Keystone pipline question

[..]

I recently heard a radio report stating this pipeline would cost the US tapayers 10 billion $$$$.

Why would/should the taxpayer pay one cent?

Isn't it proposed that it's to be built by private industry?

[RDAbull]

I recently heard a radio report stating this pipeline would cost the US tapayers 10 billion $$$$.

Why would/should the taxpayer pay one cent?

Isn't it proposed that it's to be built by private industry?
[/
Paul, you heard it on the radio, shouldn't that be enough explanation?

Private companies are going to build and operate it, and they pay taxes for the privilege.

[BF]

I recently heard a radio report stating this pipeline would cost the US tapayers 10 billion $$$$.

Why would/should the taxpayer pay one cent?

Isn't it proposed that it's to be built by private industry?

Probably cost us that much already from Harry Reid fighting/blocking it.   

[pastmast95]

Lets get it built and get rid of middle east and south American oil !

[Serk]

A quick googling wasn't able to turn up the $10,000,000,000 figure, but quite often those against such things count a tax break as a government subsidy... Somehow by the leftist logic NOT taxing someone to death to encourage them to do something is actually costing taxpayers money...

Not 100% positive that's the case here, but I'd be willing to bet it is...

I.E. State wants refinery business, so tells company X if you build here, we'll give you a break on state taxes for 10 years to encourage investment in their state. Then the leftists twist that 10 years of reduced taxes into being "Corporate welfare".

IMHO, less money stolen from someone is not the same as government giving them money...

[LandElephant]

Most times when a state gives a company tax breaks to either come to their state and / operate they are really net neutral.  There are strings attached. If you follow the economic model of "The power of 7 and 9" you find that the say 10 billion tax break is made up by the new tax revenue of the money growth.

Example would be a company comes in and invest 5 billion and gets a 1 billion tax break over 10 years. The new tax revenue would be consided off the 35 to 45 billion in new money that will be generated over the same period.  That's new income tax, business tax, sales tax, property tax, gas tax, etc......

Again you don't get the whole story.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

[MP]

A quick googling wasn't able to turn up the $10,000,000,000 figure, but quite often those against such things count a tax break as a government subsidy... Somehow by the leftist logic NOT taxing someone to death to encourage them to do something is actually costing taxpayers money...

Not 100% positive that's the case here, but I'd be willing to bet it is...

I.E. State wants refinery business, so tells company X if you build here, we'll give you a break on state taxes for 10 years to encourage investment in their state. Then the leftists twist that 10 years of reduced taxes into being "Corporate welfare".

IMHO, less money stolen from someone is not the same as government giving them money...

I agree, to some extent.  It is also normal tax expenses for ANY business.

I have heard LEFTIES say that depreciation is a tax give away.  Normal operating expenses are a give away.

I am sure they are adding this all up.

There are LOTS of taxes that this pipeline will be paying.

I find it so ironic that one of the big arguments against it is "temporary construction jobs".  Soooo, don't do.

Yet, one of Obama's and the other Liberals main talking points is that we need to be spending BILLIONS on infrastructure every year.

Bridges, roads, water projects, etc.

Yet, these too are "temporary" jobs!  Build the bridge, and the jobs are over.  Yet, because the government is spending the money, it is GREAT!  Yet, if private business does it, NASTY BAD!  LIARS.

40% of Keystone is built.

Also, the other main argument against Keystone, was we needed to wait for Nebraska courts to settle things.  A couple days ago, the NE Supreme Court threw out the case against Keystone.  So, NE has been settled.  Any bets if Obamer oks it now?  Don't hold your breath.

From the Huffing and Puffing Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/nebraska-keystone-pipeline-route_n_6439466.html

MP

[fudgie]

The Lakota are putting up a big fight over it for it not to be built. They are doing well so far. Not to mention the impact it could have on the Ogallala aquafir, which is the biggest aquafir in the US and one of the biggest in the world.

[MP]

The Lakota are putting up a big fight over it for it not to be built. They are doing well so far. Not to mention the impact it could have on the Ogallala aquafir, which is the biggest aquafir in the US and one of the biggest in the world.

I believe it has been rerouted around at least part of that?  Also, there are a couple MILLION miles of pipelines in the US already.

Is there a risk?  Yes.  It has been determined, by the State Department, that the pipeline risk is LESS than the risk of movement by rail and/or by truck.

Google maps of pipelines in the US. It is COVERED by pipelines.

