Keystone XL Fails to Pass Senate 59 - 41

[The Rabbi]

Democrats gave cover to obama so he didn't have to go on record to veto the Bill. Next January he won't have cover. Bills will pass with 51 votes.

You are a duped Repubtard!

Obama is not running for any office therefore he needs no cover for any action he takes. US Oil production declined over the past 40 years because of Republicans. Obama is the first president to increase US oil production in over 40 years.

Keystone phase 1, 2 & 3 were built under Obama's administration. Obama is an all of the above pro US energy president. Obama did not issue a veto threat when the House passed its own pro-Keystone legislation. The White House currently has no plans to roll out a veto threat for the Senate's pro-pipeline legislation.

More jobs are created every month under Obama than all the Keystone pipeline & US oil production boom created.

You need to post a chart or graph to really illustrate your stupidity and cluelessness.

Your avatar idiot hero started wearing glasses to disguise himself as a "smart person"

Awwisnt that cute. A deflection. Who would have thought it?

 

[The Rabbi]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Except, that's not what's going to happen.


KXL 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.

...

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years.72 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 US fuel bill.73 Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate the US from oil price volatility.74 Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL (the remaining cost to build within the US). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products (notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses. The benefits of KXL construction and operations would be narrowly concentrated. A relatively small number of workers and businesses would be directly involved in providing labor and other inputs to pipeline construction and operations. Likewise, the other
potential costs and benefits from KXL would not be shared equally across US regions and states. In particular, the Midwest region could be a loser due to KXL, while the Gulf Coast (and particularly Texas) could be a winner.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Sorry but you must have failed Econ to think increased supply raises prices.

 

[SwimExpert]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Except, that's not what's going to happen.


KXL 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.

...

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years.72 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 US fuel bill.73 Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate the US from oil price volatility.74 Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL (the remaining cost to build within the US). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products (notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses. The benefits of KXL construction and operations would be narrowly concentrated. A relatively small number of workers and businesses would be directly involved in providing labor and other inputs to pipeline construction and operations. Likewise, the other
potential costs and benefits from KXL would not be shared equally across US regions and states. In particular, the Midwest region could be a loser due to KXL, while the Gulf Coast (and particularly Texas) could be a winner.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Sorry but you must have failed Econ to think increased supply raises prices.

Grade A example of Steph's earlier thread on bullshit!

 

[Kosh]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Except, that's not what's going to happen.


KXL 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.

...

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years.72 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 US fuel bill.73 Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate the US from oil price volatility.74 Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL (the remaining cost to build within the US). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products (notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses. The benefits of KXL construction and operations would be narrowly concentrated. A relatively small number of workers and businesses would be directly involved in providing labor and other inputs to pipeline construction and operations. Likewise, the other
potential costs and benefits from KXL would not be shared equally across US regions and states. In particular, the Midwest region could be a loser due to KXL, while the Gulf Coast (and particularly Texas) could be a winner.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Sorry but you must have failed Econ to think increased supply raises prices.

Grade A example of Steph's earlier thread on bullshit!

Look an irony impaired post!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Except, that's not what's going to happen.


KXL 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.

...

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years.72 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 US fuel bill.73 Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate the US from oil price volatility.74 Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL (the remaining cost to build within the US). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products (notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses. The benefits of KXL construction and operations would be narrowly concentrated. A relatively small number of workers and businesses would be directly involved in providing labor and other inputs to pipeline construction and operations. Likewise, the other
potential costs and benefits from KXL would not be shared equally across US regions and states. In particular, the Midwest region could be a loser due to KXL, while the Gulf Coast (and particularly Texas) could be a winner.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Except that is exactly NOT what it is going to do.

You do realize that XL will be replacing an existing pipeline with a larger pipeline in a shorter route , but be supplying the EXACT same refineries that it currently does, those being in the midwest US, right?

Essentially you are saying that if Wal Mart delivers bread to your local store in a 20' truck currently, and they decide to start delivering that bread in a 53' truck instead that you believe you're price of bread will rise. It will not.

It may not go down, because oil prices are dependent on the world market, more than this pipeline , but no part of this pipeline will be removing oil from the us economy. Instead it will be INCREASING how much oil is refined in the US.

