|
Post by bblwi on Nov 27, 2014 22:42:19 GMT -6
Well your statement that no private firm would take the risk speaks very load to why they don't build the systems and thus they never take the risk to build and manage a major system like that and that makes the government easy targets for the naysayers. At least the government does not throw in the towel when they get constantly criticized by us citizens. Also when you have a systems that are indirectly funded and managed by many times persons elected who do not have a clue on how to manage their own affairs let alone government or government projects many well trained government managers have their hands tied when it comes to doing BMPs with many projects and programs.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 28, 2014 7:33:25 GMT -6
It is up to the people in control to put the right people in those positions is it not?
It is up to congress to make decisions on how this waterway should be used and maintained and to have plans in place for flooding and also look at the importance of the impacts at hand.
private sector wouldn't do it because there is little financial gain to be had with something of this nature. if there was , I have a feeling it would run better because their business is on the line each and every day. Not so with our govt.
I will not give the govt a free pass because they have to deal with things sorry..............
The reason flood insurance rose so much is because the govt underestimated cost and payouts and was 25 billion in the hole, so to make some of that back in the last year they rose rates and also redesigned flood areas and where they are. people who have never been listed in a flood plain today are and if you have a loan on your property you must have flood insurance.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 28, 2014 7:57:03 GMT -6
yes, many complain about the govt, while fully enjoying the benefits and opportunities it provides.
odd on how pork is just needed funds, if its for your area
----------------
our infrastructure is horrible, all over the country. locally, the roads are in the worst shape, since I've been driving. to fix them, we need money.
no welfare? - then lets pay as you go- everyone has mileage check when new tabs are issued and everyone pays a road tax based on miles driven.
fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 28, 2014 12:55:43 GMT -6
The government did not have to do these major projects they chose to go where the almighty private sector was too scared to go and they deal with the costs with no financial gain at the expense of those who pay taxes which spreads the cost and risk over the whole nation. If we had a private sector with some courage maybe the government would not have grown so large. Also the government does not quit when it becomes problematic. The private sector bows out when the going gets rough, or goes overseas or declares bankruptcy so they can start over and not pay their bills.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 28, 2014 16:14:26 GMT -6
Tman I am fine with paying by the mile, as long as everyone else is when we see what it adds to price of goods........... Bryce the govt doesn't quit at anything they just keep throwing more money at things that are failing
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 28, 2014 17:11:18 GMT -6
There are many, many projects and programs that the government has done very well and have benefited millions and many of those millions are independently wealthy today. Yes it is easy to list the failures of government if you choose to spend all your time and energy there. There are many successes as well and I choose to review all of government as a whole and to me the reviews are not as dark as you believe them to be.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 28, 2014 18:01:11 GMT -6
Bryce sure there are but those that run decent aren't the issue it is the ones that do not and cost us money I am concerned with..................
|
|
|
Post by rionueces on Nov 28, 2014 18:03:21 GMT -6
The claim by the administration that all of the oil will be exported is false. Refineries here in TX will refine the oil to gas, diesel etc. About 50% of that product will be exported. See a Nov. 20 article from the Washington Post below. Confirmed by the Dept. of Energy
Twice during his recent overseas trip, President Obama asserted that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was designed to take Canadian crude oil to the world markets. The implication of the president’s words is that the United States would be simply a conveyor belt for the oil. The pipeline would allow the Canadians “to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else,” the president said in Burma. The question he faced, he said in Australia, is whether “we should approve a pipeline shipping Canadian oil to world markets, not to the United States.” Is this really the case?
