Could the Keystone Pipeline get passed?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

I'm shocked at how those on the right are wholesale swallowing this as something positive for the US ... w/o any facts to support it ... amazing.

it's another case of left vs right without facts. that is why i ask for facts. i fully support jobs and lower gas/energy prices. just show me how.

They can't.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/economics-no-longer-makes-keystone-153213747.html

[Strychnine 1,802]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

[Strychnine 1,802]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

It's a big deal to Republican senators who rely on big oil money to get elected. It's pretty meaningless to the rest of us.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You expect relevance from Blue?

[Strychnine 1,802]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You expect relevance from Blue?

Not really, but I like to cling to hope. Naive, I know.

[homersapien 11,385]

The most compelling argument I have heard is that it will carry oil that would otherwise be carried in (an aging) fleet of rail tankers thus reducing the safety/environmental risks associated with rail. But I haven't seen any sort of detailed analysis of the trade-offs.

Of course, that assumes that the oil will be shipped regardless of the market price.

Personally, I had much rather see us invest in existing infrastructure - like the aforementioned railroad system - that will be more relevant longer term.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

Nice. The "adults in the room" need to grow up.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You expect relevance from Blue?

Not really, but I like to cling to hope. Naive, I know.

Dont mean to break up the lovefest between you and Tex but i wasn't refuting anything you said. I was simply pointing out that suddenly, after 6 years of appeasing Tom Steyer and the rest of the monied left wing greenies, now its important because there is political capital to be gleaned from it since a democrat Senator in a state that would benefit from the XL pipeline being built is trying to salvage her job. Tom Steyer dangled $100 Million in front of all democrats who would go along with killing the pipeline and they all fell in line like expected. That's all and BTW, thats not only a salient point it is relevant because it is clearly how the left rolls. BTW, I dont care if they build the thing or not but, if they aren't, why is it after 6 years they still haven't said they aren't? Answer..because with the left its politics above everything forever..thats why!

[Strychnine 1,802]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You expect relevance from Blue?

Not really, but I like to cling to hope. Naive, I know.

Dont mean to break up the lovefest between you and Tex but i wasn't refuting anything you said. I was simply pointing out that suddenly, after 6 years of appeasing Tom Steyer and the rest of the monied left wing greenies, now its important because there is political capital to be gleaned from it since a democrat Senator in a state that would benefit from the XL pipeline being built is trying to salvage her job. Tom Steyer dangled $100 Million in front of all democrats who would go along with killing the pipeline and they all fell in line like expected. That's all and BTW, thats not only a salient point it is relevant because it is clearly how the left rolls. BTW, I dont care if they build the thing or not but, if they aren't, why is it after 6 years they still haven't said they aren't? Answer..because with the left its politics above everything forever..thats why!

Considering that you were not refuting or even addressing anything I said, quoting my post was rather pointless. I didn't say anything about Democrats, Republicans, the Senate, ridiculous modern politics, or rhetoric.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

[japantiger 4,051]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

Whoa, DK...way too much Econ101 for the Gruber's on here to understand....the forces of Economics that have driven 10,000 years of progress do not apply in Obama-land.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

Whoa, DK...way too much Econ101 for the Gruber's on here to understand....the forces of Economics that have driven 10,000 years of progress do not apply in Obama-land.

Correct JT, way too much Econ 101. Amazing that two quarters of Economics explains all economic theory. Why get bogged down in issues like elasticity, cartels, supply manipulation, politics, futures markets, currency valuation. All we need is a supply curve, a demand curve, enough of a brain to recognize the intersection, and the magical faith that the free markets are in fact free. All of that aside though, the fatal flaw in logic here is, the assumption that this oil can never find it's way to market except through the Keystone pipeline? Hmmmm.

[homersapien 11,385]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You expect relevance from Blue?

Not really, but I like to cling to hope. Naive, I know.

Dont mean to break up the lovefest between you and Tex but i wasn't refuting anything you said. I was simply pointing out that suddenly, after 6 years of appeasing Tom Steyer and the rest of the monied left wing greenies, now its important because there is political capital to be gleaned from it since a democrat Senator in a state that would benefit from the XL pipeline being built is trying to salvage her job. Tom Steyer dangled $100 Million in front of all democrats who would go along with killing the pipeline and they all fell in line like expected. That's all and BTW, thats not only a salient point it is relevant because it is clearly how the left rolls. BTW, I dont care if they build the thing or not but, if they aren't, why is it after 6 years they still haven't said they aren't? Answer..because with the left its politics above everything forever..thats why!

