Could the Keystone Pipeline get passed?

[eibua12 81]

http://m.bbc.com/new...siness-29997074

So, do you live in Ngeria then?

Just a winter home.

Yeah you're right let's compare Nigeria to here. Funny though we have had all these years of the Alaska pipeline with no spills. I suppose you'd rather send it by train. I know you want to get rid of fossil fuels altogether and go use wind and sun. Kumbaya.

Who owns most of the trains? Answer that question and you will see the light.....

[eibua12 81]

N Dakota has extremely low unemployment. Canada same thing. I know folks just cannot let it go about some low number of jobs. I am not buying it. More gas won't drop world wide gas prices? Yeah right. Keep on with the silly predictions. This pipeline is gonna happen. It is gonna make a lot of jobs, lower prices, benefit so many.

Remember the Clinton years? They were fueled with low gas prices too. We need some good times again AS WE MOVE TOWARD a more sane energy policy down the road.

So the Keystone is going to impact global gas prices?

I wouldn't say something like that while featuring a "dumb and dumber" joke.

And here ladies and gentlemen is an exquisite example of a Gruber-Goober.

Throws centuries of economic thought and science away so he can rationalize the anti-intellectualism he has been embracing for some time now.

This is why the ineptitude in DC gets rewarded every 4 years...

And here ladies and gentlemen is confirmation of my point. Your claim that the Keystone Pipeline will reduce the global price of gas is absolutely ridiculous.

If you are serious - which I find difficult to believe - then you truly are dumb.

Oh, Im not sure precisely how much affect the pipeline will have on world oil prices but in keeping with simple supply and demand it could be a piece of the overall dynamic that continues putting downward pressure on oil prices. Logistically, I would imagine the pipeline would funnel significantly more oil to the refineries than current levels provided by the rail system.

That wasn't addressed to you. But come back if and when you have some facts to contribute.

You know little buddy, you're just a pathetic cartoon character. You butt into other's exchanges with alarming regularity yet, always have serious heartburn when anyone else returns the favor. Oh and BTW, railroad lines have capacities just like everything else.The observations that oil tankers dont move grains is just a "Gruberism". Oil tankers tax the capacity of the railroads and could very well limit the movement of other agricultural commodities

What "heartburn"? You responded as if I was talking about you, so I wanted to clarify I wasn't. Are you trying to rescue DK?

And the part of railroads that determine capacity is rolling stock, such as tank cars for chemicals and petroleum vs cars for grain. I seriously doubt that there is a shortage of engines to pull trains, so in effect, there's no conflict in capacity.

But I could be wrong. You could provide some facts that demonstrate the country is not transporting agriculture crops because all available engines are being used to transport Canadian oil, but I kind of doubt you will.

What you talkin about Willis

http://www.getransportation.com/locomotives

[DKW 86 7,426]

Homer you are doing the bidding of the ACA crowd. "They dont use tank cars to transport grain..." Really Einstein? They do use RAIL which is the point. More oil means more gas etc. What is reality today is not becessarily reality tomorrow. We may have more refineries etc. we may have more customers or any number of market corrections or changes. One thing is for sure, progress is not sitting pn our posteriors waiting for some bought and paid for govt bureaucrat to make another decision to bank on another Solyndra disaster. The markets will rock back and forth and will make huge profits. What is static today is not reality tomorrow. The oil is gonna be produced. The demand will grow as more folks drive in India and China. This is really so simple only a Gruber-Goober could get it wrong. More oil means lower prices. Lower prices means higher standard of living. More jobs for the middle class. Bigger retail sales. A return to prosperity is neede, not more head in the sand GG thinking.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 1m1 minute ago

Bill to approve Keystone XL pipeline fails to pass Senate; similar measure had passed House - live video http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/keystone-pipeline-debate/ …

[cooltigger21 0]

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 1m1 minute ago

Bill to approve Keystone XL pipeline fails to pass Senate; similar measure had passed House - live video http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/keystone-pipeline-debate/…

Just saw that. Needed 60. Got 59. Sometime in the next congress it will get passed and then we'll see what Obama does and if they can get enough to have a veto proof majority.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

But I wonder if all the Democrats that got on board to try and help Landrieu will be so eager to support it without that on the line.