MP

[Patrick]

Our government agencies as well as private have reports stating there is no environmental issues with the pipeline and its new routing.
But, its not going to happen anytime soon. Remember that your president still says he has a pen and will use it to vote the bill.
I think there are enough votes to over ride his veto, but, its still politics which takes time. I think we'll be a lot older and grayer by the time the ditch is dug.
I've looked some reports and interviews, its amazing the number of folks that don't realize how many miles of pipeline are already in this country.



We are now once again becoming a leader in production of oil and gas. If your president would open public lands we could easily become the leader as we once were. OPEC countries are worried about this which is the reason for the lowering of their prices as they can get oil into the barrel cheaper than we can. We just shouldn't let their strategy work. Drill and build a couple more refineries and we can tell them where they should go.

[HurstRob]

I agree with postmast95. When oil gets back over $100 a barrell, we can get real close to giving OPEC the finger.

[Gavin_Sons]

Just build the damn pipeline so we can have cheaper gas. Can they not figure out that cheap gas = a better economy.  Peoplemspend more on goods rather than spend that extra money on gas. I know I do. Im saving about 50 bucks a week on gas right now, thats 50 more dollars a week ill spend on something else. 

[scooperhsd]

They are not looking to build the pipeline for US consumption - they are building it so they can get Canadian oil overseas easier (or wherever they can sell the oil products for the most profit) !

Now - do we REALLY need that pipeline ?

[RDAbull]

They are not looking to build the pipeline for US consumption - they are building it so they can get Canadian oil overseas easier (or wherever they can sell the oil products for the most profit) !

Now - do we REALLY need that pipeline ?

YES

[Patrick]

They are not looking to build the pipeline for US consumption - they are building it so they can get Canadian oil overseas easier (or wherever they can sell the oil products for the most profit) !

Now - do we REALLY need that pipeline ?

Yes. Because its not only for Canadian oil. As or if or when we start increasing our drilling that pipe can also provide our crude to our refineries especially if we ever build a couple new ones.
If we can get an administration that understands we need to become independent from those arabs the better off we would be.
I think the sooner North American oil is kept in North America the better off we will be, then sell the rest to outside countries.  I guess I'm just not smart to understand why we are still exporting oil as well as importing it.

[Raverez]

The oil companies will sell the crude to the people who pay the most for it at any given time. Not necessary the US oil companies.
So if this pipeline to carry crude oil is allowed to be built, will it lower our price for the refined product that we use? There is no guaranty that will happen. 
So is there going to be a "tariff" on crude that passes through the pipeline on US soil but is sold overseas?
Will there be access from this pipeline to the oil refineries located in the  US?
Will oil companies based in the US have more permanent jobs open up here? Will they have tax breaks for providing those jobs?
Just wondering..

[Serk]

They are not looking to build the pipeline for US consumption - they are building it so they can get Canadian oil overseas easier (or wherever they can sell the oil products for the most profit) !

Now - do we REALLY need that pipeline ?

Option #1 - Canadian oil goes through US pipeline to US refineries for shipment overseas, US getting a nice cut along the way.

Option #2 - Canadian oil is shipped out directly on ships from Canada to foreign markets, US getting no cut at all...

Pick one.

[wiggydotcom]

Personally, I think a big reason Obama won't sign the Keystone bill into law is because a lot of oil is currently being shipped by rail. Whose rail? Why, that would be his buddy's-Obama campaign contributor, Warren Buffett. One hand washes the other.

[..]

Personally, I think a big reason Obama won't sign the Keystone bill into law is because a lot of oil is currently being shipped by rail. Whose rail? Why, that would be his buddy's-Obama campaign contributor, Warren Buffett. One hand washes the other.

 

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20141116/REG/141119930/warren-buffetts-railroad-buyout-sees-big-returns-thanks-to-oil-boom

[RDAbull]

Now - do we REALLY need that pipeline ?
[/quot

The reality is that this oil will move to the market.  Whether it is through Keystone or over to BC and then to China or by rail is the only question.  Ask the good people of Lac-Megantic Quebec how safe rail transport is.  Even the Feds have tightened up the rules for rail transport because of the problems.  If we use to oil here, great.  But if not the cash is better in the Canadian and American economies than the Saudi and Venzulian.

So yes, we need to build the Keystone.

[Jess from VA]

A simplistic view, but an accurate view.

Big private business is good for everyone.

Big govt is bad for everyone (except the takers/FSA).

