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.
Canada sells the oil on the open market like the rest of the planet; it's YOUR companies that want to buy the stuff with guaranteed LONG TERM contracts to have upgraded at YOUR refineries on the gulf coast to then be sold overseas or wherever, to the highest bidder with YOUR companies making the profits from those sales. It ain't Canada who owns those refineries on your gulf coast you morons.
Here's the bitter pill you must swallow: Warren Buffet is already shipping the crap through your country by rail lines above ground and THAT will only increase if the pipeline is refused so here's the bottom line for you; either have it shipped the statistically safest way by a brand new pipeline built to the most recent standards or have it going by tanker train as it is now on your ancient rail beds with derailments an everyday occurrence.
Either way; the oil is going through your country because YOUR companies have bought it and want it to.
Dont'cha just love it? Free enterprise baby, and Canada doesn't give a rat's ass who they sell it to. Your guys were the biggest bidder SO FAR.
Lets take a look at your Warren Buffet theory:
Quote:
A recent report by Reuters highlights the oil by rail phenomenon and the misconception that if Keystone XL is blocked, all of that Canadian oil will find its way into the U.S. on a train instead. The truth of the matter is that moving oil from North Dakota to the Gulf Coast is one thing, but adding 900 miles of rail time to that distance - the distance to Alberta's oil sands - and all of a sudden rail is not particularly economical. Estimates are that it would cost $10 per barrel to transport oil sands via Keystone, and $30 via railcar. This economic reality is probably why, desperate though they are, Canadian producers only moved 25,000 barrels per day by rail in January of this year.
Quote:
As it happens, BNSF doesn't transport any significant quantity of oil sands. What it does transport is diluent used to thin the oil so it is less viscous and can travel through pipelines. So really, its diluents shipments would likely increase if Keystone were to get approved.
Quote:
In fact, it is conceivable that BNSF would profit more if the pipeline is approved and shipments of diluents increase. We will have to wait and see, but for now, Warren Buffett is a non-issue when it comes to Keystone.
Well of course! We know that. But Canada also stands to make much more money on their oil if they can sell it on the global market. Canada gets rich, the oil companies get rich. On the other hand, Americans will pay more for gasoline because of it and bear the risk of having pristine lands and precious water resources ruined for their troubles. Build it in BC! Put a refinery in Vancouver not the US for export markets.
You and other posters are very conveniently leaving out the part where your tank farms are currently adding to and shipping their crude through the existing keystone line and tank farms in Oklahoma and Montana were going to add and ship their crude through the new section. IT AIN'T ALL CANADIAN OIL. IT NEVER WAS!!!
Just let people catch on that oil crude rail shipment have been increasing...this is only because most folks have been unaware...
You dont have BNSF ads touting oil shipment....
The assertions you posted here are erroneous! Why don't you post the source of this knowledge you claim to have? In reality, it is too expensive to ship crude oil any long distance vial rail.
You and other posters are very conveniently leaving out the part where your tank farms are currently adding to and shipping their crude through the existing keystone line and tank farms in Oklahoma and Montana were going to add and ship their crude through the new section. IT AIN'T ALL CANADIAN OIL. IT NEVER WAS!!!
Non sequitur. We could care less about this. We care about the environment and the risk to our natural resources, not whose oil it is.
The assertions you posted here are erroneous! Why don't you post the source of this knowledge you claim to have? In reality, it is too expensive to ship crude oil any long distance vial rail.
Fuel Fix » Rail picks up steam as a way to move crude
Transporting crude by rail costs more than shipping it through a pipeline, but refiners can buy North American crude oil at reduced prices, offsetting the higher cost of rail.
Non sequitur. We could care less about this. We care about the environment and the risk to our natural resources, not whose oil it is.
Quick question though, if it means losing democratic control of the Senate in 2014 (note the retiring senators from MT and SD)....what would you do with regards to keystone?
Block Keystone and lose the seats or let it go through?
Non sequitur. We could care less about this. We care about the environment and the risk to our natural resources, not whose oil it is.
I'm sorry but I choose to believe otherwise. It's entirely because the pipeline is Canadian in origin as you haven't got one other thread going about the millions of miles of at least 40 year old pipeline under your sod, some of them in the exact same territory as the Keystones.
Some of your politicians and greenie groups have been able to galvanize public opinion like never before; why? Because it's a Canadian company. You and your ilk wouldn't have said squat if it were anyone other than a Canadian company, as evidenced by pipelines running hither and yon with nary a peep when one of them leaks.
Fuel Fix » Rail picks up steam as a way to move crude
Transporting crude by rail costs more than shipping it through a pipeline, but refiners can buy North American crude oil at reduced prices, offsetting the higher cost of rail.
Crude by rail “is here to stay” and is set to grow as a complement to pipelines, analysts at Raymond James & Associates said in a recent report to clients.
From your second link:
Quote:
“We’ve proved we can move oil two to three times faster than a pipeline, and we’ve proved we can be consistent and reliable,” Koraleski said.
Why risk our aquifers too when the crude is going to be shipped by rail regardless?
Quick question though, if it means losing democratic control of the Senate in 2014 (note the retiring senators from MT and SD)....what would you do with regards to keystone?
Block Keystone and lose the seats or let it go through?
What is the point of a party if elected officials make decisions based on politics rather than the welfare of their constituents? I happen to feel our natural resources are more important than a political party.
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.
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.
