Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:39 PM

GasBuddy News Article

40
votes
Keystone XL Absent From White House Budget

Huffington Post -- The White House budget released Wednesday highlighted President Barack Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy, yet conspicuously absent is any mention of Keystone XL, the controversial oil pipeline proposal being reviewed by the State Department.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Republicans had included funding for the $7 billion pipeline in their own budget and have been pressing the White House in budget talks to do the same.

The GOP House plan, which aims to encourage domestic energy development, would force the Obama administration to approve Keystone XL. The funds included for its construction underscore the importance the GOP has placed on the pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to refineries along the Gulf Coast.

The Republican efforts received a boost


Read the Full Article

Submitted Apr 11, 2013 By: skb69sa
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Keystone XL Absent From White House Budget Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2013 11:46:51 PM

I still think they are intertwined; American federal coffers may not gain directly, if you say is correct; however I believe they should. This would take the burden off the "little guy". Business/industry has to contribute their fare share as they also benefit from that vary society/democracy that nurtures civilization that house their business empires.
I did say, "Granted, if a country spends more money (defence etc.); more then they can recuperate, then the country will run at a deficit; if this continues for extended periods, then they country will have a massive debt, that will be further exasperated with increased interest charges that only makes matters worse."
I really don't think the Large Conglomerates contribute their fare share (not the small business owner), they just want the benefits for their empires, at the expense of that nurturing society; if they continue to take, it is only a matter of time before it all collapses. They got to give back and not just to the paying public but to the gov't coffers, as they also provide services to state and Federal programs that also benefit society.

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 4/22/2013 11:48:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2013 12:43:30 PM

CdnLynx - "They are intertwined; if America only exported goods (raw or manufactured) and never had to import any goods (raw or manufactured) they would have a massive great trade balance in the good! Technically then there should be no debt."

The only connection is that a healthy economy should generate more tax revenue for the government. But there's no direct link between balance of trade and the national debt. The national debt is purely the result of an imbalance between government revenues and government spending. Nothing to do with imports and exports.

"business and industry must contribute their fare share; if nto, the very society that shelters their business endeavours will eventually be in ruins, their business empires will crumble then!"

The only problem with that idea is that business and industry get the money they use to "contribute their fare share" from the proceeds of doing business. What that means in practical terms is that higher taxes on business and industry result in higher prices for their goods.

Which means the "Little Man" ends up paying for it anyway.

OTOH, you're correct that a healthy society "shelters their business endeavours". It is in their best interests to promote measures that build up society and the economy. One way they can do that is to simply pay their employees more and take less for themselves. In the long run, that will mean more for themselves.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2013 1:02:34 AM

They are intertwined; if America only exported goods (raw or manufactured) and never had to import any goods (raw or manufactured) they would have a massive great trade balance in the good! Technically then there should be no debt.
Granted, if a country spends more money (defence etc.); more then they can recuperate, then the country will run at a deficit; if this continues for extended periods, then they country will have a massive debt, that will be further exasperated with increased interest charges that only makes matters worse.
I pray America can get it spending under control, particularly for the benefit of it beleaguered citizens; I feel that the bulk of this burden should NOT be shouldered by the "Little Man"; gov't and politicians must back away from their feed trough and business and industry must contribute their fare share; if not, the very society that shelters their business endeavours will eventually be in ruins, their business empires will crumble then!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 4/22/2013 1:04:22 AM EST]
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2013 8:31:21 PM


Good article skb69sa, thanks for posting.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2013 3:38:41 AM

CdnLynx - "Indicating more money for less imported oil; this then shows, that the trade imbalance is growing,"

So far, so good.

"in this case crude oil (barrels) decreased; resulting in higher cost of oil, resulting in an increase in trade IMbalance by (327)!"

The reduction in volume isn't what results in higher cost. The increased demand in the rest of the world is what's resulting in the higher cost of oil.

"Balance of trade and national debt, still go hand in hand; The more money a country makes, it should off set their national debt."

Sorry, no, almost completely separate. Balance of trade is the difference between what the country's economy imports and exports. National debt is the money the government spends that it has to borrow.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2013 1:50:07 AM

honda,
is that directed to both rj and myself, or what?
Data is far better then guessing, without data, America would never made it to the moon; they may have been like, the cow jumping over the moon, and if the cow had landed on that pointy end, well, that would have been one big ouch!
Yes, you can do anything w/numbers; you have to be optimistic, that they will do the better thing for the betterment of all/most; otherwise they're just lying to themselves, and nothing will ever be accomplished positively!

Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:23,167
Points:2,257,440
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2013 1:02:58 AM

ppl always tell lies with statistics :P
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2013 7:53:47 PM

Tks! So much for my speed reading!
Table 7, in billions of dollars. Indicating more money for less imported oil; this then shows, that the trade imbalance is growing, in this case crude oil (barrels) decreased; resulting in higher cost of oil, resulting in an increase in trade IMbalance by (327)!
Balance of trade and national debt, still go hand in hand; The more money a country makes, it should off set their national debt.

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 4/19/2013 7:55:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2013 12:42:56 PM

CdnLynx - "rjhenn- interesting and thanks! I went by that first document you sent me and found table 7 showing an increase in crude oil shipments to American."

Table 7 is dollars, not barrels.

"As I previously mentioned, I could not find an actual monetary value in crude exports or imports and how they affect the trade balance/imbalance."

Balance of trade is different from national debt.
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:23,167
Points:2,257,440
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2013 7:00:37 AM

why should private enterprises be showing up in federal budget anyways?
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2013 1:49:00 AM

rjhenn- interesting and thanks! I went by that first document you sent me and found table 7 showing an increase in crude oil shipments to American.
Granted, your second doc in your last response definitely shows a decline in imports in crude.
The link you sent was barrels per day, the following was Annual barrels per yr. (same, just shown differently)

Same doc just shown as annual, Tks, this data looks more detailed/accurate & at odd w/first doc!

As I previously mentioned, I could not find an actual monetary value in crude exports or imports and how they affect the trade balance/imbalance. You may be correct, I will be first to admit. "proving a negative" still remains to be seen, there should still should be documentation!
This would be nice to know with some sort of citation, so as to be clear and definitive!
As a Cdn citizen, I do not have access to your elected representatives; whether they be a senator or congressman, their respective offices should be able to give you a definitive explanation or some idea where to get it.
It is still my personal belief that its not just the oil companies benefiting with international oil trade; firmly suspect that America also benefits, otherwise, what purpose is there in America shipping out their very life blood! Oil dictating to America is like the tail wagging the dog!
If you do find out or if I stumble/discover upon, I will share with you w/documentation! Regards!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 4/19/2013 1:54:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2013 1:47:51 AM

CdnLynx - "rjhenn - I sense you are getting a little upset; I am concerned about pollution and both of our economies. You don't have the citations to show that U.S gov't does not gain any monetary value to balance against your national debt."

Like I said, you expect me to prove a negative. Do you have any citations that show that the US government DOES get any income from our oil production or exports, other than royalties for oil produced from federal lands?

"Not sure what you read; you stated the following
'We're importing less than we were, and the situation keeps improving with new discoveries'
You need to look at Table 7 "Energy Trade in the U.S Trade Balance;"

You need to look at your previous link, click on Imports, then Annual.

Or look here for more recent data.

"The above documents shows that Canada is shipping 97% of its crude to U.S.
It seems by the wording by both countries indicate that the oil going to U.S regions are considered exports by Canada, Imports by America."

Been that way for some time.

"Granted, I have not found what the monetary value is in oil trade to the American economy; however their is trade balances or imbalances in this case oil, that affect the American national debt."

Exactly how do trade imbalances affect the national debt?

"I remain confident that the oil pipeline and trade between our countries is beneficial to both; considering your consumption of oil; to cut off the pipeline may in fact be cutting your nose off in spite of your face."

