Keystone Pipeline - a red line?

#1,026
#1,026
Everyone can relax--the pipeline will be built. Sooner or later the oil industry will buy off enough people.
 
#1,032
#1,032
lawgator1 said:
What do you think is the reason?
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Keystone was never about 1 pipeline to the gulf. It was about an offshoot line to ship to the east coast refineries, mainly the big one outside of Philly. This is the reason Obama is blocking it. If the east coast refineries could get WTI they would no longer need to buy Brent.
Click to expand...

.
 
#1,034
#1,034
Fuel Fix » Report: Most Keystone crude will stay in U.S.

WASHINGTON — Most of the heavy Canadian crude slated to flow through the Keystone XL pipeline would be refined inside the U.S., and the resulting gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products would be consumed domestically too, according to a new analysis.
Click to expand...
But IHS notes that Gulf Coast refiners are particularly hungry for the heavy crude that would come out of Canada. The bitumen extracted from Alberta, Canada’s oil sands — diluted to flow through Keystone XL — is likely to displace heavy high-sulfur crudes now imported from Venezuela and Mexico, IHS said.

Although the U.S. has been exporting record amounts of refined petroleum products, most of the gasoline, diesel and other products produced from Keystone XL crude will stay inside the country, IHS found.

“The overwhelming majority of refined products produced in the Gulf are consumed in the U.S., regardless of the crude source,” said Aaron Brady, senior director of IHS Energy. “Regardless of whether the oil is imported from Canada or Venezuela, the overwhelming majority of the refined products produced in the Gulf will continue to be consumed in the United States.”
Click to expand...

Can't upset Venezuela. Must reject pipeline with friendly neighbors
 
#1,039
#1,039
lawgator1 said:
What do you think is the reason?
Click to expand...

"I Are Dumb."

That's his reason.

Purely BS ego on this. There is no way with the bipartisan support it's received over the past six years this shouldn't have been approved a long time ago.

Republicans want it. Many Democrats want it. But most importantly, the American public wants it. And what's the excuse? Waiting on the State Department that's been dragging it's feet for the aforementioned six ****ing years?

Veto was plainly stupid. The smart move would have been to have approved it long before the vote came up in the House or Senate since it would have stole their thunder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,040
#1,040
lawgator1 said:
What do you think is the reason?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the stated reason:

Keystone has been studied by the Feds for 6 years, if they haven't finished the process by now then the process is broken.

Further, there ought to be a high bar to stop private commerce projects. Study after study after study has concluded no such problems exist in any form that justifies denying it.

It is govt gone wild.

Now onto possible reasons:

1. Appealing to Green base
2. He believes this will be dangerous for the planet
3. He wants to stick it to Republicans
4. ?

For #1 - that is pure pandering to special interests; something he told us he wouldn't do. Further, the public both directly and through it's representatives support it.

For #2 - his own EPA has repeatedly concluded it will have no net impact. Why won't he listen to science?

For #3 - any explanation needed? This is wrong anyway you slice it.

This looks like petty politics to me.

How do you justify it?
 
#1,044
#1,044
volinbham said:
Let's start with the stated reason:

Keystone has been studied by the Feds for 6 years, if they haven't finished the process by now then the process is broken.

Further, there ought to be a high bar to stop private commerce projects. Study after study after study has concluded no such problems exist in any form that justifies denying it.

It is govt gone wild.

Now onto possible reasons:

1. Appealing to Green base
2. He believes this will be dangerous for the planet
3. He wants to stick it to Republicans
4. ?

For #1 - that is pure pandering to special interests; something he told us he wouldn't do. Further, the public both directly and through it's representatives support it.

For #2 - his own EPA has repeatedly concluded it will have no net impact. Why won't he listen to science?

For #3 - any explanation needed? This is wrong anyway you slice it.

This looks like petty politics to me.

How do you justify it?
Click to expand...

4 is ego. "Nobody tells me what to do!"

5 is combinations or all of the above.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top