Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Vows To Veto Keystone Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    As I predicted: Obama will continue to do as much damage to the American economy as he can in his last days in office.

    We should let a Muslim company propose the pipeline. He would approve it immediately.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #47
      So how is it about our economy rather than the Canadian economy? How would have the Keystone Pipeline have benefitted our economy? Except for a few construction workers, who have been building other pipelines, and maybe some refinery workers in New Orleans (and would the oil have been refined there or loaded on tankers?), who would get the most benefit out of the Keystone?
      Homo homini lupus

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Jannie View Post
        So how is it about our economy rather than the Canadian economy? How would have the Keystone Pipeline have benefitted our economy? Except for a few construction workers, who have been building other pipelines, and maybe some refinery workers in New Orleans (and would the oil have been refined there or loaded on tankers?), who would get the most benefit out of the Keystone?
        The US would benefit by processing / refining the oil delivered as well as by the profit of operating the pipeline shipping it. So, US port workers benefit. Refinery workers benefit. Pipeline operating companies like NPL benefit.

        The alternative is that Canada finds somewhere else to ship their oil, maybe to Vancouver on the West Coast via an internal pipeline. Or, maybe they just continue to ship it via rail like they have been doing at much greater risk to the environment from accidents and spills.

        Obama's decision, first and foremost, is about pandering to environmentalists of the Left and their war on carbon / fossil fuels. It was made for political, not scientific, engineering, or good business practice reasons. That is, it was purely political and made by someone who regularly ignores facts rather than uses them in decision making.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
          So how is it about our economy rather than the Canadian economy? How would have the Keystone Pipeline have benefitted our economy?
          1-Most (70%) of the equipment purchased in the oil sand development is purchased from the United States

          2- US companies stake in the oil sands is 30% ownership (Canada has about 50%) US companies pay US taxes on world income plus they send home dividends.

          3- Money sent to Alberta for oil gets mostly spent back in the United States unlike money spent on oil in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

          4- Canada has an energy accord with the United States requiring Canada to maintain supply in an energy crisis. There was a deal of security of supply for security of market, which should have meant domestic treatment for Canada in the United States for the security of market part. Doesn't seem like the US lived up to that accord to me. A Keystone deal should have meant an increase in energy security for the United States and less dependence on unreliable sources.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
            1-Most (70%) of the equipment purchased in the oil sand development is purchased from the United States

            2- US companies stake in the oil sands is 30% ownership (Canada has about 50%) US companies pay US taxes on world income plus they send home dividends.

            3- Money sent to Alberta for oil gets mostly spent back in the United States unlike money spent on oil in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

            4- Canada has an energy accord with the United States requiring Canada to maintain supply in an energy crisis. There was a deal of security of supply for security of market, which should have meant domestic treatment for Canada in the United States for the security of market part. Doesn't seem like the US lived up to that accord to me. A Keystone deal should have meant an increase in energy security for the United States and less dependence on unreliable sources.
            Agreed on all your points, but explaining that to someone on the left is like pi---ng in to the wind.
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #51
              Sparlingo: Thank you for explaining how the US Economy benefits from Canadian Oil. Your point about American ownership in some of the Alberta Oil Sands reminded me of an article that I had read recently about the Koch brothers being big owners. So that would give Obama another reason to not go along with the pipeline, since politically they are enemies of the Democratic Party. By the way, Trung Si, I have said all along this was a political decision on Obamaís part, and this is just another little tid bit that adds to that belief.
              PERIES: So, Linda, how is the Canadian landscape changing as a result of Koch brothers spreading their wings over Canada?
              SOLOMON WOOD: Yes, they are one of the region's largest leaseholders, rivaled only by Shell and perhaps Canadian Natural Resources company. They are thought to have at least 1.1 million acres in the tar sands. And some industry insiders speculate that they actually have 2 million, but the Alberta government has confirmed the 1.1 million number. So that makes them the largest foreign owners of tar sands land.
              PERIES: Are there any resistance to this kind of political and, you know, ownership of the oil industry in this way in Canada?
              SOLOMON WOOD: There is--I think people are disturbed about it when it's brought to their attention. But part of the problem is that there is an ever-decreasing number of journalists around to bring that to people's attention. And so a lot of people, I think, you know, they hear it and then they forget about it. But when they hear it, it upsets them, yes.
              PERIES: How do you think this is going to influence the social fabric of Canada?
              SOLOMON WOOD: There's been a lot of talk in Canada about foreign influence in our debate around oil and energy and how oil moves through the country. And that's very ironic, because so much of the--so many of the companies that are controlling and are exploiting the oil sands are multinationals.
              http://therealnews.com/t2/?option=co...&jumival=11815

              Regarding tax benefits to the US from US owners in the oil sands: how much do you think we really get from the Koch Brothers?