Like I said, we're probably getting enough from existing pipelines. With new domestic supplies coming on line, the new pipeline probably won't be needed by the time it gets built.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/18/2013 1:51:30 AM EST]
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:23,167
Points:2,257,440
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2013 12:00:35 AM

rjh: tax system simplification. Yea... would be great. Will it happen? Not in my lifetime, I'm sure.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2013 12:00:20 AM

rjhenn - I sense you are getting a little upset; I am concerned about pollution and both of our economies. You don't have the citations to show that U.S gov't does not gain any monetary value to balance against your national debt.
Not sure what you read; you stated the following
"We're importing less than we were, and the situation keeps improving with new discoveries"
You need to look at Table 7 "Energy Trade in the U.S Trade Balance;
Take total energy (which is particularly oil), U.S has increased both imports and U.S trade balance is in the (negative).
In a previous post by me to another member and copied again to you (did not populate properly), was an "Cdn Total Crude Exports by Destination - Annual"
Cdn. National Energy Board Total Crude Exports by Destination - Annual see 2012
The above documents shows that Canada is shipping 97% of its crude to U.S.
It seems by the wording by both countries indicate that the oil going to U.S regions are considered exports by Canada, Imports by America.
Granted, I have not found what the monetary value is in oil trade to the American economy; however their is trade balances or imbalances in this case oil, that affect the American national debt.
I don't have access to your elected representatives (Senate/Congress) however that's their job to inform their constituents. Nothing wrong with asking their office, they maybe able to give the info or even give you a reference that you could look up to see how your economy is affected by the oil trade (monetary oil values added to your economy to offset debt).
I remain confident that the oil pipeline and trade between our countries is beneficial to both; considering your consumption of oil; to cut off the pipeline may in fact be cutting your nose off in spite of your face.
That document you sent me, the last pages considering your trade balance and the Canadian supply of oil is beneficial to America.
I would like to add (your doc page 26) states as follows
"crude from Canada’s oil sands will presumably compete with foreign seaborne heavy sour crudes, which could be diverted elsewhere. Foreign sea
borne sources of U.S. heavy sour crude imports include Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Kuwait, Mexico, Peru, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela. According to a report commissioned by the Department of Energy, if pipeline capacity from the oil sands to the United States is not built and if Canada expands pipeline capacity to its west coast, this may result in growing oil sands output being shipped to Asia and leave the United States importing correspondingly more oil from the Middle East and Africa.
It is not certain if projects expanding pipeline capacity to Canada’s West Coast will be carried out. "

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 4/18/2013 12:05:29 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 1:31:31 PM

CdnLynx - "You have concerns regarding the water aquifer;"

I'm more concerned about the economic justification for the project. With the growth of output from the Bakken, there doesn't seem to be much need for the heavy crude from the oil sands in Alberta. Or for any increase in the amount of oil being imported from Canada. Canada would seem to have more need for a less expensive supply of crude to their east coast refineries. So the main remaining need is just to transport oil from the Bakken.

And we'd probably be better off putting a refinery or two up there, instead.

"American profit you state is only from leasing property to oil companies;"

Not "profit", direct government income.

"Now concerning your previous commenting stating that America makes no money from exports, could you please give verifiable references/quotes.
I find suspicious and thinks that maybe in fact urban legend."

You want me to prove a negative? Why don't you try to find out how the US government profits from oil exports? Since you're talking about the national debt, the government has to be the one seeing income.

Here's an interesting overview.

"Many also state here that many oil companies don't pay taxes and others state they pay too much taxes."

They pay taxes, but they also get a lot of deductions that are unique to the oil industry. Our entire tax system has been screwed up by Congress. The whole thing needs to be simplified.

"suspect America imports most of it energy as per data"

We're importing less than we were, and the situation keeps improving with new discoveries.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 2:54:37 AM

rjhenn - I understand that you are concerned with the Keystone Xl phase 4 of the Project, particularly the portion from the Cdn/Montana border down to Steel City Nebraska, travelling close to the tri-state border of Wyoming,N & S Dakota. You have concerns regarding the water aquifer; Keystone pipeline has diverted from that original route and the subsequent plan has been approved by Nebraska.
American profit you state is only from leasing property to oil companies;
Now concerning your previous commenting stating that America makes no money from exports, could you please give verifiable references/quotes.
I find suspicious and thinks that maybe in fact urban legend. Many also state here that many oil companies don't pay taxes and others state they pay too much taxes. I would contact your federal representative and ask him to give you the info from the EIA (as they are the regulatory agency, concerning energy and exports/imports etc). I have been searching their website, found much data but actual export monies remains elusive, suspect America imports most of it energy as per data
nternational Energy Statistics * INTERACTIVE

Honda0105 - suspect your comment was directed at me; if you have any knowledge re: petroleum exports/imports by America and the monies involved would be greatly appreciated!
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:23,167
Points:2,257,440
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2013 12:58:11 AM

America as a nation doesn't benefit or profit from the petroleum exports, that's for sure.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 11:05:09 AM

CdnLynx - "rjhenn - It does not have to go through any particular community to be valuable; having the XL pipeline relatively close for any regional transport of local oil still makes it beneficial, far better then long haul rail transport to Gulf or Cushing line.
There are many U.S states producing oil that require access, they would be able to access along the line.
Line (orig route) would have it go through Montana, (Wyoming/N&S Dakota border point) down through Nebraska; allowing for access by these states and others by means adopted by those states."

True, but we've already got the older Keystone pipeline for that. And that access doesn't require the cross-border portion of Keystone XL. Eliminate the border crossing and you don't need federal approval. And you've still got access for US-origin crude.

"Gulf Refineries take other countries heavy crude Venezula, Mexico, not all of that crude is Imported into America; Gulf refineries hired to crack those countries crude; Venezuela lost a refinery due to fire and had to increase crude sent to America."

And one of the arguments for Keystone XL is that we'll replace more expensive Venezuelan crude with cheaper Canadian crude. But if that Venezuelan crude is just used to create exports, then it will have no effect on US oil prices.

"You state America does not profit from oil sales; I disagree that is an urban legend assumption used to explain fallacies. OPEC countries make profits regarding the sale of their resources.
OPEC Member Countries
Mexico, Canada, Norway (North Sea), Russia are not members of OPEC.
All these countries make profit from the sale of their crude/refined petroleum products. Don't fool yourself, oil corporations are not the only one making profits, America is making profits also, and it is required to pay down your national debt!"

OPEC countries, and others, typically either have national oil companies or contracts with multinational oil companies that provide direct income from oil sales to those governments. The only income the US government derives from oil is from leases for federal property that has oil wells on it and taxes.
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:23,167
Points:2,257,440
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 5:51:51 AM

rjh: indeed, Canada oil would do better going to closer refineries (but, can't export as easily from there, can ya?)
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 3:15:17 AM

rjhenn - I found my other post in another thread re: Cdn crude to American and where its going and who maybe actually benefiting.
As it was cut and paste, not sure if the following link will be readily post properly, however you should be able to google/bing it. The Cdn gov't site is varied and a wealth of data, that I found to be surprising!I'm beginning to think that the press in modern times just grab a number and they cut and paste from other sites. I seen the same number at CalgarySun. They seem to be very lazy without any verifiable quotable references. I find it a little infuriating!
Did a little research on my own, came across a treasure of info, however I have not done any calculations of percentages.

"Canadian - National Energy Board - Crude Oil and Petroleum Products"

Its quite the cornucopia of info; many variables to choose from; however I will not be doing any percentage compilation!
couple of the many options, first is interactive; I took quick perusal of 2nd.
"Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Statistics"
"Total Crude Oil Exports by Destination - Annual "

I quick analysis it seems that America takes most of the Canada's crude, and very little seems to leave continental N. America. Lets say its 97% of Cdn crude, then what is America doing with it, if they are exporting oil?

It leaves me a little concerned as America may be the real winner at Canada's expense; reason being that they state prices for Cdn Crude are less then world markets; so America imports our crude at this low price, then they crack it and then they can sell the refined product on world markets at greatly increased premium world prices.
It maybe that America wants this pipeline to ensure this raw product for them to garner more money on world markets.
There is quite the conundrum that America does not want our crude, however you seem to be devouring at mega percentages, yet export large quantities, puzzling to say the least!
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 2:59:14 AM

