Oil Transported Through Keystone Will Be Consumed in the US

[SwimExpert]

They're going on an EIA report you know YOUR government agency that stated that I think it was 80% of the crude to the Gulf would remain in the states for domestic use.

And how do you know he was referencing any such thing? Seems to me that you're simply turning part apologist, part spokesperson.

Just like TransCanada never claimed that 42,000 extra jobs would be created. YOUR government agency known as the state department made that freaking claim.

Link?

They are referencing their own "Myths and Facts" at their own website where they have used American Government data to support their facts and shoot down the lies that are out there.

You can follow the links to the EIA, State Department and more. I'm loaded for bear on your own government findings. But start here.

EIA report reinforces case for Keystone XL
The case for building Keystone XL Pipeline is as strong as it was five years ago.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) posted its early release of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (PDF, 485 KB) on December 16, 2013. The study simply reinforces what many Americans already know: Keystone XL is needed not only to support the safe and reliable transport of North American energy, but to help reduce the amount of overseas imports from Venezuela and the Middle East.

The report clearly shows that while imports have decreased in recent years, thanks to the boom in domestic production, the United States will continue to import anywhere from five to eight million barrels of oil every day, until 2040. The key for the United States is to make sure those barrels are delivered as safely and securely as possible.

- See more at: EIA report reinforces case for Keystone XL Keystone XL Pipeline

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2014: This graphs shows that despite huge increases in domestic production the U.S. will still require imports for decades.

The national and energy security benefits of Keystone XL are undeniable. Previous cross-border oil pipelines, such as the first Keystone Pipeline, were approved precisely because they served the national interest of the United States.

“The [State] Department has determined that issuance of the permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP is in the national interest, in part, because it increases U.S. market access to crude oil supplies from a stable and reliable trading partner, Canada, that is in close proximity to the United States.” – State Department Issuance of Presidential Permit for Keystone Pipeline, March 14, 2008.

Keystone XL means that more of Americans’ energy dollars stay in North America, benefiting governments, workers and local communities. Keystone XL will help modernize the country’s energy infrastructure, built by American workers who are able to earn a good living to provide for their families and their health and retirement benefits.

Keystone XL means that millions of barrels of oil will move to U.S. refineries in the safest, most efficient and environmentally responsible way.
EIA report reinforces case for Keystone XL Keystone XL Pipeline

This will take you to Myths and Facts where they use your government data .

Myths Facts Keystone XL Pipeline

1 - You still have not demonstrated that TransCanada's CEO was speaking in reference to the EIA report, as opposed to making a claim as to the intentions behind the XL.

2 - Nothing therein establishes that oil from the XL will be consumed in the US. Which makes sense based on your consistently repeated position that the oil producers are really the ones who can determine where they oil is sold.

3 - You still have failed to demonstrate your claim regarding 42,000 jobs.

 

[Ravi]

But! If there is a profit to be made, it will be exported. Or some other product will be exported in its place.

The guy in the Op does not seem credible making the claims he is making.

^ that

I was just reading that the guy, Russ Girling, is a proven liar. He's claimed the pipeline will provide 42,000 ongoing jobs when in reality it will create about 50 ongoing jobs in maintenance.

Scratch his partisan bullshit.

And where pray tell did you read that the pipeline would provide 42,000 ongoing jobs?

I can't wait to see the link. Because I know for a fact that Trans Canada has never claimed that there would be 42,000 freaking permanent jobs.

Get ready because here comes the truth. Not some distorted piece of bullshit from someone "interpreting" what Trans Canada fucking claims.

I'm just so pissed off at all the liars and lies out there that you end up picking up Ravi. Not blaming you.

But I like to start from a truth and then debate the merits of a situation.

You know who claimed 42,000 supplemental jobs. The freaking US State Department!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here:

Nine Thousand Shovel-Ready Jobs

Keystone XL is the definition of shovel-ready infrastructure project. Almost overnight, Keystone XL could put 9,000 hard-working American men and women directly to work.

The U.S. State Department’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (PDF, 4 MB) found that the project would support more than 42,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide.

Supporting North American Labor

TransCanada has entered into comprehensive Project Labor Agreements with North America’s largest building trades unions, the Laborers International Union of North America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Pipeline Contractors Association.

The agreement guarantees TransCanada will have access to the most capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL.

Millions of Work Hours

During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers.

