|
Post by trappnman on Dec 1, 2014 8:43:46 GMT -6
actually, no one is against it because of it not bringing more jobs or $$$- that's a red herring argument that was brought up by Koch supporters as an oversell issue-
the true concern is about fragile water tables
but wait- the quality of pipeline constructioners is so good, that spills never occur?
cause as sure as grits and gravy go together, so do pipelines and spills
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 1, 2014 18:40:34 GMT -6
Fragile water tables? Do you know how deep one just go in western SD to find potable water? You will not find drinkable water less than 1,800 ft minimum many great wells sit at 2.600 ft. So fragile water tables in the Dakota's? Heavy clay soils would take awhile to leech down that far. The he spill and ground around it could be cleaned up long before it would get into a water table in western Dakota's. Besides what is coming from this line is not grade A crude this is tar sand shale. This is much thicker and won't run like a more liquid type oil, this is a lower grade and would not be in the form your concerned with until after being refined. Might want to look at this. ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/My understanding is to keep,it moving down the line it will need to be kept heated specially in the winter time so in the colder environments of the Dakota's it doesn't turn into a harder paste that could get stuck.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 1, 2014 18:47:58 GMT -6
Lower grade but plenty of it, hence the interest in more tar sands...........
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 2, 2014 8:18:33 GMT -6
you do understand- NEBRASKA is what we are talking about?
N-E-B-R-A-S-K-A?
and you understand- moving it down the line does THIS country little good, and may raise gas prices in the midwest?
lets review-
1) no more oil coming down from Canada for many years if not decades
2) the only reason for the pipeline- is to get the oil to the Gulf Coast
3) the only reason for getting it to the Gulf coast is twofold: a) it will allow 40-50% of the gas produced to be sold overseas, instead of the US as it is currently b) many of theses Gulf Coast refineries are in the international tax free zone- meaning no taxes would be paid on that refined oil
Written in stone, solid undisputed facts-
what red herring will you produce now?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 2, 2014 18:41:17 GMT -6
Red herrings LOL. Nebraska is below Montana,North and South Dakota correct? meaning the pipeline goes through those states first in fact that will be what half the journey through those two states? So Nebraska has a fragile water supply? the tar sands will be infiltrating the water supply? Who says so? Much of what gets exported at a port Arthur is tax free because it is a foreign trade zone. All states have them. You might want to read this on the facts of taxation when and where.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 2, 2014 18:43:19 GMT -6
The reason being NAFTA has made it so, but other taxes will be paid just facts.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 3, 2014 9:13:54 GMT -6
If people in NE don't want the pipeline they don't care about the fragile water supply etc. They don't want it and in a democracy they have options to prevent the activity. There are a multitude of decisions in our society that are not made on factual information or massaged facts and that is evident over time as we see the ebb and flow of policies and trends over time.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 3, 2014 10:34:42 GMT -6
florida is south, Alaska is north- all meaningless in a discussion about the only state worried about their water supply- NEBRASKA
or do you speak for Nebraska as well as SD, MO, etc?
the fact remains that midwest refineries collect taxes on the refined oil- the Gulf coast ones (the majority) do not.
again- benefiting WHO? no me, not you
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 3, 2014 20:16:18 GMT -6
The oil is not tax free,................
My old school district would have collected over 300,000 annually off this tar sand oil being moved through the school district one of many...............
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 4, 2014 7:33:01 GMT -6
no one said it was tax free- WHAT IS BEING SAID, CAUSE ITS TRUE, IS THAT NOW ALL THE REFINERY OIL FROM THE PIPELINE IS TAXED AND IF IT GETS BUILT TO THE GULF COAST, THE MAJORITY OF IT WILL NOT BE TAXED cripes could it be any clearer? ?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 4, 2014 18:22:27 GMT -6
Yes it can be clearer the oil is taxed period..............
