quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
KXL comments:
According to the Presidential Permit application, as reported in the State Dept's report, most of the oil transported through the Keystone XL would go to Gulf coast area refineries, not shipped overseas.
The increased amount of crude we would be refining received through the KXL wouldn't likely reduce our dependence on oil, but it would reduce our dependence on oil from less stable countries.

There are plenty of refineries closer to the oilfield than the gulf coast. The only reason to move the oil down there is to refine it for shipment over seas.

Read the report, Ken (I believe it's in the "Market" section). That was taken into account, too. All refineries don't have the same capacity to make the same stuff. I con't recall what the requirement was, but the US had over half the production capability of the total World production capability, and the Gulf Coast refineries accounted for over half of the total US production capability. I don't know where current excess capability is, or where the best opportunity for expansion lies, so there may be something there that points to not allowing the KXL, but there are merits for the pipeline.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
KXL comments:
According to the Presidential Permit application, as reported in the State Dept's report, most of the oil transported through the Keystone XL would go to Gulf coast area refineries, not shipped overseas.
The increased amount of crude we would be refining received through the KXL wouldn't likely reduce our dependence on oil, but it would reduce our dependence on oil from less stable countries.

There are plenty of refineries closer to the oilfield than the gulf coast. The only reason to move the oil down there is to refine it for shipment over seas.

Read the report, Ken (I believe it's in the "Market" section). That was taken into account, too. All refineries don't have the same capacity to make the same stuff. I con't recall what the requirement was, but the US had over half the production capability of the total World production capability, and the Gulf Coast refineries accounted for over half of the total US production capability. I don't know where current excess capability is, or where the best opportunity for expansion lies, so there may be something there that points to not allowing the KXL, but there are merits for the pipeline.

I've seen the numbers. The tar will go over seas if the pipeline is built period.

quote:

Neither side has clean hands and both are guilty as sin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

What? The Republicans had credibility?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I've seen the numbers. The tar will go over seas if the pipeline is built period.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


According to the Presidential Permit application, as reported in the State Dept's report, most of the oil transported through the Keystone XL would go to Gulf coast area refineries, not shipped overseas.

What is the main export of the US of A?

If you guessed "Refined Petroleum Products", you win a SEEGARRR

Just because it goes to a US refinery doesn't mean we get to use it. Petroleum is our largest export.

Almost all of which is gasoline as oil exports are banned and the US is the world's leading gasoline exporter. Got to keep the price up here. Look: Here

Yes—for the most part. The relevant laws here date back to the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which directed the president to ban crude oil exports except in select circumstances. The exceptions: Over the years, the Commerce Department has handed out export licenses for certain types of oil. Crude from Alaska's Cook Inlet gets a pass.

So does oil that goes through the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. So does any oil that's shipped to Canada for consumption there. So does heavy oil from certain fields in California. There are also exceptions for re-exporting foreign oil and for small swaps with Mexico. But all this added up to a modest 67,000 barrels per day in 2011.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

Neither side has clean hands and both are guilty as sin.

Indeed; but you'll still see over 90% of the masses playing in the partisan sand-box circle-jerking, won't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to the Presidential Permit application, as reported in the State Dept's report, most of the oil transported through the Keystone XL would go to Gulf coast area refineries, not shipped overseas.

What is the main export of the US of A?
If you guessed "Refined Petroleum Products", you win a SEEGARRR
Just because it goes to a US refinery doesn't mean we get to use it. Petroleum is our largest export.

When should I expect arrival of my cigar? lol

Are you arguing against supplying more Canadian crude to the gulf state refineries in favor of it going off-shore for refining? Isn't that, effectively, outsourcing? The article was all about how the jobs aren't going to be created that Boehner and Co. have been touting. While that may very well be true, aren't there merits to increasing output somewhat while greatly increasing the percentage of crude we import from a friendly country?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

Neither side has clean hands and both are guilty as sin.

Indeed; but you'll still see over 90% of the masses playing in the partisan sand-box circle-jerking, won't you?

Which I think is no accident at all. It's intentional manipulation akin to Marie Antoinette letting the peasants eat cake or the spectacles the Roman emperors put on to keep the populace distracted and enthralled (And I mean that in the oldest usage, as in serving in thralldom).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
My point is that the official line of the XL supporters is that "We need this so that America will be more energy independent" which is an outright lie.
We need this so that Exxon/Mobile can make a few more Billion by exporting their products.
My main problem with the XL pipeline is this. Why don't they just put the damn thing alongside the existing Keystone pipeline?
The infrastructure is already there, the ROW is already purchased, the EPA has already been satisfied with the route. They could put the XL alongside the existing line and save billions in costs and months in time.
Something doesn't smell right. I'm guessing some congressman didn't get his nose deep enough into the feed bag.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
My point is that the official line of the XL supporters is that "We need this so that America will be more energy independent" which is an outright lie.
We need this so that Exxon/Mobile can make a few more Billion by exporting their products.
My main problem with the XL pipeline is this. Why don't they just put the damn thing alongside the existing Keystone pipeline?
The infrastructure is already there, the ROW is already purchased, the EPA has already been satisfied with the route. They could put the XL alongside the existing line and save billions in costs and months in time.
Something doesn't smell right. I'm guessing some congressman didn't get his nose deep enough into the feed bag.

