Also:

the company is seeking to hire off-duty officers to work as security guards.  “That's a conflict of interest,” she said. “Are they working for our citizens or are they working for TransCanada?”

Follow, follow, follow, follow, follow the money trail...

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-05-02 05:23:19)

phreddy wrote:

Simple math.  The more oil that goes to market, the lower the price and the less control for OPEC.

Simple math - the more we hold as strategic reserve the more secure we are as a nation.  Conservatives are all so pro-Military and then completely forget the strategic aspect when they spout the latest mantra, you don't think China can FRACK?  Buddy they are sitting on their in-ground reserves while they have the money to purchase elsewhere.

Remember Phred, that this oil is being sold locally now and keeps our prices down; when it hits the open market our prices will increase.  It's simple economics, our demand will remain the same or increase slightly as the economy recovers but there will be less and less available locally so our prices will skyrocket.  When they close the refineries in Illinois it will put more people out of work instantly than will be employed by this pipeline in 50 years, why would you want to do that?

Why do you hate America so much that you want to weaken us strategically and eliminate jobs?

phreddy wrote:

Em wrote:

Why do you hate America so much that you want to weaken us strategically and eliminate jobs?

So, we sit on reserves, run the price up, and send all our cash to countries who hate us?  Meanwhile, we are sitting on more oil than we can use in a hundred years, but we refuse to tap it and continue to pay the ragheads who use the money to fund terrorism.  Who is hating America?

I hope Chinese and the ragheads frack the hell out of oil fields they control.  More oil on the market = lower prices.  A hundred years from now, when we have the technology, we can worry about an alternative for oil.

Oh, yes - let's frack.  Who needs drinking water anyways?

Both my grandpa and my uncle were oil field workers, my hometown was an oil boom town and I have to deal with the insanity of the current oil boom towns Minot and Williston.  It's always a mess, but there's a reason that people flock to these places, it's a lot of money and they don't need a high end education to make it.  It's JOBS people, want proof? http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm Why else would North Dakota have the lowest unemployment rate in the United States?  Those 3.3 percent of the population there don't have an excuse for being unemployed either, there are close to twice the available jobs there than there are people to fill them.  South Dakota has always been slow in getting with the program, but they're finally waking up and punching holes in the ground here to.  It's security, it's the ability for the poor to become independent, gives power to the working class and is bringing an awful lot of money and infrastructure into the area.  Can't say the same for too many other parts of the U.S. at the moment.

Dirckman wrote:

Both my grandpa and my uncle were oil field workers, my hometown was an oil boom town and I have to deal with the insanity of the current oil boom towns Minot and Williston.  It's always a mess, but there's a reason that people flock to these places, it's a lot of money and they don't need a high end education to make it.  It's JOBS people, want proof? http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm Why else would North Dakota have the lowest unemployment rate in the United States?  Those 3.3 percent of the population there don't have an excuse for being unemployed either, there are close to twice the available jobs there than there are people to fill them.  South Dakota has always been slow in getting with the program, but they're finally waking up and punching holes in the ground here to.  It's security, it's the ability for the poor to become independent, gives power to the working class and is bringing an awful lot of money and infrastructure into the area.  Can't say the same for too many other parts of the U.S. at the moment.

Thank you for making my argument, we apparently have reached that point at which we care not about the future or our great nation and our society and are willing to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.  America's true strength has always been those endless fields of grain, now we are willing to poison those fields for a few gallons of oil - damn we're smart. 

As far as unemployment, Nebraska & Iowa are doing fine - but as a general rule those aren't wasteful people out there.

(I lived in Williston during the first oil boom - my brothers say it hasn't changed much)

The future stops in for a brief visit

driverless train

No one in Canada wants to learn how to drive a train?

Jeez where's Kathy when you need him - a parked train full of light crude oil suddenly becomes decoupled and rolls to a small town, derails and explodes destroying the Dollarama store?  Isn't this a Die Hard movie plot?

The way that's reported makes no sense.  The hand brakes on the power were tied but not on the cars?  There was no air in the train line?  I'd be more likely to believe this if the train was being put together, or was being switched, rather than a crew change.   Either the Conductor screwed the pooch while the Engineer did his job or someone monkeyed with it after they left.

Now here's a big surprise

hedgewizard wrote:

Every explanation I can think of that doesn't involve sabotage has the train crew being lazy and or stupid.  Nothing in that article related to how it happened makes sense.

Nothing in the entire incident makes sense except the thinly documented references to pipelines being cheaper and safer.  I'm starting to feel like Kathy now and I even though I know how much money is at stake by shifting production out of antiquated refineries for shipment overseas I still refuse to believe it was some sort of conspiracy.  Truth is always stranger than fiction...

Emmeran wrote:

hedgewizard wrote:

Every explanation I can think of that doesn't involve sabotage has the train crew being lazy and or stupid.  Nothing in that article related to how it happened makes sense.

Nothing in the entire incident makes sense except the thinly documented references to pipelines being cheaper and safer.  I'm starting to feel like Kathy now and I even though I know how much money is at stake by shifting production out of antiquated refineries for shipment overseas I still refuse to believe it was some sort of conspiracy.  Truth is always stranger than fiction...

Last night the Boss was watching the news and the story is the same, waiting on a crew change, but now it was only part of the cars instead of everything except the engines.  The waiting on a crew change part makes it less likely the crew is at fault and more likely it was flying monkeys sent by the wicked witch.  It's usually a series of mistakes, but this would take some unusual, and very odd, ones.  Now if this stuff was being worked and wasn't really a train just waiting for a new crew the number of mistakes drops and they become more believable.

