Trump Administration Approves Keystone XL Pipeline

a reply to: Grimpachi

Answer this, How mush oil are they going to refine in the US from The Keystone?

All of it.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Grimpachi

Answer this, How mush oil are they going to refine in the US from The Keystone?

All of it.

false

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Grimpachi

Answer this, How mush oil are they going to refine in the US from The Keystone?

All of it.

false

You're wrong, do some research.

Don't believe everything Obama and his buddy making all the money shipping oil via train tell you. (Buffet)

Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: D8Tee

"Your wrong whaaa...."

OK whatever, I don't have anymore time to waste on you.

a reply to: Grimpachi

it seems the oil will end up at american refineries, so it seems its just another pipeline. it wont impact the economy significantly, the price of oil will drop a few dollars for a while and there will be temp work. the canadian oil will most likely be sold to american companies.

so essentially we are transporting and refining oil for canada, then buying it.

a reply to: vjr1113

Tons of it will be exported and what is refined here shouldn't lower the cost at the pumps at all. It is really crazy fine US oil gets exported to Canada for them to refine while they ship bitumen to us. Our refineries can't keep up will what is coming to them now so the rest will be loaded onto tankers to ship overseas.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Grimpachi

it seems the oil will end up at american refineries, so it seems its just another pipeline. it wont impact the economy significantly, the price of oil will drop a few dollars for a while and there will be temp work. the canadian oil will most likely be sold to american companies.

so essentially we are transporting and refining oil for canada, then buying it.

Buying cheap Canadian oil and upgrading it is a more apt description.

Canadian oil sells at a discount to WTI or Brent Crude, the Gulf Coast refining industry has the infrastructure to add value to this oil.

a reply to: Grimpachi

yep that is true, i dont know how much will be exported so im less inclined to say it wont be used by americans, but so what?
its like if a burger king started using cheap canadian meat. number 1 who cares? number 2 it doesnt matter because it wont have any economic stimulus.

the environmental risk of this thing just existing is a bad trade off, and the jobs it would create is almost laughable. like i said i would have focused my time on more important issues.

a reply to: D8Tee

hurray cheap oil that we already have access to! great piece of legislation, hope theres no leaks, fingers crossed. but its not like you live there right what do you care?

a reply to: vjr1113

Everything has its risk and reward. The pipeline is just too high of risk. The company is already well known for their failures, but to make it even worse is that it will become a high value target of terrorist forces. They could burst it over our aquifers and completely cripple the nation.

Also just a little bit of recent news, Nebraska hasn't approved of the pipeline yet. That's right, Trump's exec order is only half of whats needed to start building, no one has the permits to start building in Nebraska as of yet. It seems Trump cant just tell states to do things, there's things called permits and environmental laws. maybe thats why he's trying so hard to destroy the EPA. no regulations, more pipelines, more deals for his oil buddies.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: D8Tee

"Your wrong whaaa...."

OK whatever, I don't have anymore time to waste on you.

Time to waste on me?

You're wrong, get over yourself.

You're arguing based on half truths and misconceived notions, if anything I should be leaving you to your own ignorance, but more people than you read this thread, people who like to be informed as to the reality of the situation.

Here's a Washington Post article, educate yourself, deny ignorance.

h ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/20/obamas-claim-that-keystone-crude-would-go-everywhere-else-but-the-united-states/

First of all, the president leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). As our colleague Steven Mufson reported more than two years ago, the refineries on the Gulf Coast are “eagerly waiting” for the Canadian crude, since there isn’t enough oil in the area anymore to feed the refineries.

“The modernized Valero refinery [in Port Arthur, Tex.] can turn 310,000 barrels a day of some of the world’s worst-quality crude oil — such as the bitumen-laden mixture from Canadian oil sands — into gasoline and diesel fuel for cars and trucks,” Mufson wrote. “Valero, the largest U.S. oil refining company, would be one of the biggest customers of oil from the Keystone XL pipeline, buying about 150,000 barrels a day.”

Indeed, the State Department’s final environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL project specifically disputed claims that the oil “would pass through the United States and be loaded onto vessels for ultimate sale in markets such as Asia,” saying it was not economically justified. The State Department noted that the traditional sources of crude for the Gulf Coast, such as Mexico and Venezuela, are declining, and so refineries would have “significant incentive to obtain heavy crude from the oil sands.”

So then the question turns on what happens to that oil after it leaves the refinery. Oil is a global commodity, of course, and where it travels often depends on market conditions. In Obama’s telling, however, the refined Canadian oil goes “everywhere else” and “not to the United States.”

But that’s not right either, according to the State Department report. U.S. exports are not affected by various pipeline scenarios but instead by market conditions, such as “domestic demand versus domestic refining capacity, the cost of natural gas, and refining capacity abroad, including in foreign markets currently importing U.S. refined products such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Europe,” the report said. The demand for exports, in other words, is completely unrelated to building the Keystone XL pipeline.

