DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... White House: Keystone exempt from 'Buy American' requirements

I'll admit when I'm wrong. If you did the same you'd double your post count.

Shouldn't we start to develop renewable resources, before we gobble up the rest of the oil?

Sustainable development, providing for the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations

I'm gonna double down. The same people that thought slavery was cool, the same people that thought segregation was the way to go. The same people that can't see how much we trash our planet.

Are they the same people who go around cleaning up the carcasses
of the thousands upon thousand of Eagles, Hawks, and other birds your windmills and solar plants have killed?

Are you saying enslaving people is better than killing birds?

No, what I am saying is today's generation of renewable resources folks saving the environment are comparable to my generation referring to DDT as a mosquito repellent!

I keep seeing you make this point over and over again, and I've been meaning to correct you.

https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-many...9bbb#.dzv8ajwvb

According to most data we have available, coal and oil kill more birds than windfarms or solar panels. You've never heard of a 'canary in a windfarm', have you?

Well according to your "Think Progress" links, Conservative farts contain more Methane than Liberal farts.

It's their "All American diet," I suppose....

Hey! Nothing passes these lips... ahh fagget about it!

Of course that's how it's gonna work, it's construction. Once it's built, it's built. Nothing else to do.

One of the local neighborhood mills tore up a bunch of ground a bit down the road from me, they've dug the ditches for the sewers and water lines and such, started framing a few houses and even already have the 'model' home built. Once the houses are built, they'll move on to the next patch of land and start all over.

It's not marketed that way in order to be deceiving. The voting public hears 'thousands of jobs created' and doesn't think beyond that. But all of those in that line of construction knew it would be temporary.

The American steel thing, yeah, that was wrong. If you're gonna promise that, keep that promise.

Leave me outa this.

But you are the poster child of the Left when it comes to this issue!

I cannot see how an EO of this nature could apply to any project that is not funded by federal dollars. I can see it applying to federal financed infrastructure projects, but my understanding is the fed involvement in keystone is permitting not financing.

The steels all ready been made and purchased ... its waiting to go ...

Donnie spoke before getting his ducks in a row ... STUPID DONALD ...

This was a mistake by him ... put in context ... it doesn't even make the scale ..

Purchased or not the federal government has no authority to mandate the use of any specific material in a private project as long as the project is complete with in accepted industry guidelines and specs. It is akin to telling a private individual how to spend their own money.

I support buying American. However telling someone how to spend their money is in-American even if the spending is foolish.

I don't know the answer to you question. I don't pay close enough attention. All I know is construction jobs are job to job. It has always been that way. You build a house, tall building, or road, then go to the next job.

Obviously a home construction is few weeks for the various builders who put it up. It might take 3 months to build the thing, but the framers are there so long, the roofers and window installers so long, then the plumbers and electricians, then finally the finishers and landscapers.

A dam project can keep people busy on the job site for 4-5 years. Then they move on to the next big project. Maybe building a airpot or something.

On the pipeline, there are residual jobs. It has to be maintained. People have to work the various pumping stations along the pipe. The some crude hits the refineries down along the Gulf who turn the crude in to refined oil, diesel, or gasoline.

Other crude hits the ships, keeping longshoremen working, boat crews, from ship Captain to a oridinary Wiper, busy for weeks at a time, shipping it all around the world.

Let's not forget all the clean up crews that get brought in to mop up leaks of hundred of thousands of gallons. The makers of hazmat suits. The lawyers that get paid to stand up to the public that inevitably sue them for the illness and pollution caused. Then there's the medical facilities.... I mean it just keeps going.

No doubt, some of that too....lol.....just like body shops are kept busy with cars that keep crashing and undertakers are needed to take care of the dead bodies from some of those crashes.

I think you are a little too worried about massive leaks. No doubt you don't want that, just like you don't want car crashes. You do realize that in the event of a leak, the flow of oil can be stopped pretty quickly?

It's not like there is one giant pump at the Canadian border pushing the oil all the way down to Lousiana, Texas or Mississippi. There are hundreds of pumping stations along the way that can stop the flow.

This isn't like that blow-out in the Gulf 3-4 years ago that spilled 100's of thousands or more of oil in to the Gulf.

If you drive a car, ride in a car, use public transportation, burn light bulbs, or use heating and A/C in you home, your words fall of deaf ears.....or maybe in this forum I should say, fall on blind eyes.


My question is this....do you live in a tent or cave? If not, pipe down.

You're right not hundreds of thousands.

140,000 gallons Iowa
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...llons-of-diesel

40,000 gallons at Yellowstone
http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/01/ma...drinking-water/

176,000 gallons in North Dakota
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...gallons-of-oil/

That's since December. In one simple google search.

