Could the Keystone Pipeline get passed?

[DKW 86 7,426]

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.

Doesn't that put the kabash on your "pipeline will decrease the price of gas" claim?

homer, put down the crack pipe.

Any increase in the amount of oil going to the refineries is a good thing pricewise. It will not matter one bit if it comes thru the pipeline or rail, with the exception that pipeline is far safer and more environmentally healthy.

[DKW 86 7,426]

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)

1) Then you grossly misunderstood what i was replying to: any increase in the supply of oil WILL CERTAINLY benefit us at the pump.

2) When i see multiple people in this thread simply ignore reality..it makes me realize that Gruber was exactly right. We do indeed have a large number of folks here in the US, some of them supposedly mature and educated that will believe any fantasy that is told them.

Here let me help:

If you like your high gas prices, you can keep your high gas prices. The rest of us are moving on.

Do you think that only N Dakota and Canada can have low unemployment and prosperity. Afterall, they are making money hand over fist but NO ONE in this thread can figure out how selling oil to a thirsty world can make anyone a job or better off.

The fantasy about the environmental problems of the pipeline are tossed to the wind as soon as Landrieu's job was in jeopardy.

Steyer spent $100M trying to make a $1B by stopping this pipeline because there is that much $$$ in oil but no one thinks that there is any money in this...

Oil has been exceedingly profitable for 100+ years but suddenly there is no profit in it when it comes to this pipeline? REALLY?

Do you folks listen to how unreasonable, illogical, non-sensical you are with this topic?

The dynamics of 21st Century Industry did not change overnite. Business is still business. America AND THE WORLD still need oil.

My God, i expect Tex and homer to be dense. It is what they do. Deny the undeniable.JUST LIKE GRUBER HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATING.

But the rest of you folks, look at N Dakota. See the prosperity?

China and India are just coming online. We are soon going to be EXPORTING oil. Anyojne here think that is a bad idea?

The Dept of Energy was created to get us to energy independence. We are getting close.

I hope we put a tax on the oil, while things are going our way and invest in new more friendly technologies we all want.

But for now, we have to get deal with reality that oil and coal are part of our near future and we need to use that to our advantage.

[Mikey 16,615]

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)

Right now a gas pipeline is being constructed across my farm. The company pays the landowners for the right of way. They pay fair market value, which in my case I thought was more than "fair".

As for the environment, these lines are underground. Once the construction is finished you can't tell a pipeline is there except for the occasional warning sign about not digging too deep. In my county one can see cotton, corn, pasture and hay being grown on top of pipeline right of ways. The only thing that can't be grown is timber. Of course, buildings are not permitted. The typical right of way is about 50 feet wide. They rent a wider track for construction but in my case their permanent right of way is 50 feet.

As for any benefits from the Keystone project, unless the laws of supply and demand have ceased to function, gas prices at the pump will be lower than they would have been without the pipeline.

[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.

Did Gruber tell you to say that?

Here's another of your irrational obsessions.

[homersapien 11,386]

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.

Doesn't that put the kabash on your "pipeline will decrease the price of gas" claim?

homer, put down the crack pipe.

Any increase in the amount of oil going to the refineries is a good thing pricewise. It will not matter one bit if it comes thru the pipeline or rail, with the exception that pipeline is far safer and more environmentally healthy.

So are you suggesting the refineries are operating below capacity waiting for the Keystone oil to fill them?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

A reasonably balanced primer:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html?referrer=

[Mikey 16,615]

So are you suggesting the refineries are operating below capacity waiting for the Keystone oil to fill them?

I'm not. The oil is getting there, its transportation is just less efficient, more costly and more environmentally dangerous than it would be if transported by pipeline.

[homersapien 11,386]

So are you suggesting the refineries are operating below capacity waiting for the Keystone oil to fill them?

I'm not. The oil is getting there, its transportation is just less efficient, more costly and more environmentally dangerous than it would be if transported by pipeline.

If the refineries are already operating at capacity without the KP, how is it going to decrease gas prices?

I don't think one pipeline is going to affect the price of the worlds crude, production of which is also under capacity.

[homersapien 11,386]

Why the KP is unlikely to affect gas prices:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/17/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-isnt-about-lowering-your-gas-prices/

[DKW 86 7,426]

So are you suggesting the refineries are operating below capacity waiting for the Keystone oil to fill them?

I'm not. The oil is getting there, its transportation is just less efficient, more costly and more environmentally dangerous than it would be if transported by pipeline.

If the refineries are already operating at capacity without the KP, how is it going to decrease gas prices?

I don't think one pipeline is going to affect the price of the worlds crude, production of which is also under capacity.

i dont know tex. Maybe they add a shift, invest in more facilities, add another refinery, etc. they do the same things that evey industry under the sun has done for millenia.

[autigeremt 6,642]

The oil is going to get to the refineries regardless of how much the environmental movement thinks stopping this pipeline will change the delivery mechanism. Trains will move it over rail so the bigger question is....why can't they see this already? I support the pipeline over rail transport because of the ability to isolate a problem and resolve it. Trains are great for transporting goods and services, but they are also prone to derailment and that can be a moving target. You never know where that may occur.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Why the KP is unlikely to affect gas prices:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/17/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-isnt-about-lowering-your-gas-prices/

"Unlikely, possibly, maybe..." A lot on conjecture versus history. I will take history. About the only thing i took from that article is that the market is complex and there isnt a 1:1 correlation. Something no one ever claimed.

[aubfaninga 16]

Why the KP is unlikely to affect gas prices:

http://www.washingto...our-gas-prices/

"Unlikely, possibly, maybe..." A lot on conjecture versus history. I will take history. About the only thing i took from that article is that the market is complex and there isnt a 1:1 correlation. Something no one ever claimed.

could have sworn u were claiming the {building of the pipeline} will {decrease the worlds oil prices}. 1 : 1

[alexava 6,973]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

So, the real problem for you is that someone is going to get rich from it? Its going to be built. After the 1st of the year it will be veto proof(67 senate votes) if the same democrats vote then as they did yesterday.

[cooltigger21 0]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

So, the real problem for you is that someone is going to get rich from it? Its going to be built. After the 1st of the year it will be veto proof(67 senate votes) if the same democrats vote then as they did yesterday.

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals have always loved to make boogeymen out of the rich. They love Tom Steyer and George Soros and Warren Buffet. At the same time they rail against the Koch Brothers.

[alexava 6,973]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

So, the real problem for you is that someone is going to get rich from it? Its going to be built. After the 1st of the year it will be veto proof(67 senate votes) if the same democrats vote then as they did yesterday.

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals have always loved to make boogeymen out of the rich. They love Tom Steyer and George Soros and Warren Buffet. At the same time they rail against the Koch Brothers.

why are you for it? Who do you think it benefits?

[TheBlueVue 177]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

So, the real problem for you is that someone is going to get rich from it? Its going to be built. After the 1st of the year it will be veto proof(67 senate votes) if the same democrats vote then as they did yesterday.

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals have always loved to make boogeymen out of the rich. They love Tom Steyer and George Soros and Warren Buffet. At the same time they rail against the Koch Brothers.

why are you for it? Who do you think it benefits?

Here's why Im for it. Are you a keen environmentalist? I ask because the the tar sands which are considered the dirtiest of oil is either going to be refined by unregulated Chinese refineries or by highly regulated American refineries. If your concerns are genuinely environmental, why would you prefer the Chinese who dont give 2 sh**s about the environment refine it versus American refineries? Lastly, this should not even be a big political issue. Look below at all the oil pipelines that are already in existence most notably all those that already cross the Canadian border. This is about appeasing Tom Steyer and Warren Buffett, the owner of the Burlington Railroad. Now, if you're just pissed because someone - NOT YOU - is going to get rich because of it, then, there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.

[cooltigger21 0]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

So, the real problem for you is that someone is going to get rich from it? Its going to be built. After the 1st of the year it will be veto proof(67 senate votes) if the same democrats vote then as they did yesterday.

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals have always loved to make boogeymen out of the rich. They love Tom Steyer and George Soros and Warren Buffet. At the same time they rail against the Koch Brothers.

why are you for it? Who do you think it benefits?

