (to the entire NA oil works) as those refineries.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: neo96

Kill it. We don't need any foreign oil flowing in and out of our country with the oil spills in pristine lnd that it will undoubtedly bring with it.


You do realize there are already millions of miles of pipelines already in the ground in the US?

Please cite these numerous pipeline disasters that are undoubtedly happening all over the country.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
I have no dog in this fight. Do it or not. I think we rely too much on oil for our economy as it is. From my reading on this here's a few points:

This isn't down political lines. Some Red states don't want this. It's not all the "environazis".

Canada needs this more than the States imo. Everyone says, "Well if this isn't shipped to the States we'll build a pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China."

BS on the last. Too many environmental and First Nations concerns, provinces, etc. It would take off if it went to the States AND they take all of the risk. Pipeline to the west coast is a pipe dream.


I agree, the stink would be bigger in CDN and harder to achieve. But, it's only one province to pass through and the initial green light was given with major conditions

[url=http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/17/even-without-northern-gateway-pipeline-canada-could-still-get-its-oil-to-china-iea/]FinancialPost[/u rl]

business.financialpost.com...



Regulators approved the project with 209 conditions last year, but it remains hotly contested by some aboriginal and environmental groups, who contend the risk of an oil spill outweighs the pipeline’s projected benefits.


China will get it's investment back, one way or another. And when I mentioned politics, I didn't mean left right red blue, I meant GLOBAL.
edit on 29-1-2015 by Connector because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2015 by Connector because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join