rjhenn - It does not have to go through any particular community to be valuable; having the XL pipeline relatively close for any regional transport of local oil still makes it beneficial, far better then long haul rail transport to Gulf or Cushing line.
There are many U.S states producing oil that require access, they would be able to access along the line.
Line (orig route) would have it go through Montana, (Wyoming/N&S Dakota border point) down through Nebraska; allowing for access by these states and others by means adopted by those states.
Amercian Oil Producing States
Gulf Refineries take other countries heavy crude Venezula, Mexico, not all of that crude is Imported into America; Gulf refineries hired to crack those countries crude; Venezuela lost a refinery due to fire and had to increase crude sent to America.
You state America does not profit from oil sales; I disagree that is an urban legend assumption used to explain fallacies. OPEC countries make profits regarding the sale of their resources.
OPEC Member Countries
Mexico, Canada, Norway (North Sea), Russia are not members of OPEC.
All these countries make profit from the sale of their crude/refined petroleum products. Don't fool yourself, oil corporations are not the only one making profits, America is making profits also, and it is required to pay down your national debt!
Keystone XL pipeline routes/ You can contact and ask questions.
I had another post in a previous thread in response to another poster; it seems America actually takes 97% of Cdn oil, if they are exporting large quantities, it maybe they are buying low (paying below market prices for the Cdn crude) and cracking it and then selling for higher monetary amounts therefore filling American coffers at the expense of Canada. Be careful you maybe cutting your nose off to spite the American face!
Right now America is winning; it maybe better for Canada to keep its oil and sell it at refined markets and garner the wealth, vice America. Careful what you wish for!
I will try to find what I wrote to the other poster and file here to show what I speak of.
I ensure you I love the environment as much as you, and go out of my way to protect it with my habits. I have potable water, yet collect rain waters, grey water for flushing, I recycle, my wet garbage is the size of a regular shopping bag per week, not even a large garbage bag. So I do love my environment, probably more then the people that are hard core conservationists.
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2013 12:38:24 AM


Really good comments rjhenn!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 1:12:17 PM

CdnLynx - The portion of the Keystone pipeline that's in contention, at least the part that crosses the US - Canadian border, isn't needed for Bakken oil.

Since the Gulf refineries typically produce more than they can sell in the US, where else are they going to sell their product?

How is selling American oil abroad going to pay down any massive debt? The oil companies are the ones that profit from that, not the government.

Yes, Canada would be better off with a pipeline that carried their oil to their east coast.
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:23,167
Points:2,257,440
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2013 5:55:53 AM

after the spill in AR, it wouldn't surprise me to see some states reconsider their approval or pending approval.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,624
Points:1,396,395
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 13, 2013 8:02:38 PM

Great points CdnLynx, too many spew anger towards the proposed KXL based on nothing more than ignorance and ideology.
Profile Pic
Jeffro61
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:4,620
Points:2,851,170
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 6:07:11 AM

It is just up for approval not funding.
Profile Pic
tomok
Champion Author Portland

Posts:44,378
Points:2,993,085
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 2:34:47 AM

Keystone XL Absent From White House Budget, its all in Sneeker666 plan to run this country into the ground and keep it there.
Big Oil will build the Keystone XL pipeline and Sneeker666 will not have anything to say or do anything about it either. Sneeker666 has had his chance and Big Oil is tired of waiting for him to do something. Meanwhile, Sneeker666 is looking at a third term to keep screwing the population and run this country into the ground. There will not be cheaper prices for fuel in the US, the oil will be refined and fuel will be exported to other countries for higher prices and profits.
Canada can build their own pipeline to their east or west coast and be done with it And keep their export dollars too!
Drive vehicles with high MPG, are very safe, reliable, have a ‘reasonable’ cost and a good ‘value’ for the money.
The price of fuel at the pump is too high!
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,239
Points:1,068,955
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 1:13:28 AM

Focus2 and any others
White house budget; makes no sense, as it would be private not gov't financing. Keystone XL is a private venture. It is to be a American and Cdn SHARED pipeline, it is for American crude also, like the Bakken oil formation.
Pipelines, whether or not they are international, require government approvals, federal, state, (provincial) if international, as Keystone). This is not a dedicated Canadian Tar Sand pipeline!
Your also making assumptions that the oil (crude or refined) is automatically going to Asian Markets. Considering the crude is cracked at American refineries, suspect America would get first crack at purchasing/importing it. Canada will also sell its resources to other nations, Europe, Asia etc., refined product, will also come back to Cdn domestic markets!
Canada was/is to ship crude oil (Their Portion) to Gulf refineries (hired) for cracking, the Cdn. oil portion, is a Canadian resource until such time America purchases Cdn. crude, you still own, your share of oil shipped via the Keystone pipeline.
This is no different then what Venezuela does at present, they ship crude to American refineries and either sell or ship product back to Venezuela. Not sure why are so many are upset, considering many on GB don't like selling American oil abroad to pay down the massive debt. They don't like Canada selling their oil abroad also, not sure why!
I would like a pipeline, west to eastern Canada also, vice converting the West-East NG pipeline to crude oil.
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 1:02:16 AM


