Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[slayernine]

I call BS. The whole point of sending it all the way to the Gulf is to get a higher price on the world market. This isn't going to do a damn thing about keeping us less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

What I'm saying is Canada is a far better source of foreign oil and that in Canada we do not have refining capabilities so we have to send our oil somewhere to process it.

If it takes too long to get it flowing across the US border the oil will go to China.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Canada is not a better source of foreign oil. Let Canada build another pipeline through its own territory or build their own refineries. The US should not allow any Canadian presence or influence within its borders. Thankfully Obama recognizes this.

 

[slayernine]

LOL. How can you call the natural state dirty? I wonder what types of propaganda they're feeding you there.

This is one of the largest man-made environmental disasters in the world right now.



Sorry, but I don't trust Canadian regulation. It's not very stringent, and especially when they're all gung-ho about trading mass environmental damage for money under George W. Bush's clone Harper. The Canadian government is basically owned by various natural resource based corporations. I wouldn't expect them to seriously try to regulate themselves.



The pipeline involves the lives of real people in a very negative fashion.

I wonder what types of propaganda they're feeding you there and on what factual information you are basing your accusations.

 

[monovillage]

I wonder what types of propaganda they're feeding you there and on what factual information you are basing your accusations.

There's a few real low grade trolls in these forums, please don't feed them.

 

[CanOWorms]

I wonder what types of propaganda they're feeding you there and on what factual information you are basing your accusations.

Any propaganda I'm being fed is obviously less radical than yours. After all, you're claiming that they're "cleaning" the land via an effort of massive destruction. Troll much?

 

[slayernine]

Canada is not a better source of foreign oil. Let Canada build another pipeline through its own territory or build their own refineries. The US should not allow any Canadian presence or influence within its borders. Thankfully Obama recognizes this.

I see that your opinions are very well formed on facts and logic

</sarcasm>


Here are some facts for you:

- The US uses more oil per capita than any other country.
- The US relies on foreign oil coming from non-democratic dictatorships.
- The US could really use more jobs and increased trade.
- Canada offers a positive alternative with mutually beneficial monetary returns in the form of tax revenues and jobs.


This isn't about influence, this is about smart decisions that benefit both parties. Building large refineries is cost prohibitive and the demand for oil in Canada is largely met by our own minor refining capabilities. Oil companies want to expand North American oil production to meet the current demand and to keep the prices reasonable, this isn't a government project.

 

[CanOWorms]

Canada is not a better source of foreign oil. Let Canada build another pipeline through its own territory or build their own refineries. The US should not allow any Canadian presence or influence within its borders. Thankfully Obama recognizes this.

:thumbsup: Obama dislikes Canada, likely due to Canada being a willing settler colony of the British Empire. Repercussions from history - they mutilated Obama's grandfather's testicles.

Canada can build a pipeline in its own territory. Unfortunately, Canada will likely just ignore any environmentalist as well as native issues.

 

[slayernine]

Where in western Canada would they send it? The pipleline would have to cross through Greater Vancouver which is a no-no and I really doubt if the port can handle the volume of oil that will be going though.

A pipeline through Northern Alberta and Northern BC is currently being constructed with some minor resistance from a bunch of self righteous mother-earth-loving-natives. Not going anywhere near Vancouver. They pretty much plan to follow a route that takes them straight to the Ocean and improve whatever sort of port facilities are there. No doubt that will mean more small ships at first but eventually if there is enough oil moving they will accommodate the larger oil tankers.

I do make the assumption you are talking about the question of how to ship oil to China.

 

[Paul98]

The more I hear about this the less i think it's a good idea to have this pipeline. So I applaud Obama on this decision, and I think he played this very well politically.

 

[slayernine]

:thumbsup: Obama dislikes Canada, likely due to Canada being a willing settler colony of the British Empire. Repercussions from history - they mutilated Obama's grandfather's testicles.

Canada can build a pipeline in its own territory. Unfortunately, Canada will likely just ignore any environmentalist as well as native issues.

Where would we build it to other than to ship it to China? Next time the middle east goes to hell and stops shipping oil to Texas don't come crying to Canada. Seriously CanOWorms, other than being an obvious troll what has Canada ever done to you? Canada puts up with a lot of bullshit from the US including all the ridiculous air-plane security TSA feeling up people bullshit. Remember 911 when they re-routed planes to Canada because they were scared to land in the US and we said sure guys send them up here.

I mean back in 1812 we may have burned down the Whitehouse twice but I thought that was water under the bridge by now.

edit: Perhaps you are jealous of the Canadian dollar being worth more than yours?

 

[slayernine]

The more I hear about this the less i think it's a good idea to have this pipeline. So I applaud Obama on this decision, and I think he played this very well politically.

The question here is why do you "applaud Obama on this decision"? What makes this a good decision?

I know that the average american has some intelligence issues and that your financial/government/healthcare systems are broken as they come but people like you make me think that the United States deserves to be in an economic meltdown. Some people just can't be helped I suppose, they just want to keep making the same bad decisions.

