Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

(LINKS ONLY)War of Terror, Iraq, illegal immigration, gun control, gay marriage and abortion.

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Cate McCalley » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:54 pm

"If you were serious about hooking onto the Canadian pipeline wouldn't you start by hooking onto the pipeline and building southward?"

Since Pesident Obama said he would cut the red tape and speed up the Pipeline, (which he did for the Southetn leg) oil production in the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota have more than doubled. Most all of it being transported by rail.

Three pipelines in the Midwest northern states are under construction that will have the capacity to move 885,000 barrels a day of light crude from The Bakken Oil Fields.

I'm aware that building the northern leg of the Keystone Pipeline would spur the economies of Montana and Nebraska short term.

But riddle me this; Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?

Aside from this, light crude is highly explosive and dangerouse to transport by rail. Sand Tar Crude isn't. Let the damn Canadians and Koch Brothers transport their nasty oil by rail. And quit trying to railroad the Aministration into something that long term, puts a heck of a lot more greenbacks in their pockets than in the pockets of US Citizens. Sure some short term jobs, ancillary trade and a little tax revenue would be a benefit. But at what long term cost? Who runs this country? The North American Canadians and The Koch Brothers or The PzoTUS and USA North Americans?


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:01 am

Cate McCalley wrote:"If you were serious about hooking onto the Canadian pipeline wouldn't you start by hooking onto the pipeline and building southward?"

Since Pesident Obama said he would cut the red tape and speed up the Pipeline, (which he did for the Southetn leg) oil production in the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota have more than doubled. Most all of it being transported by rail.

Three pipelines in the Midwest northern states are under construction that will have the capacity to move 885,000 barrels a day of light crude from The Bakken Oil Fields.

I'm aware that building the northern leg of the Keystone Pipeline would spur the economies of Montana and Nebraska short term.

But riddle me this; Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?

Aside from this, light crude is highly explosive and dangerouse to transport by rail. Sand Tar Crude isn't. Let the damn Canadians and Koch Brothers transport their nasty oil by rail. And quit trying to railroad the Aministration into something that long term, puts a heck of a lot more greenbacks in their pockets than in the pockets of US Citizens. Sure some short term jobs, ancillary trade and a little tax revenue would be a benefit. But at what long term cost? Who runs this country? The North American Canadians and The Koch Brothers or The PzoTUS and USA North Americans?


Correction: Meant to ask "Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil compete for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?"


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby GFunkMoneyDog » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:21 am

The only thing that hurts oil producers is price.
"The darkest souls are not those which choose to exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which choose to break free from the abyss and move silently among us." - Dr. Samuel Loomis
User avatar
GFunkMoneyDog
The Godfather
 
Posts: 20950
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Rip Torn » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:52 am

Who would you buy oil from? Canada or the middle east?
Rip Torn
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:01 am

GFunkMoneyDog wrote:The only thing that hurts oil producers is price.


Apples and oranges RT.

Transportating the crude to refineries figure into the price G.

That's why Canada is pushing for the pipeline to get their oil to the Gulf. Transporting light crude by rail is more expensive and a lot more dangerous. There's more 400,000 rail tankers moving oil around and in and out of the country daily. Extracting sand tar crude from the ground is expensive and destructive to the environment. Moving it by rail rather than pipeline eats profits. Sand tar crude wouldn't be profitable but for it's byproduct, Petcoke.

Petcoke is a competitor for the metallurgical high grade Coal of eastern Ky. Petcoke is 25% cheaper, burns much nastier, the Chinese and steel manufacturers around the world love it.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Legion » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:20 am

I love oil, coal, or anything else that burns dirty. I'm just a dirty girl. :lol:
Legion
Always A Bride
 
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:23 am

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Pappy » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:24 am

Legion wrote:I love oil, coal, or anything else that burns dirty. I'm just a dirty girl. :lol:

Take a Bath. :lol:
Pappy
Hardee's Parking Lot
 
Posts: 6853
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:16 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby ScArEcRoW » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:02 pm

Campgroundman has them for free.
User avatar
ScArEcRoW
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby goat47 » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:47 pm

Add it as a rider to the next food stamp bill. No way he would veto then. At least 7 Senate Democrats say they will vote to override the President's veto.
goat47
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:09 pm

goat47 wrote:Add it as a rider to the next food stamp bill. No way he would veto then. At least 7 Senate Democrats say they will vote to override the President's veto.


I don't get it. Why do you want Canada's pipeline? Do you actually think it will bring the price of oil down??? That pipeline will assist in keeping Eastern Ky's clean burning metallurgical coal too expensive. It can't compete with Petcoke that's 25% cheaper. Coal burning plants have converted to gas because it's cheaper. And doesn't require the expensive upgrades to burn. But plenty of them already have the expensive upgrades and are burning coal. It isn't too much more of a stretch to clean up Petcoke to burn to meet EPA standards. Eastern Ky coal has almost priced itself out of the market altogether. And you want to put make more Petcoke available for the world market to burn and pollute? At the same time eliminate what's left of the Appalachian coal economy?

