Keystone Environmentally Safe... Who Knew?

The pipeline will only provide a few hundred temporary jobs for a couple of years, at a cost of loss of crude supplies to refineries in Minnesota and Wisconsin who do not have other supplies, causing loss of jobs and a significant rise in petroleum costs in the Midwest, with few benefits to the US, as the Koch Bros. are looking to export beyond the US.

I have yet to see anything that says Canada will sell any of the crude going through Keystone to the US......My understanding is that all the crude will be shipped overseas......no matter how they get it to port.

Don't bother...They've been fed the Kool-Aid that somehow this will add to the oil/gas supply of the U.S. and somehow that will bring prices down...When the FACTS have already shown that, if anything, it is going to INCREASE prices...

But in the Fact-Free Echo-Chamber it doesn't matter.

archer wrote: I have yet to see anything that says Canada will sell any of the crude going through Keystone to the US......My understanding is that all the crude will be shipped overseas......no matter how they get it to port.

OK, even imagine that all this oil is going to China via Texas versus China via Vancouver, at least the US will get the construction jobs.

And Minnesota will lose a source of oil? If the oil is going to China via Vancouver, they will still lose that source. Sometimes you have to look at simple market logic versus slanted enviro talking points. And even if Minnesota loses the Canadian source of oil, I am sure North Dakota would be willing to supply them with their excess. North Dakota is a top 5 supplier of petrol products in the US.

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: I have yet to see anything that says Canada will sell any of the crude going through Keystone to the US......My understanding is that all the crude will be shipped overseas......no matter how they get it to port.

OK, even imagine that all this oil is going to China via Texas versus China via Vancouver, at least the US will get the construction jobs.

And Minnesota will lose a source of oil? If the oil is going to China via Vancouver, they will still lose that source. Sometimes you have to look at simple market logic versus slanted enviro talking points. And even if Minnesota loses the Canadian source of oil, I am sure North Dakota would be willing to supply them with their excess. North Dakota is a top 5 supplier of petrol products in the US.

How exactly does Minnesota lose a source of oil if the keystone pipeline's oil is all going overseas?

Dog was told Minnesota and Wisconsin will lose their crude supplies because the oil will be sent to Texas and go overseas from there. But if Keystone doesn't happen Canada will build its own pipeline through the Canadian Rockies and the oil will still be sent to China instead of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

FredHayek wrote: Dog was told Minnesota and Wisconsin will lose their crude supplies because the oil will be sent to Texas and go overseas from there. But if Keystone doesn't happen Canada will build its own pipeline through the Canadian Rockies and the oil will still be sent to China instead of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

And your SOURCE for this assertion that if "Canada builds its own pipeline through the Rockies" that will mean that none of it "will be sold to Minnesota and Wisconsin"....?

And your source that if the Keystone pipeline is built none of the oil in it will be sold to domestic American sources as it travels along the pipeline?

I asked you first... You got a source?...Post it.

Here's mine:

Refineries in the Midwest are nearly all capable of processing this oil—which takes special equipment to refine. Since not all refineries can process this oil, the price for it is comparably lower than higher quality crudes. The fact that Canadian oil can't leave Canada or the United States also keeps the price lower. By keeping Canadian oil off world markets, demand for it stays lower, which keeps the price for it lower. By connecting Canadian oil to the Gulf, there is the distinct and likely possibility that Canada will begin exporting this type of crude oil, which would open the possibility for international buyers, thus increasing demand for Canadian Sour, and causing the price to rise. This is exactly why Canada is pushing so hard for this pipeline--the more potential buyers, the more demand, the higher it can be sold for. This is bad for American and Canadian motorists.

According to the Cornell University study,

Keystone XL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of tar sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to $5 billion to the annual U.S. fuel bill.

While the additional jobs would be most welcome—they would be temporary and last one or two years at best, which is reality, not stretching the truth. TransCanada admits permanent jobs would only number in the hundreds.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on- ... l-pipeline

Keystone XL: The Greater Public Good?
High Plains Reader, Fargo, ND

Claim #1, regarding the assertion Keystone will diminish dependence on the Mideast oil. As we see it, three American oil companies are positioned to use the 1,700-plus mile TransCanada pipeline: Shell, Valero and ConocoPhillips .

Claim #2, they say Keystone will lower gas and fuel prices. Again, where do our politicians get their information?

A recent study out of Cornell University, which we strongly encourage everyone to read cover to cover, says, “KXL (Keystone XL) will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.” (Source: “Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost, by the Construction of Keystone XL,” a report by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, Jan. 2012.)

Claim #3, they say it will create jobs. Not true at all, according to Cornell, whose study indicates the Keystone will create no more than 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs for a couple years.

http://hpr1.com/opinion/article/keyston ... blic_good/

Okay, Mouth..... Where are YOUR sources?

LadyJazzer wrote: I asked you first... You got a source?...Post it.

No sense asking Fred for a source....can you even remember a time Fred had given a source when asked?