Instead of reading blogs which support your predrawn conclusions, many of you need to actually start studying the topics, and that goes for the left and the right.

I can understand environmental concerns over this project, but the notion that it will mean LESS oil in the US is absurd.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's make some more false analogies.....

If Adrian Peterson beats his son with a bigger stick, won't his son have bigger bruises?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Let's make some more false analogies.....

If Adrian Peterson beats his son with a bigger stick, won't his son have bigger bruises?

How is an analogy of supply false? Your "analogy" had nothing to do with supply

 

[KissMy]

Sorry but you must have failed Econ to think increased supply raises prices.

That's not what his post said you retard.

FYI: KXL may increase the price Bakken oil producers get per barrel. This may increase Bakken oil production. It might not increase prices at the gas pump.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's make some more false analogies.....

If Adrian Peterson beats his son with a bigger stick, won't his son have bigger bruises?

How is an analogy of supply false? Your "analogy" had nothing to do with supply

Because you're confining your analogy to hypotheticals and closing out facts that make for substantially different circumstances.

If the grocery store switches to larger trucks, and then uses those larger to redirect the local supply of bread half way across the country, and ships out most of the bread to overseas markets, then you're darn right I would expect the price of bread to go up.

 

[Pogo]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Refineries are already maxed. Send extra crude there and it's gonna sit.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Let's make some more false analogies.....

If Adrian Peterson beats his son with a bigger stick, won't his son have bigger bruises?

How is an analogy of supply false? Your "analogy" had nothing to do with supply

Because you're confining your analogy to hypotheticals and closing out facts that make for substantially different circumstances.

If the grocery store switches to larger trucks, and then uses those larger to redirect the local supply of bread half way across the country, and ships out most of the bread to overseas markets, then you're darn right I would expect the price of bread to go up.

But the larger pipe will NOT be used to redirect oil. I mean seriously my analogy was dead on. The refineries that are CURRENTLY getting oil will get MORE oil to refine.

Once it's refined of course it goes on the world market and who knows, yes there is no guarantee that the refined oil will remain in the US; but the REFINERIES will absolutely , positively have more oil to refine if the last phase of the Keystone pipeline is finished.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Refineries are already maxed. Send extra crude there and it's gonna sit.

Link ?

And yeah they certainly couldn't expand or add extra shifts anyway could they?

 

[SwimExpert]

But the larger pipe will NOT be used to redirect oil.

Wrong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

But the larger pipe will NOT be used to redirect oil.

Wrong.

Prove I'm wrong. EVERY thing I've heard or read about Phase IV says exactly that.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- What's the matter? Pubs have total control of congress...lol. What a shame...next time, we''ll give you, oh, 58 votes. A-holes.

 

[SwimExpert]

But the larger pipe will NOT be used to redirect oil.

Wrong.

Prove I'm wrong. EVERY thing I've heard or read about Phase IV says exactly that.

I already did. Guess you weren't paying attention.

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years.72 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.

 

[francoHFW]

Will be worth 100 billion to the Kochs. What a shame.

 

[Plasmaball]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

In the end you will have 50 new permanent jobs....
you asked for a none political answer...I gave you one. We dont need it.

 

[Plasmaball]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Sez who? Besides, none of your money is going towards it. You would think Dems would be happy to have someone else footing the bill for jobs.

50 jobs....woooooooo
Yeah try again

 

[Pogo]

at this point, how could anyone be opposed to the keystone pipeline EXCEPT for political reasons?

I get so sick of that, a good idea is a good idea, who cares which party comes up with it.

Easy...we dont need it....

Yes, who the fuck needs a pipeline that will allow us to send an extra 160,000 barrels of crude a day to US refineries?

Jobs, who needs 'em (spit)

Refineries are already maxed. Send extra crude there and it's gonna sit.

Link ?

And yeah they certainly couldn't expand or add extra shifts anyway could they?

They could certainly "expand" meaning build more refineries -- if they wanted to. That's up to them. But they haven't built one since 1976.

Adding extra shifts doesn't really make sense when your operation is already maxed. What are they gonna do -- stand around watching the extra crude while it waits in line?

There is no effect of bringing more raw matrerial in. All it does is make it easier for them (the oil company) to get that RM from point A to point B, thus saving them overhead. That's it. "Extra" material? Nowhere to put it.