Cutting off one's nose......

At least US refineries will get the work, for now. That means some jobs, but not the number that might have been achieved. Plus, most of the product will stay in the US and the western hemisphere, rather than go to China.

FOX  News , really ?????????????????????????

Perhaps a US oil company could build a pipeline and take the Canadian crude to the east coast where 3 refineries recently closed.  There is plenty of excess capacity to Chicago already.  Except, that's not what the Canadians want...they want access to the Gulf to sell their oil as a finished product to Central and SOuth American customers. 

And as I understand it, tax free as well. 

In the end, out of this pipeline deal, we (the American people) would get nothing, but the crap they put in that sorry oil to enable it to be pumped across half a continent. They won't even state what those chemicals are. They get the gold mine, we get the shaft.

The gulf refineries are best for processing thick oil like the Canadian and Venezuelan.  Proof of the mix being unregistered, please.

These "not in my back yard" types are sending our jobs to countries that have less strict regulations.  I'd respect them if they made sacrifices such as not driving a car or purchasing any petroleum based product. 

Tell you what, I went and found the article supporting my statement, but decided it would be better for YOU to tell us what chemicals they put in that oil. 

When you admit defeat , I'll give a link to the article, BUT, in the meantime , I'll post a couple of lines from it :
 

Then there's the issue with Canadian crude oil. It's heavy.

The difference between Canadian Tar Sands oil and Oklahoma light sweet crude is like the difference between Coca-Cola and cake batter. So to make it easier for Canadian oil to flow thousands of miles south to Cushing, it has to be mixed with chemicals to thin out.

"They won't tell us what's in the oil to make it flow," says Randy Thompson, a Nebraskan cattle rancher who's opposed Keystone XL.

seeweed,

First, you compared light crude with Canadian tar sands oil, conveniently ignoring the thick Venezuelan crude, which I mentioned in my post, the gulf refineries have processed for decades.  The oil industry nickname Venezuelan crude "dinosaur dung."

In your previous post, you stated that the chemical mix that will be used to transport the Canadian oil will not be revealed by the oil companies.  I requested proof of that statement. Under rules of argumentation, it is not incumbent upon me to prove another's unsupported statement.  Therefore, I must assume you made a statement you can't support.  

I made a statement I can support, but decided that since you seem to know all about everything, I would let you find proof of what you asserted, that there is NO toxic chemicals in that tar sands oil. 

I don't like poker, but I have played it enough to know when to show your hand. You have called, time for you to show your hand,

By the way, I have not said I was against the pipeline, just that I am concerned about the route it takes, and the eventual by-products of distillation. Change the route so that it does not go over the main feed line to the aquifer for the entire middle of the country, and I really don't care.

What I can't understand, is why y'all are FOR it in such a big way., If Obama had accepted the route thru the sand hills as y'all seem to want, you would have slammed him for that. 

The Republicans have made this into a partasin issue bu forcing an artificial deadline upon Obama, but the real fact of the matter is it should NEVER have been a political issue, 

The United States will see no benefit (or very little if you count the temporary construction jobs) , and it will have absolutely no effect on the price of gas at the pump. All the refined product will be sold overseas to China and South America and will be diesel. 

Unless the US breaks a 200 year old tradition and nationalizes the pipeline, and the refineries, and takes the product and sells it only in this country, it will not even help with energy independence. 

Like I have said before, while it may be a great boon to the Canadian bunch digging up the stuff, we will not even get the taxes on selling it. Why the big deal ? We take all the risk, we take all the pollution , and we get NONE of the benefits. 

Just why do you givae a tinkers damm one way or the other ? You and me don't have a single stick in that fire .

I don't think anyone denies that there are toxins in the tar sands, it is inherent in every hydrocarbon extraction process.  My premise in the this post is that the tar sands are going to be transport, essentially along the same routes, but by a method far more dangerous than the original proposal, and costlier as well.

Yes, but the report that our resident "thinks he is so smart " person is looking for , as well as some others I don't have at my fingertips, says that in order to pump this stuff thru a pipeline, they add "unknown" chemicals. Since they won't , or at least havent , disclosed what those chemicals are, the assumption is that they are extremely toxic. Hell , if it was just something like salt water, they would just tell us,.

seeweed,

You really need a continuity person to ensure you keep up with your arguments,

First, you stated: "but the crap they put in that sorry oil to enable it to be pumped across half a continent. They won't even state what those chemicals are."

"I would let you find proof of what you asserted, that there is NO toxic chemicals in that tar sands oil."

Two entirely different subjects -- can't you keep them straight.

Most likely, the tar sands oil will be mixed with natural gas concentrate to ensure a slurry that will slide down the pipeline.  The NG concentate will be processed with the tar sands oil to produce a number of useful product. 

The tar sands oil contains mercury, lead and ****nic -- nasty stuff, if not properly handled.  Venezuelan heavy oil contains the same heavy metals. The gulf refineries have processed Venezuelan oil for decades. Didn't you know this?

As to your statement, "Unless the US breaks a 200 year old tradition and nationalizes the pipeline, and the refineries, and takes the product."  Its not a statement, its the constitution. Truman tried to nationalize the steel mills -- the Supreme Court handed him his head and his rear end.

As to the route, "Change the route so that it does not go over the main feed line to the aquifer for the entire middle of the country,...."  I've posted a map of the proposed route with existing oil pipelines. There are hundreds of miles of such pipelines crisscrossing the aquafer, which have existed for decades.  That argument is a straw man, at best.

This verges upon the ridiculous.    

Still waiting on someone, anyone, to 'splain to me why we should give a damm about this pipeline one way or another. How would it help you , or me, unless we had direct shares of stock in this Canadian company. ?

seeweed,

There in is the problem.  For years we have sat idly by and "not given a dam(sp) while jobs and opportunities have left our s-h-o-r-e*s and taken jobs with them.  I know plenty of people who would love to have one of these "pipeline" jobs and there are many families who could be supported while construction is going on.  You should know most of these companies have intellectual property interests at stake and do not want to publically divulge the necessary measures required in order to do their jobs.  To do so, opens the door for the next company to come in and do the same thing without having to invest in the initial research it required to get to that point.  If the Keystone Pipeline only required a sand slurry mix to transport the tar sands, the environmentalists would still be opposing the project.  To say it only benefits the Canadiens is a lie since every person who works at these refineries will be receiving money to handle the product.  Taxes are collected on that money and it is spent in and around their homes.  It will also provide more oil in the system and cause speculation to decrease. There is no simple solution that says one thing will bring down the price of fuel, but every little bit helps.

I heard the "Nebraska farmer" who started this fight on the radio last week.  He only owns a little over 40 acres, and does not raise any amount of cattle.  Yet, his objections led to this debacle and has created far more controversy than it should have done.  There are already pipelines that cross these aquifers and in the 40 years of doing so there has never been a breach or accident that contaminated them.

So continue to "not give a dam(sp) and watch as jobs, even a few, go somewhere else.  Eventually the younger generation is this country will have no form of employment to turn to.  Of course, the government will be there with a handout...oh, but wait, where are they gonna get the money for that??

I answered seeweed's questions and objections.  Then, he changes the subject. Typical. I've posted the Ogallala aquifer map a number of times to counter liberal objections. Not one has responded with a counter argument -- reasoned, otherwise.

Once more:

http://www.keystonexlnebraska....eXL-Pipeline-Map.png

It is my understanding that d new and different route down to Cushing is being worked on and proposed, and if the EPA ok's it, then that is ok with me.

Tye made a good effort to explain why we should give a damm ( try spelling that word correctly and all you get is ****) , but again , why even at that , why this is such a political issue is still a mystry to me.

From the place where I was raised, I could throw a rock and it would land on a NG pipeline installed in the early 50s. I remember pretty well when they came thru building it. In a matter of days , they were gone. I'm sure the cafes in town got a few exctra bucks, and maybe a couple of nights in the local motels,., but there was no big flow of money into the town from this pipeline. Now, granted, that was almost 60 years ago, and it was natural gas, not oil . 

