Could the Keystone Pipeline get passed?

[homersapien 11,385]

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.

Good grief. There's no need to double down on Blue Vue's distortions. It just makes you equally disingenuous.

[homersapien 11,385]

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.

How about quoting your sources for all those economic claims?

And I have already stated that moving transport from trains to pipeline is probably a valid reason to build the pipeline. But modernizing the rolling stock and simply reducing speeds might achieve the same results.

[DKW 86 7,426]

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 11,385]

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?...

http://switchboard.n...ntal_law_a.html

Regardless, congratulations for your global perspective on the environment. You might say I am gob-smacked by your new-found sensitivity to such issues.

[homersapien 11,385]

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.

Why is the United States exporting gasoline when prices are so high?

In 2011, the United States exported more petroleum products, on an annual basis, than it imported for the first time since 1949. American refiners still imported large, although declining, amounts of crude oil. Gasoline exports were about 18% of total U.S. petroleum product exports in 2011, however, on a monthly basis, the U.S. was a small net exporter by the end of the year. Distillate fuel exports were about 30% of total U.S. petroleum product exports in 2011.

Most of the U.S. exports for gasoline and distillate come from the U.S. Gulf Coast where an excess in supply has resulted from both declining U.S. demand for gasoline (preliminary data for 2011 show U.S. gasoline consumption 6% lower than 2007) and increasing refining capacity. Gulf Coast refineries have a competitive advantage in some world markets. They have a sophisticated refining complex and can run relatively lower quality, and cheaper crude oils. In addition, they use natural gas for their fuel, which at current prices is an advantage compared to refineries fueled by petroleum, and have good water access and a location that allows for a relatively short-haul voyage to growing Latin American markets.

Historically, the U.S. market has relied extensively on gasoline imports for supply, particularly on the East Coast which has been the destination of about 85% of total U.S. gasoline imports. The Gulf Coast refineries export product rather than send more to the East Coast which receives most of its gasoline import volumes because pipeline capacity and domestic waterborne shipping constraints currently discourage increased volumes from traveling from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast. As long as European and other gasoline supplies remain competitive, the East Coast will continue to draw on these supplies. Additionally, expanded Midwest refining capacity is backing out requirements to ship products from the Gulf Coast north to that area.

The growth in U.S. gasoline exports does not necessarily mean higher pump prices for U.S. consumers. Rather, export markets are providing an outlet for refiners that might otherwise have faced lower profit margins that could encourage them to reduce output or possibly even shutdown, which could cause gasoline prices to increase. The March 7 edition of This Week In Petroleum, Déjà vu all over again? provides an analysis of key factors that the U.S. Energy Information Administration believes are driving gasoline prices.

http://www.eia.gov/t....cfm?id=687&t=6

[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.

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.

How about quoting your sources for all those economic claims?

And I have already stated that moving transport from trains to pipeline is a probably a valid reason to build the pipeline. But modernizing the rolling stock and simply reducing speeds might achieve the same results.

homer, your request is nonspecific so I'm choosing which stats to address. Most of this info I just know and I'll leave it at that but will say that all of it is readily available info but I don't have time to search and quote for you. If you have a specific question I'll address it. Besides, the most pertinent info relates to the oil once in America. The rest is gravy.

The claim that the President and those supporting the green agenda make is that Keystone is of no economic benefit to America is absolutely untrue. To make this simple let's leave out the jobs impact. The info about how much oil is transported and its refinement, being already stated in the thread is what I choose to clarify.

To restate, Canada will initially be transporting 730K bbl and North Dakota will transport 100K bbl on a daily basis which is over 300 million bbl/year. This is the estimate in government and private info. Refinement costs about 10% of the cost of crude which means that $2.2 billion/ year will be generated to those companies on the Gulf. Most likely this number will go up over time. $2.2 billion will go directly to the refiners on the Gulf and that is only the beginning of reaping financial rewards for having Keystone. The refined products will require further transport, some by pipe, some by rail, some by truck which adds to the revenue stream. Another revenue generator that I didn't mention is the cost TransCanada pays American landowners to lease their land for the pipes. As North Dakota ramps up production of crude then Keystone will be utilized more so thereby generating greater revenue to refiners.

