Bad news for Houston? (Canton, China: eat, teaching, brick)

[Oildog]

Originally Posted by BookerEast

This is the dirtiest fuel in the world (to process) and increasing production will accelerate their environmental problems, and they will loose a lot more permanent jobs than the number of temporary jobs that will be created by the project since refining the fuel will be done here in the US.

Its not the dirtiest by far, check out what the Venezuelans, Mexicans or Brazilians are sending.

Here are some high points...

-Secure energy supply from stable Western leaning government
-Reduces environmental effects from trucking and shipping (boats) crude
-Buffer against price fluctuations by OPEC
-Reduces influence politically and financially of Middle east
-Creates construction jobs in short term
-Adds operations/monitoring jobs long term
-Easily rerouted around Nebraska aquifer (they just want some kickback like Minnesota did)

I put together other ideas posts in my other thread Dop, but your lack of counter argument couldn't support your position....so you cried to mom.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by Oildog

Its not the dirtiest by far, check out what the Venezuelans, Mexicans or Brazilians are sending.

Can't be so "crappy" if we keep on paying $100 a barrel for it.

Originally Posted by Oildog

Here are some high points...

(1) Secure energy supply from stable Western leaning government
(2) Reduces environmental effects from trucking and shipping (boats) crude
(3) Buffer against price fluctuations by OPEC
(4) Reduces influence politically and financially of Middle east
(5) Creates construction jobs in short term
(6) Adds operations/monitoring jobs long term
(7) Easily rerouted around Nebraska aquifer (they just want some kickback like Minnesota did)

(1) Canada and Mexico are already the two main suppliers of foreign oil to the US
(2) True, it's also going to leave those truckers unemployed
(3) Not true, Canada doesn't set the price of oil, the World market does
(4) Again, Canada is already the main supplier of oil to the US
(5) True, it also creates long term unemployment for the truckers, gas stations and restaurants that benefitted from not having the pipeline.
(6) With all the computers and automation, it won't take too many people to operate and monitor that pipeline
(7) Ok, I don't get this point

[Oildog]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Can't be so "crappy" if we keep on paying $100 a barrel for it.


(1) Canada and Mexico are already the two main suppliers of foreign oil to the US
(2) True, it's also going to leave those truckers unemployed
(3) Not true, Canada doesn't set the price of oil, the World market does
(4) Again, Canada is already the main supplier of oil to the US
(5) True, it also creates long term unemployment for the truckers, gas stations and restaurants that benefitted from not having the pipeline.
(6) With all the computers and automation, it won't take too many people to operate and monitor that pipeline
(7) Ok, I don't get this point

You said "dirty", which I interpreted as high in sulfur, acids, and asphaltene content. The contries I mention are 'dirtier' than the Canadian products. We pay market price because we need it.

1-Yes, two 'of the' main suppliers (according to your chart). BTW the USVI is closing their oil processing facility in St. Croix. It was announced this week.
2-Not so much, just shorter loads and more from Houston/Beaumont
3-Correct and OPEC plays a big part...but not so much as Goldman Sachs and friends.
4-Yes and they want to supply more. Its cheap and close.
5-Your stretching here. Cant see a loss in gas stations, this is a crude supply issue not gasoline delivery
6-IT folks are licking their chops
7- 'Environmentalists' are claiming the pipeline could ruin Nebraskas water supply, if it leaks or terrorists attack. Hasnt happened at the 1000's of miles of pipeline elsewhere in the country. (yes there have been leaks, but there hasnt been damage to ruin a water supply) I think Nebraska wants something in return. Minnesota declined to have this go through their state...but they want the oil.

[testmo]

What is good for gulf coast jobs must be good for america right? ... maybe the president is concerned about the national benefits and ramifications of this and not solely centered on the gulf coast. jeez what is a president doing acting so... presidential?

Obama told the republicans if they put the pipeline on the bill to force a decision he wouldn't do it. and they tried to pretend they had no idea and cause an uproar when he didn't do it. THAT was done for pure political moves to try to get more people up for this pipeline that more and more people in this country are now questioning.

what is so wrong about the US actually being able to finish the full ecological impact report and study? do people think this is something that shouldn't need to be explored?

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by testmo

What is good for gulf coast jobs must be good for america right? ... maybe the president is concerned about the national benefits and ramifications of this and not solely centered on the gulf coast. jeez what is a president doing acting so... presidential?

That is quite possibly the silliest argument I have heard to date. "Yeah thousands of people on the gulf coast might get jobs but some other people in SF/Seattle/L.A./Upper East Side of Manhattan/etc. might get annoyed so we won't do it."

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Exactly,
if we only cared about money, we wouldn't have any libraries or museums (produce $0)

Wait a second. It takes others that care about money to be able to finance those libraries and museums. And many museums try to be self-sustaining by charging admission.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Wait a second. It takes others that care about money to be able to finance those libraries and museums. And many museums try to be self-sustaining by charging admission.

Everyone knows that if someone has enough money to donate to a library or a museum they obviously stole it from wall street and need to be occupied.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by Oildog

5-Your stretching here. Cant see a loss in gas stations, this is a crude supply issue not gasoline delivery

Not really,
trucks run on gasoline, and they have to stop at gas stations to get more gasoline and to eat food = creating job in small towns in the Heartland.

You build a pipeline and a lot of those jobs are gonna be gone.
That's the whole point of building a pipeline, to reduce the number of people ($$$$) required to transport it.

[RCH99]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Not really,
trucks run on gasoline, and they have to stop at gas stations to get more gasoline and to eat food = creating job in small towns in the Heartland.

You build a pipeline and a lot of those jobs are gonna be gone.
That's the whole point of building a pipeline, to reduce the number of people ($$$$) required to transport it.

Um, I don't think this thread was started so that it could be discussed at this dumbed down level.

[ethanw]

Let it all go to China then

Thwarted on US oil pipeline, Canada looks to China - Yahoo! Finance