phreddy wrote:

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.

Apparently you've never heard of Free Market Collusion

phreddy wrote:

Yeah, well the Brits and the Dutch can shove it up their pipelines too.  More oil on the market by more sources means lower prices and less chance of collusion.  Concentration of political or economic power almost always leads to abuse.  Centralized power is just too big a target for crooks to resist, be they political or fiscal criminals.

Exactly, so right now the existing Keystone pipeline delivers tar oil to the Midwest for processing and sale, which is almost exclusively done by small privately owned refineries that employ hundreds of locals and sale the end product in the local region - at some of the lowest prices in the world I might add.  But you support extending the pipeline (over precious natural resources) to deliver the oil to multi-national corporations who have a tendency to collude on pricing and availability just to sale it back to us on the world market at higher prices?  Never mind the actual career type jobs this will eliminate in the Midwest and that the negative GDP effect of this is basically unmeasurable.

Capitalism is built around competition and now you are espousing minimizing that competition by handing over this resource to a small group of multi-national conglomerates' which will minimize completion and that somehow this will be good for us as a society? 

Great - lets create environmental risk, eliminate good jobs and increase consumer cost.  Your position defies logic.

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-10-23 14:05:35)

The nice thing about putting it all underground is that no one but you knows if it springs a leak.

Plan B

It's funny how the job creation numbers change when it's a Canada only project, if I recall the numbers being bandied about in the U.S. were in the neighborhood of 5,000 jobs.

The Deloitte study estimated that the pipeline would create 1,427 direct jobs in the development and construction phases in New Brunswick, but only 121 jobs long-term.

Let them do it themselves, the whole thing is a boondoggle anyway.  121 jobs what a fucking joke.

Last edited by Emmeran (2014-03-28 06:58:08)

Fled wrote:

It is bizarre how this one pipeline turned into such a big overblown political issue.  Something from nothing.

I get a particular kick out of the pundits who over-reach-around to tie Keystone to Ukraine and opposing Russian expansion, especially from those who moments ago tied the pipeline to energy independence.

It's not so bizarre when you consider that for a very few people there are huge piles of cash to be made and that most congressmen will stand in line to sell their mother's ass for a very small pile of the same. Talk to Phreddy, he's busy in another thread defending the tax system that allows those small piles to be spread anonymously. He says he's doing it because he hates the way Obama can do what every other president has done with impunity.

Fled wrote:

over-reach-around

Phrase of the year!!


There has to be at least a banner/meme in that phrase...

square wrote:

What a bargain!  Rockefeller would be proud.

McClatchy wrote:

Carlyle Group [Saudi/Bush] partnered in 2012 with Sunoco to save the largest refinery on the East Coast. The South Philadelphia facility used to receive imported crude from tanker ships but now gets Bakken crude by the trainload every day.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owns both BNSF Railway, the largest hauler of Bakken crude oil, and Union Tank Car, one of the country’s largest manufacturers of railcars that carry it.

phreddy wrote:

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owns both BNSF Railway, the largest hauler of Bakken crude oil, and Union Tank Car, one of the country’s largest manufacturers of railcars that carry it.

And Warren Buffet is huge Obama supporter and helped him get reelected. Do you still have questions about why the Keystone pipeline is stalled?

Buffet is an old school Nebraska boy, he doesn't want that pipeline near the aquifer any more than the rest of us; see with rail cars you have a finite level of risk that is a bit different than the underground pipeline scenario.  Keep in mind that this pipeline is being held up by a Red State, not a bunch of liberal pansies in California.

Besides any good investor knows you don't let your politics get in the way of a decent return...

phreddy wrote:

Em wrote:

Keep in mind that this pipeline is being held up by a Red State, not a bunch of liberal pansies in California.

The pipeline is being held up by Barack Obama and the man controls him.  The part about Buffett being concerned over the Nebraska aquifer made me laugh out loud.  47 people died in this single oil train inferno and the the owner of the new, improved rail company is shipping by rail because he doesn't want to pollute the Nebraska aquifer.  LOL.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/201 … St.91.jpeg

My dear friend, apparently you lack understanding of the importance of that particular aquifer and somehow have lost the ability to see a setup disaster when it happens; perhaps Kathy could help you with this one.  I'm a bit miffed by your lack of vision on this one, normally you're pretty good at seeing through the corporate facades...

Having ridden the Dalton Hwy from Prudhoe Bay to Fairbanks, I can state that the pipeline is an eyesore, since it can't go underground in the permafrost and requires detours to pumping and heating stations, and it also leaks occasionally.  Of course the caribou figured out they could either go under it or move to where it is underground, but we didn't know that for sure at the time, did we?

Nobody bitches about it in Alaska because everybody gets a check from BP every year and almost nobody lives out there by the Hwy.  For some of those folks, $1200 a year represents years worth of dry good and other supplies they can't hunt, fish, or make themselves.

Are they giving everybody in Nebraska money for the pipeline?  And are they building it in the uninhabited regions?  Knowing that this is Amerka Uber Das Capital, I'm thinking no, and probably not.

phreddy wrote:

Anyone who still believes the Left is all about saving the environment...

There is a vast gulf between "the left" and "Hollywood lefties".  And you know that because, you're stupid but not stupid, so stop acting like a dumbass and bring us less biased content than a conservative activist thumping on liberal assholes in La La Land.

All I'm saying is that pipeline only promises higher gas prices, increased risk and less than 100 actual jobs.  Fuck it let the Canadians absorb the risk with no return, they can use all of their forlorn severed feet to mop up the oil spills.

Baywolfe wrote:

As do the Hollywood righties.  But O'Keefe is never going to expose them, is he?

What Hollywood righties?  The only ones still around are hiding underground to keep from being blacklisted.

phreddy wrote:

Anyone who still believes the Left is (fill in the blank) should watch this latest video by James O'Keefe.

But only if you still believe anything that James O'Keefe says or publishes contains the least shred of truth. You're not even trying anymore, Phred. I'm worried for you..... Why not take a few weeks off and go commenting on I Can Has Cheezeburger and come back when you're feeling stronger?

Baywolfe wrote:

And, to answer your question, here's a current list.  Sorry so many of them are empty headed douche-bags.

Didn't you know the prerequisite for being an actor was to be empty headed, how else are they supposed to completely assume a manufactured persona?  I would say the same applies to all politicians as well.

phreddy wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

And, to answer your question, here's a current list.  Sorry so many of them are empty headed douche-bags.

When was the last time you saw any of these people financing, promoting, or appearing in an anti-liberal movie or documentary?  Liberal films and documentaries are chock full of Hollywood airheads.

Why the fuck would I pay the least amount of attention to these people on either side of the argument?  That seems to be your bag.

Earlier this month, the State Department increased its earlier projections of injuries and fatalities if Keystone XL's 830,000 barrels a day were to move by rail. Major media organizations and pipeline supporters framed the new numbers as a downside to not building the controversial project.

But the department's detailed explanation for its revisions shows why the numbers don't really reveal anything about the risks of transporting crude oil by rail. . . .

Fred W. Frailey, a journalist who's covered railroads for decades and is widely regarded as the dean of writers on that subject, questioned the State Department's analysis.

"It strikes me as totally meaningless," he said. "It doesn't speak at all to the danger of hauling oil."

A spokeswoman for the department declined to comment about the report.

Emmeran wrote:

A small win for the normal folk

The day corporations get eminent domain is the day the game ends.

Fled wrote:

There are fires on the rails above ground, but there are some pretty crazy things happening in the ground as well.

Those "fires on the rails above ground" ain't no accidents.  Crude oil just doesn't like to burn, let alone explode.