Senate Republicans Block Keystone Export and Steel Amendment

[DSUrocks07]

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!"

I've also seen reports that this would have a nominal impact on gas prices.

[DSUrocks07]

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.

Based on some of the comments here, no, no we do not.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the poli-board represents a good cross-section of the state of America today

[kalm]

I've also seen reports that this would have a nominal impact on gas prices.

And what's that explaining?

[SDHornet]

And what's that explaining?

It's numbers on a picture, don't question it.

[DSUrocks07]

And what's that explaining?

How much of each barrel (on average) is used for which purpose (i.e. not just gasoline).

A different version showing the same concept:

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/wh ... l_oil.html

[travelinman67]

And what's that explaining?

It's numbers on a picture, don't question it.

They total 44.6 gallons.

??

Where did the remainder go?

I figure 10 gallons sit atop NJ/Long Island guidos heads, the remaining 4/10ths go to Julian's butt lube.

[DSUrocks07]

And what's that explaining?

It's numbers on a picture, don't question it.

[DSUrocks07]

It's numbers on a picture, don't question it.

They total 44.6 gallons.

??

Where did the remainder go?

I figure 10 gallons sit atop NJ/Long Island guidos heads, the remaining 4/10ths go to Julian's butt lube.

TIL the actual amount of a "barrel of oil" is 42 gallons.

http://aoghs.org/transportation/history ... il-barrel/

EDIT: the 55 gallon drum is due to thinner walls of the barrels, those were first manufactured in 1998. Interesting that an official government website (albeit California) would still use the 42 gallon measurement.

I wonder if the discrepancy is part of where that the "we're running out of oil" crowd gets their sources from. That 13 gallons per barrel makes a BIG difference when you get into the millions of barrels count.

[travelinman67]

They total 44.6 gallons.

??

Where did the remainder go?

I figure 10 gallons sit atop NJ/Long Island guidos heads, the remaining 4/10ths go to Julian's butt lube.

TIL the actual amount of a "barrel of oil" is 42 gallons.

http://aoghs.org/transportation/history ... il-barrel/

Where did the additional 2.6 gallons come from.

I figure 2 gallons came from atop the heads of guidos...

[DSUrocks07]

TIL the actual amount of a "barrel of oil" is 42 gallons.

http://aoghs.org/transportation/history ... il-barrel/

Where did the additional 2.6 gallons come from.

I figure 2 gallons came from atop the heads of guidos...

That image was from this website:

http://lavicorp.com/products/barrel.htm

Every other similar image I've come across uses the same 44.6 gallon measurement.

[SDHornet]

It's numbers on a picture, don't question it.

[BDKJMU]

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.

You're an idiot.
1/22:
"National gas average at $2.04 today,"
http://www.timesleader.com/news/local-n ... January-22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

35 permanent jobs is the low end of the estimate. And that doesn't say anything of the thousands of construction jobs.

[BDKJMU]

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...

He is..Hey, wasn't that other retard on here from Illinois also? The 6.93 one?

[BDKJMU]

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?

Let em spill in their own house.

So we shouldn't build it because its only thousands of temporary construction jobs? Using that logic we:
-shouldn't build any bridges, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any new roads, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any buildings, because those are temporary construction jobs.

[DSUrocks07]

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?

Let em spill in their own house.

So we shouldn't build it because its only thousands of temporary construction jobs? Using that logic we:
-shouldn't build any bridges, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any new roads, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any buildings, because those are temporary construction jobs.

Remember back when the "stimulus" was the grratest thing Obama did ever, and that we were gonna invest in our infrastructure "finally" and it was gonna create all these jobs? GoBama?

[Baldy]

So we shouldn't build it because its only thousands of temporary construction jobs? Using that logic we:
-shouldn't build any bridges, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any new roads, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any buildings, because those are temporary construction jobs.

Remember back when the "stimulus" was the grratest thing Obama did ever, and that we were gonna invest in our infrastructure "finally" and it was gonna create all these jobs? GoBama?

Shovel ready.

[SDHornet]

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?

Let em spill in their own house.

So we shouldn't build it because its only thousands of temporary construction jobs? Using that logic we:
-shouldn't build any bridges, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any new roads, because those are temporary construction jobs.
-shouldn't build any buildings, because those are temporary construction jobs.

This. Anyone arguing the economic “angle” for a reason NOT to build this just shows how fucking retarded they are. These “temporary” jobs needed to construct this project are high skill, high (well good at least) wage jobs that will most likely be union gigs. Heavy equipment operators, pipe fitters, welders, etc, basically depend on these “temporary” jobs to support their families. Then there are the construction managers, engineers, and other management level personnel who would be employed to make sure the project is done right. Then the bigger impact are all the truck drivers, gravel pit workers, steel and pipe manufacturing jobs, etc that actually get the materials and products to the actual construction site. But yeah, only a few dozen “permanent” jobs so let’s not even bother with this.

Having said that there are legitimate environmental concerns to be hashed out…almost all of which can be handled with increased design standards that can significantly reduce the risk for spills, breaks, leaks, etc.