[cooltigger21 0]

But I wonder if all the Democrats that got on board to try and help Landrieu will be so eager to support it without that on the line.

They'll get enough to get 60 votes. Republicans only had 45 votes this time. They will have a minimum of 54 probably 55. Whoever wins the Louisiana seat will support it so that means 55 votes guaranteed. I'm sure they can get 5 more. Question is can they get 67. I don't know if they can or not.

[aubfaninga 16]

N Dakota has extremely low unemployment. Canada same thing. I know folks just cannot let it go about some low number of jobs. I am not buying it. More gas won't drop world wide gas prices? Yeah right. Keep on with the silly predictions. This pipeline is gonna happen. It is gonna make a lot of jobs, lower prices, benefit so many.

Remember the Clinton years? They were fueled with low gas prices too. We need some good times again AS WE MOVE TOWARD a more sane energy policy down the road.

I have a few questions if you do not mind. The environmental benefits seem to be a no brainer for me. Here is two things that I can't wrap my head around...

#1 I keep hearing people say "they will use trains anyway". If this is the case, will the Keystone significantly increase oil production into the world market vs using trains?

#2 The Jobs created by the pipeline vs the effects to our railroad business financially (basically, are we going to be taking x amount of dollars in shipping and creating jobs using 1/4 that amount)

1) Ask a coherent question and and we will talk.

1) The increase is an increase, using trains or pipeline will not effect it one iota.

2) We are doing this to LESSEN the bad effects of oil spills. Trains are much more likely to spill that an pipeline.

3) Anything that will get this economy moving like it is in N Dakota is a good thing.

4) Any of the ACA Voters here that "thinks" (I use that term EXTREMELY loosely) that increasing the world supply of oil will not decrease the price, well all i can say is that the Administration and Dr Gruber have yall spec'ed out perfectly. You will believe anything that agrees with your warped view of the world. That is why when the rest of humanity was telling you the ACA was a logically and reasonably a tax, you could not plainly see it. When Roberts pointed it out that the ACA was indeed a tax, You could not see that either. You were reacting as the low information voters Gruber and the Dems expected you to be.You acted just as they predicted you would. Just as you are reacting now.

Example: 5 Years from now, China finds Oil in the South China Sea. They start producing their own oil. NEWSFLASH: the oil in Canada is not just designated for China for perpetuity! Even at that, taking China off the world market in any way will lower the demand for oil and will drop prices. The market is still the market, no matter how much crack Krugman did last nite.

Thanks for your answer. Your rudeness towards me asking simple questions for understanding, your constant ACA jabber while discussing oil, and your second (yet labeled #1) point has shown me that you just speak to hear yourself.

[aubfaninga 16]

If anybody with even half an interest in anything related to truth would take two minutes they would see that oil being transported on railroads is way up over the past five years. Grain is being held up and not being delivered. Even people like CNBC, who I would hardly label as a right wing source, has reported that. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102021264#. Besides that trains are not as efficient as a pipeline at moving oil. Trains inevitably move through populated areas increasing the risk to the population. Of course some would like to see us quit using oil altogether regardless of the consequences.

I am still on the fence. If your selling point is environmental then it seems counterproductive for people to make jabs at (so called) environmentalists. Comment not directed at you but I can pull quotes of people on here doing exactly that. (talking out both sides of their mouth)

You have me sold on the environmental issues.

DKW has proven the point that the pipeline will not significantly increase production so price effects seem minimal.

You brought out that the pipeline is more efficient. Seems like a no brainer but who will reap the benefits? The U.S. citizen or the Oil company? Please correct me if I am wrong but the oil companies will set their prices based off the world market and not necessarily savings that could be profit... right?

Could money be spent on railway infrastructure to move the grain you speak of? This seems better for the U.S. than a pipeline. (of course we could have both)

I will admit that I am just a pea brain when it comes to politics but these issues still interest me.

