reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale
The largest and most critical difference between the Venezuelan tanker full of crude to refine at a Corpus Christi CITGO Refinery within an FTZ and
the Tar sand oil being brought across from Canada is simply this.
* The Venezuelan Tanker is using some U.S. resources and causing wear and tear of some of it. Very very little though. Lets see.... They'll have used
U.S. waterways (Which bean counters really have ways of tabulating "use" for 'wear and tear' or related reasoning), they'll have made use of
docking facilities which may or may not be entirely owned by the refinery and so, may not even figure into it for this. They'll have drawn resources,
however momentarily, of the US Coast Guard and whatever harbor/shipping control exists in that area to keep ships from running into each other.
^^ That's the gross cost in ACTUAL terms to what that tanker of crude from South America would "trouble" the United States for in refining it and
then re-exporting some 100% duty/tax free, back out of their own U.S. based facilitiy within the Trade Zone. Some may say THAT is enough to complain
about and say the FTZ system is a rip off to us all. Personally, I don't. That's not enough at all and it IS what the Trade Zone system was designed
to do...in addition to the excellent example given at the end of the last page by Britoftexas.
* The Tar sands oil is a WHOLE different animal in those raw terms. First, they are building physical structures outside the Trade Zone, to say the
very least. 1,600 MILES of it, to be exact. This crosses U.S. land of both private and public nature alike.
Government land and imminent domain
seized private land.
(I was fine with the imminent domain ....IF the project was to the direct service of the American Public for infrastructure and basic support ...which
an Oil pipeline *IS* ...if it's not geared for literally leap frogging our whole market to export back out like this)
Second, they'll be causing wear and tear across the land that sits on, the highways used to access and service it over the long term and the
infrastructure that makes the whole thing possible. Things like OUR electricity grid powering their pumping stations, for instance. Electric bills pay
for whats used. Taxes pay for the fact it's there in the first place. They're specifically operating to avoid those taxes in every way humanly
possible ..while USING everything those taxes were made to compensate the American system for.
* Finally, I want to share this. I am trying to keep it fact based. Not speculative for *MY* approach (not to say anything to everyone else chatting,
of course...lol) However, this is needed for more perspective.
The following bits come from analysis as well as testimony from Trasncanada and Canadian Officials in support of the Keystone extension.
But it’s not just environmentalists who are howling in the wilderness.
“The firms involved have asked the US State Department to approve this project, even as they’ve told Canadian government officials how the
pipeline can be used to add at least $4 billion to the US fuel bill,” Philip K. Verleger, president of PKVerleger LLC, a Colorado consulting firm
that specializes in research on oil market economics, wrote in a Minneapolis Star-Tribune commentary last March.
Why Canadian crude oil producers would choose Keystone XL when other pipelines to the US are running well below capacity has much to do with
diversifying away from the US market to more lucrative markets in Europe, China, and other Asian countries, Verleger and others argue. Trends seem to
support this thesis.
. . . .
That trend was captured in testimony Sept. 17, 2009, before Canada’s National Energy Board. Seven Canadian companies were willing to pay higher
pipeline tariff costs for using the Keystone XL pipeline, the testimony showed, in order to bypass Midwest refineries by sending 500,000 barrels per
day, the lion’s share of the pipeline’s capacity, to Gulf refineries.
(The costs they refer to, as I read and understand it, are what the Production/Refinery map in my OP displays for "Pipeline Tolls" on a per barrel
basis. Similar to the Venezuelan tanker example who would STILL pay harbor fees and whatever else required to operate in US waters to GET to the dock.
They DO at least pay that small amount...and happy to pay more of it to get to FTZs)
It seems they believe we suffer from artificially LOW prices that actually take advantage of THEM, so says the overall article those pieces are taken
from. So....a solution is, literally, in their own presentation, to direct oil out of the Midwest to relieve this "oversupply" problem.
The overall PTB did say years ago we WOULD BE acclimated to MUCH higher fuel costs. I guess this is how. In deception and ..IMO.. fraud.