Technically it was built simply to reach an ice free port, not sure if that was what you were also implying. Plus, using trucks for transport would have been astronomically expensive, prohibitively dangerous and extremely time consuming for that matter.
FredHayek wrote: And exporting energy can help with our balance of trade. More grays than black/white on an issue like this.
So forcing american consumers to pay more at the pump and on the grocery store shelves is a benefit to the American economy?
"Progressives" must think so - their policies have resulted in diesel pricing that is higher than gasoline pricing despite the fact that it is easier, and therefore less expensive, to distill from crude oil. Diesel today has a more stringent regulation on the amount of sulfur it may contain than does gasoline. Environmental regulations have made it so that many of the smaller refineries were unprofitable to operate, resulting in their closure, reducing the supply of fuel, which ultimately raises prices at the pump.
Given all of the "progressive" policies, from preventing ANWAR from being transformed from unproven to proven reserves, which would lower the price of crude, to erecting phantom baricades to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would provide jobs as well as reduce the costs of transporting oil from the fields to the refineries, have had a negative impact on the price at the pump. And you chose this subject?
Why, the Energy Secretary, whom Obama nominated mind you, whom the Senators from the party of Democrats voted to confirm mind you, said in the middle of last month that some of the restrictions on foreign sales may be outdated according to the link you provided. And yet you don't mention him, only Murkowski. Why is that Dog? Trying to absolve the administration yet again? Obama's man in the Energy Department, who is essentially a retread from the Clinton era Energy Department, proposes something with which Murkowski agrees and acts upon and you want to hang it around the necks of only Republicans when you disagree?
What's the matter Dog, are you afraid that being proactive about something before a problem manifests itself will avoid a crisis that the Democrats might be able to exploit for their party's gain in a few years?
Something the Dog Said wrote: Sen. Murkoswski has published an white paper that promotes the Republican point of view. She however fails to describe how decreasing the domestic supply would increase prices at the pump in the US. This is a high profile issue for 2014 that the Republicans are promoting so no doubt you can easily research the Republican point of view. However they fail to disclose how this would increase domestic prices at the pump. They also fail to disclose the effect on the domestic economy and jobs from this increased price.
As to the Koch Bros., their extensive holdings and profits from the domestic oil production is also well documented. Their holdings include koch pipeline that profits from distribution of crude oil from central distribution in Cushing OK to export facilities, and Koch Supply and Trading which trades crude oil internationally. They also own extensive crude production and drilling operations as well.
Their profits would increase significantly at the expense of increased pump prices in the US.
I realize I can spend all kinds of time researching the point you are trying to make. However, I'm not interested enough to waste that much time and would hope that since you brought this subject up, that you would also provide the sources for us to discuss. And just because someone you don't like benefits from a policy, that doesn't necessarily mean the policy is bad. But without more facts and details, I can't make that determination nor do I have the desire to spend that time looking.
If you are not willing to understand the issues, then debate would be worthless. I never take a single source for any topic on which I post. I look at dozens to ensure that I have an understanding of the issue, from all sides rather than a single advocacy point. .
Well Dog, at the bare minimum, I think a source should at least back up your title, and is pretty worthless if it doesn't backup or expand on your opening points. JMO, like Fred, you are not required to back up your title of point with a link, but you then can't complain when others like Fred don't either.
FredHayek wrote: And exporting energy can help with our balance of trade. More grays than black/white on an issue like this.
So forcing american consumers to pay more at the pump and on the grocery store shelves is a benefit to the American economy?
"Progressives" must think so - their policies have resulted in diesel pricing that is higher than gasoline pricing despite the fact that it is easier, and therefore less expensive, to distill from crude oil. Diesel today has a more stringent regulation on the amount of sulfur it may contain than does gasoline. Environmental regulations have made it so that many of the smaller refineries were unprofitable to operate, resulting in their closure, reducing the supply of fuel, which ultimately raises prices at the pump.
Given all of the "progressive" policies, from preventing ANWAR from being transformed from unproven to proven reserves, which would lower the price of crude, to erecting phantom baricades to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would provide jobs as well as reduce the costs of transporting oil from the fields to the refineries, have had a negative impact on the price at the pump. And you chose this subject?
Why, the Energy Secretary, whom Obama nominated mind you, whom the Senators from the party of Democrats voted to confirm mind you, said in the middle of last month that some of the restrictions on foreign sales may be outdated according to the link you provided. And yet you don't mention him, only Murkowski. Why is that Dog? Trying to absolve the administration yet again? Obama's man in the Energy Department, who is essentially a retread from the Clinton era Energy Department, proposes something with which Murkowski agrees and acts upon and you want to hang it around the necks of only Republicans when you disagree?
What's the matter Dog, are you afraid that being proactive about something before a problem manifests itself will avoid a crisis that the Democrats might be able to exploit for their party's gain in a few years?
Rick wrote: Well Dog, at the bare minimum, I think a source should at least back up your title, and is pretty worthless if it doesn't backup or expand on your opening points. JMO, like Fred, you are not required to back up your title of point with a link, but you then can't complain when others like Fred don't either.
Yes he can... and he does...