Danny Hendrix, a business manager for Pipeliners Local 798 in Tulsa, Okla., recently told media what these jobs mean to his members and their families

: “They’ve got healthcare for another year, [and] they’ve got a pension credit for when they retire. It means that those families have got healthcare, dental care — so it means a lot. It means they can make a house payment, it means they can send their kids to college.”

- See more at: Jobs Economic Benefits Keystone XL Pipeline

Jobs Economic Benefits Keystone XL Pipeline

Girling said it. Use La Google.

 

[Toro]

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

No, the claim from the Left is that the risks far outweigh the rewards. The U.S. will take the majority of risk, without the reward of getting the majority of the oil.

Many on the left, including President Obama, have said that all the refined crude from the oil sands transported by Keystone will be exported. That is false.

 

[Ravi]

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

No, the claim from the Left is that the risks far outweigh the rewards. The U.S. will take the majority of risk, without the reward of getting the majority of the oil.

I fear Toro has been living in the Deep South so long he feels the need to use strawmen,

 

[Ravi]

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

No, the claim from the Left is that the risks far outweigh the rewards. The U.S. will take the majority of risk, without the reward of getting the majority of the oil.

Many on the left, including President Obama, have said that all the refined crude from the oil sands transported by Keystone will be exported. That is false.

Link?

 

[SwimExpert]

Tinydancer,

You should really stop the tap dancing and come clean with exactly why you support the XL project. Completion of the XL would be a great long term plus for the Canadian economy. Keystone oil shippers have invested millions into the construction of Keystone, with the hope of opening up Canadian oil producers to the USGC market, so that they can eliminate the $3 per barrel discount that currently exists in the US mid west on Canadian oil, due to high supply. Opening up to the USGC market will allow that discount to be eliminated, resulting in higher revenues for oil produces, and increased tax revenues. It's would be a great thing for Canada, and it's as simple as that.

That's the reason you support this, and on its face that's a perfectly fine reason. The problem is that while it works out well for Canada, it won't be such a win for the United States. And that's why I oppose it. You seem to think that the United States should agree to a win/lose on our own soil where we are the ones who lose. Which is incredibly disrespectful to our country. If TransCanada, the oil shippers, and the Canadian government were willing to come to an agreement that would offer some real and actual benefit to the United States as well, I would be able to start getting on board. But as it all is now, the only thing you have is "Canada is your number one supplier of foreign oil." Which is not even close to being slightly convincing.

 

[Ravi]

Tinydancer,

You should really stop the tap dancing and come clean with exactly why you support the XL project. Completion of the XL would be a great long term plus for the Canadian economy. Keystone oil shippers have invested millions into the construction of Keystone, with the hope of opening up Canadian oil producers to the USGC market, so that they can eliminate the $3 per barrel discount that currently exists in the US mid west on Canadian oil, due to high supply. Opening up to the USGC market will allow that discount to be eliminated, resulting in higher revenues for oil produces, and increased tax revenues. It's would be a great thing for Canada, and it's as simple as that.

That's the reason you support this, and on its face that's a perfectly fine reason. The problem is that while it works out well for Canada, it won't be such a win for the United States. And that's why I oppose it. You seem to think that the United States should agree to a win/lose on our own soil where we are the ones who lose. Which is incredibly disrespectful to our country. If TransCanada, the oil shippers, and the Canadian government were willing to come to an agreement that would offer some real and actual benefit to the United States as well, I would be able to start getting on board. But as it all is now, the only thing you have is "Canada is your number one supplier of foreign oil." Which is not even close to being slightly convincing.

So why do the Republicans support it?

 

[Toro]

In other words, at least half of the oil that is refined on the Gulf Coast stays in the United States.

This is not knowable yet. It may be refined in Texas or Louisiana, but may then be headed to Mexico, Central America, South America. Whomever pays the highest price.

Once again:

U.S. Gas Exports Force Drivers Into Bidding War With Mexico At Pump

I guess nothing is knowable in the future, is it? Yet, the Left seems to speak with high confidence of the future when they say that it will all be exported.

If most of the refining capacity on the Gulf is used for product that stays in the US, it is most likely the refined product will stay in the US. Thus, to say with certainty that it will all be exported is bunk.

But! If there is a profit to be made, it will be exported. Or some other product will be exported in its place.

The guy in the Op does not seem credible making the claims he is making.

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

You can make up as many "what if" scenarios as you wish, but Obama's own State Dept disagrees with Obama and agrees with the CEO that the crude will almost certainly not all be exported.

I've never heard the claim that it will all be exported. That's as retarded as Girling's claim that none will be exported and THAT is your contention.

Yes, I agree it is retarded. So why does Obama say it, as he did a few days ago?

Obama 8217 s claim that Keystone XL crude would go 8216 everywhere else 8217 but the United States - The Washington Post

When you say that it "goes to world markets, not to the United States," you are saying that it doesn't go to the United States.

This isn't hard.

My contention is that most of it would stay in the US. That is also Obama's State Department's contention.

 

[Toro]

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

No, the claim from the Left is that the risks far outweigh the rewards. The U.S. will take the majority of risk, without the reward of getting the majority of the oil.

I fear Toro has been living in the Deep South so long he feels the need to use strawmen,

I'm sorry. Does "straw man" mean something else in South Florida? When someone says "not the United States," it usually means "not in the United States."

 

[Synthaholic]

I'll believe the vast amounts of reports saying the same thing President Obama is saying over the self-serving, lone comment from an oil corporation executive, thank you very much.

You might have a point if Obama wasn't a known LIAR.

Other than Jimmy Carter, name the president who told no lies.

Thank you for admitting Obama is a liar.

I didn't admit that.

How many unicorns do you own?

Have you ever told a lie in your life? Yes.

Does that make you a liar? No.

When the fuck are you going to grow up, Mr. Playstation?

 

[Ravi]

This is not knowable yet. It may be refined in Texas or Louisiana, but may then be headed to Mexico, Central America, South America. Whomever pays the highest price.

Once again:

U.S. Gas Exports Force Drivers Into Bidding War With Mexico At Pump

I guess nothing is knowable in the future, is it? Yet, the Left seems to speak with high confidence of the future when they say that it will all be exported.

If most of the refining capacity on the Gulf is used for product that stays in the US, it is most likely the refined product will stay in the US. Thus, to say with certainty that it will all be exported is bunk.

But! If there is a profit to be made, it will be exported. Or some other product will be exported in its place.

The guy in the Op does not seem credible making the claims he is making.

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

You can make up as many "what if" scenarios as you wish, but Obama's own State Dept disagrees with Obama and agrees with the CEO that the crude will almost certainly not all be exported.

I've never heard the claim that it will all be exported. That's as retarded as Girling's claim that none will be exported and THAT is your contention.

Yes, I agree it is retarded. So why does Obama say it, as he did a few days ago?

Obama 8217 s claim that Keystone XL crude would go 8216 everywhere else 8217 but the United States - The Washington Post

When you say that it "goes to world markets, not to the United States," you are saying that it doesn't go to the United States.

This isn't hard.

My contention is that most of it would stay in the US. That is also Obama's State Department's contention.

I read your link, he didn't say it would all be sold overseas, rather he said it would be sold on the world market and that is absolutely true. If someone is willing to pay more than we are the owners will let them.

On the other hand your guy in the OP made a false statement.

 

[haissem123]

It won't be exported, according to the CEO of TransCanada Pipelines.

It certainly seems illogical that an oil pipeline should be elevated to the level of friction now represented by the Keystone XL project. But through one means or another, the project has become a source of real conflict. On Wednesday the CEO of TransCanada Corp. came pretty close to calling the President of the United States a liar. Russ Girling said that “the notion that this oil is going to get exported is pure fabrication by those that are opposed to our project.”

Later, he added: “It’s very highly unlikely that any of this crude leaves North America.”

The timing was important, because Mr. Obama made those very allegations just last week. The pipeline, he said was merely “providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.” He was parroting the latest line in the war against Keystone mounted by U.S. environmentalists, which portrays Canada as a nefarious purveyor of dirty oil, with plans to send shipments across the pristine U.S. to ships in the Gulf, which will immediately transport it to China.

In reality, TransCanada doesn’t own the oil, it just ships it for the oil companies. It gets sent to a refining hub in Texas, which turns it into gasoline. The refiners say less than 10% of the gasoline they refine gets exported. If the refiners did decide, illogically, to export it all, they would have to ship in other oil from Venezuela or elsewhere to replace it, which makes no sense at all. The U.S. State Department, which has assessed Keystone to death, found that pipelines have no impact on U.S. exports, and that Alberta’s oil is likely to stay in the U.S.

The National Post

i think i'm not alone when I say it's high time we, the people of this world, stopped allowing a few to claim all the money for the precious and limited natural resource of this world whatever they be. you people think it's a good idea to give billions to koch brothers selling the oil or bushs or saudi kings? time to revolt against this stupidity. time to grow up humans. we can't afford to let this continue.

 

[Toro]

I guess nothing is knowable in the future, is it? Yet, the Left seems to speak with high confidence of the future when they say that it will all be exported.

If most of the refining capacity on the Gulf is used for product that stays in the US, it is most likely the refined product will stay in the US. Thus, to say with certainty that it will all be exported is bunk.

But! If there is a profit to be made, it will be exported. Or some other product will be exported in its place.

The guy in the Op does not seem credible making the claims he is making.

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

You can make up as many "what if" scenarios as you wish, but Obama's own State Dept disagrees with Obama and agrees with the CEO that the crude will almost certainly not all be exported.

I've never heard the claim that it will all be exported. That's as retarded as Girling's claim that none will be exported and THAT is your contention.

Yes, I agree it is retarded. So why does Obama say it, as he did a few days ago?

Obama 8217 s claim that Keystone XL crude would go 8216 everywhere else 8217 but the United States - The Washington Post

When you say that it "goes to world markets, not to the United States," you are saying that it doesn't go to the United States.

This isn't hard.

My contention is that most of it would stay in the US. That is also Obama's State Department's contention.

I read your link, he didn't say it would all be sold overseas, rather he said it would be sold on the world market and that is absolutely true. If someone is willing to pay more than we are the owners will let them.

On the other hand your guy in the OP made a false statement.

What does "not in the United States" mean?

 

[haissem123]

You might have a point if Obama wasn't a known LIAR.

Other than Jimmy Carter, name the president who told no lies.

Thank you for admitting Obama is a liar.

I didn't admit that.

How many unicorns do you own?

Have you ever told a lie in your life? Yes.

Does that make you a liar? No.

When the fuck are you going to grow up, Mr. Playstation?

yes it does make you a liar. dah?

 

[tinydancer]

They're going on an EIA report you know YOUR government agency that stated that I think it was 80% of the crude to the Gulf would remain in the states for domestic use.

And how do you know he was referencing any such thing? Seems to me that you're simply turning part apologist, part spokesperson.

Just like TransCanada never claimed that 42,000 extra jobs would be created. YOUR government agency known as the state department made that freaking claim.

Link?

They are referencing their own "Myths and Facts" at their own website where they have used American Government data to support their facts and shoot down the lies that are out there.

You can follow the links to the EIA, State Department and more. I'm loaded for bear on your own government findings. But start here.

EIA report reinforces case for Keystone XL
The case for building Keystone XL Pipeline is as strong as it was five years ago.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) posted its early release of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (PDF, 485 KB) on December 16, 2013. The study simply reinforces what many Americans already know: Keystone XL is needed not only to support the safe and reliable transport of North American energy, but to help reduce the amount of overseas imports from Venezuela and the Middle East.

The report clearly shows that while imports have decreased in recent years, thanks to the boom in domestic production, the United States will continue to import anywhere from five to eight million barrels of oil every day, until 2040. The key for the United States is to make sure those barrels are delivered as safely and securely as possible.

- See more at: EIA report reinforces case for Keystone XL Keystone XL Pipeline

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2014: This graphs shows that despite huge increases in domestic production the U.S. will still require imports for decades.

The national and energy security benefits of Keystone XL are undeniable. Previous cross-border oil pipelines, such as the first Keystone Pipeline, were approved precisely because they served the national interest of the United States.

“The [State] Department has determined that issuance of the permit to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP is in the national interest, in part, because it increases U.S. market access to crude oil supplies from a stable and reliable trading partner, Canada, that is in close proximity to the United States.” – State Department Issuance of Presidential Permit for Keystone Pipeline, March 14, 2008.

Keystone XL means that more of Americans’ energy dollars stay in North America, benefiting governments, workers and local communities. Keystone XL will help modernize the country’s energy infrastructure, built by American workers who are able to earn a good living to provide for their families and their health and retirement benefits.

Keystone XL means that millions of barrels of oil will move to U.S. refineries in the safest, most efficient and environmentally responsible way.
EIA report reinforces case for Keystone XL Keystone XL Pipeline

This will take you to Myths and Facts where they use your government data .

Myths Facts Keystone XL Pipeline

1 - You still have not demonstrated that TransCanada's CEO was speaking in reference to the EIA report, as opposed to making a claim as to the intentions behind the XL.

2 - Nothing therein establishes that oil from the XL will be consumed in the US. Which makes sense based on your consistently repeated position that the oil producers are really the ones who can determine where they oil is sold.

3 - You still have failed to demonstrate your claim regarding 42,000 jobs.

Oh piss off. I gave you the links. Go read them. I'm not into dancing with you.

