3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by timpage

I thought the oil would be piped directly to Port Arthur, Texas....a tax-free Foreign Trade Zone. That's the whole point for big oil. They bypass US taxes, consumers and refineries (other than the one in the Foreign Trade Zone in Port Arthur) and sell the end-product at higher prices in Asia.

And, I don't know that it does pose a threat to the environment. Frankly, those issues bore the shit outta me. I've read that this type of pipeline is more prone to leaks than any other type of pipe. I dunno.

Regarding jobs.....sounds like a few hundred at best.

So why your opposition for the KSP? The pipeline won't provide enough jobs, the oil isn't going to be taxed or environmental threats? You sound like you just don't want the pipeline. Trust me, Big Oil has divisions of accountants and IT folks making sure every penny of tax is paid.

Obama admitted that he didn't want the pipeline simply because the oil sands from Canada was "environmentally dirty" and that it would upset his base. EPA head Lisa P Jackson was his watercarrier for this and has left in disgrace but you won't hear much on it from the MSM because she's a female liberal. She also rolled on the EPA by purposely losing the court case that enabled the EPA to treat carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

10. The pipeline has received extremely little actual government oversight.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You make that sound like a bad thing.You obviously don't know what a super fund site is. You know, what happens when industry was allowed to put in place their on standards without significant oversight. And the problem with defining how much is enough isn't easy. Because of assholes like you. If the right amount of regulation is used, then there probably won't be an incident. If there isn't an incident, the douche-bag brigade will scream regulation isn't needed, it hurts business, and hurts the economy. If there is an incident, you will scream that regulation didn't prevent the incident and it's useless. The perfect example is the gulf spill. BP cut maintenance way back, training, didn't replace faulty safety equipment, etc. A secondary containment system would have worked despite bad management.“[T]he Department of State allowed a contractor with a financial arrangement with TransCanada, which seeks to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to conduct the Department’s environmental review mandated under federal law as part of its consideration of TransCanada’s proposed pipeline,” a 2011 investigation discovered. And as I mentioned in a long, November post on that investigation and other matters, “for years, the State Department’s Keystone XL review body was only one, junior-level staffer. This is a $7-billion-dollar project! One staffer?” You got this from somewhere. Where did you get this? The states where the pipeline is being built have done their own investigations and they approve. Remember the 10th amendment. Read much? The link is at the end.
9. Oil pipelines leak. And this one could leak all over the U.S. “One tar sands pipeline operated by the same company behind the Keystone XL project experienced 35 leaks in the U.S. and Canada its first year of operation and had to be temporarily shut down by the U.S. Department of Transportation,” France Beinecke of the NRDC writes. Ships leak, trains leak, trucks leak. How bad were these leaks? You don't say. Why are you hiding that? You are a tool. How bad were these other leaks? Look it up, don't ask me. Do your own research. How can I "hide" information available on the web? I'm not hiding your leaking bladder by not talking about it.
What a joke that someone who seldom provides links, let alone specific fact, demands all information, pro and con, be placed before him. Everyone knows jd is research challenged.

8. Did I mention that oil pipelines leak and are risky. Well, from someone who supports oil pipelines in general, an oil pipeline inspector and engineer, said this one should not be built. “Mike Klink is a former inspector for Bechtel, one of the major contractors working on TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline, completed in 2010. Klink says he raised numerous concerns about shoddy materials and poor craftsmanship during construction of the pipeline, which brings tar sands crude from Canada to Midwestern refineries in the U.S. Instead of actually addressing the problems, Klink claims he was fired by Bechtel in retaliation…. Klink, who says he’s speaking as an engineer and not an environmentalist, has just published a scathing op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star criticizing Keystone XL….’As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up…. Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one.’” (Much more from Klink via the links above.) You have served your own poison. This IS government job, to set a standard and if met then government gets out of the way. So you're saying that government has failed to set standards then. Once again you could hardly be more wrong. If you meet government standards, you get to keep your contract and continue to build. If you don't meet the standards and can't bring the job up to spec, you get replaced. I haven't said anything about the gov failed to set standards.
How do you teach other people anything?
Is "Those who cannot do, teach." true?