[cooltigger21 0]

N Dakota has extremely low unemployment. Canada same thing. I know folks just cannot let it go about some low number of jobs. I am not buying it. More gas won't drop world wide gas prices? Yeah right. Keep on with the silly predictions. This pipeline is gonna happen. It is gonna make a lot of jobs, lower prices, benefit so many.

Remember the Clinton years? They were fueled with low gas prices too. We need some good times again AS WE MOVE TOWARD a more sane energy policy down the road.

I have a few questions if you do not mind. The environmental benefits seem to be a no brainer for me. Here is two things that I can't wrap my head around...

#1 I keep hearing people say "they will use trains anyway". If this is the case, will the Keystone significantly increase oil production into the world market vs using trains?

#2 The Jobs created by the pipeline vs the effects to our railroad business financially (basically, are we going to be taking x amount of dollars in shipping and creating jobs using 1/4 that amount)

1) Ask a coherent question and and we will talk.

1) The increase is an increase, using trains or pipeline will not effect it one iota.

2) We are doing this to LESSEN the bad effects of oil spills. Trains are much more likely to spill that an pipeline.

3) Anything that will get this economy moving like it is in N Dakota is a good thing.

4) Any of the ACA Voters here that "thinks" (I use that term EXTREMELY loosely) that increasing the world supply of oil will not decrease the price, well all i can say is that the Administration and Dr Gruber have yall spec'ed out perfectly. You will believe anything that agrees with your warped view of the world. That is why when the rest of humanity was telling you the ACA was a logically and reasonably a tax, you could not plainly see it. When Roberts pointed it out that the ACA was indeed a tax, You could not see that either. You were reacting as the low information voters Gruber and the Dems expected you to be.You acted just as they predicted you would. Just as you are reacting now.

Example: 5 Years from now, China finds Oil in the South China Sea. They start producing their own oil. NEWSFLASH: the oil in Canada is not just designated for China for perpetuity! Even at that, taking China off the world market in any way will lower the demand for oil and will drop prices. The market is still the market, no matter how much crack Krugman did last nite.

Thanks for your answer. Your rudeness towards me asking simple questions for understanding, your constant ACA jabber while discussing oil, and your second (yet labeled #1) point has shown me that you just speak to hear yourself.

There are some people that are just opposed to oil period and just use anything they can to denigrate it and say things that just don't make any sense. These are the same people that want to stop fracking and not allow any offshore drilling. They love ethanol, which has negligible benefits environmentally,uses up corn which would be better used for livestock feed and has to go by train. It simply won't work in a pipeline. That has taken up a good chunk of train capacity as well. If the economy ever takes off that will increase demand for goods to be shipped across the country. With the new rules coming in for the trucking industry in 2016, that will add to the burden for railroads in all probability. We simply cannot continue to tie up our railroad capacity with oil transport which is not the most efficient or economical way to transport it. The simple fact is this oil is going to come out regardless. We've had the alaska pipeline for almost 40 years and it has not caused any environmental harm. Now if we don't build the pipeline then Canada will build their own out to the Atlantic Ocean. You

[aubfaninga 16]

There are some people that are just opposed to oil period and just use anything they can to denigrate it and say things that just don't make any sense. These are the same people that want to stop fracking and not allow any offshore drilling. They love ethanol, which has negligible benefits environmentally,uses up corn which would be better used for livestock feed and has to go by train. It simply won't work in a pipeline. That has taken up a good chunk of train capacity as well. If the economy ever takes off that will increase demand for goods to be shipped across the country. With the new rules coming in for the trucking industry in 2016, that will add to the burden for railroads in all probability. We simply cannot continue to tie up our railroad capacity with oil transport which is not the most efficient or economical way to transport it. The simple fact is this oil is going to come out regardless. We've had the alaska pipeline for almost 40 years and it has not caused any environmental harm. Now if we don't build the pipeline then Canada will build their own out to the Atlantic Ocean. You

I am about making money and not killing things in the process. The effects oil and coal has on the environment does not sway me nearly as much as the future does. Example: There is some very "efficient" technology already being used in the railway industry. Just for me, investing in that future seems like the direction to go.