I deal with facts and not bullshit.

 

[BlindBoo]

The claim from the Left is that it will all be exported.

No, the claim from the Left is that the risks far outweigh the rewards. The U.S. will take the majority of risk, without the reward of getting the majority of the oil.

Many on the left, including President Obama, have said that all the refined crude from the oil sands transported by Keystone will be exported. That is false.

All? When did the President say all of the refined product will be exported. Link?

 

[Toro]

Obama verbatim; "Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.

Obama says Keystone XL is for exporting oil outside the U.S. experts disagree PolitiFact

So, apparently, "not in the United States" and "sold everywhere else" is not Obama saying that it will be sold everywhere else and not in the United States.

Got it.

 

[tinydancer]

Tinydancer,

You should really stop the tap dancing and come clean with exactly why you support the XL project. Completion of the XL would be a great long term plus for the Canadian economy. Keystone oil shippers have invested millions into the construction of Keystone, with the hope of opening up Canadian oil producers to the USGC market, so that they can eliminate the $3 per barrel discount that currently exists in the US mid west on Canadian oil, due to high supply. Opening up to the USGC market will allow that discount to be eliminated, resulting in higher revenues for oil produces, and increased tax revenues. It's would be a great thing for Canada, and it's as simple as that.

That's the reason you support this, and on its face that's a perfectly fine reason. The problem is that while it works out well for Canada, it won't be such a win for the United States. And that's why I oppose it. You seem to think that the United States should agree to a win/lose on our own soil where we are the ones who lose. Which is incredibly disrespectful to our country. If TransCanada, the oil shippers, and the Canadian government were willing to come to an agreement that would offer some real and actual benefit to the United States as well, I would be able to start getting on board. But as it all is now, the only thing you have is "Canada is your number one supplier of foreign oil." Which is not even close to being slightly convincing.

My reasons for supporting pipelines vs other modes of transportation for crude is simple.

I'm a true blue conservationist and have been for decades. I'm an activist who specializes in water purity and water conservation.

I've done my shit since Grassy Narrows and have never let up. I'm a lifer.

I believe pipelines to be the safest way to transport crude and other products. And I've come to that conclusion based on years of research and soul searching as well.

Plain and simple.

Oh and the other reasons I stay into this topic on various boards is because I detest lies and liars.

I have no problem with ignorance or those that are misled.

But liars and there are many regarding Keystone set me clean freaking off.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'll believe the vast amounts of reports saying the same thing President Obama is saying over the self-serving, lone comment from an oil corporation executive, thank you very much.

Yeah cuz we all know Obama never lies.

 

[haissem123]

Tinydancer,

You should really stop the tap dancing and come clean with exactly why you support the XL project. Completion of the XL would be a great long term plus for the Canadian economy. Keystone oil shippers have invested millions into the construction of Keystone, with the hope of opening up Canadian oil producers to the USGC market, so that they can eliminate the $3 per barrel discount that currently exists in the US mid west on Canadian oil, due to high supply. Opening up to the USGC market will allow that discount to be eliminated, resulting in higher revenues for oil produces, and increased tax revenues. It's would be a great thing for Canada, and it's as simple as that.

That's the reason you support this, and on its face that's a perfectly fine reason. The problem is that while it works out well for Canada, it won't be such a win for the United States. And that's why I oppose it. You seem to think that the United States should agree to a win/lose on our own soil where we are the ones who lose. Which is incredibly disrespectful to our country. If TransCanada, the oil shippers, and the Canadian government were willing to come to an agreement that would offer some real and actual benefit to the United States as well, I would be able to start getting on board. But as it all is now, the only thing you have is "Canada is your number one supplier of foreign oil." Which is not even close to being slightly convincing.

My reasons for supporting pipelines vs other modes of transportation for crude is simple.

I'm a true blue conservationist and have been for decades. I'm an activist who specializes in water purity and water conservation.

I've done my shit since Grassy Narrows and have never let up. I'm a lifer.

I believe pipelines to be the safest way to transport crude and other products. And I've come to that conclusion based on years of research and soul searching as well.

Plain and simple.

Oh and the other reasons I stay into this topic on various boards is because I detest lies and liars.

I have no problem with ignorance or those that are misled.

But liars and there are many regarding Keystone set me clean freaking off.

is that why pipelines have been the worst at dumping millions of crude everywhere? they realize they are leaking after a few million gallons. sounds safe to me. water purity? I think you've been drinking to much crude conservative cool aid. you aren't searching or your souls cause you don't have one.