7. The oil isn’t even for the U.S.! “Here in the United States, oil companies trumpet false job claims and promise a secure supply of oil. But in the Canadian press, oil companies talk freely about using the pipeline to export oil to Asian markets and charge more money for the oil they do sell in the U.S.,” France Beinecke writes. “In Congressional testimony, TransCanada refused to support a condition that the oil in Keystone XL would be used in the United States…. Claims that the pipeline would have delivered a secure supply of oil to America were also wildly overblown. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an export pipeline. By rerouting tar sands oil out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, companies could ship it anywhere in the world. Indeed, companies get incentives to export from there.” Yes, it is called the free market. The oil can be sold anywhere by the people who own it. You have a problem with that? We can buy it for less than some country who has to ship it. Take your socialism to another site. Take my socialism to a different site? Take your ignorance to a different site. You boor me. It is not a free market. It is going to an international trade zone (Port Arthur) which offers incentives (government corporate welfare) to ship from there. Since they can make more profit by doing so, the oil companies will send their oil there. That means prices in the Midwest will go UP. Less oil shipped there, same or increasing demand, equals higher prices.
6. Jobs schmobs! While the oil industry and its bought politicians and media lie to us repeatedly by telling us that the pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs, the company developing the pipeline, TransCanada, stated (when on record) that it would only create “hundreds” of permanent jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had that number at 20. And, a thorough, independent analysis from researchers at Cornell said it could even cost the U.S. jobs in the long term! That's right! Try to confuse the issue with half truths. Any and all construction projects create many more temporary jobs than permanent jobs. Common sense. Tell the people who would get permanent jobs that they don't deserve to have jobs. The facts have always confused you. What half truth are you referring to? The US State Dept. puts the number of permanent jobs at 20. Of course there are temp jobs. Like you said, that's common sense The oil industry says it will create 10s of thousands of jobs. They use a half truth by not supplying a likely number of permanent jobs.
5. We don’t create energy independence by focusing our efforts and money on further oil production. We get much more bang for the buck by putting all of that into clean energy vehicles and clean power options. Bottom line. Now we get to the fantasy. The country burns oil NOW and even the most optimistic experts think clean energy is still a couple of decades away. Why don't you stop breathing until we can perfect the artificial gill. Yes we burn oil now. The experts don't say clean energy is a couple of decades away. We have much cleaner energy now. Where do you get your news? Never mind.
It is a question of infrastructure. There are not enough liquid gas or public electrical charging stations to support the number of cars that would be on the roads. The 20 years refers to the period of time before the majority (I can't remember if I saw the numbers as 65% or 75%) of total passenger cars.
4. Obama is listening to and supporting citizens (i.e. doing his job). Over 10,000 people got off their couches and encircled the White House in November to oppose this project. Over 1,000 got arrested last summer in opposition to it. This tremendous show of concern and passion came about for a reason — the project was bad for the American people. 10,000? Is that all. How many were bought and paid for by a special interest like Big Environment. You laughed at the idea of over 1 million people opposing Obamacare and 26 states refusing to set up the mechanisms to run it. So much for the wishes of the majority. A hell of a lot more than 1,000,000 oppose Obamacare. It's more like 40 or 45,000,000.
What does this have to do with the thread? So much for the wishes of the majority? Obamacare is the wish of the majority.
Oil isn't being put to a vote.
3. Republicans in congress and the oil industry tried to bully Obama into approving the pipeline without even adequately reviewing its environmental impacts (even sending a public email to him stating that rejecting the pipeline would result in “huge political consequences.”). That’s plain stupid (unless you know that a good review will result in pipeline rejection and all your money is on the pipeline going through). Standing up for the millions or even billions of people who rely on clean water and a livable climate by not rushing a full review is the right thing to do. Billions? Billions? Going a little over the top aren't we? Where is your proof that clean water is endangered? Have you come out against fracking too? I have never posted an opinion about fracking before, other than it needs to be studied more. It seems it is safe to do it some places and not others, depending on the geological formations. If you need convincing it's dangerous, watch Gasland. The producers lack a lot of technical data, but that's because oil companies claim proprietary mixtures and won't release a list of the chemicals used. They rely heavily on empirical data and soil samples.
An example.
This area was fine before. They started fracking and all the vegetation died, the wildlife died, and the numbers of certain cancers leaped.
Proof positive that fracking did it all? Of course not
A reason to research the whole operation and demand that MSDS sheets be supplied for the chemicals and disclosure of the chemical content?
Fuck yeah!
Did you see this? The oil companies won't release the composition of the materials they pump into the ground.
2. Tar sands development and the Keystone XL pipeline that would enable a ton of that was essentially “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Tar sands oil is 3 times worse for the global climate than conventional crude oil. Goodbye, livable climate, in other words. Oil is oil, you really have to explain the rational behind this shit. Good luck with that. Oil may be oil but tar sands aren't oil. They can be processed into oil. It takes a lot more carbon to recover, transport, and process tar sand into oil. Good luck explaining? Not needed for anyone over 12 years old. If oil were found in a big lake-like formation, the would be minimal associated carbon for recovery and since the levels of the different oil types would have settled out somewhat, the carbon used to refine the oil would be less.
If the oil was all under the ocean floor below 15,000 ft, it would require much more energy to recover.
You see, even oil that is oil costs different amounts of carbon/money to bring to market.
1. The U.S. would get practically nothing from the project. On the other hand, it would face numerous risks and problems. Additionally, the world would suffer tremendously from it. In other words, all of the above. Proof! If the pipeline goes to the West coast then China benefits. If no one benefits as you claim then why is it being done and why would China participate? You must have the same agent as a certain Hollywood actress who just tweeted the same thing a couple of days ago. Can you read at all? The author didn't say no one benefits from the project. The US gets hardly more than a "toll" as the oil goes across the US to the government subsidized trade zone where Port Arthur is at. It will then be shipped where ever they can get the most money for it. We accept the vast majority of risk for a minimum return.