How many jobs will the pipeline create after it is completed? Has there been any numbers thrown around?

[cooltigger21 0]

If anybody with even half an interest in anything related to truth would take two minutes they would see that oil being transported on railroads is way up over the past five years. Grain is being held up and not being delivered. Even people like CNBC, who I would hardly label as a right wing source, has reported that. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102021264#. Besides that trains are not as efficient as a pipeline at moving oil. Trains inevitably move through populated areas increasing the risk to the population. Of course some would like to see us quit using oil altogether regardless of the consequences.

I am still on the fence. If your selling point is environmental then it seems counterproductive for people to make jabs at (so called) environmentalists. Comment not directed at you but I can pull quotes of people on here doing exactly that. (talking out both sides of their mouth)

You have me sold on the environmental issues.

DKW has proven the point that the pipeline will not significantly increase production so price effects seem minimal.

You brought out that the pipeline is more efficient. Seems like a no brainer but who will reap the benefits? The U.S. citizen or the Oil company? Please correct me if I am wrong but the oil companies will set their prices based off the world market and not necessarily savings that could be profit... right?

Could money be spent on railway infrastructure to move the grain you speak of? This seems better for the U.S. than a pipeline. (of course we could have both)

I will admit that I am just a pea brain when it comes to politics but these issues still interest me.

Yes the price of oil is set by the world market. It's as simple as the more oil that enters the market the lower the price of oil period regardless of where it comes from. The keystone won't by itself reduce the price of oil. It just makes sense all the way around. We can transport the oil we are getting out of North Dakota through it as well. We should invest more money in expanding the railroad infrastructure and increase capacity that way. That is absolutely something that should be done. Again though you are going to have to deal with environmental regulations to build it. It's just like building a pipeline or a highway. We need the most effective and efficient way to transport our oil and gas through to market. Pipelines are the best way to do that. When I personally refer to environmentalists, I refer to the ones that you saw at the march in New York a month or so ago. These people want to get rid of capitalism and stop using fossil fuels altogether. I don't know the number of permanent jobs that will come with this. It won't have a great number. Pipelines are like roads and bridges and railroads. They are infrastructure projects that have a lot of construction jobs but not a lot of permanent jobs.

[aubfaninga 16]

If anybody with even half an interest in anything related to truth would take two minutes they would see that oil being transported on railroads is way up over the past five years. Grain is being held up and not being delivered. Even people like CNBC, who I would hardly label as a right wing source, has reported that. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102021264#. Besides that trains are not as efficient as a pipeline at moving oil. Trains inevitably move through populated areas increasing the risk to the population. Of course some would like to see us quit using oil altogether regardless of the consequences.

I am still on the fence. If your selling point is environmental then it seems counterproductive for people to make jabs at (so called) environmentalists. Comment not directed at you but I can pull quotes of people on here doing exactly that. (talking out both sides of their mouth)

You have me sold on the environmental issues.

DKW has proven the point that the pipeline will not significantly increase production so price effects seem minimal.

You brought out that the pipeline is more efficient. Seems like a no brainer but who will reap the benefits? The U.S. citizen or the Oil company? Please correct me if I am wrong but the oil companies will set their prices based off the world market and not necessarily savings that could be profit... right?

Could money be spent on railway infrastructure to move the grain you speak of? This seems better for the U.S. than a pipeline. (of course we could have both)

I will admit that I am just a pea brain when it comes to politics but these issues still interest me.

Yes the price of oil is set by the world market. It's as simple as the more oil that enters the market the lower the price of oil period regardless of where it comes from. The keystone won't by itself reduce the price of oil. It just makes sense all the way around. We can transport the oil we are getting out of North Dakota through it as well. We should invest more money in expanding the railroad infrastructure and increase capacity that way. That is absolutely something that should be done. Again though you are going to have to deal with environmental regulations to build it. It's just like building a pipeline or a highway. We need the most effective and efficient way to transport our oil and gas through to market. Pipelines are the best way to do that. When I personally refer to environmentalists, I refer to the ones that you saw at the march in New York a month or so ago. These people want to get rid of capitalism and stop using fossil fuels altogether. I don't know the number of permanent jobs that will come with this. It won't have a great number. Pipelines are like roads and bridges and railroads. They are infrastructure projects that have a lot of construction jobs but not a lot of permanent jobs.