I can agree that a few thousahd (at most ) people will get employment from that, and that is good. From what I have read, about 50 more permanent  employees will be required at the refinery, and that is ok.

If I thought that our country would benefit in any substantial way from this, I may change my mind. However, the diesel is not even to be sold here, and I guess on a world wide basis, it may have a minor affect upon the price of diesel, but as I said, I see no substantial benefit from it. for our country. 

All that being said, the question to me is "why is this such a big political deal" ? .I can only think of a few plausible answers : 1.  somebody oil lobbyist is going to line some Republican pockets big time for the favor.  2> the Republicans can lie to the sheeple and tell them this will make their gas cost come down and that Obama is "for" higher gas prices.  3> And the most likely is both of the above,

Pretty good article today in Money.com about the pipeline:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/2.../index.htm?iid=HP_LN

The article interventor has been feaverously searching for that I spoke of the other day :

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/26/...-pipeline-isnt-built

 Yes, to change the subject a bit,

As to the price of oil , and therefore gasoline at the pump, have any of you considered the Iran problem and the relation to speculators. 

Speculators have run up the price of oil on the world market because of fears of what Iran may do.

We have 3 politicians right now on the stump all shouting that if they are elected president they would in effect , start war with Iran. This , of course, makes Iran uneasy, and starts the saber-ratteling . This gets the speculators excited and bids up the price of oil. 

Maybe if the rhetoric were toned down, and let diplomacy take it's normal course, Iran would not feel threatened, not rattle those sabers, and the speculators would loose their azz and the price of oil, and therefore gasoline, would come down.

Just sayin'

seeweed,

I think the jobs created thru drilling and installing pipe would be worthwhile.  Not to mention the security of work at the refineries.  As for the politcal issues, this issue was raised not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats and the environmentalists. The Greenies are wanting the Dem leadership to support their premise, and that is why the argument has gone forth.  That argument does not go over well in an environment where gas is approaching $4 a gallon.

I too agree that Iranian turmoil is causing the price to go up. To those who think Iran needs a nuclear program for peaceful reasons I would only ask why is a country that has unlimited oil/gas reserves, where gas is available at less than $0.20 a gallon, be willing to risk a war and bury a facility hundreds of feet underground, if they did not have an ulterior motive? The Isreali secret service is entrenched there and knows what is going on.  This is not a peaceful program and sooner or later it will have to be addressed.  let us hope it is not when a nuclear missile is winging its way toward Tel Aviv or Washington.

Today I hear Obama is now decided that there are parts of the pipeline he is going to go ahead and endorse.  I guess the heat got to much for him.  In relation to that report I saw oil drop almost $4 a barrell in less than 15 minutes.

Don't tell me I don't know what I am speaking of.....

Tye, I believe that if you check back, you will find that the real objections to the northern portion is the Nebraska Government, mostly Republicans who are , like me, concerned with it going over the sand hills region. . "Greenies" don't support it on the grounds that in Canada the mining of these sands is destroying much of the country, and the water, and that the oil is very dirty. I have a problem with any environment destroying venture, whether it is Cyprus Creek here, or great forrest in Canada, but , like most everybody else, I still burn gasoline, and diesel (although I do mix it with veg oil), so I am a guilty party in this as well.

Personally, although interventor has assured us all that there is no more possability of a leak in this pipeline than there is of a major oil spill in deep water drilling in the Gulf , the existing pipeline has had lots of problems and seems to be very pours , as one of those articles mentioned . 

If you think we have trouble now with the cost of gasoline, wait until we can't get water !  Interventer's assurances have not aleviated my concern about the part of the pipeline that would go over the area feeding the great aquifer that supplies all the water for the planes states where a lot of our food comes from,. Again, if gasoline shortage is a problem, wait until food shortage. 

Maybe I worry too much, but like I said, solve that problem and I have little concern one way or the other. 