Something the Dog Said wrote: LJ presents links to where she draws her facts, something done by few conservatives, she responds similarly when attacked, so I do not fault her.
FredHayek wrote: And exporting energy can help with our balance of trade. More grays than black/white on an issue like this.
So forcing american consumers to pay more at the pump and on the grocery store shelves is a benefit to the American economy?
"Progressives" must think so - their policies have resulted in diesel pricing that is higher than gasoline pricing despite the fact that it is easier, and therefore less expensive, to distill from crude oil. Diesel today has a more stringent regulation on the amount of sulfur it may contain than does gasoline. Environmental regulations have made it so that many of the smaller refineries were unprofitable to operate, resulting in their closure, reducing the supply of fuel, which ultimately raises prices at the pump.
Given all of the "progressive" policies, from preventing ANWAR from being transformed from unproven to proven reserves, which would lower the price of crude, to erecting phantom baricades to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would provide jobs as well as reduce the costs of transporting oil from the fields to the refineries, have had a negative impact on the price at the pump. And you chose this subject?
Why, the Energy Secretary, whom Obama nominated mind you, whom the Senators from the party of Democrats voted to confirm mind you, said in the middle of last month that some of the restrictions on foreign sales may be outdated according to the link you provided. And yet you don't mention him, only Murkowski. Why is that Dog? Trying to absolve the administration yet again? Obama's man in the Energy Department, who is essentially a retread from the Clinton era Energy Department, proposes something with which Murkowski agrees and acts upon and you want to hang it around the necks of only Republicans when you disagree?
What's the matter Dog, are you afraid that being proactive about something before a problem manifests itself will avoid a crisis that the Democrats might be able to exploit for their party's gain in a few years?
Yet another Printsmith pedantic rambling to divert the topic of this thread so he can do the traditional "your side does it too". So Printsmith, in your not so humble opinion, is it in the best interest of the American public at large, those in the lower and middle economic classes, those who are living paycheck to paycheck or forced into subsidies by low wage jobs, to be forced to pay higher prices at the pump and on the store shelves in order for the Koch Bros, and other oil production, distribution and international trading companies to increase their already highly profitable revenues? I await your further diversionary tactics to avoid answering the question.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Rick wrote: Well Dog, at the bare minimum, I think a source should at least back up your title, and is pretty worthless if it doesn't backup or expand on your opening points. JMO, like Fred, you are not required to back up your title of point with a link, but you then can't complain when others like Fred don't either.
Yes he can... and he does...
Something the Dog Said wrote: LJ presents links to where she draws her facts, something done by few conservatives, she responds similarly when attacked, so I do not fault her.
Double standards.
No W*****, a double standard would be where one publishes personal information obtained from another site about a poster in order to accuse them of violating journalistic integrity based on their personal posts, then demands that the site scrub all personal information about themself which they had made public to prevent from being held to the same standard. Don't you think?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Rick wrote: I realize I can spend all kinds of time researching the point you are trying to make. However, I'm not interested enough to waste that much time and would hope that since you brought this subject up, that you would also provide the sources for us to discuss. And just because someone you don't like benefits from a policy, that doesn't necessarily mean the policy is bad. But without more facts and details, I can't make that determination nor do I have the desire to spend that time looking.
If you are not willing to understand the issues, then debate would be worthless. I never take a single source for any topic on which I post. I look at dozens to ensure that I have an understanding of the issue, from all sides rather than a single advocacy point. .
Well Dog, at the bare minimum, I think a source should at least back up your title, and is pretty worthless if it doesn't backup or expand on your opening points. JMO, like Fred, you are not required to back up your title of point with a link, but you then can't complain when others like Fred don't either.
Well Rick I agree if you will hold other posters to the same standard rather than get your panties in a twist in the single incident where I failed to do so. As I explained, before I introduce or enter at topic, I prefer to be well informed by consulting numerous sites than rely upon a single biased site for "facts", unlike posters here. I prefer not to do drive by cut and paste from right wing blogs (not mentioning any names) in the most part. I did not reckon with the intellectually inept research skills or laziness of posters here. However, I did provide you with a source that presented most of the issue from both sides when requested, unlike other posters (Fred, Printsmith) who just make things up.
I look forward to you holding other posters to the same high standards of which you demand of me.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
No W*****, a double standard would be where one publishes personal information obtained from another site about a poster in order to accuse them of violating journalistic integrity based on their personal posts, then demands that the site scrub all personal information about themself which they had made public to prevent from being held to the same standard. Don't you think?
So.. my double standards are not your double standards? You have some sort of special double standards which holds some sort of prestige. Whereas my double standards are just plain vanilla double standards.
And I didn't violate my standards. And it was recommended to me that I remove all personal references to myself. It was not a decision I would have made on my own.
It seems some people can't separate sarcasm and parody from the actual personal opinions of a poster here. And that in turn results in someone trying to get me fired from one of my jobs.
Sort of like a small town Duck Dynasty situation.
I was given a choice. It was not one I agreed with, but one I acquiesced to.
I would say that's taking the high road. But if you prefer to call it a double standard, go ahead. And I would ask you to refrain from exposing personal information per the TOS of this forum.
