Senate Republicans Block Keystone Export and Steel Amendment

[dbackjon]

So the GOP wants Canadian Oil, built with Chinese Steel, and then exported to Asia to pollute our country.


Makes perfect sense.


We are screwed with the GOP in power.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-2 ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Senate Republicans blocked two attempts to amend legislation forcing approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would have required the project be built with domestically produced steel and that the oil be used in the U.S.

With polls showing Americans support Keystone, Democrats had used the amendments Tuesday to undermine the pipeline’s purported benefits to the U.S. They argue that the oil from Alberta is destined for overseas markets and that the case for Keystone as a job creator is over-hyped.

[Cap'n Cat]

Dirtiest fucking oil in the world, too.


"Scrubbing" it pre-market accounts for 60% of the cost. Silting of pipes, corrosion, wear. Fuck, they'll be rebuilding the goddamn thing every 7 years.



WAIT, DUH!!!! THERE'S ALL THE CONK JOBS!!!!!!!! :





FRACK, BABY, FRACK!!!!!!

[ASUG8]

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?

[Ibanez]

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.

[kalm]

Meanwhile, envirowacko's sabotage another pipeline in NoDak.

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

[Cap'n Cat]

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?

Conks are saying the oil's staying in America (at least in North America), but it ain't. It's going on the market. AND they're claiming a jobs BONANZA. It ain't.

More Conk dishonesty. Let Canada reroute it.

[dbackjon]

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.

[dbackjon]

Meanwhile, envirowacko's sabotage another pipeline in NoDak.

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

What's 3 million gallons of brine among friends???

[kalm]

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.

And the First Nations adamantly oppose it.

[Baldy]

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.

[andy7171]

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.

[travelinman67]

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.

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.

[Ibanez]

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.

If it were real theater, we'd be breaking out these...

[DSUrocks07]

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.

So its Keystone or bust then right?

Or are we just going to bury our heads in the sand and act like everything in the world is dependent on what America decides or does?

[houndawg]

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?

You left out (c) and sooner or later poison the Ogalala aquifer, the nations third largest.

[houndawg]

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.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone thinks that makes the Republicans look bad.

[JohnStOnge]

It's just a pipeline. There are pipelines all over the place. Life has gone on pretty darned well with pipelines all over the place. There are accidents that have impacts but they have been minimal. It's routine stuff. This thing of making like this pipeline is this HUGE threat is ridiculous.

[DSUrocks07]

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 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]

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...

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.

[DSUrocks07]

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?

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]

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!"

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.

[kalm]

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!"

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

[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!"

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.

[SDHornet]

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.

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