Here's one. 300,000 gallons in South Carolina. It was a few years back.
http://savannahnow.com/news/2015-04-30/k...-south-carolina

You still didn't answer my question....do you live in a tent or cave?


OK, I get it. You don't want pipelines. At least until you can't fill up your car or turn on your furnace.

If you have a better way of filling up your gas stations in Oregon, let us know. What is a better way?

Naturally, you don't have a better way because there isn't one.

Tell you what, work on shutting down the pipelines in to your state and see how that works out. I assume Oregon, but it could be maine, or any other state with a town named Portland, which would probably be all 50. I know we have a Portland, Tn. Up near the KY. border. I have been there several times. Best I recall if was mostly based on a timber economy. Lots of small lumber mills feeding a large paper mill.

Paper is probably another thing you don't like. Start by tossing the TP.

This is some pretty intense logic. Because you use something doesn't mean you can be critical of it? That's like someone getting on here and telling us, "Hey if you pay any money or attention to the Browns then you have no right to criticize the team." Again, weird logic.

Not when taken in the full context it isn't.

How else do you propose getting the crude to the refineries?

I don't mind him being critical. If there was a better, safer way that made any sense, I would be all for it, but there isn't. I don't think you could truck enough. I don't think you could rail enough, fast enough. You'd have to build dedicated rail lines or a new road system, and those dont' go up or under very easily, nor do they bend around as easily as a pipe syetem.


I know some think you can use existing pipe, and it probably will in it's branch off pipe, but those lines are already full. You can only flow so much per hour/day.

I see this as a National Security issue. We are on pretty good terms with Canada. I don't see any real problems in the future. I can't say that about any of the Middle East countires, even with the ones we seemingly call friendly.

You want to know why the price of gas dropped a ton in the last 2-3 years? The possibility of this pipeline and Canadian. North Dakota oil fields.. The price was driven to the point using this dirty crude became possible. The price dropped because OPEC doesn't want this oil to hit the market. Heck, as long as OPEC keeps supply at a decent level, we might not even pump much through the pipleline. Us and Canada would rather use up their oil before we use up ours.

We need it in case we need it, for any number of reasons.

The reality is we are probably going to rely on fossil fuels for another 100 years or more. Not out of desire, but we don't have a reliable fall-back that people want.

We have 1000 years of coal under ground, but we can't use that to fire power plants. Nuclear is frowned upon, though it provides a unlimited supply of energy. We have lots of natural gas and oil, but that takes pipelines. Solar and Wind are making strides, but at this point or any point for maybe 50-75 years will come anywhere near being able to meet our energy needs. We at this point can fire up a house to a point. We can't fire up a factory.

I am not against the message. In reality, I agree with you and Port. We just can't do it now. I am a older Dawg. If I get another 15-20 years I have cheated the odds. You guys are probably much younger. You will be old men at best before we can wash our hands of oil as a primary means of energy production.

I hope I am wrong. I hope it happens in 10 years, but wind and solar better start moving the needle pretty soon.

Well... Why should the crude oil be sent to the refineries? The price of oil today is around $55 a barrel and tar sands needs that price to be greater than $65 to make any profit on the oil. So no matter what the companies will be losing money on the oil. So why is it in our (American's) best interest to build these pipelines that do spill to increase our dependence on an energy source that is slowly killing us? Not to mention, an energy source that won't even be sold in America, but to Europe and Asia where prices are higher than America? And what will happen to the tar sands being sold in the midwest after the pipeline is built? Will we still be allowed to refine that oil in America and sell it here? Or will it be part of their international sales? Will prices actually go up because of this?

I also don't think Portland and I think that we should ban oil. We need to continue to use it, but it's becoming time that we need to wane off of it. We need to increase energy production on the other fronts and build a more diverse energy network. We certainly need nuclear even if its radiated byproducts last for 10,000 years. We also need solar and wind, as they're making great strides with energy. Both Germany and Texas get 25% of their power from wind. I'm not sure why that would be such a demanding thing to ask for. Especially when you consider the breakthroughs that coastal windmills are making. Solar has a long way to go still, but wind is certainly making a lot of strides.

Silly. The oil comes from Canada!
The price is $55 American!
That is like $100 per barrel Canadian!

Send us your oil for refining! Money in the bank!

*Rubbing my eyes in disbelief* Your worried about oil leaks but not a nuclear meltdown or leak

No?

And if we told that we consumed everything you mentioned above using only non pollutant renewable resources, it would also fall on deaf ears here.

On it's surface, I can see why this is viewed as hypocritical.. but in reality, if he is using the legal Visa process to fill those positions then I don't really have a problem with it.

They are almost all "temporary jobs".. the only permanent jobs will be those in the permanent operation and maintenance of the pipeline and any jobs increased at the refinery to handle the additional load.. all of the jobs created by the Recovery and Reinvestment act.. just like the jobs created by the New Deal... any time you are creating jobs through construction and infrastructure projects, by definition, when the job is done so is the job. You just hope that by that time the economy has improved and there is somewhere else for them to go.

question for those who understand the industry better:

So i'm aware that an excess in oil means *typically* means cheaper gas prices for us consumers. But, what are the long term impacts of this much excess, as far as the industry goes?

we've an excess for quite a while now:

Market alert: US oil price plunges toward $50 as a perfect storm brews

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/market-alert-us-oil-price-200557480.html

Oil is on track to break through the key psychological level of $50 a barrel after a ninth straight rise in U.S. crude stockpiles came at exactly the wrong moment, analysts said Wednesday.

The amount of crude oil in U.S. storage rose to another record high on Wednesday, jumping 8.2 million barrels from the previous week, the Energy Information Administration reported. The increase was more than four times what analysts expected.

Weekly figures also showed U.S. oil production continuing to tick up toward 9.1 million barrels a day, the highest level in more than a year. That provided further evidence that rising American output is confounding efforts by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries , Russia and 10 other exporters to reduce global oil inventories by curbing their own output.


The data sent U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate (New York Mercantile Exchange: @CL.1) crude prices plunging more than 5 percent to a nearly three-month low.

The plunge through a number of lows on Wednesday puts oil on a path to test the December low of $49.95 a barrel, said John Kilduff, founding partner at energy hedge fund Again Capital.

"From there you could accelerate," he told CNBC, adding that $50 "was the fail-safe." Kilduff's downside target, once oil breaks below $50 a barrel, is $42.

For the last three months, oil has traded in a range between $49.61 and $55.24.

According to Kilduff, all the elements are in place for oil to break below its three-month range: lack of cohesion among OPEC members, bearish statements from oil ministers at CERAWeek conference by IHS Markit and subdued refinery activity as operators perform seasonal maintenance in the United States.

Bearish OPEC comments at CERAWeek

On Tuesday, Saudi Oil Minister Khalid al-Falih warned at CERAWeek that the kingdom would only support OPEC's intervention in markets for a "restricted period of time" and would not "underwrite the investments of others at our own expense and long-term interests."

Later that evening, oil ministers convened a last-minute press briefing, where they reaffirmed their commitment to the production cut deal.

"The Saudis almost explicitly warned that if we don't get cooperation or we see cheating we're not going to be someone's patsy forever," said Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at Oil Price Information Service.

Saudi Arabia has so far provided the lion's share of output cuts as OPEC and other producers seek to remove 1.8 million barrels from the market in the first six months of 2016. Iraq, OPEC's second largest producer, produced above its quota in January.

Also at CERAWeek on Tuesday, Iraqi Minister of Oil Jabbar Ali Al-Luiebi said Baghdad could increase its output capacity to 5 million barrels a day by the second half of 2017, raising concerns about its commitments to production cuts.

Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, said $50 can now be considered a target. If oil prices break that level, market watchers can expect more talk from oil ministers about extending the OPEC agreement another six months when producers meet in May, he added.

"I think that OPEC is hoping they can wait it out so they don't have to make a decision in May to continue with production cuts, but they may be forced into that decision given the high inventories here in the U.S.," he said.

Those inventory builds are likely to continue through the refinery maintenance season, according to Lipow.

Kettle finally boils over

Further fueling the fall to $50 a barrel is the record number of bets traders have recently made on crude rising further, said Matt Smith, director of commodity research at shipment tracking firm ClipperData. As oil prices fall to the bottom of their range, more traders will look to unwind those positions, he explained.


"It's really been like a kettle boiling for the last few weeks in terms of having traded in a very tight range. There's been this pressure building form a technical perspective," he said. "As that happens, as that pressure builds, we tend to pop violently."

Kloza also sees the anniversary of crude oil storage leases playing into the problem.

Many traders took out one-year leases around this time in 2016, when crude prices were near the lows of the downturn, he explained. Now that the oil price curve is flattening — meaning prices for future crude deliveries are declining relative to current costs — traders have little incentive to sign another one-year lease. Instead they're selling that oil into an oversupplied market.

While the next 30 days provide an environment ripe for a drop below $50 a barrel, Kloza said, he doesn't see an "apocalyptic move lower."

"We may break below that range for about 90 days, but in the end I think we'll be above it come driving season," he said. "From now through let's say May, it may be stormy times," he said.