Naturally Keystone XL would be safer

There's something out that makes sense about the derailment. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04719 has a PDF. 
Unfortunately they made it as an image so I couldn't quickly cut and paste.  Basically the crew was one guy, which is generally a bad idea.  He left the train on a 1.2% grade.  That's steep enough that, depending on the rules (which change back and forth on a weekly, sometimes hourly, basis), by myself I'd tie 15-20 handbrakes on the cars and all five locomotives for a train that weight just to be sure I wouldn't have to walk back and tie more if it didn't hold (the General Code of Operating Rules calls for releasing the air brakes to see if the handbrakes will keep it from moving, I'm not sure that particular short line railroad uses the GCOR). 
Less than an hour later a fire started inside the lead locomotive, and was extinguished.   
Less than an hour after that the whole train rolled down the hill. 
I'm fairly certain from what's in the FRA order, and the amount of time between events, that there weren't enough handbrakes applied.  Either someone released the air brakes on the train, and probably on the engines too (they can be controlled separately) when the fire was started or when the fire was put out someone released the air brakes.  From the amount of time it's less likely that when the lead locomotive was shut down while the fire was being put out that the brakes released when the air finally leaked out (these days you only leave one running for its compressor, the others are shut down to save fuel).  With five locomotives the reservoir is fairly large and the brakes on the cars will hold for quite a while so if it had rolled a day or two later I'd believe it was just leakage, well under an hour someone released the brakes.  It reads like they think someone got in and started the fire.  It doesn't say what kind of employee showed up when the fire happened, but I'm guessing either a manager or some flavor of mechanical department guy.  Either way it was most likely someone without a clear understanding of the rules and what should be done to make sure the train doesn't roll off.  It's possible that the guy who left the train is a smoker and no hooligans were involved.  Based on their vice president saying all his employees are liars I'd guess that outfit is full of incompetent management.

Emmeran wrote:

35 permanent jobs

There is no such thing as a permanent job anymore.  The construction industry, which is a huge part of our economy, is nothing more than a series of temporary jobs.  Besides, the more oil independence we have in North America and the less dependence on the ragheads, the better off we will be.

Emmeran wrote:

The proposed pipeline will take the tar oil to the Gulf Coast where it will be refined and sold on the world market - most likely to China and India.  How does that help us with energy independence in N. America?

Energy independence means more than producing our own oil for our own markets.  It also means controlling our own supplies.  The more oil that is produced from somewhere besides the Mid-East, the less influence the ragheads have over supply, transport, and price of oil. We end up with more choices of vendors and can choose to purchase oil from friendly sources.  When you have more choices, you have more independence. A big bonus is that the ragheads have less money to spend on support of terrorism.  In addition, we no longer have "national interests" which involve sending our young men to die in god forsaken deserts.

Then tell me why Canadian sludge is 'our own oil'.

phreddy wrote:

Tall Paul wrote:

Then tell me why Canadian sludge is 'our own oil'.

Read my post again Grasshopper.  You will find the answer to your question therein.

Only if you promise to rewrite it so it makes sense.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

I don't care if it's oil or teddy bears, at least this country is exporting SOMETHING again.

Any benefit we see will be immediately offset by a rise in gas prices so basically we will be writing a check at the pump to a Canadian Oil company for the pleasure of putting one of our most important aquifers at risk.  Eventually it will become a SuperFund site and we'll pay again to clean it up.

I'm trying to find an upside here but just can't see one...

Keystone XL won't change the world market one iota however there will be an immediate negative impact on the Midwestern region of the United States.  Fuel prices there would rise accompanied by the corresponding increase in food prices nationwide and there would also be lay-offs at the refineries in Illinois.  All that is just the immediate surface effects.

The destabilizing the economies of the Midwest will have further knock-on effects as well.  While unemployment has remained low in that region it is still not a wealthy area, incomes are moderately low and any change in commodity prices, particularly fuel, will have an immediate negative impact across the board.

They got very lucky

Paul wrote:

What would then happen if OPEC reduced production by the same amount? How would that in turn effect the balance between the economic benefits you think would accrue vs. the risk of damage to aquifers?

First, you have to believe that new pipelines are poisoning aquifers, which is not true.  Second, do you find a problem with OPEC reducing production and therefore the income they use to fund terrorism?  Most of us living in North America would rather the money stay here.

phreddy wrote:

First, you have to believe that new pipelines are poisoning aquifers, which is not true.

Ah hell, what's 21,000 barrels between friends?

Paul wrote:

Are you willing to stand by your implied statement that all OPEC members are funding terrorists? What about your direct statement that reducing supply while maintaining a high demand would have no effect on price? Personally I feel that most people living in North America would want the money in their pockets to stay there, the oil to stay in the shale and the pipeline to stay the hell off their land. If Canada still wants to export crap crude they should do it on Canadian soil.

All OPEC countries are not funding terrorism.  However, many of them are doing just that.  As for the rest, they can go to hell.  They are nothing but a price fixing group dedicated to extracting as much money from the non-oil producing world as possible.  I agree that most North Americans would like to keep the money in their own pockets, but while price fixing is dictating the price of oil, that just is not going to happen.  Anything to increase the supply of oil is going to decrease the price.  Watch how OPEC tries to hold the price up by reducing production, just to have their members send the oil out the back door at a lower price to fund the princely lifestyles of the rulers.

Key word being "immediate".