Keystone

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 5:59 AM GMT
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283442/pipeline-sellout-charles-krauthammer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 6:07 AM GMT



    And then, there's this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/14/canada-china-investment-oil-sands
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 6:44 AM GMT
    If for no other reason, and I have many, I’d vote for someone other than Obama just because of this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 7:05 AM GMT


    Report: Keystone XL job claims are exaggeratedthe construction of Keystone XL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 7:17 AM GMT
    I wonder how many jobs are destroyed when every time the economy starts to improve a bit and oil increase about $50 per barrel, thanks to OPEC?

    And he does this to appease the global warming ninnies, but given the fact that this oil is going to come out of the ground and its going to go somewhere, and that somewhere is likely to be India or China. So those who are concerned about global warming, and I assume everyone calls it global warming for a reason because if true, it is global, not just confined to North America, one would wonder who could burn it cleaner, the USA or China or India.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 8:26 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidI wonder how many jobs are destroyed when every time the economy starts to improve a bit and oil increase about $50 per barrel, thanks to OPEC?

    And he does this to appease the global warming ninnies, but given the fact that this oil is going to come out of the ground and its going to go somewhere, and that somewhere is likely to be India or China. So those who are concerned about global warming, and I assume everyone calls it global warming for a reason because if true, it is global, not just confined to North America, one would wonder who could burn it cleaner, the USA or China or India.


    Hahaha that's cute. You think OPEC sets the price of oil.

    Oil is a COMMODITY. The price is set by the Commodities Market. Primarily by gamblers speculating on contracts for future oil deliveries. Many of these speculators have neither the means nor the intention to actually take delivery of the oil they buy, only to sell again before the delivery actually comes due. They add nothing to the value while driving up the cost for everyone else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 3:08 PM GMT
    intentsman said
    freedomisntfree saidI wonder how many jobs are destroyed when every time the economy starts to improve a bit and oil increase about $50 per barrel, thanks to OPEC?

    And he does this to appease the global warming ninnies, but given the fact that this oil is going to come out of the ground and its going to go somewhere, and that somewhere is likely to be India or China. So those who are concerned about global warming, and I assume everyone calls it global warming for a reason because if true, it is global, not just confined to North America, one would wonder who could burn it cleaner, the USA or China or India.


    Hahaha that's cute. You think OPEC sets the price of oil.

    Oil is a COMMODITY. No shit
    The price is set by the Commodities Market. Primarily by gamblers speculating on contracts for future oil deliveries. Many of these speculators have neither the means nor the intention to actually take delivery of the oil they buy, only to sell again before the delivery actually comes due. They add nothing to the value while driving up the cost for everyone else.


    Hahaha that’s cute. You think OPEC doesn’t attempt to set production limits/quota/whatever you’d like to call them on their members, which does what to the commodities markets?

    The expectations of more oil coming on the market does what to price? No need to wait for the pipeline to finish, but either the expectation or reality of more supply does what to prices? Economy starts to recover so there’s the expectation of more demand so prices do what? More oil coming from friendly sources give OPEC less control on the ability to choke supply. Very simple really
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Nov 19, 2011 3:33 PM GMT
    Try to be a bit more informed guys - both Obama lovers and haters -
    1. Transcanada has now said they are willing to consider other routes to have the Keystone pipeline avoid the fragile aquifer sands areas in the upper midwest.
    2. If we don't take the oil, China will, and nothing good can come of that. Canada is going to sell the oil to someone, whether we take it or not.
    3. The more oil we develop locally, the less we have to import from the mideast.
    4. With the new oil finds in the Dakotas, the USA can become totally independent of mideast oil. (There's a reason there is zero unemployment in North Dakota, and it isn;t because lots of crackers have suddenly found that they love 20-below winter days.) The tar sands oil from Canada only adds to the total that does not have to be imported by sea from the Mideast. Let the eurpoeans deal with the islamic terrorists instead of us.
    5. To the enviornmental fanatics, like it or not, the USA is going to continue to burn oil for a long time, no matter how much solar and wind we might develop. We should probably develop our abundant (greenhouse gas somewhat friendlier) natural gas instead as a substitute for oil, but we won't, because both Obama and congress (bought and paid for by the so enviornmentally friendly coal industry) aren't interested.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 3:53 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidTry to be a bit more informed guys - both Obama lovers and haters - ...

    All good points.

