Ms. Spam Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 GOP freaks out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Krawlie Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Is anyone even remotely surprised by this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The media is going to go apes**t where I'm from - Alberta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 This is something I actually agree with the GOP on. The Keystone Pipeline should be built. The left screamed all through the 2000s how we were going to war over oil. Well, here you go...a means to produce some oil within North America, and yet Obama vetoes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Considering they use trains to bring the crude in and the explosive nature of that and where trains have to pass through I'd think that this is one Veto that Obama might hold off on of the three he's done in office to date. 80% of the land has already been bought/leased or potentially signed up for. But yeah. Stick it to the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This is something I actually agree with the GOP on. The Keystone Pipeline should be built. The left screamed all through the 2000s how we were going to war over oil. Well, here you go...a means to produce some oil within North America, and yet Obama vetoes it. Good point, but remember, the faction on the left crying the most do not want oil from anywhere. Not the middle east...anywhere. Nevermind the colossal impracticability of ending the production / use of oil (even within a few generations), to that faction, its high time for wind-mobiles, solar-whatevers and a whining speech. Easy to mock, but mocking removes the necessary microscope of judgement from a most unreasonable group of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well, yeah you have people that hate oil and coal, but really it is not anywhere close to viable to end their use at this time. Oil and coal are simply going to be a fact of life for the foreseeable future, so the demands of the anti oil crowd are totally unrealistic. I am sure that is what partly factored into Obama's decision to veto the bill, but I think it is largely tit-for-tat politics, and possibly, in part, political pressure from the Saudis. We do know that Saudi Arabia actively lobbies Congress, and who knows what deals had to be brokered by the Obama Admin to gain Saudi support against ISIS, or other quid pro quo deals we don't know about. I don't think it was exactly an accident that the Saudis dropped the price of oil in recent months, and now with the veto a done deal, prices have ticked up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 They need to keep on ticking higher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yeah because the Saudis don't have enough effing money, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Don't give a flip about the Saudis. WE don't have enough effing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Um, when oil prices are lower gas is less. I always thought that last quarter's low prices were designed to stop fracking by OPEC. I really liked filling up for less than 20 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Don't give a flip about the Saudis. WE don't have enough effing money.If you are so broke, why would you want to raise gas prices on yourself? Do you own a gas station or something? Um, when oil prices are lower gas is less. I always thought that last quarter's low prices were designed to stop fracking by OPEC. I really liked filling up for less than 20 bucks.It could be. I think it's likely, actually. But it's a situation where when the prices are low, the Saudis win by putting the frackers out of business, eliminate competition, and then can raise prices at will by slowing production again. But when the prices are high, they still win, because they rake in the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 My husband works for a company that manufactures fracking equipment. He just narrowly survived 4 rounds of layoffs, and is now bringing home about 60% of what he was 4 months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Ok that makes sense, now. Actually, I am for producing domestic oil, so good for your husband for doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destiny Skywalker Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Are things getting better, Cerina? Gas prices are up about 60 cents here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Not particularly. This has been going on since the beginning of December. Our savings is almost gone (granted, Christmas and tools for Trevor's job took a chunk of it before all this as well), and we've cancelled or suspended a lot of our memberships (YMCA, Hulu, etc.). Plus, we've had to drop to paying only the minimums on all our credit accounts. All in all, now our expenses are right at about 95% of his take home pay. Right now we're in sort of a holding pattern to see if all this is going to work for us until things pick up again, or if I'm going to have to go back to work. And I can't go back to work until after this semester ends. Well, I could, but it'd be best not to. If we were on the verge of losing the house I would, I guess, but it's not that bad just yet. Ideally, I'd like to find a not-a-real-job job. Something I can do on my own time with no set hours. Otherwise, I might have to put off school (AGAIN FML) and we'd have to rethink this homeschool thing (which I really, REALLY don't want to do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolence Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Personally, I'm glad to see this was vetoed. Not because I'm super concerned about the environment-- though that isn't a bad thing to consider in these arguments. No, it's because how this has been sold from the right is a complete sham. This is NOT a jobs project, as long term there will be very permanent jobs created, and in the short term, employment will only raise in the thousands. Nor is this about securing new energy for the US. This is ALL ABOUT relieving a bottleneck in the energy distribution scheme for Canadian companies. This allows them to relieve that bottleneck, command a higher price, and ship the oil overseas. So the oil doesn't stay here and prices for mid-west consumers go up. That' a lose / lose for America. I usually like economic efficiency, but our nation isn't in the business of relieving economic inefficiency of other countries at the expense of our own national interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I disagree. First, US companies will also have access to the pipeline. It goes right through ND, SD, OK, and TX, where some of the biggest oil reserves are. Second, only about half of the oil is planned to be exported, if not less. The rest will be consumed in North America, mostly the US. Not only will that reduce the need for import oil from overseas, but the exported oil sold on the market will also help bring down world wide oil prices. Not to mention much of the oil is already being shipped by Canada to the US by rail. Changing from rail to pipeline would actually be safer for transporting the oil, and less likely for a transport mishap. Third, as for job creation, there probably would be a spike in temporary jobs. I've seen report ranging from only 10k to 40k temp jobs, and I have heard claims that after complete, only 50 jobs will be needed to maintain the pipeline, which I find hard to believe and is likely a cherry picked number. There will be jobs that pop up around those temp jobs during construction, as well as after it is complete. Even if temporary, job creation is good, anyway. Fourth, it is not as if Canadian companies don't have a Plan B, C, D, etc, if the Keystone XL isn't built. They want to get the oil exported, and will have alternate routes to their coast if necessary. Also, not to mention, the US has pipeline and railway proposals in the works all over the US,a s well. And not to mention, a strong Canadian economy is good for the US, as well. Fifth, I think the Alaska pipeline was an overall success and I think the same type of success will happen in not just Canada, but the US as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 I look at it from a safety standard. I would much rather have a pipeline that is in a fixed place that can be maintained and monitored than trucking or bringing it to refineries by train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I look at it from a safety standard. I would much rather have a pipeline that is in a fixed place that can be maintained and monitored than trucking or bringing it to refineries by train.If they were intellectually honest, environmentalists would actually be for the pipeline for that reason alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolence Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Chalup, you really don't understand the refinery bottleneck in this region, do you? Yes, US companies would have access to the piped oil as they do currently. But because of the supply bottleneck, the region gets saturated with more oil than the fair market price of oil allows. The result? The US companies end up refining the oil-- but some 15 cents below where the price "should be." By opening the pipeline and allowing that oil to be exported, it has ZERO impact on the global price of oil. But it does have an impact in alleviating that glut in the mid-West-- i.e. this translates to prices going up for US consumers, as well as less oil being used domestically. Because as more units of Keystone hydrocarbons are shipped overseas and the old mid-west glut equilibrates with prices in other places, now we need more oil to replace the former cheap Keystone units, so we end up importing it (speaking on a national scale here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Maybe I don't understand it, Ev, and maybe you are right on this issue. But, if there is a bottle neck in oil as you say, it seems to me that once that bottle neck is removed, that also opens up the potential to increase production of oil, too. Once the oil starts flowing, and the rate of oil is increased, that increased production would in fact lead to the lowering of oil prices on the market, in the same way the Saudis have recently ramped up oil production to flood the market with oil, and lower prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts