[Quote: Originally Posted by canovsp] [Quote: Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers]
The part in red is my observation. It is from post #100.
The discussion is not concerning which method is more environmentally destructive, as they all are...the thread is about the pipeline and controversy around it, benefits and costs of having it.
So discussing rigs or barges or trains etc doesnt mean pipelines are above reproach.
Those for Keystone will bring up rigs & rail because one of the arguments used against Keystone is the "safety issue." At worst it will be no more dangerous than the ways we are already transporting oil. And because we learn from the mistakes of the past Keystone should be better built.
How many times have the right been accused of going against Obama's legislation because he is a Democrat: Obamacare, Stimulus, etc.
I think Democrats are against Keystone because Republicans are for it. Some of the benefits of Keystone is what Democrats always call for...
Infrastructure: We always hear from Democrats about investing in infrastructure, which is pretty vague. Keystone is specific infrastructure. This is an example of Democrat hypocrisy.
Jobs: We always hear about those jobs investing in infrastructure will create (shovel ready jobs). Once again that is pretty vague. The jobs Keystone will create are specific, concrete jobs. Plenty on the left will say those are temporary jobs. Well so are those vague "investing in infrastructure jobs" so their argument loses credibility there. Another example of Democrat hypocrisy.
Now think about the permanent jobs it creates. I pointed this out in an earlier post. Those companies that make the pipes, pumps, valves, etc may be in a state where you live, not along the pipeline route. They will constantly be constructing the equipment to run the pipes because of wear & tear and future improvements.
We also have to take in account the jobs it will create in states like Texas and Louisiana at the refineries. Because of the influx of raw material permanent jobs will be created in those states to keep up with demand.
And last but not least, the more oil we produce, the less we will depend on foreign oil.
[Quote: Originally Posted by canovsp] [Quote: Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers]
The part in red is my observation. It is from post #100.
The discussion is not concerning which method is more environmentally destructive, as they all are...the thread is about the pipeline and controversy around it, benefits and costs of having it.
So discussing rigs or barges or trains etc doesnt mean pipelines are above reproach.
Those for Keystone will bring up rigs & rail because one of the arguments used against Keystone is the "safety issue." At worst it will be no more dangerous than the ways we are already transporting oil. And because we learn from the mistakes of the past Keystone should be better built.
How many times have the right been accused of going against Obama's legislation because he is a Democrat: Obamacare, Stimulus, etc.
I think Democrats are against Keystone because Republicans are for it. Some of the benefits of Keystone is what Democrats always call for...
Infrastructure: We always hear from Democrats about investing in infrastructure, which is pretty vague. Keystone is specific infrastructure. This is an example of Democrat hypocrisy.
Jobs: We always hear about those jobs investing in infrastructure will create (shovel ready jobs). Once again that is pretty vague. The jobs Keystone will create are specific, concrete jobs. Plenty on the left will say those are temporary jobs. Well so are those vague "investing in infrastructure jobs" so their argument loses credibility there. Another example of Democrat hypocrisy.
Now think about the permanent jobs it creates. I pointed this out in an earlier post. Those companies that make the pipes, pumps, valves, etc may be in a state where you live, not along the pipeline route. They will constantly be constructing the equipment to run the pipes because of wear & tear and future improvements.
We also have to take in account the jobs it will create in states like Texas and Louisiana at the refineries. Because of the influx of raw material permanent jobs will be created in those states to keep up with demand.
And last but not least, the more oil we produce, the less we will depend on foreign oil.
Well all of what you said has pretty much nothing to do with why I am against it. I never mentioned what side is in support or that being a reason for me disliking the pipeline, or ANY pipeline actually.
Keystone is foreign use of domestic infrastructure. I gave the example ago about using your neighbors yard to store your trash, its the same here. Canada has purchase the rights via our politicians to run a line through this country to one of the only sour refiners offshore to ship their oil to China via purchase agreements already done.
The number of jobs is minimal, the value of those jobs is minimal. If you are worried about middle class jobs and parts blah blah blah then focus on not allowing multi-national corps export production and import it again for free..MILLIONS of jobs are slipping out the backdoor, why are we excited about a small number of temporary jobs as a reason for supporting this?
I dont support it because we gain nothing on the transaction as an economy, as people. Politicians already gained by contributions and lobby benefits..but as a public we gain little to nothing here.
Canada wants a fast line down to Valero and to ship sour crude to China. This crude does not reduce WTI even a penny a barrel, Valero refinery is offshore and taxation is extremely muted..jobs to that refinery exist with or without this production. The gain is pretty much zero.
How many jobs would be LOST if this pipeline were not allowed? ZERO...that refinery has been in existence for a very long time and production of sour crude is limited..there is no net gain of jobs via Valero and that refinery that would be reduced if it didnt exist.
If Canada wants to get to Valero then have THEIR government pay for a refinery outside BC and let them build a pipeline to their coastline and the trip to China is even shorter than through the Texas port.
Notice that I did not resort to repub vs dem at any time..I could care less repub or dem...the issue is cost and benefit and we do not gain from this transaction in pretty much any fashion and the cost when this fails will be enormous..and saying that insurance policies will cover the damage is horrible. The financial cost of the damage is far from the true real cost overall.
Well all of what you said has pretty much nothing to do with why I am against it. I never mentioned what side is in support or that being a reason for me disliking the pipeline, or ANY pipeline actually.
Keystone is foreign use of domestic infrastructure. I gave the example ago about using your neighbors yard to store your trash, its the same here. Canada has purchase the rights via our politicians to run a line through this country to one of the only sour refiners offshore to ship their oil to China via purchase agreements already done.
The number of jobs is minimal, the value of those jobs is minimal. If you are worried about middle class jobs and parts blah blah blah then focus on not allowing multi-national corps export production and import it again for free..MILLIONS of jobs are slipping out the backdoor, why are we excited about a small number of temporary jobs as a reason for supporting this?
I dont support it because we gain nothing on the transaction as an economy, as people. Politicians already gained by contributions and lobby benefits..but as a public we gain little to nothing here.
Canada wants a fast line down to Valero and to ship sour crude to China. This crude does not reduce WTI even a penny a barrel, Valero refinery is offshore and taxation is extremely muted..jobs to that refinery exist with or without this production. The gain is pretty much zero.
How many jobs would be LOST if this pipeline were not allowed? ZERO...that refinery has been in existence for a very long time and production of sour crude is limited..there is no net gain of jobs via Valero and that refinery that would be reduced if it didnt exist.
If Canada wants to get to Valero then have THEIR government pay for a refinery outside BC and let them build a pipeline to their coastline and the trip to China is even shorter than through the Texas port.
Notice that I did not resort to repub vs dem at any time..I could care less repub or dem...the issue is cost and benefit and we do not gain from this transaction in pretty much any fashion and the cost when this fails will be enormous..and saying that insurance policies will cover the damage is horrible. The financial cost of the damage is far from the true real cost overall.
[Quote: Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers] Well all of what you said has pretty much nothing to do with why I am against it. I never mentioned what side is in support or that being a reason for me disliking the pipeline, or ANY pipeline actually.
Keystone is foreign use of domestic infrastructure. I am all for tapping our own resources. Are you? I gave the example ago about using your neighbors yard to store your trash, its the same here. Canada has purchase the rights via our politicians to run a line through this country to one of the only sour refiners offshore to ship their oil to China via purchase agreements already done. If the legislation says that then that does need to change. If we are refining the raw material then we should be allowed to keep it or decide who we export to.
The number of jobs is minimal, the value of those jobs is minimal. Define minimal. If you are worried about middle class jobs and parts blah blah blah then focus on not allowing multi-national corps export production and import it again for free..MILLIONS of jobs are slipping out the backdoor, why are we excited about a small number of temporary jobs as a reason for supporting this? Once again, all govt infrastructure jobs, Democrat or Republican created, are temporary. This is no different.
I dont support it because we gain nothing on the transaction as an economy, as people. Politicians already gained by contributions and lobby benefits..but as a public we gain little to nothing here. That is assuming the premise you proposed above is true, which I disagree with.
Canada wants a fast line down to Valero and to ship sour crude to China. This crude does not reduce WTI even a penny a barrel, Valero refinery is offshore and taxation is extremely muted..jobs to that refinery exist with or without this production. The gain is pretty much zero. The employees and their families at Valero, and potential future companies, may disagree with you.
How many jobs would be LOST if this pipeline were not allowed? ZERO...that refinery has been in existence for a very long time and production of sour crude is limited..there is no net gain of jobs via Valero and that refinery that would be reduced if it didnt exist. There is no way to prove a negative (when you ask how many jobs would be lost) but if you understand economics you would know more product coming in (no matter what the product and no matter what the company) WOULD create more jobs. I've worked in the private sector for years. I know this from experience.
If Canada wants to get to Valero then have THEIR government pay for a refinery outside BC and let them build a pipeline to their coastline and the trip to China is even shorter than through the Texas port. No arguments from me here. That has to change if we are the ones taking the risks and refining it.
Notice that I did not resort to repub vs dem at any time..I could care less repub or dem... I brought it up because one of the arguments the left would use when Obamacare was going through the legislative process was "The ACA was better than doing nothing." We are finding out the ACA is worse compared to how it was before but that debate is for another day. Keystone is the Republican version of "This will be better than doing nothing." I also brought up the Dem vs Repub issue because this is the shovel ready infrastructure jobs Dems are always telling us about. The other reason the issue is cost and benefit and we do not gain from this transaction in pretty much any fashion and the cost when this fails will be enormous..and saying that insurance policies will cover the damage is horrible. The financial cost of the damage is far from the true real cost overall. Like I said earlier this is assuming your premise is correct, which I diasgree with.
[Quote: Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers] Well all of what you said has pretty much nothing to do with why I am against it. I never mentioned what side is in support or that being a reason for me disliking the pipeline, or ANY pipeline actually.
Keystone is foreign use of domestic infrastructure. I am all for tapping our own resources. Are you? I gave the example ago about using your neighbors yard to store your trash, its the same here. Canada has purchase the rights via our politicians to run a line through this country to one of the only sour refiners offshore to ship their oil to China via purchase agreements already done. If the legislation says that then that does need to change. If we are refining the raw material then we should be allowed to keep it or decide who we export to.
The number of jobs is minimal, the value of those jobs is minimal. Define minimal. If you are worried about middle class jobs and parts blah blah blah then focus on not allowing multi-national corps export production and import it again for free..MILLIONS of jobs are slipping out the backdoor, why are we excited about a small number of temporary jobs as a reason for supporting this? Once again, all govt infrastructure jobs, Democrat or Republican created, are temporary. This is no different.
I dont support it because we gain nothing on the transaction as an economy, as people. Politicians already gained by contributions and lobby benefits..but as a public we gain little to nothing here. That is assuming the premise you proposed above is true, which I disagree with.
Canada wants a fast line down to Valero and to ship sour crude to China. This crude does not reduce WTI even a penny a barrel, Valero refinery is offshore and taxation is extremely muted..jobs to that refinery exist with or without this production. The gain is pretty much zero. The employees and their families at Valero, and potential future companies, may disagree with you.
How many jobs would be LOST if this pipeline were not allowed? ZERO...that refinery has been in existence for a very long time and production of sour crude is limited..there is no net gain of jobs via Valero and that refinery that would be reduced if it didnt exist. There is no way to prove a negative (when you ask how many jobs would be lost) but if you understand economics you would know more product coming in (no matter what the product and no matter what the company) WOULD create more jobs. I've worked in the private sector for years. I know this from experience.
If Canada wants to get to Valero then have THEIR government pay for a refinery outside BC and let them build a pipeline to their coastline and the trip to China is even shorter than through the Texas port. No arguments from me here. That has to change if we are the ones taking the risks and refining it.
Notice that I did not resort to repub vs dem at any time..I could care less repub or dem... I brought it up because one of the arguments the left would use when Obamacare was going through the legislative process was "The ACA was better than doing nothing." We are finding out the ACA is worse compared to how it was before but that debate is for another day. Keystone is the Republican version of "This will be better than doing nothing." I also brought up the Dem vs Repub issue because this is the shovel ready infrastructure jobs Dems are always telling us about. The other reason the issue is cost and benefit and we do not gain from this transaction in pretty much any fashion and the cost when this fails will be enormous..and saying that insurance policies will cover the damage is horrible. The financial cost of the damage is far from the true real cost overall. Like I said earlier this is assuming your premise is correct, which I diasgree with.
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
false alarm. "small government" rightwingers were actually not outraged over this attempt to take private property by a foreign company due to large checks from special interests.
false alarm. "small government" rightwingers were actually not outraged over this attempt to take private property by a foreign company due to large checks from special interests.
Naa....I have a comcast cable, gas line, electrical lines all buried in the yard as is.
As long as they leave little to no footprint and reimburse for damages then what is the big deal?
However, if I had cattle to take care of and the goobermint confiscated my land because of endangered beetle then yes I would be upset.
so you're ok with a canadian company taking private property from landowners for an oil pipeline that has no benefit to the landowner because you have cable, gas and electrical lines in your yard that you agreed to and that directly benefit you? sounds about right.
Naa....I have a comcast cable, gas line, electrical lines all buried in the yard as is.
As long as they leave little to no footprint and reimburse for damages then what is the big deal?
However, if I had cattle to take care of and the goobermint confiscated my land because of endangered beetle then yes I would be upset.
so you're ok with a canadian company taking private property from landowners for an oil pipeline that has no benefit to the landowner because you have cable, gas and electrical lines in your yard that you agreed to and that directly benefit you? sounds about right.
so you're ok with a canadian company taking private property from landowners for an oil pipeline that has no benefit to the landowner because you have cable, gas and electrical lines in your yard that you agreed to and that directly benefit you? sounds about right.
so you're ok with a canadian company taking private property from landowners for an oil pipeline that has no benefit to the landowner because you have cable, gas and electrical lines in your yard that you agreed to and that directly benefit you? sounds about right.
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
so landowners in nebraska have to sue to prevent a canadian company from running an oil pipeline through their land? "small government" rightwingers must be absolutely outraged over this, right?
the landowners should be ok either way, as long as there's no oil spill on their property, of course. it's more of a political point that you have your big government loving rightwingers (and some democrats too) who have no problem with a foreign company taking people's land against their will, as long as oil companies put a nice check in those politicians' pockets. but they say they are conservative and for small government, so it must be true.
the landowners should be ok either way, as long as there's no oil spill on their property, of course. it's more of a political point that you have your big government loving rightwingers (and some democrats too) who have no problem with a foreign company taking people's land against their will, as long as oil companies put a nice check in those politicians' pockets. but they say they are conservative and for small government, so it must be true.
If a filthy rich person or family owned that land you'd be laughing at them.
If it was Mitt Romney your hands would be sore from giving out high fives to your liberal buddies.
what evidence do you have to base that comment on?
and just so i understand the terminology here, i'm the liberal one because i'm arguing against the government taking people's land against their will to help some canadian company move oil while you're the conservative guy who is ok with it? that's how it works, right?
If a filthy rich person or family owned that land you'd be laughing at them.
If it was Mitt Romney your hands would be sore from giving out high fives to your liberal buddies.
what evidence do you have to base that comment on?
and just so i understand the terminology here, i'm the liberal one because i'm arguing against the government taking people's land against their will to help some canadian company move oil while you're the conservative guy who is ok with it? that's how it works, right?
what evidence do you have to base that comment on?
and just so i understand the terminology here, i'm the liberal one because i'm arguing against the government taking people's land against their will to help some canadian company move oil while you're the conservative guy who is ok with it? that's how it works, right?
The offer was good enough for Montana and South Dakota land owners. Why should Nebraskans get on their high horse.
It would be far different if the pipeline was above ground. Below ground makes a big difference.
What expectation do the landowners have for the dirt under their feet?
what evidence do you have to base that comment on?
and just so i understand the terminology here, i'm the liberal one because i'm arguing against the government taking people's land against their will to help some canadian company move oil while you're the conservative guy who is ok with it? that's how it works, right?
The offer was good enough for Montana and South Dakota land owners. Why should Nebraskans get on their high horse.
It would be far different if the pipeline was above ground. Below ground makes a big difference.
What expectation do the landowners have for the dirt under their feet?
maybe they don't want an oil pipeline under their property when they read about oil spills in the news all of the time (i wouldn't). maybe they don't want the construction for whatever reason. maybe they are one of these filthy rich people who don't need the money and just assume keep their property in the same condition it was when they bought it.
maybe they feel like it's their property, they bought it, they own it, they pay taxes on it and they don't need the government or some company telling them what they can and can't do with it.
maybe they don't want an oil pipeline under their property when they read about oil spills in the news all of the time (i wouldn't). maybe they don't want the construction for whatever reason. maybe they are one of these filthy rich people who don't need the money and just assume keep their property in the same condition it was when they bought it.
maybe they feel like it's their property, they bought it, they own it, they pay taxes on it and they don't need the government or some company telling them what they can and can't do with it.
maybe they don't want an oil pipeline under their property when they read about oil spills in the news all of the time (i wouldn't). maybe they don't want the construction for whatever reason. maybe they are one of these filthy rich people who don't need the money and just assume keep their property in the same condition it was when they bought it.
maybe they feel like it's their property, they bought it, they own it, they pay taxes on it and they don't need the government or some company telling them what they can and can't do with it.
maybe they don't want an oil pipeline under their property when they read about oil spills in the news all of the time (i wouldn't). maybe they don't want the construction for whatever reason. maybe they are one of these filthy rich people who don't need the money and just assume keep their property in the same condition it was when they bought it.
maybe they feel like it's their property, they bought it, they own it, they pay taxes on it and they don't need the government or some company telling them what they can and can't do with it.
maybe they don't want an oil pipeline under their property when they read about oil spills in the news all of the time (i wouldn't). maybe they don't want the construction for whatever reason. maybe they are one of these filthy rich people who don't need the money and just assume keep their property in the same condition it was when they bought it.
maybe they feel like it's their property, they bought it, they own it, they pay taxes on it and they don't need the government or some company telling them what they can and can't do with it.
I read a story about a death row inmate or two that were wrongly convicted and sent to prison.
Now I'm thinking by your logic that we should release everyone from prison and demolish all prison structures.
maybe they don't want an oil pipeline under their property when they read about oil spills in the news all of the time (i wouldn't). maybe they don't want the construction for whatever reason. maybe they are one of these filthy rich people who don't need the money and just assume keep their property in the same condition it was when they bought it.
maybe they feel like it's their property, they bought it, they own it, they pay taxes on it and they don't need the government or some company telling them what they can and can't do with it.
I read a story about a death row inmate or two that were wrongly convicted and sent to prison.
Now I'm thinking by your logic that we should release everyone from prison and demolish all prison structures.
that's great. nothing easier than suing a billion dollar company based in another company that hires a $1,000/hour law firm in manhattan to make everything right after an oil spill. how can that go wrong?
that's great. nothing easier than suing a billion dollar company based in another company that hires a $1,000/hour law firm in manhattan to make everything right after an oil spill. how can that go wrong?
that's great. nothing easier than suing a billion dollar company based in another company that hires a $1,000/hour law firm in manhattan to make everything right after an oil spill. how can that go wrong?
that's great. nothing easier than suing a billion dollar company based in another company that hires a $1,000/hour law firm in manhattan to make everything right after an oil spill. how can that go wrong?
The offer was good enough for Montana and South Dakota land owners. Why should Nebraskans get on their high horse.
It would be far different if the pipeline was above ground. Below ground makes a big difference.
What expectation do the landowners have for the dirt under their feet?
I always thought you stood for less government intrusion into people's lives, not more?
I don't understand how you can have an issue with the government taking money from James Shields new contract but have no issue with the government telling private land owners what to do with their land. This is essentially "taking" their land since the owners no longer have say over what they can and can't do with it.
The offer was good enough for Montana and South Dakota land owners. Why should Nebraskans get on their high horse.
It would be far different if the pipeline was above ground. Below ground makes a big difference.
What expectation do the landowners have for the dirt under their feet?
I always thought you stood for less government intrusion into people's lives, not more?
I don't understand how you can have an issue with the government taking money from James Shields new contract but have no issue with the government telling private land owners what to do with their land. This is essentially "taking" their land since the owners no longer have say over what they can and can't do with it.
I always thought you stood for less government intrusion into people's lives, not more?
I don't understand how you can have an issue with the government taking money from James Shields new contract but have no issue with the government telling private land owners what to do with their land. This is essentially "taking" their land since the owners no longer have say over what they can and can't do with it.
Seems contradictory, no?
That works both ways ma dude.
You have no problem with the government taking millions of extra dollars from James Shields but up in arms over a time lapse photo that will look virtually the same from start to end.
I always thought you stood for less government intrusion into people's lives, not more?
I don't understand how you can have an issue with the government taking money from James Shields new contract but have no issue with the government telling private land owners what to do with their land. This is essentially "taking" their land since the owners no longer have say over what they can and can't do with it.
Seems contradictory, no?
That works both ways ma dude.
You have no problem with the government taking millions of extra dollars from James Shields but up in arms over a time lapse photo that will look virtually the same from start to end.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.