They could however, there needs to be money and investors.
Obviously. Or there would be major projects being built all over the US.
Or they can build something in America. It's not like there is nothing that needs building other than pipelines. High speed rail maybe.
Money is available to government at rates below inflation. There is a lack of will, not resources.
Oil prices are controlled by global oil speculation, not by how big our pipeline from Canada is. Remember when oil hit $130/barrel? That wasn't because of supply changes.
Or they can build something in America. It's not like there is nothing that needs building other than pipelines. High speed rail maybe.
Article indicates 4-5 years to get it done.
They intend on utilizing some existing pipeline.
Each job generated outside of Alberta could have been a US job.
And the pipeline is longer than what wold be needed to get the crude to the US refineries.
Politics killed jobs.
The Alaska pipeline from the North Slope works in a harsher environment.
yes, because rail has been so popular and profitable in the states.
Not much in the grand scheme, but it would become more readily available at the area where the oil ended up in, hence lower price in that area. And, refineries run at full capacity lead to more refineries built to over supply/processing, therefore lead to lower local price at the pump.How much would the world oil supply change?
Not much in the grand scheme, but it would become more readily available at the area where the oil ended up in, hence lower price in that area. And, refineries run at full capacity lead to more refineries built to over supply/processing, therefore lead to lower local price at the pump.
Mcow, you would know sitting in your basement and have the answer to solve world hunger with out ever working in the field or held a job.Stop lying.
This has been proven to be false a millions times over.
Even the Sheeple as dumb as they are have finally seen the light of you and your Oil Buds bullshit.
therefore lead to lower local price at the pump.
Yep. Not to mention, if things really go to hell and we can't get oil from Mexico and the rest of the world, it would certainly be nice to have a supply flowing through our nation.Article indicates 4-5 years to get it done.
They intend on utilizing some existing pipeline.
Each job generated outside of Alberta could have been a US job.
And the pipeline is longer than what wold be needed to get the crude to the US refineries.
Politics killed jobs.
The Alaska pipeline from the North Slope works in a harsher environment.
Everything old is new again.nevermind old old post is very old.
Wealth-producing jobs are always a national plus, even if we're producing more of a product than we need. Helps stem the outflow of wealth.At least two refineries in the Beaumont/Port Arthur area are expanding to handle the increased oil from Cushing now the southern Keystone XL pipeline has been completed allowing midwest oil to reach the area.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...e35abc-82bb-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html
I don't understand what's the big deal about the Keystone XL pipeline expansion. We already have a Keystone pipeline from the tar sands in Canada over Nebraska and that crosses over the aquifer that is being quoted as the risk.
Can someone explain to me - without invoking partisan politics - why it's ok that the Keystone pipeline exists and is operational but an expansion of it is bad? I mean if people were honestly worried about the aquifer then how/why did the original pipeline get built?
And if someone invokes job-killing-democrats or oil-funded-republicans in their answer, I'll lose all faith in P&N and I'll go post the question at Reddit.
Bumping this thread rather than starting thread #6 on the subject
Link
Looks like Canada is going to get the investment/jobs to create the pipeline instead of US workers as well as refining the crude.
Alberta to Newfoundland pipeline
high speed rail is a boon doggle, money pit except for high density travel areas.
CA is a perfect example of waste.
You have to look at the passenger air miles between points to determine if it is effective.
Very few places outside of along the east coast or west toward chicagohave those numbers.
Here you go:
http://www.infowars.com/democrats-who-oppose-keystone-xl-pipeline-own-shares-in-competing-companies/
( original snapshot)
Basically the railway guys want the traffic (can't find a great video with deeper explanation, just forgot where i saw it)
what jobs? Building the extension amounts to a few hundred temporary, contracted positions until the pipeline is finished, and then maybe 1 dozen permanent positions to maintain the pipeline--as so much of this industry is completely automated.
You are really talking about a dozen jobs. Who gives a shit? The "jobs" FUD is the biggest lie about all of this.