Republican Lies About Keystone Pipeline

[volinbham]

Some info on the price effect:

Will the Keystone XL pipeline lower gasoline prices? - The Washington Post

There is a lively debate among oil-industry analysts about whether Keystone will impact gasoline prices in the Midwest. Philip K. Verleger, a noted oil economist, has argued that the pipeline would increase gasoline prices in the upper Midwest. He said yesterday that he stands by that estimate, figuring it would amount to between five and ten cents per gallon.
“Overall, the pipeline will have no impact on prices consumers pay. None. The reason is that the products produced from the crude will be sold into the world market -- exported -- if prices fall below world levels,” he said in an email. “This means that consumers outside the Midwest will get no benefit from the line while consumers in the upper Midwest may pay more.”
Last year, however, the Department of Energy disputed Verleger’s analysis in a memo to the State Department. The memo asserted that “gasoline prices in all markets served by” refiners in the East Coast and Gulf Coast “would decrease, including the Midwest.” However, the memo also noted that “the current distortion of Midwest and Gulf Coast oil prices caused by the Cushing congestion will be alleviated whether or not the President approves the Keystone XL pipeline permit application.”

Clearly oil experts disagree on whether prices will be affected, but those who believe as a matter of economics that it will ease prices say the impact will be modest.

As you can see the terms "lively debate" and the fact that conflicting reports exist demonstrate it is in fact a lie to state definitively that Keystone would raise gas prices for the US. Further, even the study author who makes the claim it would raise prices suggests it would only be for people in the upper Midwest - not the US as a whole.

I'll also note that several studies claiming Keystone would raise gas prices are produced by environmental groups who are seeking to stop Keystone for environmental reasons.

Lesson? Opinions and speculation are not facts.

 

[Vol Main]

Of course I understand supply and demand. Prices are never simply a direct function though. Keystone will increase the supply of oil - that should put downward pressure on prices but of course their are other factors. Likewise, if Keystone isn't approved TC will still produce the oil and distribute it onto the world market via other means. In short there are many factors which will ultimately dictate what impact (positive/negative/negligible) that Keystone would have on gas prices in the US. Once again, you claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you conclusively that Keystone will raise gas prices in the US is either lying or doesn't understand economics. Neither is true of course since the simple relationship you state as fact is neither that simple nor established fact.

Whoa Dude, that's like, bull, man! You skipped the second question. Do you know the meaning of the word export? Do you really think that Trans-Canada shipping its oil past refineries in middle America to export facilities on the Gulf will increase the supply of their oil to refineries in middle America? Do you think that selling their oil at higher prices to American refineries will make prices go higher at the pump or lower at the pump. These are not complicated questions, and they can be answered yes or no, like, without any bull, man.

 

[volinbham]

Whoa Dude, that's like, bull, man! You skipped the second question. Do you know the meaning of the word export? Do you really think that Trans-Canada shipping its oil past refineries in middle America to export facilities on the Gulf will increase the supply of their oil to refineries in middle America? Do you think that selling their oil at higher prices to American refineries will make prices go higher at the pump or lower at the pump. These are not complicated questions, and they can be answered yes or no, like, without any bull, man.

If you think yes/no questions can explain gasoline prices in the US and the 100% predictable outcome of the pipeline then you are way over simplifying things. You are stringing to together a set of speculated actions as fact then doubling down by bundling them into a declarative statement.


If they built the pipeline to the West coast for export it would be the same thing.

There large point is that there is considerable debate about the impact on prices. Even the guy on your side suggests any impact would be limited to a specific region (upper Midwest) rather than the US as a whole.

 

[Vol Main]

Some info on the price effect:

Will the Keystone XL pipeline lower gasoline prices? - The Washington Post





As you can see the terms "lively debate" and the fact that conflicting reports exist demonstrate it is in fact a lie to state definitively that Keystone would raise gas prices for the US. Further, even the study author who makes the claim it would raise prices suggests it would only be for people in the upper Midwest - not the US as a whole.

I'll also note that several studies claiming Keystone would raise gas prices are produced by environmental groups who are seeking to stop Keystone for environmental reasons.

Lesson? Opinions and speculation are not facts.

I see you haven't answered my questions. Fail. Opinions are not facts, but my opinion is based on facts. Why are you talking about environmental groups in reply to my posts? I have not used any studies by any environmental group in my posts. You haven't noticed that? Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

[Vol Main]

If you think yes/no questions can explain gasoline prices in the US and the 100% predictable outcome of the pipeline then you are way over simplifying things. You are stringing to together a set of speculated actions as fact then doubling down by bundling them into a declarative statement.


If they built the pipeline to the West coast for export it would be the same thing.

There large point is that there is considerable debate about the impact on prices. Even the guy on your side suggests any impact would be limited to a specific region (upper Midwest) rather than the US as a whole.