 

[Fern]

Please explain the relevance of that to the information contained in the study, or address the study itself. Can you do that?

There are studies that show a lot of jobs, and there are studies that show few jobs. What's new? It seems every time an issue arises we have studies or reports that go both ways.

I noticed in the report you linked they claimed some "Perryman Group study" regarding job creation was wrong. However, in looking at pages 17 etc they claim insufficient documentation was supplied in the Perryman Group study.

E.g., from pg 23.

The Perryman study’s findings cannot be relied upon because there is no way of knowing how they were arrived at.

If insufficient documentation exists you likely shouldn't be claiming that they are wrong. If you're unbiased you should probably just state that "insufficient information was presented to substantiate the claim" and stop there. Instead, they go on to make guesses as to how Perryman came up with amounts then proceed to shoot their own guesses down. Kinda of strawman-ish if you ask me.

They also go on to say that the job multiplier figure used by Perryman can not be ruled out:

It cannot be ruled out that a pipeline construction project could result in total job impacts approaching 18 person-years per $1 million.

But they go on to do so anyway.

I don't know which report/study will turn out to be more accurate should the pipeline be built. I don't think anybody else does either. Reports like these, even if objective, are nothing more than wild-assed guesses couched in academic parlance, done by people with absolutely zero experience on the topic (pipeline construction) and draw upon previous wild-assed guesses by similarly inexperienced people.

Also, in looking through the body of the report I get a fairly strong sense of environmental activism coming through. It doesn't strike me as an objective professional study.

In any case, my guess is that if they ran this project through the same groups that estimated the jobs the stimulus created or saved, this one would show big jobs numbers too.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This is the correct decision. Major projects with large potential impacts should not be able to short circuit the review and approval process. This was an inappropriate issue to be put into legislation. Why should well-connected companies with high powered lobbyists be able to force their issue to the POTUS rather than the process everyone else follows?

For example, if some pharma was creating a drug, promised it would do some really amazing things (ie cure cancer, aids, stupidity, etc)
Should they be able to go around the FDA, hire some lobbyists to push Congress, grease some superpacs, and force a deadline for approval when it turns out they haven't even completed phase III trials? "Oh how dare the pres not approve, he wants Americans to have cancer..." What happens if the drug actually has bad effects not yet discovered bc the work was not complete?

Not saying TransCanada did all that, but its not how approvals should be made. The system should not be corrupted to score election year points.

Bad policy and bad precedent. Wise to push it back.

I find your analysis off-base.

No, this isn't something for legislation. It should have been handled by the Obama administration. However, the Admin wasn't doing that, they kept dithering. This became a problem when the company announced after the umpteenth delay in a decision that they would cancel the project.

After 3 or 4 years of study it is NOT unreasonable for Congress to prod the Obama admin to make a damn decision.

And we all know this is politics. Obama doesn't want to make a decision because he's stuck between labor groups and eco groups. I suppose the Repubs in Congress wanted to force him to make a decision so he would take the heat from one side or the other. It's politics, and that's plain to see IMO.

Fern

 

[CanOWorms]

Where would we build it to other than to ship it to China? Next time the middle east goes to hell and stops shipping oil to Texas don't come crying to Canada.

Middle Eastern oil is becoming less and less prominent on the world stage. Also, they don't ship too much oil to Texas. Middle Eastern oil is a small component of imports.

The energy market has also seen very accelerated changes over the last few years, seeing access to new technologies (alternative energy and those that increase production of traditional sources). The US also exported more oil than it imported in 2011.

Seriously CanOWorms, other than being an obvious troll what has Canada ever done to you?

Being a willing part of the British Empire means that Canada has done a lot of negative things to a lot of people. I don't think that this is a route you would want to go down. After all, no force in humanity was more evil than that organization.

Canada puts up with a lot of bullshit from the US including all the ridiculous air-plane security TSA feeling up people bullshit.

LOL.

Remember 911 when they re-routed planes to Canada because they were scared to land in the US and we said sure guys send them up here.

Yes, it's difficult to forget that because Canadians like to harp on about how they acted like decent human beings.

I mean back in 1812 we may have burned down the Whitehouse twice but I thought that was water under the bridge by now.

Actually, the White House was burned down by British Regulars and a Caribbean regiment. The British regulars were pulled from the Peninsular Campaign. It's a myth that Canadians themselves burned it down. The British Empire did, and Canada was a member of the Empire, but Canadian militia didn't march all the way down.

Moreover, the burning of the White House was British retaliation for Americans burning down modern-day Toronto. Canadians did burn down Detroit though. I imagine that they improved it.

edit: Perhaps you are jealous of the Canadian dollar being worth more than yours?

Not really, that has little to no effect in daily life.

I merely think that this pipeline from Canada is a bad idea. I think Canada itself is a bad idea too, but that's another topic.

 

[K1052]

I'm afraid I do. You however do not

"Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

If Obama is a socialist then so was every Republican president for the last half century.