To sum up.
jd doesn't understand I didn't write this.
I agree with many of the opinions but like anyone else who posts a link, I am responsible for due diligence only to a certain extent.
An example would be the use of the word "billions" in reference to the number of people affected by polluted water etc.
He should have either said .5, .4 billion as an approximation of US and Canadian population or he should have said 7, 8 billion referring to the Earth's population. Everyone needs clean water.
jd doesn't read for comprehension and he is not well read outside of his fringe sources

[Munchmasterman]

[QUOTE=gnadfly;1052392633]Trust me, Big Oil has divisions of accountants and IT folks making sure every penny of tax is paid.
QUOTE]

What has that got to do with what Tim said? They pay the taxes they have to and no more.

And since they get a lower tax rate (did you catch that? A lower tax rate to ship from Port Arthur) they make more money. In other words, thanks to a US government hand out, TransCanada will make more money. That's their reason for building it.
But what does the US get for the risk it takes.
20 perm jobs?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What has that got to do with what Tim said? They pay the taxes they have to and no more.

And since they get a lower tax rate (did you catch that? A lower tax rate to ship from Port Arthur) they make more money. In other words, thanks to a US government hand out, TransCanada will make more money. That's their reason for building it.
But what does the US get for the risk it takes.
20 perm jobs?

I include tim's post below. While I agree we pay the taxes owed that's NOT what tim's post inferred.

He says "tax free zone" and "bypass US taxes" not "lower tax rate." Did you catch that?

I'd like to see some documentation about the US taxes that are "bypassed" or "lowered." Can you or tim provide some links?

Originally Posted by timpage

I thought the oil would be piped directly to Port Arthur, Texas....a tax-free Foreign Trade Zone. That's the whole point for big oil. They bypass US taxes, consumers and refineries (other than the one in the Foreign Trade Zone in Port Arthur) and sell the end-product at higher prices in Asia.

And, I don't know that it does pose a threat to the environment. Frankly, those issues bore the shit outta me. I've read that this type of pipeline is more prone to leaks than any other type of pipe. I dunno.

Regarding jobs.....sounds like a few hundred at best.

[gnadfly]

Crickets.

[Guest123018-4]

The ignorant left sucks up what ever they are told to believe rather than understand the facts.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The government takes land for the private use of railroad companies, too. Especially freight railroads. That's all private money there - no passengers, so no wide public benefit.

And those railroads bring products to ports and ship them to other countries. What do we do about this scandalous railroad situation? Shut them down? Force them to transport goods only for domestic consumption?

the rails at one point did have passangers , don't you know any history? In fact had we not then taken more private land to build freeways so oil companies could sell more oil, we would have a completely more efficient way to travel. IMHO

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why are taxes so holy to you Timmie.

Why are you ok with the government taking private landowners land, so that oil companies can ship oil from Canada, sell ir abroad and pay no taxes?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The ignorant left sucks up what ever they are told to believe rather than understand the facts.

Do you understand thae facts on this?
Are you ok with the government taking private land?
If it was your land, would it be ok?
Do you understand that the oil companies are not going to be paying all taxes because their friends in congress have gotten them a special tax break?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Crickets.

Do your own research. It is not rocket science.

If the oil refined oil were to stay in this country...lowering our prices, I can see the case for this thing. btw, why are you ok with the government taking private landowners land for what is basically a private company to make profits?

[WTF]

crickets....

[JD Barleycorn]

Munchie, you've aptly demostrated why you should avoid cut and paste (paying attention Louise?). When you cut and paste you are embracing what you paste unless of course you different yourself or in a set aside you mention your differences. Your opening sentence (unless you pasted that as well) shows that you endorse the post.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

crickets....

some lunacy deserves silence

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

some lunacy deserves silence

Yet you spoke....nothing I have posted is a lie, were it, you and others would have pointed it out. If you do an ounce of research on this issue, you will find that private citizens are having their land condemned, the refiners are getting huge tax breaks and the refined products will be sold out of country.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yet you spoke....nothing I have posted is a lie, were it, you and others would have pointed it out. If you do an ounce of research on this issue, you will find that private citizens are having their land condemned, the refiners are getting huge tax breaks and the refined products will be sold out of country.

none of that is an argument for not completing the pipeline, which is your supposed point


the law gives pipelines the right of eminent domain..take that up else where should you not like that but its not an argument against the pipeline in this context

any tax deduction or credit or whatever it is that you have deduced, read in some misdirected blog or somehow devined, is some loop hole or undeserved tax break has nothing to do with the pipeline

the idea gasoline or other refined products enter the market to be sold where ever is no argument against the pipeline

none of your arguments are on point or matter

additional refined products on any market will serve to increase supply and therefore help to keep prices down but that will be the case whether we refine the petroleum or someone else does

the reason the pipeline is good for america is jobs ..jobs to built it, jobs to maintain it, and jobs to refine the crude and ship it and all manner of ancillary economic drivers