The most important fact about Keystone is that the American taxpayer doesn't have to pay for this $2.2 billion increase of revenue. TransCanada pays for the pipeline. It's all private money that funds the project, unlike another failed government stimulus program (Bush, Obama and the rest) that we as taxpayers get stuck paying to subsidize.

$2.2 billion/ year of economic growth is substantial and will add thousands upon thousands of jobs, but like I said, let's leave out that bit of info and focus on how much money Keystone brings into the American economy.

[Mikey 16,614]

Whatcha' bet that if, let's say, the Koch brothers owned the railroad that would lose business because of Keystone the Obamanistas and environmentalists would be all in favor of the pipeline?

Since it's billionaire dem/libbie donator Warren Buffet's railroad that stands to lose money because of the pipeline, they are aghast at the horrors of such a thing.

As always, all you have to do is follow the money. Environment my hind leg!

link: http://www.businessi...gton-bet-2013-1

[homersapien 11,385]

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.

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.

How about quoting your sources for all those economic claims?

And I have already stated that moving transport from trains to pipeline is a probably a valid reason to build the pipeline. But modernizing the rolling stock and simply reducing speeds might achieve the same results.

homer, your request is nonspecific so I'm choosing which stats to address. Most of this info I just know and I'll leave it at that but will say that all of it is readily available info but I don't have time to search and quote for you. If you have a specific question I'll address it. Besides, the most pertinent info relates to the oil once in America. The rest is gravy.

The claim that the President and those supporting the green agenda make is that Keystone is of no economic benefit to America is absolutely untrue. To make this simple let's leave out the jobs impact. The info about how much oil is transported and its refinement, being already stated in the thread is what I choose to clarify.

To restate, Canada will initially be transporting 730K bbl and North Dakota will transport 100K bbl on a daily basis which is over 300 million bbl/year. This is the estimate in government and private info. Refinement costs about 10% of the cost of crude which means that $2.2 billion/ year will be generated to those companies on the Gulf. Most likely this number will go up over time. $2.2 billion will go directly to the refiners on the Gulf and that is only the beginning of reaping financial rewards for having Keystone. The refined products will require further transport, some by pipe, some by rail, some by truck which adds to the revenue stream. Another revenue generator that I didn't mention is the cost TransCanada pays American landowners to lease their land for the pipes. As North Dakota ramps up production of crude then Keystone will be utilized more so thereby generating greater revenue to refiners.

The most important fact about Keystone is that the American taxpayer doesn't have to pay for this $2.2 billion increase of revenue. TransCanada pays for the pipeline. It's all private money that funds the project, unlike another failed government stimulus program (Bush, Obama and the rest) that we as taxpayers get stuck paying to subsidize.

$2.2 billion/ year of economic growth is substantial and will add thousands upon thousands of jobs, but like I said, let's leave out that bit of info and focus on how much money Keystone brings into the American economy.

You are throwing out a lot of numbers you haven't attributed to make your case while referencing other things just for me :-\ . So I thought it was reasonable to ask.

For example, these production figures you use above. Do they represent only the incremental production made possible by the pipeline?

How much additional economic activity will be generated by the pipeline? Railroads require labor too.

[homersapien 11,385]

Whatcha' bet that if, let's say, the Koch brothers owned the railroad that would lose business because of Keystone the Obamanistas and environmentalists would be all in favor of the pipeline?

Since it's billionaire dem/libbie donator Warren Buffet's railroad that stands to lose money because of the pipeline, they are aghast at the horrors of such a thing.

As always, all you have to do is follow the money. Environment my hind leg!

link: http://www.businessi...gton-bet-2013-1

OMG! The secret's out. Opposition to the NP is all about protecting Buffet's interests. :-\

[autigeremt 6,642]

Whatcha' bet that if, let's say, the Koch brothers owned the railroad that would lose business because of Keystone the Obamanistas and environmentalists would be all in favor of the pipeline?

Since it's billionaire dem/libbie donator Warren Buffet's railroad that stands to lose money because of the pipeline, they are aghast at the horrors of such a thing.

As always, all you have to do is follow the money. Environment my hind leg!

link: http://www.businessi...gton-bet-2013-1

OMG! The secret's out. Opposition to the NP is all about protecting Buffet's interests. :-\

Very well could be. You don't know so why not explore the possibility. People like that don't get rich overnight, and certainly on their own.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Whatcha' bet that if, let's say, the Koch brothers owned the railroad that would lose business because of Keystone the Obamanistas and environmentalists would be all in favor of the pipeline?

Since it's billionaire dem/libbie donator Warren Buffet's railroad that stands to lose money because of the pipeline, they are aghast at the horrors of such a thing.

As always, all you have to do is follow the money. Environment my hind leg!

link: http://www.businessi...gton-bet-2013-1

OMG! The secret's out. Opposition to the NP is all about protecting Buffet's interests. :-\

Very well could be. You don't know so why not explore the possibility. People like that don't get rich overnight, and certainly on their own.

homer always acts like it is absurd to think situations through by following the money. It is not implausible that democrats are opposing the pipeline to preserve Tom Steyer's promise of $millions and $millions to those who do and/or repaying Warren Buffet's largesse, another huge democrat benefactor. He always poo poos the obvious possibility that money is a driving force.

Not meaning to change the subject but, after the Jon Gruber discovery that his "independent expert analysis" to pimp ObamaCare only cost tax payers about $6mil, I cant help but wonder how many "independent experts" there are pimpin that AGW narrative as well. With this admin, I think its fair to suggest its always about the money and the brute political power it can buy.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

You are throwing out a lot of numbers you haven't attributed to make your case while referencing other things just for me :-\ . So I thought it was reasonable to ask.

For example, these production figures you use above. Do they represent only the incremental production made possible by the pipeline?

How much additional economic activity will be generated by the pipeline? Railroads require labor too.

The immediate initial revenue net growth will be in the $2.2 billion just in refining costs of the Canadian crude due to Keystone transportation. It's a windfall. I'm leaving out other derived economic benefits and focusing on just refining revenue but those benefits will be substantial for the economy. Gulf refineries have a capacity of just under 8 million bbl/day unless older ones are brought back online which would increase capacity.

Keystone will not have any immediate impact on rail transportation. http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/21066/group/Transportation/

Rail contracts/rates are usually set out for 5 years so the 300 million bbl to the Gulf is in addition to rail transport. In fact, Global Partners and Kansas City Southern (rail transporters) will be expanding storage capacity to meet demand along the Gulf. http://www.globalp.com/news/article.cfm?articleID=301 Rail goes where the pipeline won't so rail will always be in high demand for crude transport.

Republicans argue that Keystone will diminish rail usage......NOPE. Keystone will augment rail for the first 5 years after shipping begins but only as contracts roll over will it compete for rail's business and you can be guaranteed that the competition for oil transport will be fierce.

Once Phase 4 is completed Keystone will carry 1.1 million bbl/day, most likely the balance to be supplied by North Dakota production as the market demands.

Another detail that escaped me earlier is that Montana will generate an additional $200 million in annual revenue from the pipeline.

[Mikey 16,614]

Whatcha' bet that if, let's say, the Koch brothers owned the railroad that would lose business because of Keystone the Obamanistas and environmentalists would be all in favor of the pipeline?

Since it's billionaire dem/libbie donator Warren Buffet's railroad that stands to lose money because of the pipeline, they are aghast at the horrors of such a thing.

As always, all you have to do is follow the money. Environment my hind leg!

link: http://www.businessi...gton-bet-2013-1

OMG! The secret's out. Opposition to the NP is all about protecting Buffet's interests. :-\

I'm glad you see the light! Following the money always gets to the truth of such matters.