 

[Fern]

No taxes will be extracted from any part of the process once it is up and running. The tax implications of pipeline maintenance are negligible.

Since the southern end of the pipeline will terminate inside the Port Arthur Foreign Trade Zone no export duties will be paid on the refined product which will be shipped out of the country.

As a tax professional I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. Honest question - I've never actually done any professional work on a project like this.

But it seems to me that under current income sourcing rules the presence of that pipeline in US territory is going to force the Canadian company to allocate some of their (taxable) net profits to the US. That means we get paid income taxes. Likewise for the states it would pass through.

I'll give an example. If a Canadian passenger plane flies from Vancouver to Miami most of that airline's profit is US income and taxed here (in the absence of a treaty overruling domestic US law). This is because the plane is flying over US airspace for the most part, hence it's US source income. Likewise, that pipeline is laid over a bunch of US territory.

It also seems to me that each state is going to get real estate tax. If the Canadian company is only renting the land, the fed & state govt are going to get a chunk of that too (rental income from real estate, whether improved or not, is taxable income). The states/counties it passes through are also likely to receive money from personal property taxes on the value of the pipeline and related equip located in their borders.

So, I'm interested to see how they escape all this taxation.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Really I'm rather impressed they put such a complicated project together so fast. Aside from the engineering, having to deal with all the land lease, environmental, risk mitigation plans, local ordinances, rights acquisitions, etc etc, all along a transnational pipeline is rather impressive.

It's the permit that's been sitting on the Obama/Bush admin's desk for 3-4 yrs. It's not the star date for when the company began planning the project.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Why was it so imperative this decision be made right now, knowing full well the route was an issue and that potentially better alternatives were already being considered? The answer is pretty clear: generate more ammunition to use against President Obama.

No.

At the time the Admin came out with another delay (a month or two ago?), there were reports that Canada was going to drop the pipeline and switch to one leading to their West Coast. The oil would then be shipped out from there. I.e., anything but a "yes" now equals a "no". Given the 3-4 yrs this has been under study that's not unreasonable. Business people are well aware that a lot of "maybe's" are really a "no" expressed a bit differently. At some point you have to move on. You cannot let things be postponed forever. BTW, it's our govt that set their deadlines for a decision. Presumably they set them because they felt they were reasonable/do-able. For them to come out with lengthy delays a number of times speaks volumes about their intentions IMO.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What a load of BS, link to facts backing up that statement? Yeah that is what I thought, just talking out of your ass because you heard other idiots repeating the same nonsense.

Ever been to Alberta where the tar/oil sands are located? We have lovely clean blue skies, clean drinking water and an abundance of wild animals that get along just peachy keen. You know why it is that way? We regulate the impact companies have on the environment and fine the hell out of them when they step outside regulation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/22/us-suncor-idUSTRE6BL3X820101222

This is a link to a source, its called backing up your statement people, try it sometime...

Yeah.

I've gotten a strong impression about Canada's strict regulatory procedures when watching the TV show Ice Road Truckers. When an accident happens like a truck flipping over they go freakin crazy making no fuel or fluid leaks. If it does, they have clean-up crews arrive ASAP to clean it up.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Canada is not a better source of foreign oil. Let Canada build another pipeline through its own territory or build their own refineries. The US should not allow any Canadian presence or influence within its borders. Thankfully Obama recognizes this.

So we should immiediately shut down all existing Canadian pipelines in the US? LOL

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Have some engineers and constructions workers in a commercial tell about how they had a nice 100k job lined up for the pipeline, but no longer because of Obama. Have them say in unison - "if it weren't for Obama, we'd be working. Why Obama, why". Have some of the coal workers, power plant workers, gulf oil workers, all 10s of thousands of them standing behind - "Why Obama, why did you do this?

Not a bad idea. My brother is a certified welder and he was looking forward to working on the project. I understand this kind of project pays big bucks for that type of welding.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Middle Eastern oil is becoming less and less prominent on the world stage. Also, they don't ship too much oil to Texas. Middle Eastern oil is a small component of imports.

Nope, they ship it to Louisiana.

The energy market has also seen very accelerated changes over the last few years, seeing access to new technologies (alternative energy and those that increase production of traditional sources). The US also exported more oil than it imported in 2011.

It most certainly did not, not by a LONG shot.

Being a willing part of the British Empire means that Canada has done a lot of negative things to a lot of people. I don't think that this is a route you would want to go down. After all, no force in humanity was more evil than that organization.

And we haven't?

 

[CanOWorms]

Nope, they ship it to Louisiana.

Good for them, but the statement claimed Texas. The same statement stands.

It most certainly did not, not by a LONG shot.

I should clarify petroleum products. Is this Canadian oil going to be used in the United States?

And we haven't?

No, but that question wasn't asked. It's irrelevant.

 

[CanOWorms]

So we should immiediately shut down all existing Canadian pipelines in the US? LOL

That would be a dream come true.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That would be a dream come true.

It sure would, gas would hit $10/gal ($17.50/gal in Chicago) in days. We import close to 18% of our oil from Canada.