The Facts First of all, the president leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). As our colleague Steven Mufson reported more than two years ago, the refineries on the Gulf Coast are “eagerly waiting” for the Canadian crude, since there isn’t enough oil in the area anymore to feed the refineries. “The modernized Valero refinery [in Port Arthur, Tex.] can turn 310,000 barrels a day of some of the world’s worst-quality crude oil — such as the bitumen-laden mixture from Canadian oil sands — into gasoline and diesel fuel for cars and trucks,” Mufson wrote. “Valero, the largest U.S. oil refining company, would be one of the biggest customers of oil from the Keystone XL pipeline, buying about 150,000 barrels a day.” Indeed, the State Department’s final environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL project specifically disputed claims that the oil “would pass through the United States and be loaded onto vessels for ultimate sale in markets such as Asia,” saying it was not economically justified. The State Department noted that the traditional sources of crude for the Gulf Coast, such as Mexico and Venezuela, are declining, and so refineries would have “significant incentive to obtain heavy crude from the oil sands.” So then the question turns on what happens to that oil after it leaves the refinery. Oil is a global commodity, of course, and where it travels often depends on market conditions. In Obama’s telling, however, the refined Canadian oil goes “everywhere else” and “not to the United States.” But that’s not right either, according to the State Department report. U.S. exports are not affected by various pipeline scenarios but instead by market conditions, such as “domestic demand versus domestic refining capacity, the cost of natural gas, and refining capacity abroad, including in foreign markets currently importing U.S. refined products such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Europe,” the report said. The demand for exports, in other words, is completely unrelated to building the Keystone XL pipeline. For the sake of argument, let’s look at the percentage of exports currently from the Gulf Coast area, using data for refining output and product exports from the Energy Information Administration. Depending on how you crunch the numbers, the percentage of exports for finished products ranges between 35 percent and 50 percent. The State Department pegged the rate of exports at just over 50 percent, noting that “this increased volume of refined products is being exported by refiners as they respond to lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.” In other words, at least half of the oil that is refined on the Gulf Coast stays in the United States. Market conditions could change, of course, but there is little basis to claim that virtually all of the product would be exported. (The Fact Checker has previously noted that, contrary to the claims of advocates of the project, Keystone XL is unlikely to have much impact on gasoline prices.) Opponents of the Keystone project have seized on slides, such as the one below from one of Valero’s presentations to investors, to suggest the plan ultimately is to export the production from Canadian oil sands. But Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero, says “it’s a mistake to interpret this to mean that Gulf Coast products would ONLY go to export markets.” The slide is simply showing the flow of trade, from various refineries; diesel currently is more popular in Europe while gasoline is king in the United States, though demand for diesel is growing in both markets. Day noted that currently the vast majority of the company’s products stay in the United States for domestic consumption. The White House did not provide an on-the-record comment. Update: The Natural Resources Defense Council, in a response to this column, said we were relying on “outdated” information. It noted that in recent months there has been a jump in unrefined crude oil exports from the Gulf Coast, contradicting the conclusions of the State Department. “Data from the Gulf Coast today show that some of the tar sands from Keystone XL will be exported internationally before it sees a U.S. refinery,” the NRDC said. “Some” at the moment amounts to about 200,000 barrels a day; for reference, a supertanker carries 2 million barrels. We did adjust some of the language concerning exports in response to the NRDC critique. The Pinocchio Test The president seriously overstates the percentage of Canadian crude that might be exported if the Keystone XL pipeline is built. He suggests all of it would be exported, without mentioning that it first would almost certainly stop on the Gulf Coast to be refined into products. On top of that, current trends suggest that about half of that refined product would be exported. That is not insubstantial, but it is certainly much smaller than 100 percent. All of this is laid out in the extensive report issued by the State Department earlier this year. The president might want to study it before he addresses the Keystone question again. In the meantime, he earns Three Pinocchios. We nearly made it Four Pinocchios, but it is correct that at least some of the product would be exported, based on current market conditions.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 28, 2014 21:10:42 GMT -6
Yes the nay Sayers will keep telling everyone this will create 50 FT jobs and Americans won't see any of the oil We want cheaper gas and less dependence on overseas fuels yet we stand in the way of a North American venture? Hum...................
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Nov 29, 2014 2:16:25 GMT -6
"...at least half of the oil that is refined on the Gulf Coast stays in the United States"
So my question would be "Why doesn't ALL of it stay in the US?"