God forbid we support American refineries, even if the gas isn't going to stay here. Maybe we should apply the same stupid restrictions on other businesses that export rather than keeping all their products here. I'm sure that will certainly increase American jobs.

Whatever you do, don't read the Market Analysis in the State Dept. report that details why shipping to the Gulf State refineries is a good idea.

There's likely to be something in there that details why "new" ground is better than routing it next to the current Keystone pipeline. That's for you to find out, though. Not going to research that for you.

quote:

You're missing (possibly deliberately) the entire argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

LMAO, after 6 fucking years of Obama lies, Salon now thinks it's the Republicans with a credibility problem... You can't make this shit up

We've had 30 years of repub lies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You're missing (possibly deliberately) the entire argument.
Those pushing for why we need the Keystone XL now are outright lying.

quote:

Who says I don't support American refineries? What I don't support is the fact that they're lying to the public about why they need this.
According to some of those in the RW media, we don't have enough refineries as it is to support domestic need, much less exporting a few tens of millions of barrels. (another lie?)

quote:

I have researched and found nothing about why the XL couldn't go alongside the existing line.
A lot of my RW friends that I ask about it will even go so far as to deny that a Keystone pipeline even exists and I'm making it up. Well, they do until I show them several years worth of production data.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to the Presidential Permit application, as reported in the State Dept's report, most of the oil transported through the Keystone XL would go to Gulf coast area refineries, not shipped overseas.

What is the main export of the US of A?
If you guessed "Refined Petroleum Products", you win a SEEGARRR
Just because it goes to a US refinery doesn't mean we get to use it. Petroleum is our largest export.

When should I expect arrival of my cigar? lol

Are you arguing against supplying more Canadian crude to the gulf state refineries in favor of it going off-shore for refining? Isn't that, effectively, outsourcing? The article was all about how the jobs aren't going to be created that Boehner and Co. have been touting. While that may very well be true, aren't there merits to increasing output somewhat while greatly increasing the percentage of crude we import from a friendly country?

My point is that the official line of the XL supporters is that "We need this so that America will be more energy independent" which is an outright lie.
We need this so that Exxon/Mobile can make a few more Billion by exporting their products.

My main problem with the XL pipeline is this. Why don't they just put the damn thing alongside the existing Keystone pipeline?

The infrastructure is already there, the ROW is already purchased, the EPA has already been satisfied with the route. They could put the XL alongside the existing line and save billions in costs and months in time.

Something doesn't smell right. I'm guessing some congressman didn't get his nose deep enough into the feed bag.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOL Ive never stated that the dems have... I dislike almost every pol there is,and distrust ALL of them, from three countries....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
LOL Ive never stated that the dems have... I dislike almost every pol there is,and distrust ALL of them, from three countries....

and yet I do not think I have EVER seen you bash dems for ANYTHING

as for credibility and OUTRIGHT LIES, not mischaracterization, or BENDING the truth OUTRIGHT LIE, "if you like your insurance you can keep it"

I guess that wasn't LIE he was just MISTAKEN

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
You're missing (possibly deliberately) the entire argument.
Those pushing for why we need the Keystone XL now are outright lying.

Right. Like the State Department, in their Market Analysis. Goddamn RW-ers!!!

quote:

Who says I don't support American refineries? What I don't support is the fact that they're lying to the public about why they need this.
According to some of those in the RW media, we don't have enough refineries as it is to support domestic need, much less exporting a few tens of millions of barrels. (another lie?)

The RW media probably didn't impact the State Department's report. It's pretty thorough.

quote:

I have researched and found nothing about why the XL couldn't go alongside the existing line.
A lot of my RW friends that I ask about it will even go so far as to deny that a Keystone pipeline even exists and I'm making it up. Well, they do until I show them several years worth of production data.

Oh. well, Hell's Bells! If you haven't found anything, then, obviously no reasons exist.

I didn't read the section about siting options in the State Dept. report. You seem to care a lot more about that aspect than I do. It may show you the reasoning behind not siting it there. It also might not have anything about that option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOL Ive never stated that the dems have... I dislike almost every pol there is,and distrust ALL of them, from three countries....

and yet I do not think I have EVER seen you bash dems for ANYTHING

as for credibility and OUTRIGHT LIES, not mischaracterization, or BENDING the truth OUTRIGHT LIE, "if you like your insurance you can keep it"

I guess that wasn't LIE he was just MISTAKEN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
The RW media targets below the 50th percentile of the US population based on intelligence. Most of those folks don't know what the State Dept is but they can be counted upon to start screaming when their Masters in the media tell them to.
We've heard a lot of that.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)