Hint: There are a lot of people who refuse to swallow all the hype from the "moneyed interests" about the KP, much less the political demogogery coming from the GOP.

Perhaps, just perhaps, a lot of these Democrats are responding to their constituency and are examining this from a hard business perspective, including the potential hidden costs the investment won't bother to cover.

[homersapien 11,385]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

Whoa, DK...way too much Econ101 for the Gruber's on here to understand....the forces of Economics that have driven 10,000 years of progress do not apply in Obama-land.

Correct JT, way too much Econ 101. Amazing that two quarters of Economics explains all economic theory. Why get bogged down in issues like elasticity, cartels, supply manipulation, politics, futures markets, currency valuation. All we need is a supply curve, a demand curve, enough of a brain to recognize the intersection, and the magical faith that the free markets are in fact free. All of that aside though, the fatal flaw in logic here is, the assumption that this oil can never find it's way to market except through the Keystone pipeline? Hmmmm.

Maybe it's time for us to consider propositions from a more advanced perspective than Econ 101.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

Whoa, DK...way too much Econ101 for the Gruber's on here to understand....the forces of Economics that have driven 10,000 years of progress do not apply in Obama-land.

Correct JT, way too much Econ 101. Amazing that two quarters of Economics explains all economic theory. Why get bogged down in issues like elasticity, cartels, supply manipulation, politics, futures markets, currency valuation. All we need is a supply curve, a demand curve, enough of a brain to recognize the intersection, and the magical faith that the free markets are in fact free. All of that aside though, the fatal flaw in logic here is, the assumption that this oil can never find it's way to market except through the Keystone pipeline? Hmmmm.

Maybe it's time for us to consider propositions from a more advanced perspective than Econ 101.

You're not ready to concede that simple rhetoric trumps the complexities of reality. I wonder how many people actually read the first page of the two text books that cover micro and macro economics. There are two very important caveats. The course titles should be a clue also. "Introduction" to Micro Economic Principles, "Introduction" to Macro Economic Principles.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Technically, one could argue oil delivered via Keystone XL and is subsequently refined on the Gulf Coast would be a benefit to the US if additional refinery capacity is required to do it, meaning more jobs at new or expanded refineries. However, it is clear that Keystone XL is intended primarily for export oil, hence the name Keystone eXport Limited (XL). It is also clear that potential benefits are certainly far more favorable to TransCanada and oil companies than the are to us. Considering that the other three Keystone phases are already running from the start point to end point, it really does not seem like a big deal for us whether it is built or not.

It is a big deal, otherwise, the Senate would not be taking it up for a vote. Obviously, Harry Reid has found religion now that Miss Piggy is trying to salvage her Senate seat,

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You expect relevance from Blue?

Not really, but I like to cling to hope. Naive, I know.

Dont mean to break up the lovefest between you and Tex but i wasn't refuting anything you said. I was simply pointing out that suddenly, after 6 years of appeasing Tom Steyer and the rest of the monied left wing greenies, now its important because there is political capital to be gleaned from it since a democrat Senator in a state that would benefit from the XL pipeline being built is trying to salvage her job. Tom Steyer dangled $100 Million in front of all democrats who would go along with killing the pipeline and they all fell in line like expected. That's all and BTW, thats not only a salient point it is relevant because it is clearly how the left rolls. BTW, I dont care if they build the thing or not but, if they aren't, why is it after 6 years they still haven't said they aren't? Answer..because with the left its politics above everything forever..thats why!

Considering that you were not refuting or even addressing anything I said, quoting my post was rather pointless. I didn't say anything about Democrats, Republicans, the Senate, ridiculous modern politics, or rhetoric.

OK, my mistake. I was simply making an additional observation about how I see the sudden renewed interest in an issue that has been sliced and diced to death for 6 years and presumably because of a Senate race it has risen to the top of the legislative agenda. thatss all.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

Whoa, DK...way too much Econ101 for the Gruber's on here to understand....the forces of Economics that have driven 10,000 years of progress do not apply in Obama-land.

Correct JT, way too much Econ 101. Amazing that two quarters of Economics explains all economic theory. Why get bogged down in issues like elasticity, cartels, supply manipulation, politics, futures markets, currency valuation. All we need is a supply curve, a demand curve, enough of a brain to recognize the intersection, and the magical faith that the free markets are in fact free. All of that aside though, the fatal flaw in logic here is, the assumption that this oil can never find it's way to market except through the Keystone pipeline? Hmmmm.

I was not asked to give a desertation on my thesis, merely explain how it benefits Americans to build the pipeline.