For every reason I have already stated. The Canadians are going to take this oil out of the ground and send it somewhere. Like Blue stated, if we don't build Keystone, Canada will build a pipeline over to the Atlantic Ocean. Second it would remove this oil and the oil coming from North Dakota from the railroads, which are a much bigger risk to the safety and well being of the public. Those trains run through populated areas. There have already been derailments of these trains. There will be more. If there were leaks or any problems with any of the pipelines already crossing country. The thousands of construction jobs will help out and although the permanent jobs are not like a big industry they are beneficial nonetheless. Unlike some people I don't have an irrational hatred for industrialists or rich men. Profit is not evil. Quite simply there is not one logical reason to not build it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Quite simply there is not one logical reason to not build it."

Which is why it will be built.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

The TransCanada Keystone Pipeline will ship over 300 million barrels of oil annually, using initial US government estimates.

How will the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline benefit the United States ?

1) Construction jobs- approximately 2,000; once construction is completed the number will drop to only a few hundred permanent maintenance positions which will be distributed along the pipeline. 100's- 1,000's of support jobs will be created, some permanent, some temporary. The closer to the Gulf more permanent jobs will be created rather than along the northern branch. Over time more jobs will most likely increase (along the Gulf) as the business of pumping and refining Canadian oil grows. Workers have to eat = more grocery stores, more restaurants. Workers need housing = more construction. Wifey needs a new ring, baby needs new shoes...etc.

2) Initially 300 million barrels of oil will be transported annually to the Gulf of Mexico for refining and further transportation. The direct dollar benefit to Gulf state local economies will be billions of dollars annually. Refining cost of oil is approximately 10% of the cost of crude, currently about $75/bbl. 300 million barrels annually x $7.5/bbl = $2.2 billion of new annual commerce immediately to the Gulf area alone and this is only from refining. Those shipping companies along the Gulf will further benefit from the work increase when they transport to other points in/outside the USA. Ancillary companies will expand/be created to support the growth of the oil industry which will increase overall job growth. For a $2.2 billion annual influx of cash the jobs will be in the thousands...over time and the $2.2 billion figure should continue to grow, even with a drop in the price of crude. If crude price drops the consumption of gasoline will increase (as consumer confidence grows), hence the need for more oil to be pumped. It will see saw upward. Some gasoline will go overseas and some will stay here in the states. This is the equivalent of having a Fortune 1000 company set up business, except that it has the benefit of being diversified among many types of businesses rather than one which could be affected by adverse economic changes.

3) Less than half of every bbl of oil is consumed as fuel, ie., gasoline, diesel, etc. Over half of every bbl is used for common consumer goods.

List: http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

This newly available refined crude oil will cheapen these products or maintain downward price pressure. These will be at America's front door for purchase.

For those detractors of crude oil, Until you come up with other ingredients to make shoes, cosmetics, computer components, houses, asphalt, etc, you had best lend your support to the Keystone to keep prices for those consumer goods low, or be prepared for your wife to give a Halloween-like appearence every day when she starts using the "environmentally friendly" type of makeup.

4) The addition of the northern tier of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline will initially increase world output of crude by approximately 1% (one per cent). This is a BIG number in the oil industry although the number seems miniscule. Daily world output is about 85 million bbls/day and Keystone will initially produce about 830K bbl/day. Keystone production will maintain downward price pressure and, over time, most likely continue to drive price downward. Such downward price pressure can easily be maintained until the price of crude reaches $35- $40/bbl for tar sand/shale producers. Marginal companies will be challenged when crude hits $70- $75/bbl (approximately 5% of those producers). One great unspoken benefit of this lower pricing tier is that both Russia and OPEC (mainly Saudi Arabia) will be hurt financially. Russia must maintain prices above $80/bbl or their economy will be adversely affected, significantly. Russia is the largest producer of oil. For every $5 drop in crude oil price their gdp has the potential of dropping 1% when below $80/bbl. For Saudi Arabia, they need to maintain oil above $75/bbl. For each $5 drop in crude the impact is almost twice as hurtful on their gdp.