Thanks for your input. For the record I lean toward building the pipeline. I just want any facts that I can get and want to hear both sides of the argument.

[cooltigger21 0]

If anybody with even half an interest in anything related to truth would take two minutes they would see that oil being transported on railroads is way up over the past five years. Grain is being held up and not being delivered. Even people like CNBC, who I would hardly label as a right wing source, has reported that. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102021264#. Besides that trains are not as efficient as a pipeline at moving oil. Trains inevitably move through populated areas increasing the risk to the population. Of course some would like to see us quit using oil altogether regardless of the consequences.

I am still on the fence. If your selling point is environmental then it seems counterproductive for people to make jabs at (so called) environmentalists. Comment not directed at you but I can pull quotes of people on here doing exactly that. (talking out both sides of their mouth)

You have me sold on the environmental issues.

DKW has proven the point that the pipeline will not significantly increase production so price effects seem minimal.

You brought out that the pipeline is more efficient. Seems like a no brainer but who will reap the benefits? The U.S. citizen or the Oil company? Please correct me if I am wrong but the oil companies will set their prices based off the world market and not necessarily savings that could be profit... right?

Could money be spent on railway infrastructure to move the grain you speak of? This seems better for the U.S. than a pipeline. (of course we could have both)

I will admit that I am just a pea brain when it comes to politics but these issues still interest me.

Yes the price of oil is set by the world market. It's as simple as the more oil that enters the market the lower the price of oil period regardless of where it comes from. The keystone won't by itself reduce the price of oil. It just makes sense all the way around. We can transport the oil we are getting out of North Dakota through it as well. We should invest more money in expanding the railroad infrastructure and increase capacity that way. That is absolutely something that should be done. Again though you are going to have to deal with environmental regulations to build it. It's just like building a pipeline or a highway. We need the most effective and efficient way to transport our oil and gas through to market. Pipelines are the best way to do that. When I personally refer to environmentalists, I refer to the ones that you saw at the march in New York a month or so ago. These people want to get rid of capitalism and stop using fossil fuels altogether. I don't know the number of permanent jobs that will come with this. It won't have a great number. Pipelines are like roads and bridges and railroads. They are infrastructure projects that have a lot of construction jobs but not a lot of permanent jobs.

Thanks for your input. For the record I lean toward building the pipeline. I just want any facts that I can get and want to hear both sides of the argument.

I'm always open to good honest debate and am happy to talk to people that have questions and try to give the best information possible.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

A reasonable person could support this pipeline. But folks who are convinced this pipeline will have an appreciable impact on our economy are just ideologues and corporate tools.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

A reasonable person could support this pipeline. But folks who are convinced this pipeline will have an appreciable impact on our economy are just ideologues and corporate tools.

I'm sort of in the camp that it probably has some benefits and don't see a good reason to oppose it on balance. I'm not convinced at all it will appreciably affect gas or oil prices nor create tons of jobs. But it will put a lot of people to work in good paying jobs for a while and some permanently, which is a good thing.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

aubfaninga........here is a little debate with two views.

http://video.foxnews.../#sp=show-clips

[aubfaninga 16]

aubfaninga........here is a little debate with two views.

http://video.foxnews.../#sp=show-clips

Thanks...

The 30 to 40 permanent jobs is about the estimate I was guessing.

Still the same on environmental issues. Most arguments wash considering they are going to pump and transport anyway.

It did raise another question though. If this is such a great thing for the U.S., then why is Canada giving us the opportunity to do it?

[Mikey 16,614]

aubfaninga........here is a little debate with two views.

http://video.foxnews.../#sp=show-clips

Thanks...

The 30 to 40 permanent jobs is about the estimate I was guessing.

Still the same on environmental issues. Most arguments wash considering they are going to pump and transport anyway.

It did raise another question though. If this is such a great thing for the U.S., then why is Canada giving us the opportunity to do it?

