Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

ASUG8 wrote:So we can (a) allow the pipeline, get some jobs, and get some of the profits from either domestic use or export, or (b) let the Canadians reroute the pipeline to Vancouver, capture the entire supply chain, jobs, and profits and still sell it to China to "pollute our country"?

What's the better option?

ASUG8 wrote:So we can (a) allow the pipeline, get some jobs, and get some of the profits from either domestic use or export, or (b) let the Canadians reroute the pipeline to Vancouver, capture the entire supply chain, jobs, and profits and still sell it to China to "pollute our country"?

What's the better option?

kalm wrote:Meanwhile, envirowacko's sabotage another pipeline in NoDak.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... -oil-patch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:So we can (a) allow the pipeline, get some jobs, and get some of the profits from either domestic use or export, or (b) let the Canadians reroute the pipeline to Vancouver, capture the entire supply chain, jobs, and profits and still sell it to China to "pollute our country"?

What's the better option?

That would require the pipeline going over the Rocky Mountains, with deep snow in the winter (think WORSE than the Going to the Sun road). Not a viable option.

Ibanez wrote:After reading the article, this is just the Dems and the Reps screwing with each other. There are strict export laws in place, the builder has procured 52% of the materials and they are US made, etc... Good job Dems, you're acting like dicks.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:After reading the article, this is just the Dems and the Reps screwing with each other. There are strict export laws in place, the builder has procured 52% of the materials and they are US made, etc... Good job Dems, you're acting like dicks.

Quoted for emphasis.

travelinman67 wrote:

Baldy wrote: Quoted for emphasis.

Exactly. Political theater.

Dback is just acting on his Media Matters "Today's Action for Operatives" email.

Take your pill. Do as they told you.

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

That would require the pipeline going over the Rocky Mountains, with deep snow in the winter (think WORSE than the Going to the Sun road). Not a viable option.

And the First Nations adamantly oppose it.

ASUG8 wrote:So we can (a) allow the pipeline, get some jobs, and get some of the profits from either domestic use or export, or (b) let the Canadians reroute the pipeline to Vancouver, capture the entire supply chain, jobs, and profits and still sell it to China to "pollute our country"?

What's the better option?

andy7171 wrote:Warren Buffett owns the railroad that moves the oil by train for $30 a barrel, today. The pipeline would move it for $10/ barrel, if built. That is why Obama is against it.

houndawg wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Warren Buffett owns the railroad that moves the oil by train for $30 a barrel, today. The pipeline would move it for $10/ barrel, if built. That is why Obama is against it.

Gas is $1.80/gal. Let the Canadians poison their own territory. That's the only reason they want to run it through the US and not to Vancouver.

Like Jon said:

Canadian oil/Canadian profit

Chinese materials/ Chinese markets

American risk/ 35 permanent jobs.

Conk congress slopping Chinese knobs.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Gas is $1.80/gal. Let the Canadians poison their own territory. That's the only reason they want to run it through the US and not to Vancouver.

Like Jon said:

Canadian oil/Canadian profit

Chinese materials/ Chinese markets

American risk/ 35 permanent jobs.

Conk congress slopping Chinese knobs.

You do realize that that "poisonous oil" will still be transported across the United States by truck and rail lines, right? You can't be that dense...

houndawg wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
You do realize that that "poisonous oil" will still be transported across the United States by truck and rail lines, right? You can't be that dense...

It won't be running its entire path along one of the countries largest aquifers.

Why don't the Canadians ship it through Canada instead of the US? Really, what's in this for us? Some temporary construction jobs? Couple of dozen permanent jobs?

"If we do the math, we’re talking half a million to a million dollars a day of cost advantage,” Gheit said. “The pipeline will cut the transportation cost by more than half."

The switch to piped crude is also expected to create excess capacity in rail cars, whose numbers have risen sharply in recent years to take surging crude supplies from Canada and the Bakken field to U.S. refineries.

The changeover will temporarily cause disruption while the rail industry looks for new customers, Gheit said, and that may mean lower transportation rates for makers of other commodities because of the large number of available rail cars.

"It will reduce rail shipment costs because you will have more capacity," he said.

