cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
wehav
Senior Contributor

Keystone, one of many.

Look, we all know how phony the Democrats are and incompetent Obama is but sometimes it needs to be shown so that those among us who are less gifted in abstract thought and vision can see.

 

Obama and some Democrats are destroying the job creating pipeline opportunity, injuring our relations with Canada and continuing our dependence on Mid Eastern oil.  At the same time increasing China's pollution and power.  All this while claiming to care about America and the environment.  Now Obama is going to call for increased energy production.  Of course what that means is GOVERNMENT TAX dollars going to Obama supporters to start up more Solyndra's and more fireball Volts.  

 

Just so you far out leftist can see, this is the pipeline structure in America and Canada today.  I'm certain one more pipeline will not be noticed except by those who will get a job building it and maintaining it.  Of course you might benefit if the Middle East shuts off our oil and we need the oil in that line.


16 Replies
bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

Whomever it is that you pirated this off of without attribution says:

 

"Of course you might benefit if the Middle East shuts off our oil and we need the oil in that line."

 

Where have yo or this person seen anything that says anything about us getting any of that oil?  Are you presunming that if the Middle East "cuts us off" (I'd be curious as he!! as to why you'd consider that to be a possiblity) that the owners of the oil will just give us access to it?  Under what circumstances could or would that happen?  When all Middle Eastern producers and sovriegnties decide that they don't want the people there  to eat?

 

Or, are you presuming that a powerful U.S. government could simply nationalize Canada's oil and cut off the Canadian company's customers anywhere along the line  at anytime we'd deem it to be necessary?   The Brits tried that in Iraq in 1948.  Check into how that turned out for them and what it did to geopolitics for say, oh, the next 60 years.

 

 

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

Which pipeline comes through Canada from Alaska? 

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

I realize the left wants us all living in buffalo chip heated teepees and riding Appaloosas for transportation.  But this Canadian oil would be 20% of what we use, now if it ends up in a refinery in Galveston.  How could a Chinese or British ship haul all this oil cheaper than we could if it`s it our home refinery?  The Chinese would have to take it through the Panama Canal for Pete sakes!   But yes if a pipeline goes to the PNW of course then that oil will end up in China or Japan. It`s getting harder and harder to be a peak oiler, I swear we could all be floating in oil and some nut would say "the end is near".

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

I din't ask how much there was going to be.  I asked if anybody had seen where there were any provision for any of it to be used here after being refined on our shores by foreign owned refineries?

 

Then went on to ask wehav if he was presuming that we'd just use our muscle to confiscate it from those entities in the event that it was deemed crucial to somethig or other.

 

And then you threw in a bunch of prattle.  Maybe he's not going to answer me but you know the answers to what I was asking.

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

You`re missing my point Bruce.  What I`m saying is, if China has to pay $100 at Galveston...then ship it 8,000 miles home, what will be the net cost of that oil in Bejing?  Answer one heck of alot higher than it would be in America, the point of orgination, see what I`m saying OUR COST OF THE OIL WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN CHINA we wouldn`t have shipping!   We could easily out bid them.   "Money" is the muscle to "confiscate it from Canada" and if we didn`t like the terms we could jack up refinery costs, close a couple gate valves ect ect.  Canada would be beholden to us.  Smiley Happy

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

At what point would you advocate our government acting in our interests instead of the interests of the oil companies? The oil from canada is no more "our" oil than is the oil from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Texas or Oklahoma. It is owned by companies that are interested in profits and they sell it on the world market for the best price. They don't care who gets it as long as they get the money.

 

If you consider the world a huge bath tub with water(oil) poured in at many locations and it is available to all. Oil produced in Alaska may well go to the orient and be replaced with oil from venezuela or elsewhere as price and logistics are the main factors. So our oil is not our oil unless we own it.

 

Texas, lousiana, and Alaska reap tax windfalls to support their state governments. Where is the federal government oil windfall from federal grounds to support our federal government. Instead of vast royalties we give the oil companies tax incentives as if they could never make it on their own.

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

I had that point.  From hello. Don't repeat yourself and just answer what I asked. 

 

The markets aside...which you do discard and therefore disqualify your entire argument with your Middle East suggestion, but whatever... how do we pull that off.  Teh money isn't teh muscle.  We are playing ourselves out fo the possiblity of doing that. 

 

Unless...aha!...money creation/Keynesianism  are OK things to do if they are done for the "right purposes".  You and Cheney.

 

No?

wehav
Senior Contributor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

Bruce, if you search the Internet you can find maps.  That was all I posted from another source.  Any comments from an online source that I post are always put in quotes and sometimes italicized.

 

You received an answer to your tirade but as a good liberal you ignore reality.

 

You also choose to ignore the FACT that the country is over run with pipelines and one more certainly wouldn't do harm but would be beneficial.  That was the point of my post, yours was to obfuscate the issue.  Typical liberal tactics.

 

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

The product itself simply goes on the world market, effects our supply and demand because of it.  Optimally, the crude goes to a refinery somewhere in the USA so we get the jobs and the value added profits.  It would seem to make more sense to me to build a new refinery in the dakota's, because there is allot of oil coming from there anyhow.  Is the EPA blocking that option?