Why do Americans stop doing homework [re: Keystone XL pipeline]

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Muffin

I’d like Canada to increase its refining capacity so that it can sell value added products rather than raw products.

I’d also like Canada to sell more to China and develop better trade ties with China and the pacific rim, rather than tie its wagon to the USA, which quite frankly is too much of a political nut house to risk being almost exclusively tied to.

Word.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Leaving aside the comprehensibility of the OP for a second, is there a reason the proposed route runs through an aquifer? Seems like a really bad idea.<snip>

I thought the pipeline plans had been re-routed?

@kayaker

I gots homework? The repeating nightmare has become reality???

And it’s due right now! And you haven’t been to class all semester!

@Schyler

I’m a retired grandmother. If my point wasn’t clear let me rephrase.

Where do you personally stand on the Keystone pipeline project? If you’re not sure, do the homework. Don’t assume. Then think about what you’ve learned and see if it makes common sense. (to you)

I think the pipeline project is good for a company that has its head office in Calgary where a lot of oil & gas companies have their head offices. There’s a lot more than one side to any story - I probably know people who are directly working with the Keystone project, and were very upset about President Obama playing politics with it.

A few weeks later the federal government halted the Keystone project entirely pending further investigation. Again, why? Not just the pat answer, but the real reasons.<snip>

Because the green weenies turned it into a hot potato right before the American election, and President Obama wanted to put off a decision about it until after the election?

[Cheesesteak]

@Schyler

Here’s homework for Cheesesteak. How much underground water can be contaminated by a one-foot diameter gas or oil spill? My dad owned a gas station. If he spilled even a drop of gas or oil while refilling his tanks he had to have a million dollars worth of insurance to cover clean up costs. Resend the homework you posted for me % of the EPA. (Environmental Protection Agency) It’s not about quantity.

It is about quantity. Specifically the quantity of Pipelines (warning pdf) that already cross the aquifer. Even if you ignore the light green natural gas pipelines, it’s a busy, busy little chart.

If you don’t want any pipeline for any reason, you have to explain why we would avoid a multi billion dollar construction project that will provide raw materials for decades to our refining industry. If you’re just worried about the environment, why allow all these other pipelines in the same general area. Older pipelines, with likely less robust leak detection.

[Gyrate]

@Cat_Whisperer

And it’s due right now! And you haven’t been to class all semester!

And you’re not wearing any pants!

I think the pipeline project is good for a company that has its head office in Calgary where a lot of oil & gas companies have their head offices. There’s a lot more than one side to any story - I probably know people who are directly working with the Keystone project, and were very upset about President Obama playing politics with it.

Because the green weenies turned it into a hot potato right before the American election, and President Obama wanted to put off a decision about it until after the election?

Erm…I think you’ll find the Republicans,who wanted it all approved RIGHT NOW, STOP ASKING ANY QUESTIONS, IT’LL ALL BE FINE, OMG SOCIALISM!!!911!! were hardly maintaining the moral high ground either on the pipeline. They lit the fire under that particular potato.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Great_Antibob

Basically, it’s very expensive and time consuming. Even in the US, there are a ton of hurdles to clear before building a new refinery.

It’s often much cheaper and faster to expand capacity at an existing refinery. Even so, it usually takes, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars and the better part of a decade to significantly expand capacity at an existing refinery.

So, a new refinery might make some long term sense, but it would take at least a decade to build (if not longer) and might never pay for itself or only do so over several decades. Refining margins are pretty bad, and several US oil companies have divested themselves of their refining divisions to drop the dead weight.

Beyond that, once you already have the refinery, you’d still have to install infrastructure to get the now refined products to their ultimate destination (the rest of Canada or the US or abroad). That still means pipelines, if you want to transport any significant quantity. Though, in this case, the pipelines wouldn’t necessarily have to pass all the way across the US.

I thought it must have been something like that, but that’s worse than I expected. It’s a wonder gas is as cheap as it is at the pumps.

I took the OP’s advice and did some homework;), and came across this article on the pros and cons of the new pipeline for American consumers. What I took from it is that the existing network of pipelines in North America are under-utilized and could handle the increase in flow that Keystone XL will provide. But the tar sands producers want direct access to the export markets on the Gulf Coast where they’d get more in return, which is what the Keystone XL will give them. One possible outcome of that, which even pipeline supporters acknowledge, would be reduced supply to the domestic refineries in the American mid-West and higher gas prices in the North American markets that depend on them.

So while Canadian crude reduces American dependence on foreign “conflict” oil, much of it will be used for the export market, not domestically. That’s not to say it won’t have some benefit overall for Americans, but it won’t necessarily translate specifically into lower gas prices at the pumps.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Gyrate

<snip>
Erm…I think you’ll find the Republicans,who wanted it all approved RIGHT NOW, STOP ASKING ANY QUESTIONS, IT’LL ALL BE FINE, OMG SOCIALISM!!!911!! were hardly maintaining the moral high ground either on the pipeline. They lit the fire under that particular potato.

I’m not very partisan about US American politics; I think both parties are dirty, dirty bastards.

@Esox_Lucius

<snip> That’s not to say it won’t have some benefit overall for Americans, but it won’t necessarily translate specifically into lower gas prices at the pumps.

One thing we’ve learned in the last decade or so is that nothing translates into lower prices at the pumps.

[Great_Antibob]

@Cat_Whisperer

One thing we’ve learned in the last decade or so is that nothing translates into lower prices at the pumps.

