52 replies to this topic

[Farley]

First the goBPers took the vote from native Americans, but Rick Perry was not Native American so he did not stand up for them,
Next the goBP took the vote from African Americans, but Rick Perry was not African American, so again he ignored it,
Then the goBP took the vote away from students, and heaven knows, Rick Perry is no student, so he again ignores it,
Then the goBP took the vote away from the poor , and Rick Perry, not being poor, yawned and turned away...
Now the Virginia goBP took the vote away from Rick Perry, and even Newton Gingrich will not stand up for him, but not to worry ....old "torte reform" anti law suit REick Perry had his lawyers file a law suit........kind of makes you lear up with laughter at goBPer hypocracy.

[xg22]

“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause.

I can't imagine why the Republicans aren't rallying around this guy. He's perfect for them.



http://thecaucus.blo...aucus&seid=auto

[Farley]

especially since the foreign oil in the XL pipeline is NOT for US consumption, but bound for Asia.......like I mentioned, Rick Perry is NO STUDENT!

[xg22]

Farley, on December 28 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

especially since the foreign oil in the XL pipeline is NOT for US consumption, but bound for Asia.......like I mentioned, Rick Perry is NO STUDENT!

Well that's a thing that we aren't hearing much about from the right. Actually they are keeping pretty low profile on the Keystone debate possibly because they don't want too much publicity on it to interest their base and then all of a sudden their base finds out that the Oil is not for them.

I actually saw something a while ago about the Canadians yapping about the job losses from them not refining this Oil for China (oooops world market) instead of the soy southerners refining it..



Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in free trade zones where they may be exported to the international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do.


Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

http://switchboard.n..._sands_pip.html


When the first part of the Keystone pipeline was built, the union commissioned a study showing that Canada would have had 18,000 more jobs if its oil were refined first in Canada.



http://www.economist...9s-oil-industry

[egghead]

C'mon XG--how many of these half truth speculative articles can you link--this is just another left wing environmental goobledigook look at the free market they understand nothing about

of course oil goes on the spot market--but it will be significantly cheaper for the US market than lets say China--the advantage to this oil is it will lower the cost increase supply and allow the markets what they do best--price the oil with more supply
(not to mention that the disruption of oil becomes significantly harder and the cartel becomes weaker)

You really need to understand free markets a little better (of which oil needs desperately) to understand the importance of the this pipeline for the US energy needs--

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

yeah, Perry's lack of geographic knowledge may come across as populist. His spin on these oil supplies come across as nationalist. Its a salesman pitch. Snake oil for fools.

[scb]

-xg22-

I got a kick out of the article's claim (when speaking of Canada already having excess pipeline capacity) of....

"From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States."

...in that pipelines that "end in the U.S. Midwest" also terminate near the Great Lakes, which, despite the article's assertion, providing access via the international thoroughfare of the St. Lawrence Seaway to buyers throughout the entire world. Access, of course, without the added value (and wages!) provided by U.S. refining operations in the Gulf.

Gosh, sure wouldn't want those refining jobs to be American, would we?! [smile]

-scb-

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

scabbies is a real pain in the [smile]

[xg22]

scb, on December 29 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

-xg22-

I got a kick out of the article's claim (when speaking of Canada already having excess pipeline capacity) of....

"From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States."

...in that pipelines that "end in the U.S. Midwest" also terminate near the Great Lakes, which, despite the article's assertion, providing access via the international thoroughfare of the St. Lawrence Seaway to buyers throughout the entire world. Access, of course, without the added value (and wages!) provided by U.S. refining operations in the Gulf.

Gosh, sure wouldn't want those refining jobs to be American, would we?! [smile]

-scb-

The enviromental fight over this isn't something I follow (well ok, if naomi wolff asked me too i would support her) so I'll let those who do debate that perspective do so.......






Yes I find that Canadian comment strange. If they want to diversify their Oil sales why not just ship it to China via pipelines already running to the wst coast to the ships there? Why go to all of the BS involved in trying to set up a new pipeline to the southern USA? It dosen't make sense.


From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that."


BUT then again there are many invisible, powerful hands involved which cause the arguements about the economic benefits to both countries seem hypocritical...........

As for 'all of those refining jobs' being American well yes that would be good (forget the debate on additional way's to increase American jobs) but there is a debate on that as well. Now I will give you that the author of this story starts out with "dangerous Keystone" which is slanting his view but the numbers being thrown around for job creation seem to be simply unknown....


Proponents of the dangerous Keystone XL project claim that construction of the 1700-mile tar sands pipeline from Canada to Texas will create tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of much-needed jobs across the country. “Jobs for the 99%!” proclaims a website funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API). The Wall Street Journal promises “13,000 union jobs.” On the House floor today, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-MS) claimed the pipeline will create “20,000 high-wage construction jobs.” Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) says the pipeline will “create 14,600 jobs in Illinois.” The US Chamber of Commerce claims the project will create “more than 250,000 permanent jobs.” “U.S. jobs supported by Canadian oil sands development could grow from 21,000 jobs today to 465,000 jobs by 2035,” said API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin.

However, these tremendous-seeming jobs claims are based entirely on a report by the Perryman Group, commissioned by the pipeline’s owner TransCanada, whose results have been described as “dead wrong” and “meaningless” by Council on Foreign Relations fellow Michael Levi and environmental economist Andrew Leach, neither of whom oppose the construction of the pipeline.


http://thinkprogress...-a-job-creator/

[Farley]

actually the Canadians wanted to build the pipeline to the West Coast through British Columbia, but is was nixed as the Canadians knew the risk was too great to their delicate rain forests to pump sludge to the coast and then refine it for the Asian market.....however the Koch Bros et al said they would refine it in Texas if America was willing to risk the Ogallala aquifer so the refiners could make more money from their Asian market.....if this **** was destined for the US they would refine it in Alberta or Montana....and not to the port refining facilities.....

