Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Disputing the State Dept's claim, from your link:
Gulf Coast PADD 3 Exports of Crude Oil Thousand Barrels per Day
That's not disputing the State Department's report.
The State Department wrote that 35% to 50% of refined product was exported. It didn't say that 100% of refined product was exported, which is what Obama and the environmentalists are erroneously claiming.
You claimed through your OP that NONE would be exported.
I was unclear. I thought it was implied that the OP refuted the erroneous assertion by Obama, the Democrats and environmentalists, that it will all be exported, since that's the argument they were making.
So to clear up the OP, all of the crude won't be exported as the critics claim. Most of it will remain within the United States.
It's quite possible that almost all of the additional capacity facilitated by the pipeline will be exported, depending on how much over US refining capacity it goes.
The property owners can be offered lease payments such as what is done for property owners who permit cell phone towers.So if a group of property owners object they can't hold up the project? That is wrong. Very wrong. Perhaps they could at least demand a lot more compensation than the cheapskate company offers.`
The last resort is a forced taking, here's a check.....That's unusual as everyone has a price.
In the case of an owner simply being a stick in the mud, the company will simply build around them but close enough to make it very uncomfortable for the property owner.
In any case the project WILL move forward.
If this is oil destined only for the US, why is Canada considering as an alternative building a pipeline east to the Atlantic?
So it can be shipped to refineries in Texas.
The only reason why the Energy East option is being pursued is because Obama and the Democrats are stalling on Keystone.
If that happens, then environmentalists won't have to worry about a pipeline leak. Instead, they can worry about a tanker spill and crude washing up into New York Harbor or the beaches of Florida.
Boehner is ass deep in Keystone related investments and has been since 2009. That's why Keystone is being pursued.
As deadline nears friends and foes of Keystone XL pipeline step up campaigns - The Washington PostBoehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an interview that an investment adviser chooses Boehner’s financial investments. “He doesn’t have any control over day-to-day trades, so there’s no conflict of interest on this or any other investment,” Steel said of the speaker, adding that when it comes to the upcoming decision on Keystone XL, “We hope the president will do the right thing and approve the permit, and create American jobs.”
It isn't rocket science..
Like I said, Canadians can build refineries. Just like the Texans did. In fact, refineries in Canada could employ Texas workers and construction people. Then the trucking industry moving it around the US would provide more jobs still. Taxes could be levied to repair roads the trucks use and other state roadways from increased wear. That would provide more jobs still. Those new American jobs would spur even more support industry jobs and the economy would be spurred.
Or you can insulate all that wealth in a pipeline and ship it to the monopolies in the Gulf region to stick it to the consumer and then squirrel away all their mega profits in offshore accounts and using loopholes to evade paying corporate taxes and providing cleanup money for all the waterways destroyed forever by benzene pollution clear from Canada down to the Gulf.
In other words, business as usual..
BTW a "group" of property owners acting ion concert is an unlawful collusion.So if a group of property owners object they can't hold up the project? That is wrong. Very wrong. Perhaps they could at least demand a lot more compensation than the cheapskate company offers.`
Since 2006, the price of Cold Lake Blend has been discounted compared with the price of Mexican Maya heavy crude oil at the USGC. This price discount suggests that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in their main markets north of the USGC. PGI submitted that in 2008, the average discount for Cold Lake Blend at the USGC was approximately US$3.24 per barrel. It indicated that by increasing market access for Canadian heavy crudes, this discount should be avoided in the future.
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/42477/42477E.pdf
What diff does it make where it spills,If this is oil destined only for the US, why is Canada considering as an alternative building a pipeline east to the Atlantic?
So it can be shipped to refineries in Texas.
The only reason why the Energy East option is being pursued is because Obama and the Democrats are stalling on Keystone.
If that happens, then environmentalists won't have to worry about a pipeline leak. Instead, they can worry about a tanker spill and crude washing up into New York Harbor or the beaches of Florida.
only that it spills. This is why those sands should not even be extracted. 
No, as shown, Canadians can't build refineries for the same reason Keystone can't build a pipeline, namely, environmentalist wackos.It isn't rocket science..
Like I said, Canadians can build refineries. Just like the Texans did. In fact, refineries in Canada could employ Texas workers and construction people. Then the trucking industry moving it around the US would provide more jobs still. Taxes could be levied to repair roads the trucks use and other state roadways from increased wear. That would provide more jobs still. Those new American jobs would spur even more support industry jobs and the economy would be spurred.
Or you can insulate all that wealth in a pipeline and ship it to the monopolies in the Gulf region to stick it to the consumer and then squirrel away all their mega profits in offshore accounts and using loopholes to evade paying corporate taxes and providing cleanup money for all the waterways destroyed forever by benzene pollution clear from Canada down to the Gulf.
In other words, business as usual..
It isn't that simple.So if I were one of the property owners and objected and defended my property I would be a troublemaker? Doesn't that go against conservative ideals?
Oh please...There hasn't been a new refinery built in Canada since 1984. In the US, just one new refinery has been built since the late 70's. Go ahead! Propose a new refinery in the US or Canada. It would take 10 years to get permits and another 4 to build it, IF you could get by the same tree huggers that want to stop Keystone.Oh, the same type of refineries that they have in Texas. You know, the ones that were around during the Triassic Era. Oh, wait, no, that's right...men built those.Problem solved? Refined on site? By what refineries?If the oil from this proposed pipeline that the Lakotas have vowed to stop is to be consumed in the US, then Canada can refine it on site and sell it to trucks at the border to bring to various storage facilities here on land. No need whatsoever to have it in Texas ports to be shipped anywhere else.
Problem solved.
I guess they don't have men who can build in Canada. My bad.
since when did Canada need proposals from Americans to do anything ? Since when did Americans promote giving away another Americans land to a foreign country ?
Trade wars are pointless. Nobody wins.None, not a drop of that oil should leave our shores. I don't care if another country offers a lot more oil for it. Handcuff the company in this instance. You want your pipeline fine, we get the oil..
2006?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
TransCanada, from the beginning, said themselves that the point was to divert oil to different markets. Part of that is diverting oil from the mid-west to the Gulf Coast. Part of that is sending oil overseas. Just what TransCanada said in the beginning. Now, maybe they're saying that it won't leave the US. Does not change the fact that the primary mission of the Keystone XL is to simply divert oil in such a way as will increase prices on the American consumer.
Since 2006, the price of Cold Lake Blend has been discounted compared with the price of Mexican Maya heavy crude oil at the USGC. This price discount suggests that the supply of Canadian heavy crudes has exceeded demand in their main markets north of the USGC. PGI submitted that in 2008, the average discount for Cold Lake Blend at the USGC was approximately US$3.24 per barrel. It indicated that by increasing market access for Canadian heavy crudes, this discount should be avoided in the future.
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/42477/42477E.pdf
If this is oil destined only for the US, why is Canada considering as an alternative building a pipeline east to the Atlantic?
So it can be shipped to refineries in Texas.
The only reason why the Energy East option is being pursued is because Obama and the Democrats are stalling on Keystone.
If that happens, then environmentalists won't have to worry about a pipeline leak. Instead, they can worry about a tanker spill and crude washing up into New York Harbor or the beaches of Florida.
Boehner is ass deep in Keystone related investments and has been since 2009. That's why Keystone is being pursued.
Link?
This is why those sands should not even be extracted.
That's nice.
But here in the real world -->
Shut up.....Since when are you an advocate of Indian lands.Whatever, it's still part of the global supply, the dirtiest oil possible, wrecking Native American lands, and pipelines and oil sucks. humbug.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Keystone XL pipeline has the potential to increase carbon
pollution by 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
1
This is the equivalent of seven coal-fired power plants operating continuously or having 6.2 million cars on the road for 50 years.
2
Compared to conventional oil, tar sands takes more energy to extract and refine, and therefore its production is three- to four-times more greenhouse gas intensive.
3
Tar sands oil ranks among the most carbon-intensive oils on theplanet.