    I was going to start a thread on this based on reports that both the NY Times and the Washington Post had articles stating the decision was postponed for political reasons. I could google and see excerpts from the NY Times to this effect, but apparently it was removed from their site.

    I haven't been able to find the specific back-up I would normally provide, but this is from some reports I heard:

    1) Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago made the determination that his best course was to punt until after the election - similar to his history of voting present.

    2) Extensive studies had indicated any adverse environmental impacts would be negligible.

    You can argue about the extent of new jobs, but it is clear that this source would lessen our dependence on oil from other countries.

    It is my opinion that Obama is driven by two things:

    1) His dislike for oil versus green sources, despite overwhelming evidence that we will use oil for many years. He is willing to see us hurt because of our use of oil.

    2) Purely political reasons, similar to the troop pull-out timetables.

    To me, it is clear that not only is he a failure as a President, but he is fundamentally a bad person with a lousy character. Clearly puts himself ahead of the country, and I hope despite close polls now, after the Republicans get a nominee, all effort will be applied to making this clear, so that even his $1 B campaign fund will not overcome this. He deserves to be soundly defeated to the point of humiliation to demonstrate that character still counts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 4:37 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidTry to be a bit more informed guys - both Obama lovers and haters -
    1. Transcanada has now said they are willing to consider other routes to have the Keystone pipeline avoid the fragile aquifer sands areas in the upper midwest.
    2. If we don't take the oil, China will, and nothing good can come of that. Canada is going to sell the oil to someone, whether we take it or not.
    3. The more oil we develop locally, the less we have to import from the mideast.
    4. With the new oil finds in the Dakotas, the USA can become totally independent of mideast oil. (There's a reason there is zero unemployment in North Dakota, and it isn;t because lots of crackers have suddenly found that they love 20-below winter days.) The tar sands oil from Canada only adds to the total that does not have to be imported by sea from the Mideast. Let the eurpoeans deal with the islamic terrorists instead of us.
    5. To the enviornmental fanatics, like it or not, the USA is going to continue to burn oil for a long time, no matter how much coal and wind we might develop. We should probably develop our abundant (greenhouse gas somewhat friendlier) natural gas instead as a substitute for oil, but we won't, because both Obama and congress (bought and paid for by the so enviornmentally friendly coal industry) aren't interested.


    All correct. "If we don't take the oil, China will" and since it will be used anyway, I'd be willing to bet that we'll burn it a little cleaner than China or India.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 4:58 PM GMT

    You guys really need to do your homework. Yeesh.

    Here's a little history for you:

    "Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, who must approve Keystone XL (because it crosses the border), has said she is “inclined” to do so; and 39 Republican members of Congress have written a letter asking her to support it. But the pipeline is meeting opposition. The governor of Nebraska, one of the states along the route, and one of its senators, both Republicans, have expressed concern."


    and this, "No self-respecting oil major has let a position in the tar sands pass by. A flock of national oil companies has joined them, led since 2005 by China’s state-controlled firms. "

    "Chinese oil companies would happily take delivery, might be less fickle customers than the southern neighbours and might help Canada fulfil Mr Harper’s dream of energy superpowerdom."


    The above quotes are from The Economist. Mr Harper is a Conservative.





    Now go tell your pal Riddler with his manufacturing co in China why China shouldn't get the oil.

    btw, the US can't 'take the oil' . It's business, and it goes to whoever is willing to pay what the market will bear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2011 5:09 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    You guys really need to do your homework. Yeesh.

    Here's a little history for you:

    "Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, who must approve Keystone XL (because it crosses the border), has said she is “inclined” to do so; and 39 Republican members of Congress have written a letter asking her to support it. But the pipeline is meeting opposition. The governor of Nebraska, one of the states along the route, and one of its senators, both Republicans, have expressed concern."

    I understand NIMBYs. I deal with it all the time in my business.

    and this, "No self-respecting oil major has let a position in the tar sands pass by. A flock of national oil companies has joined them, led since 2005 by China’s state-controlled firms. "

    "Chinese oil companies would happily take delivery, might be less fickle customers than the southern neighbours and might help Canada fulfil Mr Harper’s dream of energy superpowerdom."


    The above quotes are from The Economist. Mr Harper is a Conservative.





    Now go tell your pal Riddler with his manufacturing co in China why China shouldn't get the oil.

    btw, the US can't 'take the oil' So you'd feel better if I said receive the oil? Or buy the oil? I really do think you knew exactly what I meant. . It's business, and it goes to whoever is willing to pay what the market will bear.