5) Canada, a close and trusted ally of the United States, will benefit greatly when Keystone is implemented. Keystone will increase their oil export by about 20%. This could increase their gdp by approximately 1%. Indirectly this benefits the USA by having economically stable trading partners. America will directly benefit by refining Canadian oil. Canada will export their oil either to the west or down the Keystone. If shipped westward China most likely benefits. If down the Keystone America will benefit as described above. There are numerous other benefits to America by having Canada succeed.

6) For those concerned about transportation of oil along the Keystone, did you know that one of the worst rail line oil spills in history occurred in west Alabama near Aliceville along the state line ? The total spill was around 17,000bbl. Also, this Bakken oil shipment (shale oil) dissipates more quickly than other forms of crude were they to occur. Environmental impact is diminished compared with other crudes.

To learn more about the potential impact of oil transportation read here (sources cited just for homer):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/oil-train-spill-alabama_n_4969523.html

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/map-railway-oil-spills

7) The growth of American jobs will be in the 10's of thousands over time, mainly along the Gulf. Keystone is of vital interest to the American economy....and devastating to our enemies.

[DKW 86 7,426]

I see it posted that "an increase in supply will lower prices". Then i see the same poster say, "the oil will be extracted and get into the market with or without the pipeline". It will cost less to move it by pipeline which increases profits for the already rich oil tycoons.

So, the real problem for you is that someone is going to get rich from it? Its going to be built. After the 1st of the year it will be veto proof(67 senate votes) if the same democrats vote then as they did yesterday.

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals have always loved to make boogeymen out of the rich. They love Tom Steyer and George Soros and Warren Buffet. At the same time they rail against the Koch Brothers.

why are you for it? Who do you think it benefits?

Here's why Im for it. Are you a keen environmentalist? I ask because the the tar sands which are considered the dirtiest of oil is either going to be refined by unregulated Chinese refineries or by highly regulated American refineries. If your concerns are genuinely environmental, why would you prefer the Chinese who dont give 2 sh**s about the environment refine it versus American refineries? Lastly, this should not even be a big political issue. Look below at all the oil pipelines that are already in existence most notably all those that already cross the Canadian border. This is about appeasing Tom Steyer and Warren Buffett, the owner of the Burlington Railroad. Now, if you're just pissed because someone - NOT YOU - is going to get rich because of it, then, there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.

Thanks, some reality for the ACA Voters here.

[DKW 86 7,426]

The TransCanada Keystone Pipeline will ship over 300 million barrels of oil annually, using initial US government estimates.

How will the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline benefit the United States ?

1) Construction jobs- approximately 2,000; once construction is completed the number will drop to only a few hundred permanent maintenance positions which will be distributed along the pipeline. 100's- 1,000's of support jobs will be created, some permanent, some temporary. The closer to the Gulf more permanent jobs will be created rather than along the northern branch. Over time more jobs will most likely increase (along the Gulf) as the business of pumping and refining Canadian oil grows. Workers have to eat = more grocery stores, more restaurants. Workers need housing = more construction. Wifey needs a new ring, baby needs new shoes...etc.

2) Initially 300 million barrels of oil will be transported annually to the Gulf of Mexico for refining and further transportation. The direct dollar benefit to Gulf state local economies will be billions of dollars annually. Refining cost of oil is approximately 10% of the cost of crude, currently about $75/bbl. 300 million barrels annually x $7.5/bbl = $2.2 billion of new annual commerce immediately to the Gulf area alone and this is only from refining. Those shipping companies along the Gulf will further benefit from the work increase when they transport to other points in/outside the USA. Ancillary companies will expand/be created to support the growth of the oil industry which will increase overall job growth. For a $2.2 billion annual influx of cash the jobs will be in the thousands...over time and the $2.2 billion figure should continue to grow, even with a drop in the price of crude. If crude price drops the consumption of gasoline will increase (as consumer confidence grows), hence the need for more oil to be pumped. It will see saw upward. Some gasoline will go overseas and some will stay here in the states. This is the equivalent of having a Fortune 1000 company set up business, except that it has the benefit of being diversified among many types of businesses rather than one which could be affected by adverse economic changes.

