I don't. It's good for the strategic interest of this country's economy in that it adds to the secure supply. I don't buy the jobs aspect, it's not that big a deal. The environmental cost and total inefficiency of the system makes it a really bad choice to extend our petroleum dependency. But, Canada will exploit the resource eventually and China would be a happy buyer. So, it seems inevitable, but there is no 'hurry' that it can't be done in a responsible way. I would like to maybe see a tax on all exports that result from the pipeline, directed at alternative energy projects but that's probably to unwieldy.
From what I understand, this pipeline is going to help Canada more than it helps the US. 1) Canada is exporting ~97% of its oil to the US already. Most of it ends up in the Mid West where we process it. Since Canada can not sell it to anyone else, it is available to the US at a lower price. WTI is currently lower than Brent. 2) If we build the pipeline, there are some temporary jobs, high estimate is a couple thousands, maybe less to build the pipeline. Permanent jobs in refineries near the Gulf only means jobs in the Midwest are lost. 3) If the pipeline is built to the Gulf, there is nothing to stop Canada to put it in tankers and send it to the highest bidder, i.e. China. At that time, the cost of crude to the US will go up and we have to bear the burden of environmental risks. 4) With or without this pipeline, the increase of Canada oil's production is the same up to at least 2030 according to Trans-Canada. When they were questioned, they acknowlegded that this pipeline will just diverge the oil from existing lines to the Mid-west. 5) Canada even has problem trying to talk its own people into building their own pipeline thru the Northwest, you have to wonder why?
As evidenced by this post, you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about oil markets, job markets and economics.
Wow, coming from you? I seriously doubt you know anything except to regurgitate what your leaders say but why don't you try?
He sounds spot on. In fact, the Cushing hub in Oklahoma is already being expanded to reach the Gulf of Mexico. This is partly why a lot of people are making the XL pipeline an issue. This overall expansion will cause the price per barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) to increase. National Geographic did an article in August 2011 about the Spirit Bear of Canada. The article noted how Canadian companies have been attempting to build pipelines from Abthasca oil sands to the West Coast of Canada, which runs through the Spirit Bear's habitable area. I think the XL pipeline is an overall alternate route since the original route to the west coast was seen as too environmentally risky.
You could type a short paragraph to inform the poster. It wouldn't take much longer than just wasting both your time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...dustries-keystone-xl_n_1231783.html?igoogle=1 House Democrats Seek To Subpoena Koch Industries Over Keystone XL WASHINGTON -- House Democrats took the political offensive on Keystone Wednesday, seeking to probe connections between the multi-billion dollar project and Koch Industries, the Kansas-based energy conglomerate that has funded many a conservative cause. At a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called for subpoenaing representatives from Koch Industries over their alleged financial stakes in an approval of Keystone XL, arguing the committee has an "obligation" to understand who would benefit if the controversial oil pipeline was constructed. The comments come just one week after Obama rejected a permit for the pipeline, which would stretch from tar sands in Canada to refineries in Texas, saying Republicans had jeopardized the review process by requiring the administration to render a decision by Feb. 21. In a letter to subcommittee chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asking for the subpeonas, Waxman and eight other House Democrats called for a day of hearings featuring Koch Industry executives. They cited, as evidence for their suspicion, a Koch subsidiary's assertion during a Canadian proceeding that the company has a "direct and substantial interest" in the pipeline. "Last year news organizations reported that one company, Koch Industries, would be one of the big winners if this pipeline were constructed," Waxman said at the hearing. "We asked Koch whether this was true and were told they have no interest whatsoever in the pipeline. But then we learned that they told the Canadian government that they have a direct and substantial interest. Something does not add up." A visibly ruffled Whitfield cut Waxman off, saying that while he would certainly accept the letter, he had no intention of subpoenaing the Koch brothers. "The brothers have nothing to do with this project," he said. When Waxman pressed him on the issue, Whitfield pivoted to House Republican's favorite defensive talking point on the subject of clean energy. "If you want to talk about that, let's talk about the millions of