The questions I asked CAN be answered yes or no. They are not complicated, but they are essential premises in the argument about prices. Why are you evading them? FYI, Trans-Canada is building a pipeline to the West coast. So now you want to argue that higher gas prices in middle America are somehow not important? Republicans are saying that the pipeline will bring gas prices down. They don't say where. The reality is that there is no reason to believe that the pipeline will bring down prices anywhere. There are valid arguments that it will make prices go up. Why don't you think about that for a while?

 

[volinbham]

From the article I posted:

The Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry 1.1 million barrels per day, is specifically designed to deal with the fact that increased production of crude oil in Canada and the Great Plains has left a glut in that area — overwhelming refinery demand — and it is difficult to get the oil to the Gulf Coast, the center of U.S. refining. This has depressed the price of crude oil in the Midwest, though the Midwest refiners have not passed on the savings to consumers. (

Just one example of how a change in the price of crude to the refinery would not necessarily result in a change in pricing.

 

[volinbham]

I see you haven't answered my questions. Fail. Opinions are not facts, but my opinion is based on facts. Why are you talking about environmental groups in reply to my posts? I have not used any studies by any environmental group in my posts. You haven't noticed that? Ding. Ding. Ding.

Well you didn't post any studies so I don't know your sources.

I do know what export means (was that one your yes/no's).

Is it established fact that all the TC oil will bypass the midwest?

Is it established fact that oil prices will indeed increase if the pipeline is built?

Is it established fact that gas price changes are perfectly correlated with oil prices across all price ranges?

I have a few more of these.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Vol main. You should start a Fracking thread

 

[MG1968]

Vol Main's increasingly combative nature is just further evidence to support my assertion that there's a troll at work.

It's similar to the pattern established by kicker33: state your opinion as fact, provide no back up for your "facts", claim academic superiority, belittle those who disagree and talk out of both sides of your mouth.

he's as big a fraud as utgibbs

 

[BeecherVol]

Well you didn't post any studies so I don't know your sources.

I do know what export means (was that one your yes/no's).

Is it established fact that all the TC oil will bypass the midwest?

Is it established fact that oil prices will indeed increase if the pipeline is built?

Is it established fact that gas price changes are perfectly correlated with oil prices across all price ranges?

I have a few more of these.

I think that is pretty evident.

 

[Weezy]

I don't think he's a troll, and I'm glad he added more to the discussion here. But I do think he's wrong by over complicating this. While gas prices are a complicated beast, it's still 90% a global commodity that follows basic principles of supply-demand. When global supply is down, gas prices spike...when the economy is down, demand is down, etc..So imo, at a minimum the pipeline will increase supply or at least lower cost for the particular supply chain. That being said it's most likely minimal.

Regardless, the reasons not to do it seem small, and as a nation we need to stop with the "glass half empty" attitude and get to work. I'm very confident in the people doing this work and those that have assessed environmental impact.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Pap, I got to call you out. Before you get all bad on Trans-Canada's "propectus," read it.

do you know what a prospectus is?

It might interest you to find that I've been involved in issuing quite a few.

If you'd like to make this about spelling, grammar and such, I'll be happy to oblige. You don't strike me as overly strong in any respect. What you do do well is veil a bunch of idiocy under faux objectivity and come off looking like a partisan clown. Plenty have refuted your silliness as you try to pass off a prospectus as fact. Again, nice work.

 

[Vol Main]

do you know what a prospectus is?

It might interest you to find that I've been involved in issuing quite a few.

If you'd like to make this about spelling, grammar and such, I'll be happy to oblige. You don't strike me as overly strong in any respect. What you do do well is veil a bunch of idiocy under faux objectivity and come off looking like a partisan clown. Plenty have refuted your silliness as you try to pass off a prospectus as fact. Again, nice work.

Thanks, Pap. You're the best!

What is a prospectus?
Can Vol Man guess
What you have adding pro,
With spec and tus?

 

[MG1968]

Thanks, Pap. You're the best!

What is a prospectus?
Can Vol Man guess
What you have adding pro,
With spec and tus?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Thanks, Pap. You're the best!

What is a prospectus?
Can Vol Man guess
What you have adding pro,
With spec and tus?

I'm not trying to add anything nor am I the guy trying to validate my view by touting my degrees or level of research on this crap. You did all of that and still look silly because you've simply tried to refute conjecture with conjecture. You even quoted a freaking prospectus, which by its very nature is a guess.

The pap dumbassery isn't helping you look any less stupid in joining the partisan charade while claiming superiority due to objectivity. That works for stupid people, but, unfortunately for you, doesn't fly here.

 

[tim]

I'm not trying to add anything nor am I the guy trying to validate my view by touting my degrees or level of research on this crap. You did all of that and still look silly because you've simply tried to refute conjecture with conjecture. You even quoted a freaking prospectus, which by its very nature is a guess.

The pap dumbassery isn't helping you look any less stupid in joining the partisan charade while claiming superiority due to objectivity. That works for stupid people, but, unfortunately for you, doesn't fly here.

