Senate rejects effort to ban Keystone XL-pipeline exports

[streets ahead]

Don't we still refine it? Doesn't this make Canada more dependent on us? I still think this could benefit us.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Pres Obama is looking to horse trade this for something big he wants. I don't think he cares about this much - he's veto'ing it because he can and because environs in his party of course want it blocked so he's backed by a key constituency and doesn't really hurt him any to veto it but if he could get something major he wants I think he'll allow it - because Canada will dig up the crap anyways, so the environmental issue is really moot other than the Ocalla Aquifer danger but if those Red States are okay with it, that's their water.

GOP making this their first big agenda issue means they NEED to get it passed, so they might be willing to pass something Obama/Dems want they'd otherwise have blocked just because they could the last five years.

Obama can veto everything the next two years with no fucks given. Hes ran his last election and has no hopes for some last "legacy" project given the GOP congress. His last two years will be XO's and foreign policy centric while doing what he can to make the political climate the best for Hillary Clinton to be elected President in Nov 2016.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fuck the Keystone Pipeline. There are minimal long term jobs created from this project and the US bears the risk that it leaks. And regardless of where it is shipped, the oil will be burned into the atmosphere. Why do Americans support this when there is so little benefit? It's a jerk off project for big oil ty****s.

Stopping it isn't really that important, either. At this point, it's purely symbolic (I don't even think the ty****s are that important).

I am in the highest concentrated area of pipelines in the nation. No leaks. Tell me, how do we fix the debt with China without sending them product.

WTF are you talking about with this China stuff? We don't want China to buy bonds and building this pipeline will stop them? Nothing about that makes any sense.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Don't we still refine it? Doesn't this make Canada more dependent on us? I still think this could benefit us.

It very well could be a benefit. The issue is that the proponents of the pipeline, and their allies in congress, have repeatedly talked about how the pipeline will further our "energy independence" and how the (crude) will not be exported. That particular point is all bullshit, the refined product is going to be mostly exported.

 

[second sight]

It very well could be a benefit. The issue is that the proponents of the pipeline, and their allies in congress, have repeatedly talked about how the pipeline will further our "energy independence" and how the (crude) will not be exported. That particular point is all bullshit, the refined product is going to be mostly exported.

.

you keep saying that as do many other people source it.

The people that own the oil and the state department both say something completely different.

Gulf Coast refiners’ traditional sources of heavy crudes, particularly Mexico and Venezuela are declining and are expected to continue. Both the EIA’s 2013 AEO and EnSys WORLD model indicate that this demand for heavy crude in the Gulf Coast refineries is likely to persist.
EnSys modeling shows no export of light or heavy crude carried on Keystone XL or any other pipeline into PADD 3 onward to overseas markets, confirming the barriers that PADD 3 heavy crude demand and transport costs.

I've read everything from the saudis own part of the Texas refineries, to soro's owns the railways that are being used to transport the oil now, the Koch brothers will be the big winners in the pipeline deal, if we don't finish the pipeline China is going to buy the oil and on and on.

So lets see your source, that says most of the oil will be exported. It makes absolutely no sense that we would buy oil from an more expensive source and export cheaper oil at the same time but I sure as hell can't find more than a few people singing the same song.

better yet read the state department report and discredit the claims you said TransCanada is making

 

[UpaLoompa]

you keep saying that as do many other people source it.

The people that own the oil and the state department both say something completely different.

No, they're not. They're very carefully lying to you as I have repeatedly pointed out. The refineries this oil is going to already export 60% of their refined products, your sources keep focusing strictly on crude so that they can mislead you. Those refineries are exporting refined product, not crude.

So lets see your source, that says most of the oil will be exported. It makes absolutely no sense that we would buy oil from an more expensive source and export cheaper oil at the same time but I sure as hell can't find more than a few people singing the same song.

Here the WSJ repeats the 60% number:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324392804578358791884145514
Before first posting the number I went and looked at the cited groups numbers and they're based on the official numbers. The WSJ, hardly a liberal rag, also didn't dispute them--because they're sound.

Also, we export oil all the fucking time, for lots of reasons. Your rationale is incorrect. One potential reason is that the refined product won't meet US air quality standards (which might be an issue for tar sands, I'm not sure).

 

[UpaLoompa]

Specifically, the refineries this pipeline supplies currently export 60% of the gasoline they produce, 42% of the refined diesel, and 95% of the petcoke.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't really give a fuck if the oil is exported or not. However, a major argument in favor of the pipeline has been that it would benefit US "energy independence". As your posting indicates, second sight, that's a lie you've bought into.

