Keystone XL Pipeline Yea or Ne - Page 4 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Keystone XL Pipeline Yea or Ne

View Poll Results: Are you for the Keystone?

Yes

111 52.11%

75 35.21%

Need more info

27 12.68%

...

Page 4 of 28

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last

Page 4 of 28

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 24

Last

01-12-2012 , 07:59 PM

#76

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Could you explain this?

Refining in Free Trade Zones:

Quote:

Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation’s top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline’s capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

Quote:

Finally, the Motiva, Total and Valero refineries in Port Arthur are within a Foreign Trade Zone, meaning they are exempt from customs duties on imports and exports as well as various state and local taxes.19 This amounts to a sizeable subsidy to the oil industry to export refined oil products.

Quote:

Not only is Valero increasing U.S. imports of oil and gasoline, but it will also avoid paying tax while doing so. The Port Arthur refinery operates as a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ), which traditionally gives tax benefits to companies that use imported components to manufacture items within the United States.27 Usually refineries importing oil tax-free will still pay taxes when selling the refined products into the U.S. market. By both importing into and exporting from Port Arthur the company will avoid paying tax on the product sales.

In sum, Valero appears to have positioned its Port Arthur refinery with a captive supply into a tax-haven where it refines product not for the United States, but for foreign markets. Only the pollution stays behind.

Report: Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed (pdf)

01-12-2012 , 08:12 PM

#77

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

How in the world is that an argument against keystone xl and not an argument against bad tax policy?

01-12-2012 , 08:30 PM

#78

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

How in the world is that an argument against keystone xl and not an argument against bad tax policy?

It's both.

Still waiting on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

ikestoys, do you have any sort of evidence backing up your claim that prices aren't going up in the midwest if this pipeline is built? I haven't seen a single source refuting that claim.

Or do you admit that you have no evidence whatsoever?

01-12-2012 , 08:31 PM

#79

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Dude increased supply lowers prices. It's not terribly complicated.

And no, it's not. It's a complete distraction.

01-12-2012 , 08:57 PM

#80

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Dude increased supply lowers prices. It's not terribly complicated.

Dude if you could cheaply teleport Maine lobsters they wouldn't be so cheap in Maine.

Does that make any sense to you?

Yes we get your point about supply. But as usual you're ignoring the point that you have no idea if the increase in supply will offset the increase in ease of transport to areas with more demand.

01-12-2012 , 09:01 PM

#81

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Dude if you could cheaply teleport Maine lobsters they wouldn't be so cheap in Maine.

Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, but apparently you don't. The pipeline won't magically transport gas to china. It will still cost a ton more to transport it overseas.

01-12-2012 , 09:05 PM

#82

jsnipes28

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 9,695

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

No - I'm saying show me an alternative method of transporting oil that results in less oil spilled per gallon moved (shipping tankers might actually beat pipelines - but I can't see how to utilize them when moving oil from Alberta).

The point of comparing 40K gallons to 5 tanker trucks is that it seems likely to me that we have at least that many accidents with tanker trucks when moving the same amount of oil as the pipeline.

Edit: I mean seriously - people that hand wring over the environmental cost of oil don't seem to have actual practical solutions.

to start, that doesn't invalidate their concerns.

your comparing gallons to tanker trucks also fails to take into consideration the fact that spilling oil into an aquifer, river, sound etc is a lot worse than spilling onto a highway or wherever these truck spills are occurring.

01-12-2012 , 09:06 PM

#83

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsnipes28

Highways go over rivers and aquifers as well last time I checked.

01-12-2012 , 09:07 PM

#84

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Dude increased supply lowers prices. It's not terribly complicated.

And no, it's not. It's a complete distraction.

Apparently, for you it is too complicated.

When the XL Pipeline decreases supply in the Midwest and in the USA, which it will, then price goes up, right?

Even jjshabado agrees to this, which is why he asked you for evidence otherwise, of which you have none. EDIT: actually, I just googled and there is evidence (statements) from TransCanada and a Republican rep from Mississippi who say what you are saying.

Wait, you're the guy who said Romney had no chance in 2012, that McCain would win in 2008, and that the 2008 recession was no big deal, right? Didn't I read that in another thread? You also said that Obama just wants to raise oil price for AGW, even though he tapped the SPR. All false statements and all GOP talking points.

Your track record sucks. Why am I arguing with you? Have a nice night. I think Bill O'Reilly is on now.

Last edited by Klinker; 01-12-2012 at 09:13 PM.

01-12-2012 , 09:11 PM

#85

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Yes, but apparently you don't. The pipeline won't magically transport gas to china. It will still cost a ton more to transport it overseas.

OK, but if someone ships a ton of lobsters to Europe despite the cost of shipping because they can still sell the lobsters at a profit, then the price of lobsters in Maine goes up.

01-12-2012 , 09:12 PM

#86

jsnipes28

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 9,695

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Highways go over rivers and aquifers as well last time I checked.

lol!

01-12-2012 , 09:27 PM

#87

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

OK, but if someone ships a ton of lobsters to Europe despite the cost of shipping because they can still sell the lobsters at a profit, then the price of lobsters in Maine goes up.

Dude, that's not what's happening. We both know that.

01-12-2012 , 09:32 PM

#88

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

The bottom-line is this:

Quote:

First of all, you do realize that the USA is now a net-exporter of fuel, right?

...which is a new development, first time the USA has been a net-exporter of fuel since Harry Truman, and a result of decreased demand and a glut of oil in the Midwest due to increased shale production in North Dakota and Texas, increased fuel economy standards nationwide, and increased demand in Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

Quote:

• Gasoline demand is declining due to increasing vehicle efficiency and slow economic growth;

• As a result of stagnant demand and the rise in both domestic and Canadian oil production, there is a glut of oil in the U.S. market;

• Refiners have therefore identified export markets as their primary hope for growth and maximum profits;

• The shale surge and the glut of oil is driving the oil industry to adapt America’s petroleum transportation structure to a completely new reality: oil and fuel moving from the heartland to the coasts, instead of the other way round.

Report: Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

01-12-2012 , 09:41 PM

#89

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

If you redefine "fuel" in your arguments above to "oil/oil products" we are a huge net importer. You recognize that, right? Cause those arguments above seem to be highly misleading with the proper context. We are nowhere near energy independent.

01-12-2012 , 09:55 PM

#90

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Highways go over rivers and aquifers as well last time I checked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsnipes28

lol!

Why is that lol? Its the right answer. It's not like the pipeline is just being built in the middle of rivers and lakes trying to tail precious water ways as much as possible.

And I'm not arguing that the route should avoid those areas as much as possible.

01-12-2012 , 09:57 PM

#91

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Yes, but apparently you don't. The pipeline won't magically transport gas to china. It will still cost a ton more to transport it overseas.

But not a ton more to ship it to the Gulf refineries. We're talking about a localized price increase and overall price decrease. It's just that the delta in supply is much more significant in the small area of the midwest than the area served by the gulf refineries.

01-12-2012 , 10:03 PM

#92

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

A leak is not a leak? It's something else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

It's a matter of degree.

Great! You answered your own question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

The decision has been delayed over one year, but you seem to think we should not take time to get the decision right here.

Really? Where do I say that? I think there are good arguments against the pipeline and poor arguments against the pipeline. Most of the ones I've heard on this forum have been extremely poor - or at least poor once you realize that our current way of life depends on having lots of oil in lots of places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

Like I said, Good Luck building a pipeline over the Rockies. It would be much easier to lay pipe across the Great Plains, across our Breadbasket, and to the Gulf for export to other countries, all while raising crude, fuel and food costs for us.

I though we both already agreed that the two pipelines are independent. So, uh, what are you getting at. And I'm not sure why you think this pipeline is going to be significantly more complex than building roads and power lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

The fact is that American oil and fuel consumption, due to higher fuel economy standards and alternative energies, has been declining and that does not bode well for the Canadian loon and economy.

JFC, Canada's economy dipped into recession just last year when oil went down to $70. One trick pony ftw. Push your dirty oil on someone else.

Lol, nice trolling. You should compare the Canadian economy to other industrialized economies. We're doing fine even without oil. And its not like oil isn't going to be valuable for awhile longer...

01-12-2012 , 11:03 PM

#93

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Lol, nice trolling. You should compare the Canadian economy to other industrialized economies. We're doing fine even without oil. And its not like oil isn't going to be valuable for awhile longer...

Ok, I couldn't resist a little similar trolling after I saw this article:

Canada's Austerity Lessons for the U.K.:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...828589248.html

Maybe the US could learn something too...

01-13-2012 , 12:22 AM

#94

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Look, I am probably still just sore that Crosby got so ****ing lucky in overtime last year. Thank God for the Bruins though!!

I'm too tired to read much more, but I leave you with one last troll which you can blame on d-bag Crosby and Team Canada:

Summit discusses Canada's status as energy hog June 20, 2011

Quote:

Television host Steve Paikin, who was taping his popular TV Ontario talk show from the Summit, remarked that “Canadians sadly are known as the worst energy pigs in the world.”

lol

Seriously though, you seem reasonable, and I realize that you need to sell your oil, but I think the XL Pipeline deal should ensure that the USA does not take it up the ass in the process.

Why don't you build a bunch of nuke plants and sell us the electricity and store the spent fuel up North and take the risks of a meltdown? Sound like a good deal to you? Sounds great to me as we get cheap and clean energy from our buddies and sucky hockey players up North....lol...how's that for trolling??

01-13-2012 , 12:32 AM

#95

cres

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 10,334

East coast bias there. Out West here, we got more clean energy than we know what to do with. Coupled with all the fresh clean water, because we haven't allowed our reservoirs to slowly and steadily get depleted.

01-13-2012 , 01:43 AM

#96

Bluffzorz

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,411

no. In the grand scheme of things destroying land for this stupid pipe won't change anything.

01-13-2012 , 06:38 AM

#97

lozen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 24,807

I am surprised that no one has brought up the environmental impact of bringing oil from the Middle East over Canada. So tankers don't sink or leak? Was there no environmental impact of the Gulf War?

Reality is until we give up our 4x4's, Hummers and Escalades we will be oil whores. The USA does not have to worry about the stability of CDN oil unlike the Middle East