Rob Desai, an analyst at Edward Jones, predicted the main casualty of the pipeline will be overseas exporters of heavy crude, such as Mexico and Venezuela, whose supplies would be offset by the piped oil from Canada.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
It won't be running its entire path along one of the countries largest aquifers.

Why don't the Canadians ship it through Canada instead of the US? Really, what's in this for us? Some temporary construction jobs? Couple of dozen permanent jobs?

Transports it to the gulf coast, one of the largest oil refinery infrastructures in the world.

Also it would have a LOT more impact than just "30 permanent jobs"

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12945358 ... roved.html

"If we do the math, we’re talking half a million to a million dollars a day of cost advantage,” Gheit said. “The pipeline will cut the transportation cost by more than half."

The switch to piped crude is also expected to create excess capacity in rail cars, whose numbers have risen sharply in recent years to take surging crude supplies from Canada and the Bakken field to U.S. refineries.

The changeover will temporarily cause disruption while the rail industry looks for new customers, Gheit said, and that may mean lower transportation rates for makers of other commodities because of the large number of available rail cars.

"It will reduce rail shipment costs because you will have more capacity," he said.

Rob Desai, an analyst at Edward Jones, predicted the main casualty of the pipeline will be overseas exporters of heavy crude, such as Mexico and Venezuela, whose supplies would be offset by the piped oil from Canada.

Saying that we "don't need it" because you're paying $1.80 a gal is very short sighted.

For the side of the aisle that claims to be all about efficiency and newer, faster, cheaper ways of doing things, the left sure like to be stuck in the past. "Transporting by rail and truck is better!", "automated checkout in stores take away jobs!"

DSUrocks07 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
It won't be running its entire path along one of the countries largest aquifers.

Why don't the Canadians ship it through Canada instead of the US? Really, what's in this for us? Some temporary construction jobs? Couple of dozen permanent jobs?

Transports it to the gulf coast, one of the largest oil refinery infrastructures in the world.

Also it would have a LOT more impact than just "30 permanent jobs"

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12945358 ... roved.html

"If we do the math, we’re talking half a million to a million dollars a day of cost advantage,” Gheit said. “The pipeline will cut the transportation cost by more than half."

The switch to piped crude is also expected to create excess capacity in rail cars, whose numbers have risen sharply in recent years to take surging crude supplies from Canada and the Bakken field to U.S. refineries.

The changeover will temporarily cause disruption while the rail industry looks for new customers, Gheit said, and that may mean lower transportation rates for makers of other commodities because of the large number of available rail cars.

"It will reduce rail shipment costs because you will have more capacity," he said.

Rob Desai, an analyst at Edward Jones, predicted the main casualty of the pipeline will be overseas exporters of heavy crude, such as Mexico and Venezuela, whose supplies would be offset by the piped oil from Canada.

Saying that we "don't need it" because you're paying $1.80 a gal is very short sighted.

For the side of the aisle that claims to be all about efficiency and newer, faster, cheaper ways of doing things, the left sure like to be stuck in the past. "Transporting by rail and truck is better!", "automated checkout in stores take away jobs!"

SDHornet wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
Transports it to the gulf coast, one of the largest oil refinery infrastructures in the world.

Also it would have a LOT more impact than just "30 permanent jobs"

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12945358 ... roved.html



Saying that we "don't need it" because you're paying $1.80 a gal is very short sighted.

For the side of the aisle that claims to be all about efficiency and newer, faster, cheaper ways of doing things, the left sure like to be stuck in the past. "Transporting by rail and truck is better!", "automated checkout in stores take away jobs!"

Article fail, it has been stated that this oil will only go through the US IF the pipeline is built. Clearly something doesn't add up.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Article fail, it has been stated that this oil will only go through the US IF the pipeline is built. Clearly something doesn't add up.

Keyword "this", do you think that we don't get a single drop of Canadian oil right now?

If it gets blocked by the State Department then it would be more cost effective to pipe it through to Vancouver, than to increase the number of trucks and rail cars going down to the Gulf. But obviously Keystone XL is the primary option. It would also hasten the development of the Western Canadian oil fields as a more viable source.