 

[Lead]

That whole bill is the biggest waste of time in Washington. It's significance is minimal for the amount of coverage it has received.

With last nights SOTU, I think the part that stood out most to me was Obama saying lets stop focusing on a pipeline and start working on a overhaul infrastructure bill. The GOP use to be a party of calculated government spending with infrastructure and other projects that would benefit society for years to come. They've lost that idea recently and it's a shame because incorporating a message like that would help them on campaigns far more and get shit done.

 

[second sight]

I don't really give a fuck if the oil is exported or not. However, a major argument in favor of the pipeline has been that it would benefit US "energy independence". As your posting indicates, second sight, that's a lie you've bought into.

I said I don't know how much is going to be exported, I haven't read your article yet but using your numbers. How could 40% of 830,000 barrels of oil per day not be a huge step in the direction of energy independence?

Also "a lie I brought in", I quoted the state departments report, you're claiming the are playing semantics with the terms crude and gas, whos ass did you pull that out of?

 

[Whitesnake]

The funny thing about this thread, is that not a single damned one of you doesn't seem to know that the Keystone pipeline already exists, and that the thing being debated in washington is whether or not to build a shorter leg on one portion of it.

You guys are all fucking idiots.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I said I don't know how much is going to be exported, I haven't read your article yet but using your numbers. How could 40% of 830,000 barrels of oil per day not be a huge step in the direction of energy independence?

Dude... the US uses 18.9 million barrels a day. 332k is less than 2%. How could that be "huge"?

Also "a lie I brought in", I quoted the state departments report, you're claiming the are playing semantics with the terms crude and gas, whos ass did you pull that out of?

You didn't quote the State Department. You quoted Transcanada's quote of the State Department, important difference. That quote focuses on the export of crude only. That is Transcanada dishonestly obscuring the issue, dishonesty you're happily embracing. Any honest reading of Transcanda's site makes this clear.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The funny thing about this thread, is that not a single damned one of you doesn't seem to know that the Keystone pipeline already exists, and that the thing being debated in washington is whether or not to build a shorter leg on one portion of it.

You guys are all fucking idiots.

I thought it common knowledge that the XL referred to upgrading volume, though the route is different.

 

[Whitesnake]

Also what's so mind-boggling about all of this, is that by rabidly supporting the pipeline, the GOP are in effect supporting the use of imminent domain to sell US citizens property to a foreign oil company.

You can't make this shit up. I'm pretty sure republicans are immune to cognitive dissonance

 

[ShoelessRye]

That whole bill is the biggest waste of time in Washington. It's significance is minimal for the amount of coverage it has received.

With last nights SOTU, I think the part that stood out most to me was Obama saying lets stop focusing on a pipeline and start working on a overhaul infrastructure bill. The GOP use to be a party of calculated government spending with infrastructure and other projects that would benefit society for years to come. They've lost that idea recently and it's a shame because incorporating a message like that would help them on campaigns far more and get shit done.

GOP is against it now because Obama/Dems are for it because such spending would be a huge boost to the economy and Obama/Dems would get credit for it. You can be damn sure if Jeb Bush is elected in Nov 2016 that the GOP will all of a sudden be all for massive infrastructure spending and deficits/debt won't matter a lick again.

 

[second sight]

Dude... the US uses 18.9 million barrels a day. 332k is less than 2%. How could that be "huge"?

You didn't quote the State Department. You quoted Transcanada's quote of the State Department, important difference. That quote focuses on the export of crude only. That is Transcanada dishonestly obscuring the issue, dishonesty you're happily embracing. Any honest reading of Transcanda's site makes this clear.

that quote is from the state departments report

 

[UpaLoompa]

that quote is from the state departments report

No shit. The quote refers strictly to crude. The refineries to be supplied export refined products, not crude. Transcanada is using that quote in a clearly misleading manner.
This is what, the fourth or fifth time I've explained this?

 

[second sight]

No shit. The quote refers strictly to crude. The refineries to be supplied export refined products, not crude. Transcanada is using that quote in a clearly misleading manner.
This is what, the fourth or fifth time I've explained this?

You didn't quote the State Department.

my point was it's word for word out of the state department, you think there's some big play on words to fit transcanadas agenda, well all the other quotes were out of there as well. how they are predicting less oil from Mexico and Venezuela to be made up by Canada

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

do you think the senate should or does have the power to tell a company what they can and can't do with a product?

they should be able to regulate this, this is a foreign country wanting to move their oil in a pipeline through out country. our country, our rules!

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

Myth: Keystone XL is an export pipeline to China and other nations.
Fact: Keystone XL is not an export pipeline.

It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries