Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2022, 01:36 PM
 
15,165 posts, read 8,683,982 times
Reputation: 7495

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
So, you admit you can't demonstrate that XL is a significant contributor to the high prices AND THEN resort to personal attacks calling me stupid.

Bye.
No, I explained how it does. I can’t do anything about you not understanding the explanation.

But let’s try one last time …

Futures market analysts observing …..

Biden says we’re going to eliminate oil and coal ….. analysts wonder if he’s just having another senior moment, PRICE TICKS UP

Biden signs EO halting an important oil pipeline project … analysts think … maybe he means business
PRICE TICKS UP MORE

Biden refuses to grant oil leases …. analysts think … ok, this is serious, and really happening.
PRICE TICKS UP EVEN MORE

Oil companies scale back on exploration …. analysts say buy long, BUY REAL LONG.
PRICES WAY UP

This is just the very simplified version … lots of other shenanigans also happening, like wars and sanctions and Arab oligarchs cashing in on the corruption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2022, 01:45 PM
 
45,675 posts, read 24,097,122 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlblkrubi View Post
Is Biden going to offer a buyback program or pay off the millions of car loans when there is no more fuel to be had? I imagine many people will let the banks reposes soon as no one can afford to drive.
When do you think there will be no fuel?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 01:56 PM
 
15,165 posts, read 8,683,982 times
Reputation: 7495
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
I saw the cititations, professor. Doesn't make the paper any less terrible or more accurate.

Are you saying you believe the XL extension would have doubled the US' transport capacity?


"...The Keystone XL pipeline, a privately funded project, would double the current capacity of oil transported in the U.S. per day, provide the U.S. with a more stable source of crude oil, and significantly increase employment and capital within America...."
Why do you think the massive investments to build oil pipelines are made?

A doubling is a conservative estimate. Do you even know what the Keystone pipeline does? It transports a significant amount of oil from Canada to a central point in the US, which is then transported by another pipeline to oil refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Let’s see … Canada to Texas … truck or pipeline? Methinks pipeline is probably a better, faster and more economical solution that would also expand the volume of oil transported by a pretty significant amount. Double? At least double.

And that’s the long term benefits. There are a ton of other benefits too, such as the boost in local economies all along the massive distances covered as the pipeline is built. A lot of people were harmed with one stroke of a pen held by the hand of a demonic dementia patient who requires adult supervision just so he doesn’t become a silver alert.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 02:08 PM
 
15,165 posts, read 8,683,982 times
Reputation: 7495
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
When do you think there will be no fuel?
Whenever they decide you shouldn’t have any. That’s when. But, if all goes according to plan, many won’t be alive to need gasoline, while all but the most fortunate, won’t be able to afford it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 04:23 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,287,451 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
No one has built a ground up refinery in the US since 1974 or so. There's no reason to when existing refineries can be expanded. However, some refineries have been closed because of high costs, some are being converted to produce biofuel, some had incidents and closed permanently.

Here's weekly data through May https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...s=WPULEUS3&f=W

Coincidentally, this was stated today.

ExxonMobil said had invested $118 billion on new oil and gas supplies over the past five years, compared to a net income of $55 billion – resulting in an almost 50% increase in its U.S. production of oil during that period.

ExxonMobil said it has been investing through the economic downturn to increase refining capacity to process U.S. light crude by some 250,000 barrels per day, which equates to a new medium-sized refinery.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ergy-producers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 05:17 PM
 
27,224 posts, read 15,401,956 times
Reputation: 12115
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
No we are not 800k barrels per day short. Keystone XL would not have been completed for another couple of years.

Increasing refinery capacity takes years, and in some cases, billions of dollars.

Refineries are running between 93% and 96% of capacity right now. That's not sustainable, and some of the refineries are going to have to shut down for maintenance soon, or we will have more incidents, ie explosions and fires. Refining oil involves high temperatures, up to 3,000 degrees, and high pressures. That means maintenance has to be done.
When your oil business is threatened by government investment in refineries drops like a rock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 05:23 PM
 
15,590 posts, read 7,625,226 times
Reputation: 19475
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Why do you think the massive investments to build oil pipelines are made?

A doubling is a conservative estimate. Do you even know what the Keystone pipeline does? It transports a significant amount of oil from Canada to a central point in the US, which is then transported by another pipeline to oil refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Let’s see … Canada to Texas … truck or pipeline? Methinks pipeline is probably a better, faster and more economical solution that would also expand the volume of oil transported by a pretty significant amount. Double? At least double.

And that’s the long term benefits. There are a ton of other benefits too, such as the boost in local economies all along the massive distances covered as the pipeline is built. A lot of people were harmed with one stroke of a pen held by the hand of a demonic dementia patient who requires adult supervision just so he doesn’t become a silver alert.
Did you read the paper? Keystone XL would not double the amount of oil transported by pipeline in the US. It would have doubled the amount of oil transported by the KEYSTONE Pipeline System. The Grey Oak Pipeline from the Permian to the Gulf Coast carries 900k barrels per day by itself. Total jobs affected were not that high, jut a few thousand, with the permanent job count far lower.

The oil that would have been transported via Keystone XL is not going to be trucked. If it comes to the US, it will be by rail. The most likely case is it will be sent to the West Coast of Canada, and then loaded on tankers for various destinations. A truck carries less than 200 barrels of crude oil, closer to 180 for heavy crude. We aren't going to see 4500 trucks running from Canada to the US every day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 05:29 PM
 
15,590 posts, read 7,625,226 times
Reputation: 19475
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
Coincidentally, this was stated today.

ExxonMobil said had invested $118 billion on new oil and gas supplies over the past five years, compared to a net income of $55 billion – resulting in an almost 50% increase in its U.S. production of oil during that period.

ExxonMobil said it has been investing through the economic downturn to increase refining capacity to process U.S. light crude by some 250,000 barrels per day, which equates to a new medium-sized refinery.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ergy-producers
That 250k bbls per day is a project at the XOM Beaumont refinery. It's been in progress for some time, since before Covid, and is designed to process lighter crudes from the Permian basin. It is not a response to current capacity issues, and will not offset capacity lost to the PES closure in Philadelphia, which was a 335k bbls/day facility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 06:04 PM
 
15,165 posts, read 8,683,982 times
Reputation: 7495
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
Coincidentally, this was stated today.

ExxonMobil said had invested $118 billion on new oil and gas supplies over the past five years, compared to a net income of $55 billion – resulting in an almost 50% increase in its U.S. production of oil during that period.

ExxonMobil said it has been investing through the economic downturn to increase refining capacity to process U.S. light crude by some 250,000 barrels per day, which equates to a new medium-sized refinery.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ergy-producers
I’m sorry, but those figures just don’t add up. Come on guys, you all have to do better than this. Just gasoline sales alone run between 40 and 50 Billion dollars PER MONTH! And that’s not the only revenue associated with oil. Damned near everything from plastics to medicine uses petroleum.

Over the 5 years between 2016-2020, gasoline sales were $2,378 Billion or 2.38 Trillion Dollars, and you believe Exxon Mobile made only 55 Billion over a 5 year period? Little more than 10 Billion per year? Apple makes that much every two weeks! In 2020, Apple raked in $274 Billion!

God almighty … I don’t what to say anymore other than I guess y’all are right … the moon is made of cream cheese, Donald Trump really is a high ranking member of the KGB, and Joe Biden is the smartest man in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2022, 06:33 PM
 
15,165 posts, read 8,683,982 times
Reputation: 7495
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
Did you read the paper? Keystone XL would not double the amount of oil transported by pipeline in the US. It would have doubled the amount of oil transported by the KEYSTONE Pipeline System. The Grey Oak Pipeline from the Permian to the Gulf Coast carries 900k barrels per day by itself. Total jobs affected were not that high, jut a few thousand, with the permanent job count far lower.

The oil that would have been transported via Keystone XL is not going to be trucked. If it comes to the US, it will be by rail. The most likely case is it will be sent to the West Coast of Canada, and then loaded on tankers for various destinations. A truck carries less than 200 barrels of crude oil, closer to 180 for heavy crude. We aren't going to see 4500 trucks running from Canada to the US every day.
Show me where I made anything close to such a ridiculous claim?? I think it was pretty clear what I was saying, when I specified the oil coming from Canada, and making its way to the gulf coast refineries. How is that to be confused with 200 other pipelines, a few of which move most of the fuel supplying the entire east coast? Nobody said anything about doubling the entire volume of oil products being transported for the entire country.

But be careful … don’t confuse transport of oil products with transport of crude oil. Two different things. There is massive amounts of pipeline movement of refined and semi-refined oil products. Obviously, the pipeline is a second leg which starts from the same source and ends at the same destination, but the path is more direct, and the volume and transport time is greater, which would at least double the amounts reaching the gulf coast refineries.

Furthermore, the cancelled portion which would have stretched across Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska most certainly had economic consequences to the locals in those three states which are mostly rural, and the benefits to the local populations in and around the construction would have been significant in lodging, food and other services, not to mention the jobs which aren’t plentiful in those parts of the country.

Do you have something of value to add to this conversation other than confusion?

Last edited by GuyNTexas; 06-16-2022 at 06:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top