For the sake of argument, let’s look at the percentage of exports currently from the Gulf Coast area, using data for refining output and product exports from the Energy Information Administration. Depending on how you crunch the numbers, the percentage of exports for finished products ranges between 35 percent and 50 percent. The State Department pegged the rate of exports at just over 50 percent, noting that “this increased volume of refined products is being exported by refiners as they respond to lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.”

In other words, at least half of the oil that is refined on the Gulf Coast stays in the United States. Market conditions could change, of course, but there is little basis to claim that virtually all of the product would be exported. (The Fact Checker has previously noted that, contrary to the claims of advocates of the project, Keystone XL is unlikely to have much impact on gasoline prices.)

Opponents of the Keystone project have seized on slides, such as the one below from one of Valero’s presentations to investors, to suggest the plan ultimately is to export the production from Canadian oil sands.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: vjr1113

Everything has its risk and reward. The pipeline is just too high of risk. The company is already well known for their failures, but to make it even worse is that it will become a high value target of terrorist forces. They could burst it over our aquifers and completely cripple the nation.

By your logic, we should shut down the 2.5 million miles of pipeline in the ground, decommission all the nuke plants, tear down the refineries and hide in our basements.

Irrational and cowardly, if people like you were in charge, the terrorists win.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

People that want to put an oil pipe over a countries freshwater aquifer just to make a few dollars are selfish idiotic short-sighted fools.

Fools?
Do you know anything about the aquifer?
Educate yourself, deny ignorance.
Or do you wish to remain ignorant forever.

New York Times

During the past 40 years, my colleagues and I at the Conservation and Survey Division of the University of Nebraska have focused our research on this aquifer. I personally have drilled more than 1,000 test holes into and through its complexities; I have analyzed the volume and behavior of the waters it holds. Here are several important findings.

1. The slope of the regional water table is from west to east; the deep waters within the host rocks move persistently downhill eastward. Approximately 80 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer lies to the west of the proposed alignment, “uphill” of the pipeline’s route. Spilled oil could not move upward against gravity.

2. Along much of the alignment, the depth to water is over 50 feet. Sediments above the top of the aquifer contain fine-grained deposits like silts and clays. In a 25-year study of an oil spill near Bemidji, Minn., the Geological Survey reported that “apparently fine-grained layers impeded the infiltration and redistribution of oil.”

3. If areas of the Ogallala were exposed to leaks from the pipeline, the highly varied layers within the rock formation itself would serve to localize the impact of a spill.

4. In places along the pipeline’s route, there are locations where the water table is near or at the land surface. It is my understanding that in these areas, TransCanada will encase the pipeline in a waterproof covering and cement jacket.

All this comforts me with the knowledge that a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole. However, we should require TransCanada to post a bond for any cleanup in the event of a spill. With that in place, we should approve the pipeline while simultaneously implementing an aggressive national policy that mandates energy efficiencies and finances the development of alternative energy sources for transportation.

a reply to: D8Tee

Read your own article or better yet read more articles on it after all there are many of them, after you fix your link. Educate yourself and deny your own ignorance. I don't want to waste anymore time on idiotic fools that cherry-pick articles to find the ones they like.

a reply to: D8Tee

"minimal risk", "waterproof", "bonds"

from now on whenever i have douts about anything ill remember, the oil companies have my back, i trust them.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: D8Tee

Read your own article or better yet read more articles on it after all there are many of them, after you fix your link. Educate yourself and deny your own ignorance. I don't want to waste anymore time on idiotic fools that cherry-pick articles to find the ones they like.

I'm well educated in the area of pipelines, you are not.

I hope that today you have learned that Canada does indeed have a pipeline to the coast via which it can export crude.

I hope that today you have learned that the Canadian crude that is transported to the Gulf Coast will indeed be refined in America, if some of that is exported, all the better, money into the American economy.

If you have not grasped these fundamentals, then you shall remain ignorant, it is not for me to decide.

Deny ignorance.

I linked you to Washington Post and New York Times articles so that you wouldn't whine and moan that I was linking you to some right wing conspiracy sites.

You should stick to the threads about Trump playing golf at Mar a Lago on the weekends, pipelines are not your forte, you are ignorant and ill informed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quercusrex

I think it's great. What's even better is every time Trump keeps a promise or does something that adds more jobs, anti-American Marxists lose their minds.

hahahahahahahahaha

In the long run it will cost more jobs than it will create. For a short time it will create a few jobs but after it's done those jobs are gone. Not to mention all the jobs that are currently working shipping the oil will be gone also. People need to learn how to look past the short term.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quercusrex

I think it's great. What's even better is every time Trump keeps a promise or does something that adds more jobs, anti-American Marxists lose their minds.

hahahahahahahahaha

In the long run it will cost more jobs than it will create. For a short time it will create a few jobs but after it's done those jobs are gone. Not to mention all the jobs that are currently working shipping the oil will be gone also. People need to learn how to look past the short term.

I take it you are in favor of shipping oil via rail. Pipelines are a safer and cheaper means of transport.