ChuckGVT...what planet are you from?
Profile Pic
Rajah
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:9,186
Points:2,846,620
Joined:Jul 2005
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 12:01:51 AM

Hmmmm...
Profile Pic
Double_Golden
Champion Author San Francisco

Posts:4,085
Points:1,087,885
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 10:42:12 PM

so...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,747
Points:2,840,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 8:08:06 PM

TBRR - "think of all the jobs lost due to obummers head in the sand."

Since most of it's already built, what jobs?
Profile Pic
Costello
Champion Author South Dakota

Posts:3,048
Points:1,757,285
Joined:Jan 2007
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 7:55:07 PM

Imagine that!!!
Profile Pic
Focus2
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,164
Points:2,118,985
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:59:21 PM

Why should a pipeline from Canada, for Canadian profits to Asian markets, be funded by our government? Canada should be building their pipeline East and West in Canada and taking care of Canada first!
Profile Pic
slowtrain
Champion Author Georgia

Posts:6,307
Points:1,590,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:55:42 PM

The right person hasn't been paid off yet.
Profile Pic
bigrigAZ
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:1,952
Points:1,080,925
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:48:30 PM

Doesn't make any difference if it is his budget or not. He doesn't want it and will keep putting it off as long as he can to please the tree huggers. Every time some thing comes up it will be looked at a long time down the road and be stalled like every thing else. 5 years to make a budget.?? No budget - just spend. wouldn't follow the budget anyway.
Profile Pic
TBRR
Champion Author Jacksonville

Posts:4,647
Points:758,970
Joined:Dec 2007
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:47:15 PM

the pipeline should not be funded by government. that is a private enterprise project. however they do need a "go for it" from the USA. think of all the jobs lost due to obummers head in the sand.
Profile Pic
listerone
Champion Author Boston

Posts:5,331
Points:1,449,785
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:44:11 PM

Huffington Post---> Communist rag---> no credibility.
Profile Pic
fire@53
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:14,444
Points:3,389,125
Joined:May 2003
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:40:40 PM

Why would it be in the White House budget when private money will build it?
Profile Pic
geoutpb
Champion Author Midland Odessa

Posts:7,155
Points:1,655,645
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:40:04 PM

Why would the budget have any costs for the keystone pipeline. This is a private, canadian project.
Profile Pic
REVLAW
Champion Author San Antonio

Posts:13,207
Points:2,654,150
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:39:20 PM

No, Obama isn't really a fool msf1527, though his intelligence and motives should be scrutinized. Rather, I believe, he truly represents and is appropriately likened to the posterior of the mascot for the democrat party.
Profile Pic
nemoFL
Champion Author Florida

Posts:10,824
Points:2,081,335
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:38:47 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
Bobmilan
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:4,024
Points:1,108,255
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:37:42 PM

Obama wants cash in his pocket before he will act.

And he was voted back in - we deserve what we get.
Profile Pic
msf1527
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:3,151
Points:769,095
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:32:43 PM

Obama is a fool...
Profile Pic
FusionCa
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:3,477
Points:1,185,765
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:32:41 PM

Just Say No!!
Profile Pic
tex_mex13
All-Star Author Austin

Posts:948
Points:342,600
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:30:56 PM

Why should we fund it ?
Profile Pic
myambro
Champion Author Sacramento

Posts:4,539
Points:1,620,605
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:22:36 PM

Why would the US gov't have to fund the XL pipeline? It's a private venture.
Profile Pic
WILDCAT112
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:1,368
Points:296,620
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:21:29 PM

If John Boehner is involved watch your back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Profile Pic
skyhawk73
Sophomore Author Ventura

Posts:167
Points:24,280
Joined:Mar 2013
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:18:27 PM

Left wing tree huggers will kill this before it sees the light of day
Profile Pic
BPonRTE66
Champion Author California

Posts:3,204
Points:784,845
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 5:16:28 PM

I agree with Steven!!!
Post a reply Back to Topics