|
lovmuffin -> RE: Gas drops below 3 bucks a gallon.... (11/16/2013 12:43:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I like President Obama. But how does this change of events tied directly to him? He has much less power to affect the ups and downs of gas prices when compared to speculators, industry giants and plenty of other factors. When gas prices rise, conservatives have come on to this forums to ridicule and bitch at the President. And often many of us state its not his fault at all. If that is honestly true, then the opposite must also be true: If gas prices sink, its not due to President as well. Wouldn't matter if it was a Republican in the White House with ties to 'Big Oil'.
***COUGH***GHWBUSH***COUGH****
Just as we would not see any actual and honestly sincere 'thank you' from conservatives on this forum had I not made this post, right?
Thanks joether for that posting though gas prices are down despite Obama. Maybe if he would open up more drilling on federal land or get the Keystone pipeline flowing already, prices could drop even more.
Seeing as the keystone oil is already earmarked for export are you drinking enough Kool-Aid to believe that if it were operational tomorrow that gas would drop a penny?
Here's a question kids.
What is the #1 export of the US?
"The proposed TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline will allow the United States to access safe, reliable, and affordable energy supplies from Canada, and reduce our need to import crude oil from less stable countries and regions of the world."
http://www.energyxxi.org/keystone-petition
"The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline beginning in Hardisty, Alta., and extending south to Steele City, Neb. This pipeline is a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy.
Along with transporting crude oil from Canada, the Keystone XL Pipeline will also support the significant growth of crude oil production in the United States by allowing American oil producers more access to the large refining markets found in the American Midwest and along the U.S. Gulf Coast."
http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html
Would ya like a swig of my Kool Aid ?
Again. It's earmarked for export.
Petroleum is the #1 export of the US and has been for several years.
It will help the US. It's estimated that after construction that there will be a whole 300 or so jobs involved in the maintenance.[8|]
The main purpose of the line is to make a few more billions for Exxon/Mobile. Americans won't burn a drop of what flows thru it.
That said, I don't have a problem with the pipeline IF they'd just put it right alongside the existing Keystone pipeline.
DAFUQ? you say. EXISTING Keystone pipeline?
Yupper kids. There already is a keystone pipeline. The ROW is purchased, the access roads and other infrastructure are already built. Environmental impact statements are already on file and the oil has been flowing to gulf coast refineries for years where it is promptly loaded aboard ships and (you guessed it) exported.
Why don't they put the new one in the existing ROW?
Whose nose got left out of the feedbag last time?
The information I've been getting all along says the pipeline will reduce our dependence on imported oil. Then you come along and say it's earmarked for export. Based on your credible posting history I had to question what I thought I knew. But upon further research, I'm not so sure you're entirely correct. I've found conflicting information from a variety of sources.
This from Wikipedia in the same paragraph:
"........TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has argued that "the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil" and the debate over the proposed pipeline "is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria." However, an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute refers to some studies (e.g. a 2011 study by Danielle Droitsch of Pembina Institute) according to which "a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States"......"
So which is is it, all the oil or some of it or possibly none of it earmarked for export ? How is it you're so sure it's all going for export ?
On the plus side transportation cost would be less on the long run compared to shipping oil by trucks or railways.
Why they don't just build the thing along side the existing pipeline ? I have little more than a clue. All I can tell by looking at the maps is the keystone XL is a straight line to Steele City thus being shorter and less costly.
Finally, DAFUQ ?? Call me dense if you want but I don't know what that means.
|
|
|
|