[DKW 86 7,426]

The growth in U.S. gasoline exports does not necessarily mean higher pump prices for U.S. consumers. Rather, export markets are providing an outlet for refiners that might otherwise have faced lower profit margins that could encourage them to reduce output or possibly even shutdown, which could cause gasoline prices to increase. The March 7 edition of This Week In Petroleum, Déjà vu all over again? provides an analysis of key factors that the U.S. Energy Information Administration believes are driving gasoline prices.

http://www.eia.gov/t....cfm?id=687&t=6

Do you realize that you just made my case for me about traditional economics still working as always? Increase in Demand = Higher Prices? If higher demand is keeping the prices up, then it stands to reason that INCREASING THE SUPPLY will cause gas prices to lower...You are at one point making my point, and then turning right around and denying what you just stated...

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Both sides are over-the-top. Silly season continues.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Both sides are over-the-top. Silly season continues.

Hah! Silly is your word for the day I see....

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Both sides are over-the-top. Silly season continues.

Hah! Silly is your word for the day I see.... :)/>

Call what I see.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Both sides are over-the-top. Silly season continues.

Hah! Silly is your word for the day I see.... :)/>

Call what I see. ;)/>

Doesn't make it fact....or fiction. Just opinion.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Both sides are over-the-top. Silly season continues.

Hah! Silly is your word for the day I see.... :)/>

Call what I see. ;)/>

Doesn't make it fact....or fiction. Just opinion. :)/>

Never claimed it was gospel...

[aubfaninga 16]

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

Which is why it will be built.

This is where I am. I could listen to debate of the false claims all day but I have not seen any logical reason NOT to build it. Moving on

[TexasTiger 12,947]

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

Which is why it will be built.

This is where I am. I could listen to debate of the false claims all day but I have not seen any logical reason NOT to build it. Moving on

How about American citizens not wanting to sell their land?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

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

Which is why it will be built.

This is where I am. I could listen to debate of the false claims all day but I have not seen any logical reason NOT to build it. Moving on

How about American citizens not wanting to sell their land?

Don't keep us in suspense. Tell us what you learned in kindergarten from Jon Stewart.

[Mikey 16,614]

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

Which is why it will be built.

This is where I am. I could listen to debate of the false claims all day but I have not seen any logical reason NOT to build it. Moving on

How about American citizens not wanting to sell their land?

Normally, the landowner does not sell the land. The pipeline company pays for a permanent right of way. Once construction is finished, the everyday use of the land returns to the owner. I have a major electric power line right of way across my land now. Mowing around the two towers is the only inconvenience. Construction on a new pipeline will soon be completed. As the pipeline is buried, this will cause no inconvenience. The pipeline company paid me several times the fair sale value of the land for the mere right of way. I'm happy!

[TheBlueVue 177]

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

Which is why it will be built.

This is where I am. I could listen to debate of the false claims all day but I have not seen any logical reason NOT to build it. Moving on

How about American citizens not wanting to sell their land?

Normally, the landowner does not sell the land. The pipeline company pays for a permanent right of way. Once construction is finished, the everyday use of the land returns to the owner. I have a major electric power line right of way across my land now. Mowing around the two towers is the only inconvenience. Construction on a new pipeline will soon be completed. As the pipeline is buried, this will cause no inconvenience. The pipeline company paid me several times the fair sale value of the land for the mere right of way. I'm happy!

Dude dont be a kill joy and interrupt Tex's wet dreams of land owners refusing to sell to the pipeline crowd. :-\

[TexasTiger 12,947]

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

Which is why it will be built.

This is where I am. I could listen to debate of the false claims all day but I have not seen any logical reason NOT to build it. Moving on

How about American citizens not wanting to sell their land?

Normally, the landowner does not sell the land. The pipeline company pays for a permanent right of way. Once construction is finished, the everyday use of the land returns to the owner. I have a major electric power line right of way across my land now. Mowing around the two towers is the only inconvenience. Construction on a new pipeline will soon be completed. As the pipeline is buried, this will cause no inconvenience. The pipeline company paid me several times the fair sale value of the land for the mere right of way. I'm happy!

Dude dont be a kill joy and interrupt Tex's wet dreams of land owners refusing to sell to the pipeline crowd. :-\/>

You argue about this all day and don't even know the facts.