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.

 

Hillary announced her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

How does building a pipeline for Canadian oil make us less dependent? I never understood that reasoning.

a reply to: nwtrucker



The 'oil cartels' couldn't care less how the oil gets to the refineries, just as long as it get there!



Of course they don't care how it gets there. But some of us, including the people that own land that would be affected, do care.
edit on 23-9-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

I like my water on fire!


And apparently some people just don't want to see why we are in the ME to begin with.

You can thank the climate 'movement' on that.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: buster2010

How about building the Keystone would make us LESS dependent on ME oil.

God forbid that ever happening.

Want out of the ME ?

Drill baby DRILL.

Build KEYSTONES.

FRACK.

That's the way it's done.

Unless you, and the other anti keystoners want to be perpetually be in the ME.

Spreading 'freedom and democracy'.

I see you know nothing about the Keystone. The oil from it for export not to be used in America also it will cause gas prices here in the states to go up. We don't need the ME all we have to do is stop our companies from selling overseas as well as switching to alt energies. But don't worry about facts just keep spreading that right wing propaganda.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

We don't need the ME all we have to do is stop our companies from selling overseas as well as switching to alt energies. But don't worry about facts just keep spreading that right wing propaganda.


United States oil companies already cannot sell crude oil overseas, there has been a ban since the 1970s. Talk about getting your facts straight.




edit on 23-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer because global warming flooded his Coor Lite kegerator



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

How that ?

The State makes money off the Exports.

People get jobs.

But hey WHO CARES.

Actually it a Canadian pipeline, only FAIR since the US built one through Canada.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: buster2010

We don't need the ME all we have to do is stop our companies from selling overseas as well as switching to alt energies. But don't worry about facts just keep spreading that right wing propaganda.


United States oil companies already cannot sell crude oil overseas, there has been a ban since the 1970s. Talk about getting your facts straight.





That's not entirely true.


The United States exported about 4 MMb/d of crude oil and petroleum products in 2014, resulting in net imports (imports minus exports) of about 5 MMb/d in 2014.

eia.gov



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



The 'oil cartels' couldn't care less how the oil gets to the refineries, just as long as it get there!

Typical brainless response. They want the Keystone because it go to a foreign tax free port which means they will pay zero tax on all sales.


Obama, despite State department and EPA support for the XL pipeline-many pipeline are in progress as we speak- has nixed it in repayment. Simple.

Like usual yet another ignorant statement. The EPA is against the Keystone being built next time do a little research before showing your ignorance on a subject.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
That's not entirely true.


The United States exports between 400-500,000 barrels per day of crude which is nearly inconsequential when compared to oil exporting nations. This is crude we are unable to refine here and consequently must be sent overseas for processing.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: buster2010

How that ?

The State makes money off the Exports.

People get jobs.

But hey WHO CARES.

Actually it a Canadian pipeline, only FAIR since the US built one through Canada.

There are tax free ports in America. This article just points out how the pipeline will screw the tax payers.
Keystone XL benefits from taxpayer subsidies



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
That's not entirely true.


The United States exports between 400-500,000 barrels per day of crude which is nearly inconsequential when compared to oil exporting nations. This is crude we are unable to refine here and consequently must be sent overseas for processing.


Doesn't matter. The oil is still exported.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: buster2010

We don't need the ME all we have to do is stop our companies from selling overseas as well as switching to alt energies. But don't worry about facts just keep spreading that right wing propaganda.


United States oil companies already cannot sell crude oil overseas, there has been a ban since the 1970s. Talk about getting your facts straight.




They can sell it to other nations.
US Opens Market to Limited Crude Oil Exports to Mexico
Next time research before posting nonsense.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Doesn't matter. The oil is still exported.


If it were not it would be sitting in retaining ponds or tanks as we cannot refine the crude. All refine-able crude oil extracted cannot be exported. That has been in place since the 1970's. If we lifted that ban we could surge to the top of the oil exporting nations instead of lingering down in 47th place behind such petroleum powerhouses such as Cuba and New Zealand.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Just imagine how much money we could save in military spending if we didn't need to protect the flow in the Middle East. Drill baby drill!
I would much rather buy Canadian oil than Saudi.
Just make Canada sell half the oil in the pipline to the United States.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Try to pay attention to what you linked. We are swapping light shale crude for heavy Mexican crude.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: brancolinoxx
If the post was removed can it please not count? This is exactly what the site wanted to prevent. I'm referring to Mech3555 by the way.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: brancolinoxx
If the post was removed can it please not count? This is exactly what the site wanted to prevent. I'm referring to Mech3555 by the way.

Sorry, not sure what you mean. Can what not count? Sorry im tired, its getting late here.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
www.washingtonpost.com... /
This article to me explains everything I need to know about how Hilllary thinks. She is a political hack that is trying to become the POTUS. She wants to appease the liberal left. Without giving the majority a voice. To me this is the same as if it would be 4 more years of Obama. I believe that with her opposition to the XL pipeline she has lost the presidency because I believe the common everyday people of America have seen her true colors. I for one would never vote for a Democrat because no liberal idea has ever worked. Nor do the Democrats support the military in any fashion. I saw this first hand while serving 22 years in the Coast Guard. This post is all my own opinion.


I don't want the Keystone XL pipeline either. I can't look into here head to see if she really wants it or not, but just because she agrees with me on a pipeline won;t make me vote for her.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I completely understand that. The reason I brought it up is because you asked Buster to get his facts straight and said that crude cannot be sold overseas. Then you admitted that we do export crude, but it's a certain kind that we cannot refine and in amounts that are "inconsequential".

Regardless, we DO export oil and Buster's original statement is valid.

All in the interest of having our facts straight, correct?



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
I completely understand that. The reason I brought it up is because you asked Buster to get his facts straight and said that crude cannot be sold overseas. Then you admitted that we do export crude, but it's a certain kind that we cannot refine and in amounts that are "inconsequential".


We technically do not sell any of it, it is swapped for heavy crude that we can refine. If we had refining capabilities for light sweet crude that would be prohibited as well.


Regardless, we DO export oil and Buster's original statement is valid.

All in the interest of having our facts straight, correct?


We are splitting hairs. The amount of oil we export is tiny compared to what we could be exporting. It is a very small part of the oil recovery business but will become a large problem as light sweet reserves are further extracted.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



It is a very small part of the oil recovery business but will become a large problem as light sweet reserves are further extracted.


I can agree with you on that point.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join