If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Financial Post)   Nice Keystone Pipeline ya got there, America - it'd be a shame if something happened to it   (opinion.financialpost.com) divider line 98
    More: Obvious, Hudson Bay, chemical tanker, engineering degree, Northern Gateway, pipeline  
•       •       •

3740 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2013 at 8:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-28 08:04:52 PM  
Have at it. The U. S. gets precious little out of the deal anyway.
 
2013-11-28 08:13:03 PM  
If it's such a great deal for the Canadians, why'd they want the pipeline to begin with? Maybe this is just pressure from Canadian oil companies to get US conservatives to panic and demand action on it.
 
2013-11-28 08:43:36 PM  
If it was such a big deal it's just go to BC.
 
2013-11-28 08:45:53 PM  
Take it. Please.
 
2013-11-28 08:46:10 PM  
So does this mean that we've dropped the bullshiat and are finally admitting that the only purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to export oil overseas?
 
2013-11-28 08:47:51 PM  
Meh they want to export much of that oil anyway so sending it through the US only benefits there wealthy investors who already have too much money.
 
2013-11-28 08:56:19 PM  
Keystone pipeline? Meh, I'll wait for the Pabst Aqueduct
 
2013-11-28 08:57:49 PM  
This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.
 
2013-11-28 09:03:11 PM  

Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.


Hell, it will be so cheap it will come out of the kitchen taps in Nebraska, after a couple of years.
 
2013-11-28 09:04:15 PM  

Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.


"The purpose" from the American perspective.

This is a Canadian perspective. And it's actually a great idea, because we've been screwed by the Americans by partnership deals before.
 
2013-11-28 09:06:10 PM  

Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.


it'll create eleventy thousand really high paying jobs that will never ever go away, too.
 
2013-11-28 09:14:25 PM  
1) There is no Keystone Pipeline.
2) Exporting oil and gas without endangering American farmland sounds preferable.

So I'm not sure why subby was trying to make that sound like a threat?
 
2013-11-28 09:16:15 PM  
This just in: The Hudson Bay freezes solid for about eight months of the year.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.
 
2013-11-28 09:16:42 PM  

EvilEgg: Have at it. The U. S. gets precious little out of the deal anyway.


Yea, who needs money?

Nobody ever made money in the oil business so I don't see why the US should either. Nations like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria know to avoid the petrochemical business because of how bad it is for the economy.
 
2013-11-28 09:16:56 PM  

Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.


If we start using some of the most expensive oil to refine, gas will be back at $1.50/gallon in no time. It's just basic math.
 
2013-11-28 09:18:52 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: This just in: The Hudson Bay freezes solid for about eight months of the year.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.


Don't look at the article.

it's probably for the best you not know how badly you just owned yourself.
 
2013-11-28 09:19:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So does this mean that we've dropped the bullshiat and are finally admitting that the only purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to export oil overseas?


Oil is fungible, so does it really matter?
 
2013-11-28 09:19:36 PM  
The first premise of the article is very surprising to me.

FTA: Transmission of oil by ship is considerably less expensive than by pipeline.

I would have thought that the opposite was true.  After all, you have to fuel a ship and pay the crew, and a ship can only carry so much.  A pipeline costs a lot to build, sure, but once it's up and running, the oil just goes from point A to point B with the only costs being maintenance here and there and running the pumps, and can run 24/7/365  Why is it cheaper to use ships?
 
2013-11-28 09:25:03 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The first premise of the article is very surprising to me.

FTA: Transmission of oil by ship is considerably less expensive than by pipeline.

I would have thought that the opposite was true.  After all, you have to fuel a ship and pay the crew, and a ship can only carry so much.  A pipeline costs a lot to build, sure, but once it's up and running, the oil just goes from point A to point B with the only costs being maintenance here and there and running the pumps, and can run 24/7/365  Why is it cheaper to use ships?


I think you answered your own question. The maintenance and monitoring costs of running a pipe the length of the Continental US north to south is most likely greater than a tiny pipe + a cargo ship. Not to mention that a pipe is more likely to burst than a ship is to sink or be captured by pirates or whatever.
 
2013-11-28 09:25:06 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The first premise of the article is very surprising to me.

FTA: Transmission of oil by ship is considerably less expensive than by pipeline.

I would have thought that the opposite was true.  After all, you have to fuel a ship and pay the crew, and a ship can only carry so much.  A pipeline costs a lot to build, sure, but once it's up and running, the oil just goes from point A to point B with the only costs being maintenance here and there and running the pumps, and can run 24/7/365  Why is it cheaper to use ships?


Oil isn't infinite or renewable, and thus you can't wave off the costs of a pipeline as a starter fee. Then you factor in the thousands of kilometers of "maintenance" and "running the pumps" - and isn't that all you're doing with a ship anyway?
I've certainly not done the math, but if this guy says he has, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
2013-11-28 09:32:02 PM  
Go for it.

We don't want it here, because if the pipeline breaks, you won't be the ones paying for it.
 
2013-11-28 09:33:42 PM  

Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.


I assume this is satire. :| Hard to tell.
 
2013-11-28 09:33:59 PM  

Mrbogey: EvilEgg: Have at it. The U. S. gets precious little out of the deal anyway.

Yea, who needs money?

Nobody ever made money in the oil business so I don't see why the US should either. Nations like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria know to avoid the petrochemical business because of how bad it is for the economy.


You do know the US is one of the largest exporters of oil in the world?
 
2013-11-28 09:36:26 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The first premise of the article is very surprising to me.

FTA: Transmission of oil by ship is considerably less expensive than by pipeline.

I would have thought that the opposite was true.  After all, you have to fuel a ship and pay the crew, and a ship can only carry so much.  A pipeline costs a lot to build, sure, but once it's up and running, the oil just goes from point A to point B with the only costs being maintenance here and there and running the pumps, and can run 24/7/365  Why is it cheaper to use ships?


Also, you have the "railroad problem": at the outset, you have to acquire a buttload of real estate. Going forward, you have to pay property taxes on a buttload of real estate.
 
2013-11-28 09:36:41 PM  

Arkanaut: 1) There is no Keystone Pipeline.


Actually there is. The proposed "XL" was an extension of an existing system.
 
2013-11-28 09:40:33 PM  

meat0918: Go for it.

We don't want it here, because if the pipeline breaks, you won't be the ones paying for it.


Not just monetarily, but also future generation of farmers will suffer too. They wanted the pipleine to be built over an aquifer that supplied a large portion of our farmers in the mid-west with water for crops. 

The nerve of democrats and president obama suggesting a reroute of the pipe to avoid this. Republicans threw a magnificent tantrum to this. Republicans are under the impression that oil never spills.
 
2013-11-28 09:44:12 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: They wanted the pipleine to be built over an aquifer that supplied a large portion of our farmers in the mid-west with water for crops.


That would just be hastening the inevitable. The aquifer is non-renewing, thus making corn ethanol a fossil fuel of sorts.
 
2013-11-28 09:47:13 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.

If we start using some of the most expensive oil to refine, gas will be back at $1.50/gallon in no time. It's just basic math.


If the price drops that low, oil companies and OPEC will pump less to drive the price back up again. It's just basic economics.
 
2013-11-28 09:48:15 PM  

wildcardjack: AnonAmbientLight: They wanted the pipleine to be built over an aquifer that supplied a large portion of our farmers in the mid-west with water for crops.

That would just be hastening the inevitable. The aquifer is non-renewing, thus making corn ethanol a fossil fuel of sorts.


So it would seem.
 
2013-11-28 09:58:19 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Arkanaut: 1) There is no Keystone Pipeline.

Actually there is. The proposed "XL" was an extension of an existing system.


Ah, gotcha.  In any case if the Canadians want to shut it down (which doesn't seem feasible yet, since the Hudson Bay freezes over in the winter), that's not necessarily a bad thing.
 
2013-11-28 10:04:28 PM  

Mrbogey: EvilEgg: Have at it. The U. S. gets precious little out of the deal anyway.

Yea, who needs money?

Nobody ever made money in the oil business so I don't see why the US should either. Nations like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria know to avoid the petrochemical business because of how bad it is for the economy.


You know we would just be a middle man right?

All this pipeline serves is a way for oil from Alberta (which already comes into the United States) to go down to Texas where it can be exported overseas.

We already get oil from Alberta here in the Midwest, all this pipeline would do is raise oil prices for us because instead of being able to buy it for dirt cheap, more buyers would be able to bid on it raising the price of it overall. So I understand that oil companies want to make a profit, but don't bullshiat me and tell me that this pipeline is going to make my life and everyone else in the Midwest lives any better because of it.
 
2013-11-28 10:10:06 PM  
Do it, pussys.
 
2013-11-28 10:15:35 PM  

BMulligan: Also, you have the "railroad problem": at the outset, you have to acquire a buttload of real estate. Going forward, you have to pay property taxes on a buttload of real estate.


Which is why a Canadian pipeline would be easier. The cost of land in northern Alberta and Manitoba has got to be much less than that in the US Midwest. As for property taxes, I'm sure the oil companies in Alberta wouldn't have a problem calling up Albertan Stephen Harper and telling him to exempt them since they're job creators.
 
2013-11-28 10:22:42 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Why is it cheaper to use ships


Well...what happens to the oil at the end of the pipeline in this case? It goes on a....wait for it... a ship.
 
2013-11-28 10:25:21 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.

If we start using some of the most expensive oil to refine, gas will be back at $1.50/gallon in no time. It's just basic math.

If the price drops that low, oil companies and OPEC will pump less to drive the price back up again. It's just basic economics.


The Farkers you quoted were using what we like to call "sarcasm."  It's just basic internet.
 
2013-11-28 10:30:11 PM  
a 1,200 km pipeline from Alberta to Hudson Bay might be a relatively uncomplicated undertaking (compared to the Northern Gateway under the Rockies)
 He then goes on to list the following problems:


Sea ice, which requires  "appropriately built ships. These vessels must be strong and powerful and they are expensive relative to their "blue-water" cousins. Expert Canadian naval architects agree that such vessels, properly designed, built and operated, will present no environmental risk." Yes, and that's the issue, isn't it. Designing, building and operating inshore, double-hulled tankers with top-of-the-line crews is essential; right, Exxon?

The port of Churchill is not deep enough to handle such vessels, therefore it will be necessary to create an "off-shore" loading platform with all the attendant issues attendant thereon. He acknowledges that This issue must be properly resolved. There are many comparable challenges in the North Sea, U.S. Gulf and Northern Russia. Now, although a loading platform is not identical to a deep drilling platform like Deepwater Horizon, or a processing platform like Piper Alpha, nevertheless, such structures have to be considered when introducing something similar into an ecologically fragile area like Hudson Bay.

Having glossed over these problems and assured himself that Canada can easily handle them, while underlining the profits to be made, he then asks, why is the Hudson Bay option not worth consideration? Is there some hidden technical or economic deterrent to the concept?

Translation: Since we could make lots of money, and Canada, unlike, say America or Great Britain, SURELY won't be overcome by greed or the temptation to cut corners, why NOT build a pipeline through our heartland and out into a bay that freezes every winter and run oil tankers through it all year long? How can anything possibly go wrong? We're CANADA! Also look at all that nice money we're missing out on!

Profiteers and greedheads are the same in every nation.
 
2013-11-28 10:31:09 PM  

Brainsick: Keystone pipeline? Meh, I'll wait for the Pabst Aqueduct


You sound hipster
 
2013-11-28 10:31:15 PM  
Probably better that way. Run it through the American south and there will be a thousand spigots tapped into it. Like maple sap in Vermont, black gold down south.
 
2013-11-28 10:38:19 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: meat0918: Go for it.

We don't want it here, because if the pipeline breaks, you won't be the ones paying for it.

Not just monetarily, but also future generation of farmers will suffer too. They wanted the pipleine to be built over an aquifer that supplied a large portion of our farmers in the mid-west with water for crops. 

The nerve of democrats and president obama suggesting a reroute of the pipe to avoid this. Republicans threw a magnificent tantrum to this. Republicans are under the impression that oil never spills.


Why is this still being touted as an issue? They already picked an alternative route that bypasses the sensitive areas which were the basis of that argument
 
2013-11-28 10:38:40 PM  

starsrift: Rapmaster2000: This is crazy.  The purpose of the pipeline is to make gas in America cheap.  By adding another pipeline to the six that already come from Canada, gas will be half the price.

"The purpose" from the American perspective.

This is a Canadian perspective. And it's actually a great idea, because we've been screwed by the Americans by partnership deals before.


Wait. Just wait. heheheh.
 
2013-11-28 10:41:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You know we would just be a middle man right?


Right. I'm with you guys. I'd rather receive not a plug nickel of anything. Who wants to be a middleman? I say, let them ship it across in ways where America receives no benefit.  Only a fool would do something for money.

Mrtraveler01: We already get oil from Alberta here in the Midwest, all this pipeline would do is raise oil prices for us because instead of being able to buy it for dirt cheap, more buyers would be able to bid on it raising the price of it overall. So I understand that oil companies want to make a profit, but don't bullshiat me and tell me that this pipeline is going to make my life and everyone else in the Midwest lives any better because of it.


Again, I agree with you. I think that the inevitability of that oil going elsewhere means we should do nothing. That way you can enjoy higher prices on fuel and get no economic benefit. We should all follow the economic wisdom of Cousin Eddie and hold out for a lucrative offer to do nothing.
 
2013-11-28 10:44:05 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: AnonAmbientLight: meat0918: Go for it.

We don't want it here, because if the pipeline breaks, you won't be the ones paying for it.

Not just monetarily, but also future generation of farmers will suffer too. They wanted the pipleine to be built over an aquifer that supplied a large portion of our farmers in the mid-west with water for crops. 

The nerve of democrats and president obama suggesting a reroute of the pipe to avoid this. Republicans threw a magnificent tantrum to this. Republicans are under the impression that oil never spills.

Why is this still being touted as an issue? They already picked an alternative route that bypasses the sensitive areas which were the basis of that argument


Because there should never ever be a pipeline across the middle of the United States ever...

besides these...

oilprice.com
 
2013-11-28 10:45:27 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: You know we would just be a middle man right?

Right. I'm with you guys. I'd rather receive not a plug nickel of anything. Who wants to be a middleman? I say, let them ship it across in ways where America receives no benefit.  Only a fool would do something for money.

Mrtraveler01: We already get oil from Alberta here in the Midwest, all this pipeline would do is raise oil prices for us because instead of being able to buy it for dirt cheap, more buyers would be able to bid on it raising the price of it overall. So I understand that oil companies want to make a profit, but don't bullshiat me and tell me that this pipeline is going to make my life and everyone else in the Midwest lives any better because of it.

Again, I agree with you. I think that the inevitability of that oil going elsewhere means we should do nothing. That way you can enjoy higher prices on fuel and get no economic benefit. We should all follow the economic wisdom of Cousin Eddie and hold out for a lucrative offer to do nothing.


What would we be making money on with this pipeline?
 
2013-11-28 10:47:39 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: TuteTibiImperes: The first premise of the article is very surprising to me.

FTA: Transmission of oil by ship is considerably less expensive than by pipeline.


I think you answered your own question. The maintenance and monitoring costs of running a pipe the length of the Continental US north to south is most likely greater than a tiny pipe + a cargo ship. Not to mention that a pipe is more likely to burst than a ship is to sink or be captured by pirates or whatever.



Yeah, I'm not sure about that either.  I'm assuming that most of the Keystone XL or whatever will be buried and there's only a bit of monitoring and maintenance at the valves or whatever.  I don't know, but you might be able to station persons out there with equipment to monitor and do light maintenance 24/7/365.24 and call in the big repair persons when shiat gets out of control.  I wouldn't like to see shiat get out of control along that pipeline though.
 
2013-11-28 10:54:32 PM  

Mrbogey: That way you can enjoy higher prices on fuel and get no economic benefit.


Did you miss the part where I said that this pipeline would result in higher gas prices in the Midwest?

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/16/business/la-fi-mo-keystone-p ip eline-20130716

 Did you also miss the part where I said we already get oil from Alberta?

thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu

So what "economic benefit" will I get out of a pipeline that will move oil that already comes to refineries here in the Midwest to refineries in Texas where it may or may not be shipped overseas?
 
2013-11-28 10:54:36 PM  
Yeah let's just ship oil across a huge body of water and put an entire ecosystem at risk.

Sounds like a great idea.
 
2013-11-28 11:03:17 PM  
i.imgur.com

Plan makes some sort of economic sense for the Canadians (if the Americans don't want to buy it, we can send it to Iceland), reminds the Americans that cost of production isn't the only factor in oil distribution, so I'm OK with this except for whoever was proofreading at the National Post. It's American thanksgiving, not Canadian thanksgiving, and the proofreader doesn't have any excuses for being drnuk on the jbo.
 
2013-11-28 11:04:12 PM  
Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.
So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

"We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy," Harper said. "We're still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn't our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.
"That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/04/20120402 -1 95920.html

Even the right-wing media in Canada is admitting what the real purpose of this pipeline is, and how it screws America in the end (Spoiler alert: We end up paying more).
 
2013-11-28 11:04:24 PM  

whidbey: Yeah let's just ship oil across a huge body of water and put an entire ecosystem at risk.

Sounds like a great idea.


Oil has been moved by ship for a while now...
 
2013-11-28 11:07:48 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: whidbey: Yeah let's just ship oil across a huge body of water and put an entire ecosystem at risk.

Sounds like a great idea.

Oil has been moved by ship for a while now...


At least since March 24, 1989.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report