              As a side comment: I am not so for sure that I like the idea of Canadian Oil money going to support the WingNuts in the Republican Pary.
              Homo homini lupus

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                Regarding tax benefits to the US from US owners in the oil sands: how much do you think we really get from the Koch Brothers?
                I know PBS benefits in a big way. The Koch Foundation is a major backer of many programs on PBS like Nova.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                  Sparlingo: Thank you for explaining how the US Economy benefits from Canadian Oil. Your point about American ownership in some of the Alberta Oil Sands reminded me of an article that I had read recently about the Koch brothers being big owners. So that would give Obama another reason to not go along with the pipeline, since politically they are enemies of the Democratic Party. By the way, Trung Si, I have said all along this was a political decision on Obamaís part, and this is just another little tid bit that adds to that belief.

                  http://therealnews.com/t2/?option=co...&jumival=11815

                  Regarding tax benefits to the US from US owners in the oil sands: how much do you think we really get from the Koch Brothers?

                  As a side comment: I am not so for sure that I like the idea of Canadian Oil money going to support the WingNuts in the Republican Pary.
                  Thanks Janie, can I take it that you concede my points, 1,3, & 4 which were unrelated to US ownership of the oil sands? If not, what point do you dispute?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                    Sparlingo: Thank you for explaining how the US Economy benefits from Canadian Oil. Your point about American ownership in some of the Alberta Oil Sands reminded me of an article that I had read recently about the Koch brothers being big owners. So that would give Obama another reason to not go along with the pipeline, since politically they are enemies of the Democratic Party. By the way, Trung Si, I have said all along this was a political decision on Obamaís part, and this is just another little tid bit that adds to that belief.

                    http://therealnews.com/t2/?option=co...&jumival=11815

                    Regarding tax benefits to the US from US owners in the oil sands: how much do you think we really get from the Koch Brothers?

                    As a side comment: I am not so for sure that I like the idea of Canadian Oil money going to support the WingNuts in the Republican Pary.
                    And the Democrats oppose KXL because Warren Buffet owns railways.

                    If we're to support evidence based decision making though; pipelines are safer than rail, that's just a basic fact. New pipelines support more jobs than continuing to ship oil on freight trains.
                    A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Sparlingo:I would definitely agree with point 1. However, on point 1 and 3, doesnít Saudi Arabia and Venezuela buy oilfield equipment from us and even hire some US engineers and other support like Schlumberger (I know it is foreign owned) who has a large campus in Sugar Land, Texas? I just read an article that Saudi Arabia is wanting some more US engineers and figure they can hire here since shale oil and gas is turning uneconomical due to their cheap and easily extracted oil. Even the International company Schlumberger is laying off 21,000 people.

                      I am truly sorry that I donít know much about our energy accord with you all. It does look like from what you have said, we are screwing you over. If at some point in time we come begging and you all say NO! well we have done it to ourselves.

                      But if your Pipeline people were wanting to put off the deal until our elections, that indicates to me that itís not crucially important at this time. What Obama has done can be undone in the future if the next President of either party wants to change it if the oil industry has an upturn and it's bound to turn up if Middle East oil projects get messed up by war, or they draining their reserves quickly, etc. This is the 2nd oil industry crash that I have seen in my lifetime.

                      Destroyer 25: I agree about the railroads, I have worried about oil coming down the tracks not a quarter of a mile away from us, but I think a lot of it's from the Bakken, so a pipeline from Canada is probably not going to make that much difference.

                      And my final comment on the issue: Obama is making political hay out of a crisis in the oil and gas industry. As the world price of oil has collapsed there is currently a significantly lessened demand for a new Canadian pipeline. He is playing to his environmental base.
                      Last edited by Jannie; 07 Nov 15, 17:37.
                      Homo homini lupus

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                        Also wasnít the Iran deal supposed to turn lots of Iranian oil into the International Markets as well.
                        ...

                        The Iranian deal will add at least 500,000 barrels a day to the markets within first year and the Keystone at completion would move up to 830,000 barrels per day. So with the addition of Irans 500,000 barrels a day, that means that only 330,000 barrels per day would be economic.

                        Would it be worth it to complete the pipeline?
                        I for one would MUCH rather do business with the Canadians than those rat-bastard Jihadis in Iran who could use their oil embargo to influence US policy, and you know they would.
                        But then, I'm not the POTUS, our little Hussein.
                        "Why is the Rum gone?"

                        -Captain Jack

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                          Sparlingo:I would definitely agree with point 1. However, on point 1 and 3, doesnít Saudi Arabia and Venezuela buy oilfield equipment from us and even hire some US engineers and other support like Schlumberger (I know it is foreign owned) who has a large campus in Sugar Land, Texas? I just read an article that Saudi Arabia is wanting some more US engineers and figure they can hire here since shale oil and gas is turning uneconomical due to their cheap and easily extracted oil. Even the International company Schlumberger is laying off 21,000 people.

                          I am truly sorry that I donít know much about our energy accord with you all. It does look like from what you have said, we are screwing you over. If at some point in time we come begging and you all say NO! well we have done it to ourselves.

                          But if your Pipeline people were wanting to put off the deal until our elections, that indicates to me that itís not crucially important at this time. What Obama has done can be undone in the future if the next President of either party wants to change it if the oil industry has an upturn and it's bound to turn up if Middle East oil projects get messed up by war, or they draining their reserves quickly, etc. This is the 2nd oil industry crash that I have seen in my lifetime.

                          Destroyer 25: I agree about the railroads, I have worried about oil coming down the tracks not a quarter of a mile away from us, but I think a lot of it's from the Bakken, so a pipeline from Canada is probably not going to make that much difference.

                          And my final comment on the issue: Obama is making political hay out of a crisis in the oil and gas industry. As the world price of oil has collapsed there is currently a significantly lessened demand for a new Canadian pipeline. He is playing to his environmental base.
                          Hi Jannie: It is true that other countries buy equipment from the United States, but not like Canada with the highly integrated cross border economy.

                          The question from you was : "So how is it about our economy rather than the Canadian economy?" The answer is that the Canadian and American economies are very closely integrated, with Alberta and the Northern Bordering states forming a region of the North American economy. What is bad for Alberta is bad for the rest of that region.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Jannie: On the question of the US Canada Energy Accord under the Canada US Free Trade Agreement in 1988 (which was later superimposed by NAFTA), article 904 relates to "proPortionality" which means in an energy crisis Canada must continue to supply the US with the same proportion of energy that they produce as they did before the shortage/crisis. The United States, in return, offered security of access to the US market. Mexico did not agree to these provisions under NAFTA but they remain in effect with Canada. Thereafter Canadian energy supplies have always been treated by the U.S. as "domestic" for the purposes of planning for another energy crisis. Therefore it can be argued (and maybe by TransCanada Pipelines) that the US violated the energy provisions of the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement regarding granting Canada security of access to the US Market for energy by not giving it "domestic treatment" Otherwise what does security of access to the U.S. market mean?

                            Here's more on the interplay of proportionality in the FTA and the tar sands for the interested reader( it is a biased account):


                            Article 904 of the FTA, the energy chapter, contains the proportionality clause. This chapter essentially permits the United States to have free, preferential and secure access to the Canadian resource market. Canada was obliged to provide continuous exports of energy resources for the benefit of the U.S. and was denied the jurisdiction to place bans or quotas on energy resources, even in times of domestic turmoil. As well, Canada was no longer able to tax imports and exports. Prices of exports could not be higher than domestic prices.
                            This brought about an increased potential, once again, for the continued development of the tar sands industry. Regulatory restrictions had been relinquished by the Western provinces through the Western Energy Accord, bringing about a new assurance that foreign and Canadian firms were to be treated as equals. After the FTA was ratified, any profits that were made from the tar sands generally left the country, yet the environmental and social degradation which ensued as a result of the industry remained in Canada. In 2004, Canada surpassed Saudi Arabia as the main foreign exporter of oil to the U.S.
                            On January 1, 1994, NAFTA took effect. Signed by Prime Minister Chretien (who was elected by many voters on the basis that he would not support NAFTA), NAFTA simply incorporated the proportionality clause and provisions set out in article 904 of the FTA. The energy provisions, which were essentially designed for U.S. energy security, were rejected by Mexico which maintained sovereignty over its energy resources. Under NAFTA, the proportionality sharing rule appears twice, once in article 315 and again in article 605. Article 315 states that Canada must maintain a supply of energy resources to the U.S. in the same proportion to its total supply as the average of the previous three years. Article 605 reinforces these provisions in terms of grade.
                            NAFTA also provides U.S. oil companies with their own enforcement mechanisms, as it has developed into a form of continental, rather than international law which supersedes domestic law. Chapter 11 of NAFTA also provides the opportunity to hold Ottawa legally responsible should its actions restrict benefit, profit and productivity of foreign companies. This was furthered by the efforts of President Bush as he signed the United States Energy Policy Act in August 2005. It was a call for a truly continental energy policy which incorporated the tar sands at the very core.
                            http://www.businessinfocusmagazine.c...rgy-in-canada/
                            Last edited by Sparlingo; 07 Nov 15, 19:15.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X