The only point it isn't taxed is on export of refined product nothing more, due to Nafta and not the only thing not taxed either.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 5, 2014 6:57:11 GMT -6
does it matter WHY it won't be taxed?
cause the point is its not going to be taxed
it blows my mind how you can never, ever stick to 1 point, the point of the discussion without constantly bringing up side issues that matter not, You would make a lovely Tea Party congressman-
again- 2 facts:
1) now almost 100% of the oil refined, is sold in the US- after the pipeline is completed, that figure will drop by at least 50%
2) now the refined oil is being taxed- after the pipeline that will drop dramatically.
so less oil for US consumption, less tax money in our coffers-
THOSE are the points-
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 5, 2014 16:23:47 GMT -6
Tman you might want to look and see how much refined oil we export and where that is headed. www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTPEXUS2&f=AThis one will show that what you say is off the mark, look at where the bulk of the refined oil is refined the same place that the oil that is exported is refined. if it goes out of port Arthur it is not taxed now. blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2014/09/11/u-s-petroleum-exports-rise-but-east-coast-continues-to-import/60 percent today of what is refined in Texas is exported already Research has shown that the pipeline’s major purpose is not to provide oil for the U.S., but to serve as an export pipeline fueling international markets. New data reveals that a full 60 percent of gasoline produced in 2012 at Texas Gulf Coast refineries was exported. These are the refineries that would process the majority of the tar sands bitumen flowing through the Keystone XL pipeline, if it were built. The changing dynamics of the U.S. oil market strongly suggest that exports would only rise over the lifetime of the pipeline. U.S. production is rising but consumption is declining and the industry will continue to maximize its profits through exports.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 5, 2014 17:24:56 GMT -6
TC- once again, you ignore the point in favor of tangents.
the point is now ALL of the Canadian oil is refined and has taxes paid and the vast majority is sold in US
compared to what will occur after the pipeline is built
address THAT issue vis a vis the importance of the pipeline to US oil
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 5, 2014 22:24:53 GMT -6
I could care less about the volume kept in the US, as again the largest refineries are in the southern US gulf coast and more and more of it is exported exports help our country too. if we can keep 50 percent then that is great, but oil is not just an American traded commodity it is a global one, so no matter where it comes from or where it goes the more we have in the system the cheaper the price is and that is as important to the US as too how much of the lower grade we keep here.
How much do you think we get from the Alaskan pipeline? yet they found it a good thing to build at the time and has helped the state of Alaska for sure.
if we kept all of out oil and being it is globally traded the price was 3.50 or we help to fill markets across the globe and that effects the price where we pay 2.36 like I did today give me the 2.36 and North America exporting more oil products.
many areas will benefit from the pipeline that is a fact. We can argue how big the circle is but it is still a circle.......
The republicans will Re vote on the XL pipeline and it should pass with them having control, so the benefits will be in areas like where I used to live and will help the community in which I called home, that is a good thing as it will take place in many communities along the pipeline route. They will process more oil and money will be made and jobs created.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 5, 2014 22:27:46 GMT -6
Russia is already talking about a recession in 2015 in their country because of oil prices falling and really many experts feel it will not rebound very fast. The fur market will take a hit no doubt, but our gas will be cheaper and hopefully we can see prices on other items drop because of it. many plastics should drop,in price and heck even trap wax should drop back down as well. Drill baby drill Refine baby refine
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 6, 2014 8:01:05 GMT -6
you could care less about the volume sold in the US, you could care less if the refinerys pay no tax, you don't care about this or that-
yet, the pipeline is Gods gift to the country
good grief!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 6, 2014 8:16:40 GMT -6
Gods gift ? LOL. Where did I state such?
it will create money flow, jobs and be a plus to our economy. Nothing more or less.
yet for someone who could care less as you stated, you seem to be playing a lot of devils advocate on the issue?
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 6, 2014 23:15:50 GMT -6
The Russian recession will hurt USA exports more than it will impact the price of oil. OPEC is flooding the market at this time trying to find out what the cost of producing crude in the USA is. Once they find out they can make much of the production in the US and maybe North America too costly and thus shrink production by doing so. There are many countries that need to keep producing oil even at low prices because it is their major source of income for both the private and public sector.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 7, 2014 7:09:38 GMT -6
devils advocate? or asking to see, and understand the cost/gain.
and I see very little gain, for anyone but Canada and the Koch boys.i\
|
|