Not true. A drop in oil prices can create it. The recession reduced demand for oil, which drastically reduced the cost of oil, which led to lower gas prices.

Of course, nobody sane wants to create a worldwide economic crisis just to save a few bucks at the pump.

That said, pipelines and Canadian tar sands aren’t going to cut it. Developing the tar sands isn’t economically sensible unless the price of oil is relatively high, anyway, meaning it’s not a reliable method for getting gas prices as low as some people claim we can.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Great_Antibob

Not true. A drop in oil prices can create it. The recession reduced demand for oil, which drastically reduced the cost of oil, which led to lower gas prices.

Of course, nobody sane wants to create a worldwide economic crisis just to save a few bucks at the pump.

That said, pipelines and Canadian tar sands aren’t going to cut it. Developing the tar sands isn’t economically sensible unless the price of oil is relatively high, anyway, meaning it’s not a reliable method for getting gas prices as low as some people claim we can.

Oh yeah, that’s right - I forgot that gas dropped a few pennies per litre when the entire world’s economy went in the crapper.

I don’t think the price of oil is going down any time soon, either - we’ve used up the easily accessible oil now, so all we have left is hard-to-get stuff, so the prices will stay high.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Cat_Whisperer

One thing we’ve learned in the last decade or so is that nothing translates into lower prices at the pumps.

@Great_Antibob

Developing the tar sands isn’t economically sensible unless the price of oil is relatively high, anyway, meaning it’s not a reliable method for getting gas prices as low as some people claim we can.

Perhaps we should tell TransCanada, which touts lower gas prices in the U.S. as one of its selling points for for the new pipeline, contrary to what its own consultants say.

[Great_Antibob]

@Esox_Lucius

Perhaps we should tell TransCanada, which touts lower gas prices in the U.S. as one of its selling points for for the new pipeline, contrary to what its own consultants say.

You’re largely correct BUT “lower” is NOT the same as “low”.

Unless the other tar sand extraction infrastructure is in place, no amount of piping will help oil prices.

It’s not unreasonable to say that development of tar sands will keep US prices under $5 a gallon and that sufficient piping will be necessary to do that.

It IS unreasonable to claim development of tar sands will drive prices down to $1 a gallon, no matter how much pipe is laid.

[Cheesesteak]

@Great_Antibob

It’s not unreasonable to say that development of tar sands will keep US prices under $5 a gallon and that sufficient piping will be necessary to do that.

I think it is. Gasoline is a worldwide commodity. It fairly well mirrors the price of oil, and prices all over the world tend to go up and down at the same time.

If this pipeline is sufficient to alter the price of oil / gasoline worldwide, then it may very well impact our prices. I suspect that is not the case.

I say this as a supporter of the pipeline… A pipeline provides jobs, both to build/maintain it, as well as at the refinery. Jobs are good, even if the product is ultimately destined for export. Exporting finished products (in excess of our internal usage) to other parts of the world is a good thing as well. A pipeline should not be expected to change our price of oil or gasoline, except on a marginal basis (lower shipping, etc.)

[Great_Antibob]

@Cheesesteak

I think it is. Gasoline is a worldwide commodity. It fairly well mirrors the price of oil, and prices all over the world tend to go up and down at the same time.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you.

But I also think that the argument that it will help moderate oil prices is still valid, even if I don’t personally think it will happen.

It’s a little meta, but I was making the distinction between a reasonable argument and an unreasonable argument, without actually picking either one.

I guess it’s a subtle distinction, but it’s there.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Miller

So, the OP’s argument is that free trade will allow the Canadians to come down and steal all our water?

Well, okay, then.

You laugh, but it’s happened before with MEXICO.

How else do you explain why Arizona, Southern California, and New Mexico are so arid?!

[kidchameleon]

@iamthewalrus_3

You laugh, but it’s happened before with MEXICO.

How else do you explain why Arizona, Southern California, and New Mexico are so arid?!

Well, it never rains in Southern California.

[Punoqllads]

@kidchameleon

Well, it never rains in Southern California.

Sure it does. Twice a year, whether they need it or not.

[AlienVessels]

@Schyler

I’d also like to see our federal computers put to better use detecting fraud in all areas of Government spending. Fraudulent Social Security numbers being used, duplicate numbers, the list goes on and on. IE: a government spending “audit” . Like the IRS uses for taxpayers. So you see, I have heard of taxes.

Simplify the tax system so that the IRS is no longer needed (or needed at a much smaller scale.) Rebadge most of them to audit the government.

[kidchameleon]

@Punoqllads

Sure it does. Twice a year, whether they need it or not.

Are you calling Albert Hammond a liar?

[Esox_Lucius]

@Great_Antibob

You’re largely correct BUT “lower” is NOT the same as “low”.

Unless the other tar sand extraction infrastructure is in place, no amount of piping will help oil prices.

It’s not unreasonable to say that development of tar sands will keep US prices under $5 a gallon and that sufficient piping will be necessary to do that.

It IS unreasonable to claim development of tar sands will drive prices down to $1 a gallon, no matter how much pipe is laid.

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about TransCanada saying higher is lower. As an average joe, I was basically supporting the pipeline just on the principle of the economic benefits even if it doesn’t lower the price. But the fact that they lied is turning me against them. They aren’t showing much respect for the people across whose land and water supply they’ll be running their pipeline. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s one reason they’re running into opposition in the State Department and Congress (the Democratic congressmen anyway; the Republicans don’t seem to have a problem with them operating like that).