/thread. dumbassery has been called.

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm not trying to add anything nor am I the guy trying to validate my view by touting my degrees or level of research on this crap. You did all of that and still look silly because you've simply tried to refute conjecture with conjecture. You even quoted a freaking prospectus, which by its very nature is a guess.

The pap dumbassery isn't helping you look any less stupid in joining the partisan charade while claiming superiority due to objectivity. That works for stupid people, but, unfortunately for you, doesn't fly here.

 

[Vol Main]

I'm not trying to add anything nor am I the guy trying to validate my view by touting my degrees or level of research on this crap. You did all of that and still look silly because you've simply tried to refute conjecture with conjecture. You even quoted a freaking prospectus, which by its very nature is a guess.

The pap dumbassery isn't helping you look any less stupid in joining the partisan charade while claiming superiority due to objectivity. That works for stupid people, but, unfortunately for you, doesn't fly here.

Pap, what you don't get is that I don't post information, arguments and conclusions for stupid people. I stand on my posts; others stand on theirs, and readers draw their own conclusions about who is talking straight and who is talking nonsense. Trans-Canada states their official business plan to build Keystone for the purpose of selling its oil at higher prices. Either you somehow believe their intention to sell at higher prices means they actually will sell their oil at lower prices, or you agree with me that prices will go up, not down.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Pap, what you don't get is that I don't post information, arguments and conclusions for stupid people. I stand on my posts; others stand on theirs, and readers draw their own conclusions about who is talking straight and who is talking nonsense. Trans-Canada states their official business plan to build Keystone for the purpose of selling its oil at higher prices. Either you somehow believe their intention to sell at higher prices means they actually will sell their oil at lower prices, or you agree with me that prices will go up, not down.

I don't care who your intended audience might be, your commentary is still void of any sense. Seems to me you went out of your way to validate the comments by touting your impressive research background, rather than trying to let anyone draw conclusions by thinking. Sadly, your credentials appeared to do little in swaying anyone to buy your well researched pile of conjecture.

The idiocy about believing a prospectus regarding intention to sell at higher prices just means you have no capacity to reason. In your favor, that means I'm assuming you have some semblance of an idea what the intention of a prospectus is.

 

[Vol Main]

I don't care who your intended audience might be, your commentary is still void of any sense. Seems to me you went out of your way to validate the comments by touting your impressive research background, rather than trying to let anyone draw conclusions by thinking. Sadly, your credentials appeared to do little in swaying anyone to buy your well researched pile of conjecture.

The idiocy about believing a prospectus regarding intention to sell at higher prices just means you have no capacity to reason. In your favor, that means I'm assuming you have some semblance of an idea what the intention of a prospectus is.

You and others can evade the arguments I've made by replying with personal ridicule, all you want. Individuals who make decisions based on vacuous remarks might appreciate your posts more than mine. I can't fix people like that and have no intention of trying. I post for folks who want to read true information about the issue, with valid arguments and conclusions. You say I haven't done that. Well, your saying that doesn't change the fact that I have. So I remain content for people out there to read both our posts and make their own judgments.

 

[volinbham]

You and others can evade the arguments I've made by replying with personal ridicule, all you want. Individuals who make decisions based on vacuous remarks might appreciate your posts more than mine. I can't fix people like that and have no intention of trying. I post for folks who want to read true information about the issue, with valid arguments and conclusions. You say I haven't done that. Well, your saying that doesn't change the fact that I have. So I remain content for people out there to read both our posts and make their own judgments.

I've actually addressed your arguments in multiple instances and posed questions for you which you've ignored.

Also, you continue to make claims such as "I post for folks who want to read true information about the issue, with valid arguments and conclusions." but when called on why your information may not be as "true" and "valid" as you claim you resort back to this old saw of how people are evading. If it's really about letting the reader decide why keep whining that people are evading your arguments (which they aren't). Shouldn't the reader be able to figure that out?

 

[milohimself]

Thread got boring.

 

[volinbham]

Thread got boring.

full of too much truth?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

He's most certainly a troll.

 

[Vol Main]

I've actually addressed your arguments in multiple instances and posed questions for you which you've ignored.

Also, you continue to make claims such as "I post for folks who want to read true information about the issue, with valid arguments and conclusions." but when called on why your information may not be as "true" and "valid" as you claim you resort back to this old saw of how people are evading. If it's really about letting the reader decide why keep whining that people are evading your arguments (which they aren't). Shouldn't the reader be able to figure that out?

Dude, you evaded my questions by answering with questions. That's not how conversations work; that's how they don't work. Do a little backing and filling, if you don't mind, and I'll follow up with some answers for you. Don't take this as a flip remark; I'm trying to hold a straight line in front of me. I felt like responding to some of your remarks would take the discussion flying off to Saturn and Pluto. You're a much better conversationalist than most around here, so please don't take my saying that in a bad way.