Because Canada can deliver oil to our refineries cheaper through the pipeline than by hauling it through the Panama Canal in tankers.

[alexava 6,973]

I have been for the pipeline until recently. I was always understanding the reduced gas prices but i am convinced it will have zero effect. I am not against it now but unless you get one of those 40 jobs or you are in the oil business it will not benefit you. Its not worth disrupting the land it would occupy.

[aubfaninga 16]

aubfaninga........here is a little debate with two views.

http://video.foxnews.../#sp=show-clips

Thanks...

The 30 to 40 permanent jobs is about the estimate I was guessing.

Still the same on environmental issues. Most arguments wash considering they are going to pump and transport anyway.

It did raise another question though. If this is such a great thing for the U.S., then why is Canada giving us the opportunity to do it?

Because Canada can deliver oil to our refineries cheaper through the pipeline than by hauling it through the Panama Canal in tankers.

Canada (the citizens) or the privately owned oil company "can deliver oil to our refineries cheaper through the pipeline than by hauling it through the Panama Canal in tankers"? (my question was more about benefits to the citizens of each country)

Will said company lease the land the pipeline sits on? or Will the government just charge to use it? (I have not seen this talked about)

[homersapien 11,385]

If anybody with even half an interest in anything related to truth would take two minutes they would see that oil being transported on railroads is way up over the past five years. Grain is being held up and not being delivered. Even people like CNBC, who I would hardly label as a right wing source, has reported that. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102021264#. Besides that trains are not as efficient as a pipeline at moving oil. Trains inevitably move through populated areas increasing the risk to the population. Of course some would like to see us quit using oil altogether regardless of the consequences.

I am still on the fence. If your selling point is environmental then it seems counterproductive for people to make jabs at (so called) environmentalists. Comment not directed at you but I can pull quotes of people on here doing exactly that. (talking out both sides of their mouth)

You have me sold on the environmental issues.

DKW has proven the point that the pipeline will not significantly increase production so price effects seem minimal.

You brought out that the pipeline is more efficient. Seems like a no brainer but who will reap the benefits? The U.S. citizen or the Oil company? Please correct me if I am wrong but the oil companies will set their prices based off the world market and not necessarily savings that could be profit... right?

Could money be spent on railway infrastructure to move the grain you speak of? This seems better for the U.S. than a pipeline. (of course we could have both)

I will admit that I am just a pea brain when it comes to politics but these issues still interest me.

I think he was arguing the opposite.

Otherwise, you are right on!

[TexasTiger 12,947]

I have been for the pipeline until recently. I was always understanding the reduced gas prices but i am convinced it will have zero effect. I am not against it now but unless you get one of those 40 jobs or you are in the oil business it will not benefit you. Its not worth disrupting the land it would occupy.

There's never been so much fuss over so few jobs.

[aubfaninga 16]

I am still on the fence. If your selling point is environmental then it seems counterproductive for people to make jabs at (so called) environmentalists. Comment not directed at you but I can pull quotes of people on here doing exactly that. (talking out both sides of their mouth)

You have me sold on the environmental issues.

DKW has proven the point that the pipeline will not significantly increase production so price effects seem minimal.

You brought out that the pipeline is more efficient. Seems like a no brainer but who will reap the benefits? The U.S. citizen or the Oil company? Please correct me if I am wrong but the oil companies will set their prices based off the world market and not necessarily savings that could be profit... right?

Could money be spent on railway infrastructure to move the grain you speak of? This seems better for the U.S. than a pipeline. (of course we could have both)

I will admit that I am just a pea brain when it comes to politics but these issues still interest me.

:blink:/> I think he was arguing the opposite.

Otherwise, you are right on!

I was speaking of cooltiger in this response.

DKW proved with his very own points there would be no benefit at the pump all while trying to belittle people like me for not understanding the benefits we will reap at the pump. SMH (and he took the jab at me for not being coherent enough for him)

[DKW 86 7,426]

A reasonable person could support this pipeline. But folks who are convinced this pipeline will have an appreciable impact on our economy are just ideologues and corporate tools.

Did Gruber tell you to say that?