myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37 ... 73, 74, 75  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 3407

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The product will make it to market via trucks, trains or pipeline. Personally, I favor pipelines over trucks or trains that go through town after town.

The pipeline will not only transport tar sands oil, but also bakken crude oil from North Dakota. Yes, to worldwide markets. But, this is our economic system. The US has operated on trade deficits for a generation. Doesn't an exported product have financial merit in reducing that imbalance?

As far as a revised EIS, Youwindsurf, I do not know. The Congress has decided to take on the approval to relieve the President from making the decision...bet he likes that. The problem with forcing a legislative decision is that it could try to circumvent some of the regulations. This wouldn't be desirable. I would much rather see this decision de-politicized.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good post You.
If one can't read it all, it makes a good point about the cost of gas in the Midwest.
The Canadians have proven in gov. testimony that one big benefit to Canada is the higher prices they can charge in the Midwest for fuel once they don't have to refine in there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9477

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"The US has operated on trade deficits for a generation. Doesn't an exported product have financial merit in reducing that imbalance? "


I have to question a strategy to lessen our trade deficit by exporting our natural resources offshore to be subsequently manufactured into more expensive finished goods that are ultimately targeted for US consumption. How does this address our increasing lack of manufacturing capability, to include the jobs that go with it? A good part of our economic malaise today and into the future is rooted in the offshoring of key manufacturing technologies, and with it, the potential for future innovation and development. It worries me greatly that many don't seem to recognize what's happening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 3407

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good point. Maybe it would actually contribute to trade imbalance.

But, aren't oil prices pretty much determined by world markets? And, wouldn't cheaper energy costs lead to reduced manufacturing costs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4570

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
Gybe wants me to prove that a Canadian pipeline is owned by foreigners.
Even simple facts confuse him, but his loyalties remain.

I am well aware that TransCanada is a Canadian corporation. I was not aware that Saudi Arabia is a big player in the Keystone Pipeline project. Please provide a citation. I would like to understand that better.

keycocker wrote:
The pipeline is owned by foreigners, big player Saudi Arabia. Building Keystone does not get us away from foreign oil, or Mideast interests..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you aware that The Saudis and Dutch are the intended refiners for most of the crude?
Did you know that part of the plan was to raise gas prices in the Midwest?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 3407

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/

There is little evidence that the pipeline would affect fuel prices in the midwest.

Keycocker, my understanding is that the pipeline could also be part of a transport system for the North Dakota oil. Is this not true?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4570

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
Are you aware that The Saudis and Dutch are the intended refiners for most of the crude?

When you provide a citation to support your assertion that Saudi Arabia has a large ownership share of the Keystone pipeline project, will you please also provide a citation to demonstrate that they and the Dutch will refine most of the Keystone crude. I familiar with Motiva, which, as I'm sure you are aware, doesn't have the capacity to handle most of the Keystone crude. So there must be something else I'm of which I am unaware. Grateful if you could enlighten me. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Motiva just added huge facilities designed to process that very heavy crude making them the largest refinery at the end of the line, the largest refinery in America, and the sixth largest in the world. They have announced plans to become the largest refiner in the world soon.
Keystone oil plays an important role in that plan.
You are welcome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4570

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm very familiar with that facility. It is the now largest refinery in the US and was upgraded specifically to handle heavy Saudi crudes. It is capable of handling heavy Canadian crude but, contrary to your assertion, there are no plans to do so in large volumes.

"Saudi Aramco’s investment in the refinery expansion is meant to ensure that Saudi Arabia will retain an important market for its crude in the United States at a time when American politicians are declaring their intention to wean the country off imported oil............Saudi Arabia has been able to tap into its spare capacity, mostly lower-quality heavy sour crudes, to stretch its exports. Most refineries cannot easily process those crude oils, but the expanded Motiva refinery here can, freeing other Saudi grades for other markets. “The Saudis are securing a home for their heavy crude,” said Fadel Gheit, a senior oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/business/texas-refinery-is-saudi-foothold-in-us-market.html?pagewanted=all

So, to summarize, your assertion that most of the Keystone crude will be refined by he Saudi/ Dutch was flat out wrong......as is your assertion that Saudi Arabia has a large ownership stake in Keystone project. They do not. Seems I'm not the only one confused by simple facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37 ... 73, 74, 75  Next
Page 36 of 75

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group