dollars the Obama administration gave companies like Solyndra and people like George Kaiser and other campaign bundlers," Whitfield said. Solyndra, the California solar panel manufacturer and Department of Energy loan recipient that went belly-up last year, has nothing to do with the Keystone XL decision. And by that logic, Whitfield's comment would seem to acknowledge that he and Waxman were simply trading partisan barbs. The bickering came during a hearing over a bill introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) that would strip Obama's State Department of the power to approve the pipeline, passing it to the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The bill would also require the FERC to issue approval of the project within 30 days. Kerri-Ann Jones, the State Department's point person on Keystone, on Wednesday dismissed the proposed legislation, arguing it "imposes narrow time constraints and creates automatic mandates that prevent an informed decision." The panel is slated to meet again on Feb. 1. Watch Mediaite's video of Waxman and Whitfield's heated exchange below:
he's right. here's a fundamental problem with some of the posts on economic on the topic. you guys act like the government is building this pipeline. i saw an environmentalists say that we are just transporting the oil. the us is the number one exporter of refined petroleum products. that's what we do. why do you think houston's economy is one of the bests in the country. they aren't building anymore refineries. refining usage is at historical lows. we have the capicity to refine more. oh and btw, we don't have to deal with a bunch of crazies killing each other we get to deal with USA 1a, Canada. Some people just like us.
infrastructure is the key issue. their might not be much demand for gasoline right now compared to production, but there will be. this is planning ahead
It looks like the Canadian route is making the news again. http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=401 So after centuries of screwing over the native Indians they are now just finally getting some kind of revenge against the Canadian government.:grin:
For you Cushing-Gulf Coast pipeline deniers, here are the websites for what are known as the Seaway Pipeline and the Wrangler Pipeline. http://wranglerpipeline.com/ http://www.seawaypipeline.com/
I didn't know about them but I only needed 10 minutes to find that: Wrangler was canceled: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/update-enterprise-products-cancels-wrangler-pipeline-20111116-00202 and that Seaway is an existing pipeline and the reversal of its flow raised the price of crude in the US. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111116-711080.html
if this is built iran is much less of a threat to our well being as a country. as i posted in the iran attack thread, all they can do to us is block off oil supply. stop relying on middle eastern oil.
An 800,000 barrel per day pipeline is not going to replace the over 2,000,000 barrels per day of exports out of Iran. Extra supplies will not flood the market and dramatically drop prices. Any extra oil production will help grow the Chinese economy which would in turn increase their oil demand and raise prices further. These pipelines take years to build and years to fill to complete shipping capacity. US does not import oil from Iran. http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico are top three for the US. A list of all countries. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm In fact, US crude oil imports have gone down in recent years, due to decrease demand. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS1&f=M Oil production since 2005 has plateaued, while world demand is increasing. The Peak Oil theorists are sounding their alarm: no increase in world oil production since 2005, aging and declining Middle-Eastern oil fields and drilling into source rocks such as the Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Bakken shales.
dude, i'm just worried about what the us uses. we don't export all of iran's oil. let the countries who need their oil work that out, we deal with the canadians. GET IT but thanks for all the charts homie
Cohete give me a break No, the XL pipeline won't be the silver bullet that solves all our countries energy problems. But it will help. It will reduce our transportation costs to access oil, which will thereby reduce the overall cost. Plus it comes with very limited political risk. not that hard to understand.
Something like 90% of Canada's oil exports go to the US because the infrastructure does not exist to export it to other markets. Builing pipelines to the Gulf Coast and to the western Canadian coast will help export that oil to other markets. Because Canada cannot find other markets for its oil, the price of Canadian crude is not as high as Brent or Abu Dhabi; the same is true with WTI which is why there is a pipeline reversal project underway. So how exactly does increasing the number of markets Canadian crude can reach lower our transportation costs?