Don't you think it's time to connect the dots? Do you actually think the Koch Brothers, who are the largest traders of Petcoke in the world have contributed multi millions to lobbyist for the sole purpose of getting the Keystone Pupeline want to have to compete with Eastern Kys metallurgical coal fields? Where do they have their 1.1 million acre land lease? Northern Canada or Applalachia????


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Angry Whiteguy » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:36 pm

Cate McCalley wrote:
Cate McCalley wrote:"If you were serious about hooking onto the Canadian pipeline wouldn't you start by hooking onto the pipeline and building southward?"

Since Pesident Obama said he would cut the red tape and speed up the Pipeline, (which he did for the Southetn leg) oil production in the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota have more than doubled. Most all of it being transported by rail.

Three pipelines in the Midwest northern states are under construction that will have the capacity to move 885,000 barrels a day of light crude from The Bakken Oil Fields.

I'm aware that building the northern leg of the Keystone Pipeline would spur the economies of Montana and Nebraska short term.

But riddle me this; Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?

Aside from this, light crude is highly explosive and dangerouse to transport by rail. Sand Tar Crude isn't. Let the damn Canadians and Koch Brothers transport their nasty oil by rail. And quit trying to railroad the Aministration into something that long term, puts a heck of a lot more greenbacks in their pockets than in the pockets of US Citizens. Sure some short term jobs, ancillary trade and a little tax revenue would be a benefit. But at what long term cost? Who runs this country? The North American Canadians and The Koch Brothers or The PzoTUS and USA North Americans?


Correction: Meant to ask "Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil compete for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?"


That's some bad hat Harry...
Your government is your master!!! Resistance is illegal, and futile!!!
User avatar
Angry Whiteguy
ReSiDeNt EvIl
 
Posts: 15725
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:25 pm
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Pappy » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:35 pm

Angry Whiteguy wrote:
Cate McCalley wrote:
Cate McCalley wrote:"If you were serious about hooking onto the Canadian pipeline wouldn't you start by hooking onto the pipeline and building southward?"

Since Pesident Obama said he would cut the red tape and speed up the Pipeline, (which he did for the Southetn leg) oil production in the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota have more than doubled. Most all of it being transported by rail.

Three pipelines in the Midwest northern states are under construction that will have the capacity to move 885,000 barrels a day of light crude from The Bakken Oil Fields.

I'm aware that building the northern leg of the Keystone Pipeline would spur the economies of Montana and Nebraska short term.

But riddle me this; Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?

Aside from this, light crude is highly explosive and dangerouse to transport by rail. Sand Tar Crude isn't. Let the damn Canadians and Koch Brothers transport their nasty oil by rail. And quit trying to railroad the Aministration into something that long term, puts a heck of a lot more greenbacks in their pockets than in the pockets of US Citizens. Sure some short term jobs, ancillary trade and a little tax revenue would be a benefit. But at what long term cost? Who runs this country? The North American Canadians and The Koch Brothers or The PzoTUS and USA North Americans?


Correction: Meant to ask "Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil compete for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?"


That's some bad hat Harry...

The US will never see any of that Oil except what leaks out the rest will be loaded for Canadian export.
Pappy
Hardee's Parking Lot
 
Posts: 6853
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:16 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:03 pm

Pappy wrote:
Angry Whiteguy wrote:
Cate McCalley wrote:
Correction: Meant to ask "Why should companies building the three pipelines to carry North Dakota's (much cleaner) light crude oil compete for labor and building materials to make Canadians happy and The Koch Brothers long term richer, at the expense of our own U.S. Oil producers?"


That's some bad hat Harry...


The US will never see any of that Oil except what leaks out the rest will be loaded for Canadian export.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Demon Hunter » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:18 pm

Private businesses should be free to act in ways they deem profitable free of government interference. Cate do you not realize that import the majority of our oil from Canada? I think that is something you seem to be missing.
User avatar
Demon Hunter
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:17 am

Re: Keystone XL bill gets 44 senators on board

Postby Cate McCalley » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:12 pm

Demon Hunter wrote:Private businesses should be free to act in ways they deem profitable free of government interference. Cate do you not realize that import the majority of our oil from Canada? I think that is something you seem to be missing.


We import more than twice the amount of oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia. The problem I have is not with Canada's oil imports to the US, but with the sand tar imports. It's the dirtiest crude oil found. It wouldn't even be profitable to refine, except for it's byproduct, Petcoke. One of the dirtiest, if not the dirtiest of solid fuels. The same product that has created far less demand for high BTU metallurgical coal under your feet.

You're free to support private businesses to be free to act in ways they deem profitable free of government interference. But you are not free to abate government regulations to protect those that depend on regulations that protect their health and economies. That sort of thing is done in Dictatorships, not Democracy's.


Time & Tide Changes Everything
User avatar
Cate McCalley
(no custom rank chosen)
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Politics (Links Only)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests