U.S. steel won't be used in Keystone Pipeline

[Slyhunter]

There is only 1 US steel company in existence.

 

[Lewdog]

There is only 1 US steel company in existence.

I see 2 that are U.S. owned, but there are several that are located in the U.S. just not owned by U.S. companies. I think the most important thing is that the companies are located in the U.S. and have American workers. My buddy is a pretty higher up in AK Steel and his father is one of the top-top guys in the company. I believe it is Japanese owned, but has several plants in the U.S., one of which is in Middletown, Ohio close to where I grew up.

The most flexible facilities
AK Steel has the most flexible facilities producing the most diversified product line in the domestic steel industry -- carbon, stainless and electrical steels.

• 
  Carbon Melting
  Ashland
  Butler
  Dearborn
  Middletown
  
  
• 
  Specialty Melting
  Butler (Stainless/Electrical)
  Mansfield (Stainless)
  
  
• 
  Hot Rolling
  Butler (Stainless/Electrical)
  Dearborn (Carbon)
  Mansfield (Stainless)
  Middletown (Carbon/Stainless)
  
  
• 
  Cold Rolling
  Butler (Stainless/Electrical)
  Coshocton (Stainless)
  Dearborn (Carbon)
  Mansfield (Stainless)
  Rockport (Carbon/Stainless)
  Zanesville (Stainless/Electrical)
  
  
• 
  Coating
  Ashland
  Dearborn (Carbon)
  Middletown (Carbon/Stainless)
  Rockport
  
  
• 
  Electrical Processing
  Butler
  Zanesville
  
  
• 
  Stainless Processing
  Butler
  Coshocton
  Mansfield
  Middletown
  Rockport
  Zanesville
  

 

[Andylusion]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

 

[Spare_change]

The 30 permanent jobs this creates will be yuge

Beats the hell out of having 30 more unemployed.

 

[Andylusion]

There is only 1 US steel company in existence.

What are you talking about?

AK Steel, Carpenter Technology, Commercial Metals Company, and Nucor, Steel Dynamics, and U.S. Steel.

And there are dozens of smaller steel mills.

You are crazy. You crack pots say the darnest things.

 

[Lewdog]

There is only 1 US steel company in existence.

What are you talking about?

AK Steel, Carpenter Technology, Commercial Metals Company, and Nucor, Steel Dynamics, and U.S. Steel.

And there are dozens of smaller steel mills.

You are crazy. You crack pots say the darnest things.

No there are only two American owned U.S. steel companies. U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel

 

[RealDave]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

Actually, the federal government does have a say as far as environmental impact and when any pipeline crosses the US border.

If the purpose of the TCC is to allow oil sands dillbit to be transported to US refineries & then to export, then I say let Canada take the risks & let Canadians breathe the pollution from the refinery operations.

The only people profiting are Canadians & oil refineries.

 

[depotoo]

The steel was purchased years ago, in anticipation of the project going forward. It has been stored in a Canadian warehouse for all those years. And the US steel industry at this point can't even meet their specs, at this point in time.
Find something legitimate to gripe about.

Keystone pipeline won't use US steel despite Trump pledge

Not the end of the Earth but the campaign is over and it's time to ease the self-promotion. Too many instances of Trump shooting himself in the foot won't look good.

 

[RealDave]

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

Here's the problem with your logic.

In order for the Keystone Pipe to NOT effect the price, you would have make the claim that the current method of transporting oil, has the exact same cost as the new method.

Obviously, if the new system of transport has the exact same net cost, as the old system.... then the price won't change.

Equally if the new system has a higher cost, than the old system... then the price will go up.

Lastly, if the new system has a lower net cost, than the old system.... then the price will go down.

Can we at least, logically, agree on this much?

Now unless you are not high on Colorado pot-candy, I am going to assume that we can agree on this.

So then the question is, do you think that the cost of the new transport system is higher, the same, or lower. And one question should answer that. Why would any company spend billions to build a system, that is the exact same cost, or a higher cost, than existing systems?

Obviously... that makes no sense. If I am Amazon, and I currently deliver using FedEx, I'm certainly not going to start delivering my goods via Taxi cab, tripling thing cost. That cost would be passed onto consumers who would find cheaper online-order companies to use.

But I might use drones to deliver packages, in order to lower the cost.

So, I believe that the pipeline will reduce prices of oil, because... there is no logical reason that any company would spend billions on a pipeline, to achieve the same price, or a higher price. No one would do that.

That is like suggesting people would by a Hybrid car for $6,000 more than the standard model, if the gas mileage was WORSE. No one would do that.

Now as to the oil sands costs, and profit margins, and so on.... Again.... If it wasn't profitable, why would any company spend an estimated $7 Billion, if the result was going to be money being lost?

Would you spend $100,000 on a project knowing you'd lose all your money?
Obviously the CEOs, and the investors, must know something you don't.

But let's even say that you are right. Then you should have no problem with this at all. After all, a bunch of wealthy people, are going to lose all their money, while working class people work on a project that pays really good cash. In the end, the pipeline will be closed, and no oil will go through it.

So rich people lose, poor people win, and no oil damages the environment. If what you say is true, then every left-winger on the planet should be completely in favor of this project.

You pretend that the oil sands oil is more expensive just because of vtransport costys? Really?

Let's compare.

Typical oil is pumped from the ground after drilling a well. Once that well is drilled & developed, the cost of the oil is in the pumping, transport costs.

The Oil sands oil requires constant mining of these sands, transport to a facility where it must be heated to get the product out of the "sands". This is not oil but dillbit.

These oil sands production costs are more than typical oil well oil.

You think it is just transport. That's some funny chit.

I already answered that. I said I don't know, but I would assume that the company which is investing billions of dollars into this pipeline knows that it can save money, and be profitable.

If you are suggesting that it will cost more money, and be less profitable, then the entire project should go bankrupt. If the project goes bankrupt, then the pipeline will remain unused.

I don't think I know for certain, anything about the price of the oil. But if the price of the oil was in fact far more expensive, then no one would buy it over cheaper sources.

If no one is buying it, why would the company invest $7 Billion, to create a pipeline for oil no one wants?

Your position is the illogical position. Not mine.

Oil Sands production started when the price of oil was high & it was profitable.

Now the price of oil is lower & it is a money losing proposition.

Since it is cheaper to run the operation for a certain time period than pay shut down/restart costs, they run in the red. Hoping for oil to go up.

 

[Fang]

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

Nice summary. Thanks!

 

[depotoo]

It will be more than that. And you fail to mention the multiple thousands it will create for a few years. People unemployed suddenly have work and a sense of pride in being able to provide.

Now my question to you and other naysayers, how many construction jobs are permanent? That bridge you want fixed, the dams you want re enforced, those highways expanded, updated, how many of these jobs are not permanent? That new house being built, that new building? None are permanent, yet I don't hear you once fussing over them. Why?

The 30 permanent jobs this creates will be yuge

Beats the hell out of having 30 more unemployed.

 

[depotoo]

You do realize oil sands from Canada currently traverse the US on rail, which is much less safe, correct?
.

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

Actually, the federal government does have a say as far as environmental impact and when any pipeline crosses the US border.

If the purpose of the TCC is to allow oil sands dillbit to be transported to US refineries & then to export, then I say let Canada take the risks & let Canadians breathe the pollution from the refinery operations.

The only people profiting are Canadians & oil refineries.

 

[depotoo]

Oil sands break even cost is anywhere from $25-$35 per barrel. Price of oil per barrel is much higher. And with transport costs reduced, it should be even better.

Yes, it will.

the oil sands oil is expensive. Once the rice of oil goes below a certain price, oil sands oil producers will loose money. Aren't we there already?

So explain how flooding the market with expensive oil going to lower the price?

Here's the problem with your logic.

In order for the Keystone Pipe to NOT effect the price, you would have make the claim that the current method of transporting oil, has the exact same cost as the new method.

Obviously, if the new system of transport has the exact same net cost, as the old system.... then the price won't change.

Equally if the new system has a higher cost, than the old system... then the price will go up.

Lastly, if the new system has a lower net cost, than the old system.... then the price will go down.

Can we at least, logically, agree on this much?

Now unless you are not high on Colorado pot-candy, I am going to assume that we can agree on this.

So then the question is, do you think that the cost of the new transport system is higher, the same, or lower. And one question should answer that. Why would any company spend billions to build a system, that is the exact same cost, or a higher cost, than existing systems?

Obviously... that makes no sense. If I am Amazon, and I currently deliver using FedEx, I'm certainly not going to start delivering my goods via Taxi cab, tripling thing cost. That cost would be passed onto consumers who would find cheaper online-order companies to use.

But I might use drones to deliver packages, in order to lower the cost.

So, I believe that the pipeline will reduce prices of oil, because... there is no logical reason that any company would spend billions on a pipeline, to achieve the same price, or a higher price. No one would do that.

That is like suggesting people would by a Hybrid car for $6,000 more than the standard model, if the gas mileage was WORSE. No one would do that.

Now as to the oil sands costs, and profit margins, and so on.... Again.... If it wasn't profitable, why would any company spend an estimated $7 Billion, if the result was going to be money being lost?

Would you spend $100,000 on a project knowing you'd lose all your money?
Obviously the CEOs, and the investors, must know something you don't.

But let's even say that you are right. Then you should have no problem with this at all. After all, a bunch of wealthy people, are going to lose all their money, while working class people work on a project that pays really good cash. In the end, the pipeline will be closed, and no oil will go through it.

So rich people lose, poor people win, and no oil damages the environment. If what you say is true, then every left-winger on the planet should be completely in favor of this project.

You pretend that the oil sands oil is more expensive just because of vtransport costys? Really?

Let's compare.

Typical oil is pumped from the ground after drilling a well. Once that well is drilled & developed, the cost of the oil is in the pumping, transport costs.

The Oil sands oil requires constant mining of these sands, transport to a facility where it must be heated to get the product out of the "sands". This is not oil but dillbit.

These oil sands production costs are more than typical oil well oil.

You think it is just transport. That's some funny chit.

I already answered that. I said I don't know, but I would assume that the company which is investing billions of dollars into this pipeline knows that it can save money, and be profitable.

If you are suggesting that it will cost more money, and be less profitable, then the entire project should go bankrupt. If the project goes bankrupt, then the pipeline will remain unused.

I don't think I know for certain, anything about the price of the oil. But if the price of the oil was in fact far more expensive, then no one would buy it over cheaper sources.

If no one is buying it, why would the company invest $7 Billion, to create a pipeline for oil no one wants?

Your position is the illogical position. Not mine.

Oil Sands production started when the price of oil was high & it was profitable.

Now the price of oil is lower & it is a money losing proposition.

Since it is cheaper to run the operation for a certain time period than pay shut down/restart costs, they run in the red. Hoping for oil to go up.

 

[RealDave]

It will be more than that. And you fail to mention the multiple thousands it will create for a few years. People unemployed suddenly have work and a sense of pride in being able to provide.

Now my question to you and other naysayers, how many construction jobs are permanent? That bridge you want fixed, the dams you want re enforced, those highways expanded, updated, how many of these jobs are not permanent? That new house being built, that new building? None are permanent, yet I don't hear you once fussing over them. Why?

The 30 permanent jobs this creates will be yuge

Beats the hell out of having 30 more unemployed.

So, if i build a factory & claim it will create 200 jobs, you know damn well that it means I will be employing 200 people in that business.

It does not include those who work in the construction company that builds that building or the guy that delivers the porta potties.

This is the LIE that Trump & the pipeline company are telling Americans.

The pipeline actually creates under 50 jobs.

Argue for the pipeline for REAL reasons & don't try to blow smoke up America's ass.

Hpw about that!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Building the pipelines kicks Venezuela, Iran and Russia in the teeth without sanctions.

by helping Canada sell their oil.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

Canada can build a pipeline across their own country & use their own refineries & pollute their own air & risk their own waterways & aquifers.

Russia is Trump"s & Tillerson's buddy. Halliburton & Exxon have been helping all those countries produce oil. If that was really such an issue with you, why do you support Trump, Tillerson, Exxon & Halliburton?

Do you think that the only pipeline in the US is Keystone?

Are you unaware that the oil is currently being transported right now?

 

[depotoo]

Honey, I have not listened to a word from Trump on the pipeline.
Real reasons? According to you?
I have listened to the pipe layers out of work, which know their work is transient. Their hope is this job will see them forward until the next comes along.
Or do you only care for the workers that might become employed within that building, not those construction workers that built it? Or are you suggesting they will build it, then occupy it? Not happening. Do you know how many empty office buildings there are, or only partially filled? How many factories are now abandoned, due to an unprofitable burden placed on them by the federal and even state and local governments?

And it is news to me that a bridge employees massive amounts of workers after it is built or a highway, or the building of a dam, etc., etc. please enlighten me.

It will be more than that. And you fail to mention the multiple thousands it will create for a few years. People unemployed suddenly have work and a sense of pride in being able to provide.

Now my question to you and other naysayers, how many construction jobs are permanent? That bridge you want fixed, the dams you want re enforced, those highways expanded, updated, how many of these jobs are not permanent? That new house being built, that new building? None are permanent, yet I don't hear you once fussing over them. Why?

The 30 permanent jobs this creates will be yuge

Beats the hell out of having 30 more unemployed.

So, if i build a factory & claim it will create 200 jobs, you know damn well that it means I will be employing 200 people in that business.

It does not include those who work in the construction company that builds that building or the guy that delivers the porta potties.

This is the LIE that Trump & the pipeline company are telling Americans.

The pipeline actually creates under 50 jobs.

Argue for the pipeline for REAL reasons & don't try to blow smoke up America's ass.

Hpw about that!

 

[depotoo]

Exactly, thru rail, which is far more dangerous.

Building the pipelines kicks Venezuela, Iran and Russia in the teeth without sanctions.

by helping Canada sell their oil.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

Canada can build a pipeline across their own country & use their own refineries & pollute their own air & risk their own waterways & aquifers.

Russia is Trump"s & Tillerson's buddy. Halliburton & Exxon have been helping all those countries produce oil. If that was really such an issue with you, why do you support Trump, Tillerson, Exxon & Halliburton?

Do you think that the only pipeline in the US is Keystone?

Are you unaware that the oil is currently being transported right now?

 

[RealDave]

You do realize oil sands from Canada currently traverse the US on rail, which is much less safe, correct?
.

How is the steel already sitting there when Obama rejected the keystone? Anyone?

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

Actually, the federal government does have a say as far as environmental impact and when any pipeline crosses the US border.

If the purpose of the TCC is to allow oil sands dillbit to be transported to US refineries & then to export, then I say let Canada take the risks & let Canadians breathe the pollution from the refinery operations.

The only people profiting are Canadians & oil refineries.

Exactly, thru rail, which is far more dangerous.

Building the pipelines kicks Venezuela, Iran and Russia in the teeth without sanctions.

by helping Canada sell their oil.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

Canada can build a pipeline across their own country & use their own refineries & pollute their own air & risk their own waterways & aquifers.

Russia is Trump"s & Tillerson's buddy. Halliburton & Exxon have been helping all those countries produce oil. If that was really such an issue with you, why do you support Trump, Tillerson, Exxon & Halliburton?

Do you think that the only pipeline in the US is Keystone?

Are you unaware that the oil is currently being transported right now?

All pipelines have risk. That's why we see all the leaks in the news & gas pipelines exploding.

It is one thing to have risk over something which you gain something.

It is another to transport extra risking crap from another country so they don't have to fuck up their own country.

If a rail car or several crash, that is a finite relatively small amount. Let a large pipe line leak & the amounts are much higher.

A rail car could spill 680 bbls.
The XL could spill 34,000 bbls/hr

 

[depotoo]

That is nothing more than an excuse from you.
Do you realize, if you are an environmentalist, then you will understand, there are a much greater number of green house gas emissions carrying crude by rail, or by tanker truck. Rail/ tanker ghg emissions would be from 28-42% Greater than through the pipeline, according to the State Dept., in 2014.
And the pipeline will not be carrying natural gas, which is the largest risk associated with pipelines.

You would also note that according to the State dept, there were 321 oil pipeline incidents over 11 years, of which 79% of those, were small, less than 2100 gallons.

You do realize oil sands from Canada currently traverse the US on rail, which is much less safe, correct?
.

Because it's not the decision of the President, it's the decision of the overlords, the rich who control. Now shut up and do as you're told, slave.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

Actually, the federal government does have a say as far as environmental impact and when any pipeline crosses the US border.

If the purpose of the TCC is to allow oil sands dillbit to be transported to US refineries & then to export, then I say let Canada take the risks & let Canadians breathe the pollution from the refinery operations.

The only people profiting are Canadians & oil refineries.

Exactly, thru rail, which is far more dangerous.

by helping Canada sell their oil.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

Canada can build a pipeline across their own country & use their own refineries & pollute their own air & risk their own waterways & aquifers.

Russia is Trump"s & Tillerson's buddy. Halliburton & Exxon have been helping all those countries produce oil. If that was really such an issue with you, why do you support Trump, Tillerson, Exxon & Halliburton?

Do you think that the only pipeline in the US is Keystone?

Are you unaware that the oil is currently being transported right now?

All pipelines have risk. That's why we see all the leaks in the news & gas pipelines exploding.

It is one thing to have risk over something which you gain something.

It is another to transport extra risking crap from another country so they don't have to fuck up their own country.

If a rail car or several crash, that is a finite relatively small amount. Let a large pipe line leak & the amounts are much higher.

A rail car could spill 680 bbls.
The XL could spill 34,000 bbls/hr

 

[RealDave]

That is nothing more than an excuse from you.
Do you realize, if you are an environmentalist, then you will understand, there are a much greater number of green house gas emissions carrying crude by rail, or by tanker truck. Rail/ tanker ghg emissions would be from 28-42% Greater than through the pipeline, according to the State Dept., in 2014.
And the pipeline will not be carrying natural gas, which is the largest risk associated with pipelines.

You would also note that according to the State dept, there were 321 oil pipeline incidents over 11 years, of which 79% of those, were small, less than 2100 gallons.

You do realize oil sands from Canada currently traverse the US on rail, which is much less safe, correct?
.

So even though President Obama rejected the pipeline (which I was fine with), the steel was still purchased and delivered?

I think I can answer that with some certainty. Obviously I'm no expert, but there is a bunch that I have found out.

There is a couple of things people don't get it.

The president does not have power over property. The president of the United States, can't come to your home, and say "You can't build that deck".

To that end, all sections of the pipeline inside the US, the president has absolutely no control over. None, whatsoever.

If I want to build a pipeline from here in Ohio, to Indiana, I can do so, without Federal approval of anything.

The only section of the pipeline that the POTUS has control over, is pipeline crossing national boundries. The Federal government has to approve of a pipe that crosses from Saskatchewan, Canada, to Montana.

So everything else about the Pipeline can be completely with, or without the POTUS approving anything.

This would include sections in Houston TX, and Port Author, which have been already completed.

Additionally, there is already an existing large refineries and oil wells all over east Montana, which makes for a perfectly logical first stop for the oil line.

Not only will the pipeline provide oil from Canada, but also create a supply route for oil fields across Montana, and the Dakotas, and Wyoming, and all the way to Texas.

My guess is that while the end point might be Alberta, I think TransCanada Corporation realized the pipeline would be a money maker, even if it didn't get the international pipe installed. We already know that pipe in Nebraska has already been laid. The governor there, signed off on the deal a long time ago.

Lastly, and this is also a guess... I wager that the cost of ordering steel pipe of this size and quantity is cheaper in mass. Meaning, since they knew they were going to lay at least most of the pipe one way or another, I bet they bought all the pipe in one purchase.

Purchasing that much steel is expensive to ship. Better to order it all at one time. If you can't use all of it, so be it. Additionally, its solid stainless steel pipe. TransCanada Corporation, only does this type of thing. I wager they planned that if this specific portion of the pipe could not be laid, the pipe would still be good for use in another future project.

Actually, the federal government does have a say as far as environmental impact and when any pipeline crosses the US border.

If the purpose of the TCC is to allow oil sands dillbit to be transported to US refineries & then to export, then I say let Canada take the risks & let Canadians breathe the pollution from the refinery operations.

The only people profiting are Canadians & oil refineries.

Exactly, thru rail, which is far more dangerous.

Canada is America's friend. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are NOT.

Canada can build a pipeline across their own country & use their own refineries & pollute their own air & risk their own waterways & aquifers.

Russia is Trump"s & Tillerson's buddy. Halliburton & Exxon have been helping all those countries produce oil. If that was really such an issue with you, why do you support Trump, Tillerson, Exxon & Halliburton?

Do you think that the only pipeline in the US is Keystone?

Are you unaware that the oil is currently being transported right now?

All pipelines have risk. That's why we see all the leaks in the news & gas pipelines exploding.

It is one thing to have risk over something which you gain something.

It is another to transport extra risking crap from another country so they don't have to fuck up their own country.

If a rail car or several crash, that is a finite relatively small amount. Let a large pipe line leak & the amounts are much higher.

A rail car could spill 680 bbls.
The XL could spill 34,000 bbls/hr

So now we go from risk to green house gas emissions. I guess you gave up on the risk aspect.

Yes, transporting it by rail has more emissions than transporting it by pipeline. We wiil ignore the green house gas emissions from the construction of the pipeline. (Since when do fossil fuel people give a rat;'s ass about emissions?)

If the pipeline does indeed make the oil sands oil more competitive, it will lead to more & more oil sand being produced & the green house emissions from that process far far far far outweigh any savings by using pipelines over rails.