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.

 

Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Indigo5

OK, in the long term, pipeline transportation is cheaper than rail. Granted.

The oil WILL move either way. The cost? That will be passed onto the consumers, just like every other industry, that's thee and me.

Once again, they will make their money either way. FACT. Deal with it...




You seem to be missing the fact that Tar Sands oil is by default already more expensive than other oil?

As is apparent by todays reality, we can have LOWER priced oil absent a pipleline...and in fact the Pipeline is DEPENDANT ON HIGHER PRICED OIL.

Shell shelves plan for tar sands project in face of low oil prices
www.theguardian.com...



Federal analysts have warned that producers in the Canadian oil sands — slated to be a top consumer of the pipeline — will need oil prices to stay between $65 and $75 a barrel to make production there economically feasible.

www.usatoday.com...

The economic viability of Keystone XL's pipeline is actually inextricably wed to oil prices being HIGH..

So not sure how to digest the idea you are selling that somehow the pipeline will save us money at the pump?




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



Let's increase the national gas tax and ENFORCE those revenues be used exclusively on infrastructure.That would take care of that issue permanently! On going revenue for ongoing repairs and expansion...works for me.

Oh that sounds real good let's tax the people instead of taxing the oil companies. Part of the paperwork they sent to the President stated that this oil will not be taxed. Also the taxes that comes from the sell of gas is already supposed to be used on the federal highway system.



The rest of your post? Sorry, the 'oil barons' have zero interest on how the oil gets to the refineries. Rail or pipeline, they get their money either way.

Sorry but you are wrong. If they were to get the pipeline they would be able to let a lot of people go so that would increase their profit margin. So yes they do have an interest on how the oil gets to the refineries.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



The oil WILL move either way. The cost? That will be passed onto the consumers, just like every other industry, that's thee and me.

I didn't know you lived in China. Everything from the Keystone is earmarked for export only. But you are right the cost for building it will be passed onto us seeing how they want the government to shell out around three billion to build it.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
What most people do not understand is in blocking keystone he is also blocking a pipeline from the US Bakken Oil fields.

The US oil companies were looking to mix the heavy keystone with light Bakken fields oil to make it easy to pump through keystone pipeline.
bakkenshale.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Why don't they create a refinery up north? Avoid this horsesh*t through the country all together....
edit on 25-2-2015 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You had better check other sources, including the article I posted.

First, the oil prices will go up. They are now, dammit.(At least the pump prices, the basterds.)

Second, if there was no need for the pipeline, read that profit, the Canadians wouldn't be financing this project.

Third, the intent, from my understanding, of the XL pipeline is to mix tar sands oil with Dakota crude which is lighter. The combination apparently suits the gulf coast refineries.

Lastly, were you contradict yourself, is 200,000 barrels a day are already moving from the tar sands south...VIA rail. which was stated to be more expensive than pipeline.

They want to build it? Let them. Maybe if we find a real alternative to oil in the future, we can pump water down south....



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

That would make too much sense. We can't have anything that makes sense.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Come on! Your smarter than that! Tax the oil companies??? Really?

Who do they pass it on to....HELLO. US.

No difference that I can see...as long as that revenue is mandated to infrastructure either way is fine.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good question, at a guess, the refineries down south need the crude. the products from those refineries are intended for south consumption...at least until the laws restricting exports are changed....



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

More ignorance. Short term, all the refined products are intended for U.S. consumption.

There are federal restrictions on exports.....for now.

Even when those restrictions are lifted, lower Chinese prices means lower world-wide prices. Also, I have no problem with China having to buy North American oil products. It gets us some of the money back.....



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good question, at a guess, the refineries down south need the crude. the products from those refineries are intended for south consumption...at least until the laws restricting exports are changed....



Well looking at a map...the pipeline would run to the Gulf of Mexico affording easy shipping East. I believe that is the intent.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: buster2010

Come on! Your smarter than that! Tax the oil companies??? Really?

Who do they pass it on to....HELLO. US.

No difference that I can see...as long as that revenue is mandated to infrastructure either way is fine.



That is always the threat, but never the reality. The Saudi's dictate the price of oil...OPEC. That tar sands oil is marked for export anyways. I can't conceive of any contorted math where the Oil companies involved choose to pass on a tax and outprice themselves from OPEC...just to prevent their profits from going from Gazillion Billion to slightly less than Gazillion Billion.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good question, at a guess, the refineries down south need the crude. the products from those refineries are intended for south consumption...at least until the laws restricting exports are changed....



Well looking at a map...the pipeline would run to the Gulf of Mexico affording easy shipping East. I believe that is the intent.
east where?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: buster2010

More ignorance. Short term, all the refined products are intended for U.S. consumption.

There are federal restrictions on exports.....for now.



NOPE...Just the opposite...

There are restrictions/ban on exporting US CRUDE oil...but we can refine and export Canadian oil all day long and that is what they are doing with the Pipeline oil.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That's why say, a ten cent per gallon federal tax is workable. It taxes the users of the infrastructure and includes all oil, be it imported or not.

Look, I'm not a proponent of tax increases, by any means. Putting the infrastructure grid-lock to bed sure makes it more palatable.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That's why say, a ten cent per gallon federal tax is workable. It taxes the users of the infrastructure and includes all oil, be it imported or not.

Look, I'm not a proponent of tax increases, by any means. Putting the infrastructure grid-lock to bed sure makes it more palatable.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   



Straight Talking: Exports

Dispelling inaccurate and misleading claims about exports

It’s important for us to address inaccurate and misleading claims that continue to be made regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline and false information on exports, including the export of crude oil and the export of refined products from the United States.

Keystone XL Pipeline will NOT export crude oil

You’ve probably seen or heard claims that Keystone XL will export crude oil to China or other far-off lands. This isn’t true and here’s why.

Straight Talking: Exports






posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good question, at a guess, the refineries down south need the crude. the products from those refineries are intended for south consumption...at least until the laws restricting exports are changed....



Well looking at a map...the pipeline would run to the Gulf of Mexico affording easy shipping East. I believe that is the intent.
east where?


Well looking at this map of oil shipping routes...Europe/UK?...the pipeline runs from tar sands to Texas/Gulf of Mexico and Oil tankers are already running from those refineries to Europe.
ckrhmt2008.weebly.com...
edit on 25-2-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

If you had read the other posts, others was well. The pipeline is to be used both for tar sands and mixed with N.D. crude.

That does raise an interesting question though-which I don't know the answer to- Being 'mixed' U.S. and Canadian Crude, which way does the export restriction get applied??



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
So good for Canadians, they did not want to allow it either.a reply to: nwtrucker



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join