"America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria."
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Nov 29, 2014 11:19:50 GMT -6
Why doesnt the US just close its borders to all people coming in and going?
Close its borders to all trade in good in and out.
We produce everything we need here.
We are already paying for roads on miles driven. Its called a gas tax.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 29, 2014 13:37:49 GMT -6
The gas tax is not based on miles driven it is based on gallons utilized for road use. That is the huge issue today with funding roads with a tax that is not keeping up with miles driven due to alternative fuels and better mpgs on modern autos.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 29, 2014 20:17:26 GMT -6
Bryce sure it is as you burn more gas or diesel your driving more miles so every gallon of either burned translates into more taxes collected. The big issue is 20 percent or more of this money being used for other things besides roads and bridges which I have posted............ The government also takes in money on tire tariffs from foreign tire makers so the more you drive the more tires consumed the more tire tariffs collected by our federal government. You also have toll roads which would make a big difference as well, in fact I 70 is being seriously talked about becoming a toll interstate in the state of Missouri and I have no problem with such. provided every dime made goes towards the roads and bridges on the interstate. Not funneled into,other projects. That gives people choices to either take another state hwy or pay the toll for the use of the interstate that moves a lot of traffic daily. We have am trak that will take you from KC to St Louis the problem is that trip takes longer than driving I70 in your car Depending on fuel mileage not much cheaper either. So your paying close to the same for a longer trip.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 30, 2014 8:22:59 GMT -6
the gas tax is in no way a mileage tax- and anyone that thinks its keeping up with the cost to replace infrastructure, simply is unaware of the facts.
here is a pretty good article, showing perhaps the issues isn't as raosyt as the oil company and the pipeline workers would like you to believe-
One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this — Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in free trade zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL’s oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC. The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL’s impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.
From Canada’s perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer – the United States. As Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, “we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that.” However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public’s concerns about water and safety.
Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.
When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.
In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada’s President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL’s crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 30, 2014 14:35:25 GMT -6
Tman why do you not want this pipeline to go through?
Where source is this article from?
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 30, 2014 14:39:10 GMT -6
If the gas tax was a mileage tax we would have far more revenue today than 10 years ago but we don't so to say it is based on miles is incorrect. Gallons can be indirectly partnered with miles but not directly. If we would want a mileage based tax we could have the federal and state governments install locked mileage recorders on every vehicle and assess accordingly and we would have billions more in revenue.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 30, 2014 17:43:35 GMT -6
I don't care either way-
but I'm not going to buy into the nonsense that's its this huge job and money maker for the states
facts we can all agree on- Canada won't be bringing down any more oil for many, many years- what it allows is the oil to be sent to the gulf Coast- where, many of the refineries are in a tax free zone-
now, primarily all of the Canadian oil is sold in US- after pipeline that will be 50% AT BEST
so perhaps a better question is why would you, want this pipeline?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 30, 2014 18:14:38 GMT -6
Jobs it will create no bones about it period. it will also bring money to school districts in these states from the pumping station taxation. Again fact no denying such. more oil in the system is better for the over all market price paid facts again.
Why do we drill for oil,in ND and Alaska ? Ghe same reason to supply crude to the gulf and refiners down that way more jobs, more money in the economy,and more taxation simple really.
look at ND and the wind fall,of money they receive as a state from oil taxation they are sitting better than what 48 other states in this nation today.
faith school district where I lived could see up to 350,000 per year for the school there just in taxation coming off this pipeline , that is a major increase in their budget.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 1, 2014 1:41:07 GMT -6
"Why do we drill for oil,in ND and Alaska"
WE don't, the oil companies do and they'll drill anywhere and everywhere they think they can make a profit.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 1, 2014 6:09:55 GMT -6
Pam allow them to drill sorry........ profit is what makes things go,round and round. hard to stay in business with no profits.............. Obviously not as we hear that this XL pipeline will be nothing but a bust
|
|