You really aren't that smart are you?
A pipeline is cheaper than paying companies to move crude to refineries through truck, ship and train. if it wasn't they wouldn't be building them because that's how you run a business, you try to cut costs to increase profits and gain an edge in the market. If you lower the cost through a pipeline to refineries, this means they can create gasoline at a lower market price than those who are receiving it through the other means. This is simple economics and business.
As regards to point B. There are thousands of miles of pipeline running across this nation. Gas and oil. Considering the few occurrences of major leaks, I think history shows your wrong and know nothing about the business other than "oil bad, it hurt environment". While fines might be "a drop in the bucket", catastrophic failures and leakage cost companies millions or even billions. Why they would want to prevent and maintain those lines are pretty obvious.
PS. It's money.
According to one school of thought, the Keystone pipeline will actually increase prices, at least in the U.S. That's because Keystone is primarily intended to make it cost-effective to export that oil to international markets. Right now, due to transportation costs, the optimal market for that oil is the upper Midwest. This increases supply in that region, thus lowering prices. In turn, because the upper Midwest has a strong supply, it puts less demand on surrounding regions, lowering their costs somewhat as well. If Keystone makes it cost effective to export the oil to overseas markets, supply to the U.S. will drop and our prices will rise.
So, in spite of ample smoke blowing by its promoters and their dupes, the Keystone pipeline is not about lowering costs to Americans. It is about increasing profits for shareholders.
You can talk out of your ass until you are blue in the face but that doesn't make anything you said a fact.
From 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environment/pipeline-spills.html?_r=0
And your claim of lowering prices is on shakey ground:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...soline-prices/2012/03/01/gIQAtWkXlR_blog.html
Your citing NY times who constantly cheers for the left? Lol. And I love the alarmarist info-graphic trying to make it look like "OIL IS EVERYWHERE?! OMGWTFBBQ?!" Did I say spills did not occur? No. Considering the fact that there aren't that many major spills,which if you look at the graphic over 20 years there aren't that many, and that maintenance occurs and has improved regularly as pointed out previously, I'm not going to just give up oil since right now it makes this country run and again solar and wind are unreliable, costly and you have no way to store the excess energy effectively. Again, does this mean we shouldn't try to make investment and R&D in those areas? No, we should, but if you could find ways for solar and wind to have more energy density to oil and able to store the excess cost effectively then by all means let me know so I can invest.
The claim of lowering prices will happen if the market dictates. Who knows what will happen in a year.
Do you have any real arguments for the Keystone pipeline ?
oil or no oil. a false argument. there's plenty of oil whether Keystone is built or not.
lower prices. another false argument. if the Canadian oil volume is sufficient in volume to lower prices, it will do so wherever the oil goes. Oil is a worldwide commodity, if the oil goes to China it will have the same effect on price as it would if it comes here.
jobs. another false argument. if jobs are the goal you can create a lot more jobs by trucking the oil to LA and TX.
efficiency. this is it. the only possible reason to build Keystone is if its the most efficient solution to getting the oil to its end consumer.
But how do we evaluate that in the midst of all the BS rhetoric that relies on false arguments ? And how do we choose what is efficent for us as a nation rather than what is the most profitable for particular businesses ? Those things could be in alignment but its not easy to judge when all our info comes from biased sources.
You made the statement that the new pipeline will replace some of the older pipeline, that is either true or not, the burden is on you to prove it. If it's true then having updated pipes and replacing a potential time bombs is a benefit to the people that might be affected. If it's not true then why do you continue to make such false statements?
Just because the pipeline will make it cheaper to transport oil has absolutely nothing to do with me or anyone that will be living close to it and is a piss poor argument to make when the negative impacts could actually affect those that live close to it.
I would be a little more receptive to the KP if the oil companies put effort into improving cleanup methods like they put into drilling and transport.
Cleanup technologies haven't changed much in over 40 years yet check out drilling advancements in that same time period.
Another straw man. No I'm for things that are well thought out and plan for the worst and have the least impact on daily life as well as if something does go wrong. I also believe in fixing what is broke or removing it all together. More importantly I believe if government or the people are going to give up something (money, land, etc) that it should be for things that will advance this country and solve problems, not prolong them.
The long term problems are an economy that is impacted by oil prices and a depleting energy source and an environmental impact from its use.
Do you have any real arguments for the Keystone pipeline ?
oil or no oil. a false argument. there's plenty of oil whether Keystone is built or not.
lower prices. another false argument. if the Canadian oil volume is sufficient in volume to lower prices, it will do so wherever the oil goes. Oil is a worldwide commodity, if the oil goes to China it will have the same effect on price as it would if it comes here.
jobs. another false argument. if jobs are the goal you can create a lot more jobs by trucking the oil to LA and TX.
efficiency. this is it. the only possible reason to build Keystone is if its the most efficient solution to getting the oil to its end consumer.
But how do we evaluate that in the midst of all the BS rhetoric that relies on false arguments ? And how do we choose what is efficent for us as a nation rather than what is the most profitable for particular businesses ? Those things could be in alignment but its not easy to judge when all our info comes from biased sources.
Oil. We need it. We need to sell it to make money. Money good. Keystone improves pipeline infrastructure. New pipeline, less maintenance. Drives costs down to get oil to refineries. Less cost to refineries, less cost gets moved down. Jobs for building pipeline. Pipeliners eat, buy clothes, etc. More money for those who supplied pipeliners. Money good for more people. Canada and USA happy.
Oh ffs, HOW ELSE DO YOU MOVE IT MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?!
Different blends for different regions. Less cost of oil to get refined in Texas for shipment domestic and abroad, the cheaper it becomes for that region.
I guess all those pipe fitters that just rolled through my part of Texas were working for peanuts and hand jobs. More jobs aren't the goal, it is one of those effects that goes with building it.
No kidding? And you don't think that isn't a good thing for business, people and the economy in general?
It's not rhetoric, its business, economics, etc. Usually whats more efficient is better for the nation.
Why do you not want it to happen?
Except you can't prove any of it, so it is indeed rhetoric. The only people it's good for are the businesses that use it and they sure as hell don't care about anyone else.
herp derp corporations are bad!
What's wrong? Are you incapable of defending the shit you spew with real world facts?
Idiot.
http://rbnenergy.com/after-the-flood-light-sweet-crude-pricing-beyond-2013
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-27/the-oil-hub-where-traders-are-making-millions
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9530
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/special/pdf/2012_sp_02.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CA
Breakdown. Light sweet crude from the midwest is cheaper and there is a bottleneck. Once the pipeline gets built we can disconnect part of the pressures that international oil is causing us on the international markets. Refiners can buy domestic oil, canadian oil and not worry about international fluctuations. Decreased uncertainty(means less speculation) + lower transportation costs= lower cost of oil.
Also, what do you think would be best for oil prices now since you apparently know everything there is to know about oil transportation management and logistics?
So to sum up - we have shown that light sweet crudes currently caught up in the Midwest logjam are being discounted unless they can reach the Gulf Coast by rail or barge. LLS crude produced at the Gulf Coast is priced higher against the Brent international benchmark. Crude flowing on the new pipeline infrastructure coming online in the next two years will push out imports of light sweet crude – as early as next year. The result will be a changing price environment for the benchmark light sweet WTI and LLS crudes. WTI prices in Houston will become more important than they are today and Midland WTI prices will be higher than Cushing. On the Gulf Coast LLS prices will be linked to WTI and Brent prices will disconnect from the US domestic market.
Until then, as long as oil remains stuck in the middle of the country, unable to efficiently find an economic home, West Texas Intermediate prices are likely to remain depressed. As long as that price spread is there, creative oil traders will take advantage of it and make big profits.
Average crude oil prices in 2012 were at historically high levels for the second year in a row. Brent crude oil averaged $111.67 per barrel, slightly above the 2011 average of $111.26. West Texas Intermediate oil averaged $94.05 per barrel in 2012, down slightly from $94.88 in 2011.
...
U.S. crude oil production rose by an estimated 780,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2012, the largest yearly increase to date.
Also, what do you think would be best for oil prices now since you apparently know everything there is to know about oil transportation management and logistics?
Strike 1
Strike 2
That's strike 3
So basically what your links say is that because we are producing more oil and our infrastructure can't handle the extra capacity the price of oil from the mid west has been lower than elsewhere. To me that says if we remove those bottlenecks the prices will increase. Now add that to the fact that we are producing a lot more oil in the last few years and yet the price of oil has been at historical highs, tells me that more supply does not affect prices like it should in a typical supply versus demand market.
And most of your articles state that once the infrastructure alleviates the current capacity the prices in the mid west will be more in line with oil in other parts of the country as opposed to oil prices in other parts of the country lowering. Of course the benefit of that price increase is an increase of profit for those that get/store oil in the mid west.
So once again you have failed to prove how oil prices will be lowered (on fact you did the opposite) and I haven't see any other benefit to your average American.
So to recap;
We have an aging pipeline infrastructure problem with little incentive to fix it.
We have record high oil production and record high oil prices and record high profits.
We have a proposed pipeline that won't lower oil prices for Anericans.
We have an industry that doesn't follow the norms of supply and demand.
I don't know why your striking. That is exactly what I said.
You have zero comprehension skills.
Decreased uncertainty(means less speculation) + lower transportation costs= lower cost of oil.
Price stabilization(midwest, cheaper canadian oil and decoupling from international brent) means less speculation means lower oil prices.
"We have an aging pipeline infrastructure problem with little incentive to fix it.
We have record high oil production and record high oil prices and record high profits.
We have a proposed pipeline that won't lower oil prices for Anericans.
We have an industry that doesn't follow the norms of supply and demand."
First point, we are building new pipelines, despite you not wanting it to happen, how is that not fixing a problem?
Yes, we have record high production and oil companies have record profits and oil infrastructure is improving despite people like you and oil prices are dropping. Above $140 is the record high you dolt and the price is $104 with prices going down as more oil comes online in the domestic USA. We should build more refining capacity but that would probably cause you to go into shock from all the evil oil that will be made.
We have a proposed pipeline that will decrease prices for Americans because of what I said above, something you don't understand.
We have an industry that follows supply and demand, like most industries that follow the market, despite government intervention and prevention, again despite people like you trying to cheer it's demise and hopefully we can reap some economic reward from domestic growth and expansion of oil.
It's like talking to a wall, a straw wall.
Don't worry, it is like I'm talking to a liberal. It's much worse. :awe:
I'm done. You will keep cheering on how evil oil companies will ruin this nation. I will keep investing in them, make some money, fill up my car with gas, look at all the cars on the road, think about how oil makes all those things run and then smile.
Yes, I get it, you don't like facts and don't actually read your citations.
Claim that I don't use facts, keep ignoring economics, hate big oil, live in liberal paradise fantasy land where corporations are brought to social justice for the common man.