So, i dumbed this down for all the ACA Voters out there. BTW I have BS degree in Economics...(That means well over 2 quarters/semesters just in case the ACA Voters out there didnt know) and that allows me to do that and relax in the knowledge that i can very ably back it all up.

The oil will certainly find its way to market. But I do not have a clue as to why Employing Americans and Benefiting Americans is now an Inherent Evil in some quarters these days. We have 152K miles of pipelines right now. But we only worry about the XL Pipeline. That is really really odd. But what do i know/ Maybe one of the ACA Voters will enlighten me as to why:

1)152,000 Miles already built are ok.

2) Buying OIL from third world countries where there are ZERO Enviromental Concerns is totally ok.

3) Why the Elitists in this country want to tell about how us how EVIL Fossil fuels are...right after they de-plane from a Gulfstream G4 or step out of a V-12 Mercedes or a V-8 Cadillac Limousine.

Maybe they need another assault on the Environment like the last Copenhagen Summit?

[RunInRed 16,426]

A few points, best stated here ...

It is not legal to export US derived crude from the US, not under usual circumstances. But it is entirely legal to export crude derived products, like gasoline, from the US. So, to some extent, that discount on WTI means that the refiners can buy crude more cheaply, yes, but then when they’ve refined it into gas then they can export that and it doesn’t make gas any cheaper for US consumers. It just fattens the refiners’ profit margins. As is usual in matters economic there’s probably a bit of both going on. But it’s simply not true to say that all of that WTI discount goes to US based consumers. At least some of it is fattening the refiners’ margins as they export.

What Keystone will do is move some of that excess crude down to the Gulf, that’s true. So the WTI discount can be expected to shrink if it’s ever built. But how that affects the gas market depends upon how much of that discount is currently flowing through to consumers and how much is sticking in the refiners’ profit margins.

http://www.forbes.co...ght-raise-them/

And here ...

Curt Launer, a managing director at Deutsche Bank, agreed, saying that there's no real reason to suspect that direct economic benefits shared by Transcanada, Canadian oil producers and U.S. oil refiners would be passed on to individual gasoline consumers.

"The question is, what impact would this have on consumer prices?" said Launer. "The answer is none."

"Keystone wouldn't have a significant impact either way on overall North American energy prices," he said. "The real impact would be a higher price received by the producers of oil who would ship their oil through the Keystone pipeline. There would not be a change in any major way for the price of oil in the worldwide market."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101144616#.

Or even more to the point, here ...

So put simply, Keystone XL moves existing crude oil supply from refineries that have been producing gasoline predominately for the US market to refineries that are predominately producing diesel for the export market. This will lower the amount of gasoline produced in America, raise the price Midwest refineries pay for crude oil and lead to higher gasoline prices.

None of this should be a surprise. The industry has no interest in lowering gas prices, why should it? It has for a long time enjoyed a monopoly on transportation fuel. Today, as demand trends shift slowly towards greater efficiency and alternatives, the prospects of raising American demand for oil are fading. The response is to export in order to maintain revenues and maintain prices. The industry is doing its fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maintain and grow profits in a changing global market. It has no such duty to consumers and citizens.

http://priceofoil.org/2012/05/22/keystone-xl-gas-price-myth-busted/

[DKW 86 7,426]

And yet, those EVIL Oil companies just do irrational things like:

http://www.latimes.c...1115-story.html

In Southern California — and across the country — prices have been dropping for months, placing extra dollars in consumers' wallets. This week the average price for a gallon of regular hit $3.24 in Los Angeles and Long Beach, the lowest in four years, according to AAA. In Orange County, it was $3.19.

Energy analysts say it may go lower.

"We could see gasoline prices in the high 2s," said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director of energy and sustainability at UC Davis.

It's going to be a sloppy year next year for oil. On balance, crude oil prices should be the lowest they've been in four or five years.- Tom Kloza, oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service

Several factors are likely to get prices there, Jaffe said.

Oil production in the United States — driven by the nation's shale oil boom — is increasing. And on the demand side, the sluggish global economy has sent the price of crude steadily down.

In the U.S., where growth has been stronger, demographics and consumer habits are putting downward pressure on demand, analysts said. As baby boomers age, they're driving less, while millennials haven't shown the same affinity for the road as previous generations, said Brian L. Milne, energy editor at Schneider Electric.

lRelated AUTOS Electrified car sales stall as buyers back away from hybrids SEE ALL RELATED

8

When Americans do drive, they're zipping around in more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"That has been the biggest factor in reducing gasoline demand," Milne said. "We are producing more gasoline than we need....."

"The North America shale boom has changed all the calculus," Kloza said.

