Oh, xt, xt, xt. Sigh. Go back and look. I asked a question of the thread at large, and did not quote you.
Your answer to me about discounted Canadian oil was something about “demand, taxes, logistics”, and other vague things that make me more certain you don’t really know enough about this to be quoting me and demanding, “what’s your point, what’s your point?”
Oh, this wasn’t directed at me?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Then explain to me why gasoline isn’t markedly cheaper in US states like California and Texas where the gasoline is actually refined?
[/QUOTE]
My bad…I’ll let someone else explain about it then, shall I?
Um, no. It’s almost like you don’t know we can all just, you know, scroll up and SEE the discussion and what was said.
-XT
I’ve said it before to you, and I’ll say it again. I’m glad what I’ve posted is still up there for all to see, so they can go back to post # 21 and see for themselves that is where I entered this thread and my post wasn’t directed at whatever it was you were on about just prior to that. Something about space cougars.
Everyone go look! Report your findings for xt!
After you responded to me, I responded to you. Is this where I’m supposed to sarcastically say “my bad, responding to you. Do you even have a point?”
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I’ve said it before to you, and I’ll say it again. I’m glad what I’ve posted is still up there for all to see, so they can go back to post # 21 and see for themselves that is where I entered this thread and my post wasn’t directed at whatever it was you were on about just prior to that. Something about space cougars.
[/QUOTE]
Good grief. :rolleyes: Well, I’m not going to play this game with you this time, other than to again point out that all of this digression was in response to the question I already quoted from you. As to your post in #21:
I answered that here:
[QUOTE=XT]
It would cost more to process it, so they might be giving some sort of discount to take that into account. Also, as Ludovic says, (and discounting the capital costs of building the pipeline) the costs to transport the oil via pipeline would be substantially less than the costs of moving the oil via ship. That might be where the concept of a ‘discount’ is coming from, though I don’t know for sure.
[/QUOTE]
Since you haven’t come back to my answer here in any of your subsequent, um, posts (at least not as far as I can tell) and are responding to my response to your digression about why gas costs more in California, I’ll just leave it there. Clearly you are having issues with figuring which of my responses were to which off the wall, digressionary or drive by posts. I can’t help you with that since it would be simply too much like work, and as I’ve played this game with you in other threads I’m seeing a bad ending. Have fun storming the castle!
-XT
. er . . actually, we do. Its the one that spilled a million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. XL is an expansion of an existing network.
Aw, xt. I enjoy our playful banter. Just not when it goes on for days and pages of you missing pretty much everything I say by this much.
Your answer to my original question is basically that you don’t know. Maybe because the oil is closer or travels through a pipe. But you don’t know.
Gasoline in California is right up there among the highest US gas prices, so being near production doesn’t mean much. When we hear on the news about climbing gas prices it’s always got most to do with global oil prices and global events, not how much states or local governments are taxing gas at the pump.
Is, or is not, Canadian oil to the US going to be discounted? You don’t know. Maybe because it’s closer. I’ve said what I think about that.
Of course it won’t be discounted, nor will it be cheaper. If it costs less to transport it then the producer will make more money, they will still sell it at the same price as oil that costs more to transport. It’s not like they are going to leave money on the table.
As opposed to every other pipeline that carries fuel across the country and within and between every country in the world right now? It’s the safest way to move fuel between two places. What’s to study?
As a person who’s in favor of a pipeline… These things aren’t safe because they’re inherently safe. They’re safe because they are designed to be safe. Once you start ignoring the design, you put yourself at risk.
Things are safe because they have been done many times before, with lessons having been learned on how to safely operate and build a pipeline. If the pipeline is a ‘custom’ build from the common and legislated standards then fine. Otherwise, it has been done before and the safety and reliability issues, and thus the environmental risks, are known.
The real issue is giving enough time for the grandstanding types to have their say.
“Oh boy, sleep! That’s where I’m a Viking!”
It’s an empty political fracas, a dick waving competition, and Team Obama thinks they gain more political hay from rejecting a jerkish ultimatum than accepting it. Maybe they’re right, maybe wrong, but the explanation doesn’t have to run any deeper than that.
Every pipeline is unique, in terms of the geography, ecology and geology it traverses. “Oh, we couldn’t know this one sat on an active fault line that runs through the sensitive wetland that happens to be the only habitat of the Lesser Dicked Woodfucker” is going to sound a bit bad if the studies could have been done.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do have a friend in Nebraska who is virulently anti-pipeline for these very reasons:
Not much incentive for ordinary Nebraskans to be in favor of it, especially without fuller confidence that they aren’t going to be left with a massive oil spill at some point.
Brilliant! I’m stealing this!
That’s how I see it. Cheap Canadian fuel doesn’t seem to be a valid point in favor of Keystone XL.
It would be more efficient by far, which would lower prices overall. Running oil tankers isn’t cheap, not compared to pipelines (pipelines are the most efficient service by far). Now, granted, oil being fungible this probably means the total costs for the entire States would be higher than the alternative. And remember that while the immediate cost to you might not be apparent, it adds up. A penny here and there on every energy bill and soon you’ve cost America millions and billions.
And that’s the rub. Keystone XL is the best alternative available, with minimal risks and costs for considerable gain. We would improve our persoal energy security, increase the potential problems faced by our global opponents, presumably face slightly lower energy costs in the future, and bring in jobs for an effective and valuable economic service in tough times. Frankly, there’s no logical reason not to do it. None.
The sole “legitimate” reason cited by opponents is the risk of ecological disruption. But that’s nonsense, because pipelines by nature don’t disrupt habitats terribly much. You basically run a road through the middle of nowhere and leave it. Nobody wants to move in or .Yeah, you can assume that anything we do will turn out bad. But assuming the worst is not reasonable or rational. You might have a point if there was some information we really needed - but Obama’s not doing any real studies on this. He’s sat on it and compeltely ignroed the issue as much as possible. His has excuses and not reasons.
I agree, at least it wouldn’t amount to more than a blip in the world market.
I see this as a large scale infrastructure project. It puts a nice number of people to work building it and managing it. It adds to our energy infrastructure, and it’s mostly funded by a private company.
I don’t need to pretend that this pipeline will lower the price of gas, or provide more than an incremental amount of energy security, to think that it is, in basic concept, a good thing.
Yeah, it’s only Nebraska. It’s not like it’s anywhere people live.
Finding out what the worst is and the probability of it happening is entirely reasonable and rational, however, especially when “the worst” is potentially pretty bad. That’s Risk Management 101 right there.
Handwaving it away saying “It’ll be fine, and there’s no need to worry” - that’s not rational or reasonable.
Wait - I thought the whole problem was that there was a study being done and the Republicans were trying to push this through before then.
As an engineer, those are famous last words if I’ve ever heard them. They are designed to be safe versus known problems. Not unknown ones. And it is obviously not absolutely safe.
As for pipelines never leaking, cast your eye on this.
When Republican governors are against something like this, it may behoove people to listen. Maybe the new route will be fine, but there is no way of telling in the time the nitwit Republicans gave, so Obama did the only reasonable thing.
BTW, isn’t it odd that those wanting this short term infrastructure for the jobs seem to deny that the short term infrastructure projects from the stimulus bill created jobs? I’ve only worked for the Feds one summer of my life, for the Post Office, and the money from that job looked the same as money from other jobs.
Tankers spill oil too. You want to eliminate all of them: not build new ones? The Enbridge pipe in Michigan was a 40 year old single-walled pipe.
Rumour has it we’ve learned a bit about pipe-making in 40 years.