3) Less than half of every bbl of oil is consumed as fuel, ie., gasoline, diesel, etc. Over half of every bbl is used for common consumer goods.

List: http://www.ranken-en...m Petroleum.htm

This newly available refined crude oil will cheapen these products or maintain downward price pressure. These will be at America's front door for purchase.

For those detractors of crude oil, Until you come up with other ingredients to make shoes, cosmetics, computer components, houses, asphalt, etc, you had best lend your support to the Keystone to keep prices for those consumer goods low, or be prepared for your wife to give a Halloween-like appearence every day when she starts using the "environmentally friendly" type of makeup.

4) The addition of the northern tier of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline will initially increase world output of crude by approximately 1% (one per cent). This is a BIG number in the oil industry although the number seems miniscule. Daily world output is about 85 million bbls/day and Keystone will initially produce about 830K bbl/day. Keystone production will maintain downward price pressure and, over time, most likely continue to drive price downward. Such downward price pressure can easily be maintained until the price of crude reaches $35- $40/bbl for tar sand/shale producers. Marginal companies will be challenged when crude hits $70- $75/bbl (approximately 5% of those producers). One great unspoken benefit of this lower pricing tier is that both Russia and OPEC (mainly Saudi Arabia) will be hurt financially. Russia must maintain prices above $80/bbl or their economy will be adversely affected, significantly. Russia is the largest producer of oil. For every $5 drop in crude oil price their gdp has the potential of dropping 1% when below $80/bbl. For Saudi Arabia, they need to maintain oil above $75/bbl. For each $5 drop in crude the impact is almost twice as hurtful on their gdp.

5) Canada, a close and trusted ally of the United States, will benefit greatly when Keystone is implemented. Keystone will increase their oil export by about 20%. This could increase their gdp by approximately 1%. Indirectly this benefits the USA by having economically stable trading partners. America will directly benefit by refining Canadian oil. Canada will export their oil either to the west or down the Keystone. If shipped westward China most likely benefits. If down the Keystone America will benefit as described above. There are numerous other benefits to America by having Canada succeed.

6) For those concerned about transportation of oil along the Keystone, did you know that one of the worst rail line oil spills in history occurred in west Alabama near Aliceville along the state line ? The total spill was around 17,000bbl. Also, this Bakken oil shipment (shale oil) dissipates more quickly than other forms of crude were they to occur. Environmental impact is diminished compared with other crudes.

To learn more about the potential impact of oil transportation read here (sources cited just for homer):

http://www.huffingto..._4969523.html

http://www.motherjon...lway-oil-spills

7) The growth of American jobs will be in the 10's of thousands over time, mainly along the Gulf. Keystone is of vital interest to the American economy....and devastating to our enemies.

Please do not confuse the folks here with FACTS. They have been once again duped by their DC Masters.

[homersapien 11,386]

So are you suggesting the refineries are operating below capacity waiting for the Keystone oil to fill them?

I'm not. The oil is getting there, its transportation is just less efficient, more costly and more environmentally dangerous than it would be if transported by pipeline.

If the refineries are already operating at capacity without the KP, how is it going to decrease gas prices?

I don't think one pipeline is going to affect the price of the worlds crude, production of which is also under capacity.

i dont know tex. Maybe they add a shift, invest in more facilities, add another refinery, etc. they do the same things that evey industry under the sun has done for millenia.

Capacity is capacity. If you can add a shift, you are not at capacity. My understanding is the limiting factor in gas production is refinery capacity, not the availability of crude.

And - I am guessing here - building a refinery is not a good business decision if the ultimate purpose is to reduce the price of gas.

[homersapien 11,386]

Why the KP is unlikely to affect gas prices:

http://www.washingto...our-gas-prices/

"Unlikely, possibly, maybe..." A lot on conjecture versus history. I will take history. About the only thing i took from that article is that the market is complex and there isnt a 1:1 correlation. Something no one ever claimed.

Are you kidding?

You've been harping on the simple relationship of supply and price from the git-go. :-\