As to the jobs , however many there would be, yes, they are worthwhile, but we should still guard our resources carefully.

Well, now they won't let me modify the damm thing. 

What I wanted to add was that everything in this country should no be about the bottom line of some company. There are some things worth more than whether some multi-billionaire oil executive makes 30 or 40 more billion dollars. There are even things worth more than whether Joe Schmoe can drive his damm gas guzzeling for a few dollars cheaper per fillup. 

There are just plain things more important in the world than this pipeline and however much money they will make selling tax free diesel to China and India.

According to the article link I posted from money.com, Obama has always supported the Southern part of the pipeline, but since it doesn't cross an international boundry, it dosen't really matter whether he supports it or not, unless Perry is successful in his secession of Texas from the US, then Obama would have to aprove it. 

I am reminded of Adam Smith attempting to explain changes in commerce during the Industrial Revolution to members of the House of Lords. At the time, Lords was composed of hereditary aristocrats and a dozen princes of the church -- mostly in-bred, ill educated, spoiled beings totally clueless in the business of business.  Hmm! On second thought, that does resemble liberal members of academia. 

Canada will ship their oil to refineries in the US.  The refineries buy the oil, Canadian companies profit and pay taxes to Canada.  The refineries process the oil into a number of useful products including gas, diesel fuel, kerosene (jet fuel), heating oil, plastics and asphalt. These products will be sold producing a profit. This profit will be taxed by the US, adding to US tax revenue.  People will be employed.  This includes personnel manning the pipeline, refinery employees, truck drivers delivering the refined products to their destinations. Some of the products will be used in the US, giving further employment. Other products will be shipped overseas – giving employment to people working at the harbors.  All these employees will buy things and pay taxes. US refineries import a relatively cheap natural resource, process the resource and turn it into a value added product. Value added products are the essence of modern commerce.

Liberals bring up the trade deficit, especially when railing against Wal-Mart.  About 60 percent of the deficit is for imported oil.  Selling the products overseas will decrease the deficit. Selling the products in the US will decrease the deficit.   

Seeweed's post:

"The article interventor has been feaverously (sic) searching for that I spoke of the other day :

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/26/...-pipeline-isnt-built"

Why would I be searching for this article?  It tell nothing that I needed, especially, the contents of the tar sands oil, or the additives to facilitate the oil thru the pipeline, which I already knew.

Seeweed’s post:

“Personally, although interventor has assured us all that there is no more possibility (sic) of a leak in this pipeline than there is of a major oil spill in deep water drilling in the Gulf , the existing pipeline has had lots of problems and seems to be very pours , (sic) as one of those articles mentioned . 

If you think we have trouble now with the cost of gasoline, wait until we can't get water !  Interventer's assurances have not aleviated (sic) my concern about the part of the pipeline that would go over the area feeding the great aquifer that supplies all the water for the planes states where a lot of our food comes from,. Again, if gasoline shortage is a problem, wait until food shortage.  Maybe I worry too much, but like I said, solve that problem and I have little concern one way or the other. “

No, I did not.  I pointed out that the aquifer is already crisscrossed with hundreds of miles of oil pipelines, even posted a map. 

Obviously, if there is a leak, the spill can be solved much simpler than the gulf oil spill. Instead of waiting weeks to maneuver an unmanned sub into position to stop the spill, the pipeline monitors will alert pump stations crews of a loss in pressure. Immediately, the crew can cut off the pump – stopping the spill.  Crews will travel to the leak, repair the rupture in the pipe (probably by placing a sleeve over the hole, shrinking the sleeve, and welding it in place).  The spilled oil and soil will be dug up and trucked to an incinerator.  As the oil is heavier than the light crude usually transported in the existing pipelines, it will not penetrate the soil as quickly.  Live steam will be pumped into the area to surface any remaining residue.  The Army uses this process to cleanse sites contaminated by oil (motor pools and tank farms) and worse.

After posting, you have about 10 minutes to edit the post.