[unionbustersandtrollsout]

Yeah, they wouldn't refine it on the coast if it wasn't destined for other countries.

The promises of political opportunists who claim they will make gas at the pump less than $2.00 for Americans is just another snake oil pitch.

The oil company will try to make as much money on possible. Pay as little taxes as possible. And deregulate so they don't have to worry about environmental consequences.

As far as jobs, I don't think Hoffa would be on board if these wouldn't be Teamster jobs. The question is who would be in charge of the pension fund of these workers in these new union jobs?

[xg22]

The price of gasoline and diesel fuel hit record highs in 2011 while the U.S. exported record amounts of refined petroleum products to south America, the Caribbean and Europe. The high cost of gas in the U.S. drove down demand, but high prices were maintained by exporting over twice as much refined fuel in 2011 than was exported in 2007.

In 2007, U.S. exports of all kinds of fuel held steady throughout the year at 1.24 million to 1.25 million barrels a day, according to Energy Department statistics.
But by 2011, exports of diesel, gasoline and other products surged. In November and December, U.S. fuel exports averaged between 2.77 million barrels a day and 2.89 million barrels a day, the highest ever.

Meanwhile, U.S. drivers paid an average of about $3.50 a gallon for gasoline during the year, also the highest ever.

http://www.mcclatchy...of-refined.html

[Farley]

the lesson here: Do not expect any goBP politician or Oil Executive to ever tell the truth when it comes to drilling, transporting or domestic use of resources.

[scb]

-xg22-

Last I looked, "oil" and its derivatives was a commodity, the price of which was determined on the basis of a world-wide market. ...not just a domestic one. Given that, I'm not sure what the thrust of your post was about. Are you saying that the domestic owners/producters of oil should subsidize other Americans who DON'T produce by foregoing what should be the natural return on their investment? Or that it's somehow unpatriotic of them to sell it to those who are willing to offer them the highest price? Or perhaps that the world owes this country - because we're "better" than them, presumably - a subsidy in the form of maintaining the price higher in their countries in order that it could be kept lower in ours. What?

-scb-

[Farley]

scabby, lest we forget two important items...it is you that is the "American Exceptionalist"......and the string is about goBP disenfranchisement of voters........and then scabby why should we risk our aquifier for about 500 jobs just to please China? is it because CHENEY?bush borrowed so heavily from China to finance American Imperialism that we now owe them? You did know that China owns the MacKay River oil sands, didn't you?

http://www.washingto...18XP_story.html

[scb]

-Farley-

Yes, no doubt a device as novel and experimental as an oil pipeline represents a MAJOR risk to "our aquifier", doesn't it? After all, it's not like other pipelines are CURRENTLY in existence on top of such "localized" phenomena as the Ogallala formation now, is it? [grin]

Sure as Hell, such a contraption - if allowed to be put in place - would represent quite a "disenfranchisement of voters" and such. How DARE a civilized society allow it!?!? ['nother "grin"]

You are what you are, "Farley". Deal with it.

-scb-

[Farley]

bad try scabby...to try to make the environmental problems with oil extraction part of goBPer voter disenfranchisement.....eh scabby???? oil extraction and transportation has such a stellar environmental record...you know like the BP Gulf disaster, Exxon Valdez....remember Santa Barbara? How about the leaks in the North Slope pipe line???? The Yellowstone River????Need I go on scabby, or can you google the disasters yourself??????? But then these disasters have marginal relationship with goBPer voter disenfranchisement, and only a marginal relationship because the disenfranchised voters might vote to protect the earth.... but the goBPer disenfranchisement of voters is really answering a problem that simply does NOT exist....but works to supress dem votes...eh scabby?

[scb]

-Farley-

No, you do not "need to go on". Personally, I don't believe those who lack the intelligence and the integrity to engage in responsible discourse should ever feel the "need to go on". Besides, pretty much all you've ever had to say is "gimme, gimme" anyway....and the productive elements of society are already rather sick of hearing that demand being repeated ad nauseum.

But I'm sure you'll tell us about all those historical pipeline disasters anyway, won't you? For example, no doubt you're prepared to document the MASSIVE environmental destruction brought about the "leaks" of the "North Slope pipe line" (among others), aren't you? [smile]

You are what you are, "Farley". Deal with it.

-scb-

[Farley]

so scabby , you are so intellectually and morally bankrupt that you need to put words and thoughts into your opponent in order to engage in an argument....so sad....scabby this is called a "straw man" tactic........you cannot hold your own so you create a foe where you can win.....pathetic, predictable, and pathological....eh scabby?

[scb]

-Farley-

Yeah, the Mister "You admitted..." asserter is in a position to talk about OTHERS "put[ting] words and thoughts into [their] opponent". Right. Gotcha'.

And the bozo who made claims about the "Top 30" and the "average CEO pay", and "Halliburton moving overseas to evade paying taxes", etc. is in a position to talk about someone ELSE being "intellectually and morally bankrupt". Yeah....right again!

You've developed quite a reputation for intellectual attainment and honesty on this board, haven't you "Farley"? [smile] Right up there, no doubt, with "Haz" and "Heisler" and other similarly situated members of the " tiny car intelligentsia".

Oh, and I got a kick out of how you (in another thread) demonstrated your proficiency in the areas of meteorology and climatology as well! ['nother "smile"]

Sorry, "Farley", but you are what you are. Deal with it.

-scb-