Oh yeah, where did i hear that before...

More Supply means prices drop...just like they are doing right now.

Oh Yeah, in my Econ 101 class...

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Some one dispute this statement for me:

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” ...

Further, explain to me how this will be a job boom and gas price suppressor for the U.S.?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

THIS^^^^^ . what i have understood is the construction will create many temporary jobs then the long term production and maintenance will be a very low # of permanent jobs. If someone can quantify this for us fence straddlers, we are listening.

If Canada sells oil to the Chinese as is stated, therefore it will remove a portion of that market from the entire global market.

Therefore, using basic Economics 101 principles:

World Supply of Oil ^^^ => World Price of Oil vvv

Increase the Supply and the Price will go down.

That will drop prices of all goods that have oil prices as a contributing factor:

1) Oil is a component in production

2) Oil is a component of the total transportation costs of that product.

3) Farming and Groceries will have lower costs that could then lower the price of food.

4) Families save at the pump which spurs consumer expenditures for Christmas, etc

5) Decreases in oil prices are already spurring sales of the much more lucrative larger SUVs across the board, therefore improving the performance and sales of the auto companies.

Whoa, DK...way too much Econ101 for the Gruber's on here to understand....the forces of Economics that have driven 10,000 years of progress do not apply in Obama-land.

Correct JT, way too much Econ 101. Amazing that two quarters of Economics explains all economic theory. Why get bogged down in issues like elasticity, cartels, supply manipulation, politics, futures markets, currency valuation. All we need is a supply curve, a demand curve, enough of a brain to recognize the intersection, and the magical faith that the free markets are in fact free. All of that aside though, the fatal flaw in logic here is, the assumption that this oil can never find it's way to market except through the Keystone pipeline? Hmmmm.

I was not asked to give a desertation on my thesis, merely explain how it benefits Americans to build the pipeline.

So, i dumbed this down for all the ACA Voters out there. BTW I have BS degree in Economics...(That means well over 2 quarters/semesters just in case the ACA Voters out there didnt know) and that allows me to do that and relax in the knowledge that i can very ably back it all up.

The oil will certainly find its way to market. But I do not have a clue as to why Employing Americans and Benefiting Americans is now an Inherent Evil in some quarters these days. We have 152K miles of pipelines right now. But we only worry about the XL Pipeline. That is really really odd. But what do i know/ Maybe one of the ACA Voters will enlighten me as to why:

1)152,000 Miles already built are ok.

2) Buying OIL from third world countries where there are ZERO Enviromental Concerns is totally ok.

3) Why the Elitists in this country want to tell about how us how EVIL Fossil fuels are...right after they de-plane from a Gulfstream G4 or step out of a V-12 Mercedes or a V-8 Cadillac Limousine.

Maybe they need another assault on the Environment like the last Copenhagen Summit?

I'm not trying to insult you DKW but, you received a BS in Economics in two semesters? And, you make no argument based in economics, just more rhetoric? I get it. You want it built. That's fine. I still don't understand why you feel the way you do. Because your sticking it to ACA fans? Your sticking it to hypocritical environmentalists? Jobs (that has been covered, they are temporary)? Seriously, I am NOT trying to make you mad. I just do not understand the reasoning for your passion.

[DKW 86 7,426]

WTHeck are you talking about? My degree certainly took far longer than two semesters. Where did you get that? I am responding to a host of folks here on this forum whose entire identity was in being "more intelligent" than the rest of us. Now we find out that the ACA Braintrust built the plan on the ""Stupidity" of the ACA Voter. We have heard multiple times from Gruber about the assumed stupidity of the ACA Voters. Now as the Supremes get to hear the case about whether "punishing" the states was the right call vis-a-vis the subsidies.

The real question about the XLP is that no one seems to care that the Dems seem to be swapping sides to save Landrieu's career. All that passion vanished as soon as ONE senate seat was in question. Doesn't that bother you that ONE seat changes the whole dynamic of 6 years of crap logic against the American working people? This argument against the XLP was never about economics or even pollution. It was about a group of Eilitist Prigs trying to impose their will against common sense in an effort to prove their supposed superiority. Now we know that all that was crap. The very people proclaiming their superiority will now be remembered as the dupes in the real debate.

Thanks Gruber. Your commentary has flipped the field by showing that the DC Elites have been playing the Stupids for their votes.

[alexava 6,973]

ACA, Gruber, elitist , still this pipeline WILL MOST LIKELY NOT HAVE MUCH POSITIVE IMPACT ON THIS COUNTRY, HARDLY ANY. that is the issue you didn't address mr. Gruber.