Everyone who would dearly love to see a Zero veto overridden in Congress, raise your hand!!!!

[LandElephant]

Yes we need to build it. Yes it will be shipped overseas but we get a portion of the export tax. Also if there is a problem with our Saudi connection we can tap into a non-OPEC friendly to the US for oil.

Some will be refined here on the Gulf Coast. There is over 60 Billion that with a big B dollars of refinery and chemical plant upgrades being done to increase petroleum products. That JOBs here in the US.

Got to know all the facts.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

[scooperhsd]

A simplistic view, but an accurate view.

Big private business is good for everyone.

Big govt is bad for everyone (except the takers/FSA).

Everyone who would dearly love to see a Zero veto overridden in Congress, raise your hand!!!!

I've been around long enough to know that what is good for big business is NOT always good for everyone else.  Big business is looking out for nobody but themselves. Case in point - You all recall some news about coal ash ponds creating an issue in NC (courtesy of Duke Energy) ? That mess and what to do about it is still being discussed. Duke's solution is to put all their waste into landfills "purposely built to handle this toxic waste" is some of the poorer, more rural counties in NC. Of course - nevermind that the citizens are concerned about their drinking water if those landfills come to be....  My question would be to the Duke execs "would YOU want that dump next to your home / right on top of your water supply ?"

BTW - the legislation for the pipeline will probably pass the Congress - there are enough Congress critters bought and paid for to get it through the first time. Now about overriding a presidential veto (2/3 of the members of each house)  -  I'm not so sure about that.

[RDAbull]

I've been around long enough to know that what is good for big business is NOT always good for everyone else.  Big business is looking out for nobody but themselves. Case in point - You all recall some news about coal ash ponds creating an issue in NC (courtesy of Duke Energy) ? That mess and what to do about it is still being discussed. Duke's solution is to put all their waste into landfills "purposely built to handle this toxic waste" is some of the poorer, more rural counties in NC. Of course - nevermind that the citizens are concerned about their drinking water if those landfills come to be....  My question would be to the Duke execs "would YOU want that dump next to your home / right on top of your water supply ?"

BTW - the legislation for the pipeline will probably pass the Congress - there are enough Congress critters bought and paid for to get it through the first time. Now about overriding a presidential veto (2/3 of the members of each house)  -  I'm not so sure about that.
[/quote]

A great example of the fact that not all business decisions are good decisions.  The solution might be as simple as turning off all of the electricity in NC, therefore no fly ash would be produced.  You will probably agree that's not the best solution.  Better disposal methods or containment, or maybe even recycling in concrete for highways construction make sense to me. (Believe me, I'm not an engineer so I don't know if this is possible). You can bet your butt on one thing, whatever the solution might be, Duke Energy isn't going to pay for it, those of us that pay Duke Energy bills will.  You could just have the EPA confiscate all of the plants and run them themselves but I bet that they would still have an ash problem.  All in, I trust Duke more that I trust the EPA.

[Master Blaster]

This is just like Obama saying that we cant drill ourselves out of high gas prices, when private industry has done just that.  Face it, it is the liberal bias against fossil fuel that is at work here.  Never mind Obama wasted billions on alternate energy that never worked.  Solar was a bust, and even wind farms cant operate without massive subsidies.  Their war on coal is forcing thousands to go on the Govt. dole, and raising energy costs for everybody.  What is doesn't matter, its the agenda that takes precedence over everything.

[Jess from VA]

Agreed.   

Dogma over common sense..... every time (is disgusting).

I'll take some pollution and 100 million more working..... every time.

And make everyone on the dole put in 40 hours of menial labor (unless they truly are disabled).

[scooperhsd]

actually - the saudi's have backstabbed their fellow OPEC members on the price of a barrel of oil is why our gas prices have gone down. They did that by making the supply larger.

[scooperhsd]

And yes  - I think it's dumb to simply shutoff using coal - Clean up the exhaust from burning it, proper disposal of the ash - yes - but a complete dogma driven shutoff - no. after all - we have more coal reserves than  any other country on the planet (in excess of 400 years I last heard)

[Serk]

actually - the saudi's have backstabbed their fellow OPEC members on the price of a barrel of oil is why our gas prices have gone down. They did that by making the supply larger.

...and the Saudis took this action because of the high US production from fracking. The whole reason they're doing this is to drive the price of oil down below the point where US production is profitable, so they can own the market and control it again, which brings us back to the whole idea of energy independence...

[Rams]

actually - the saudi's have backstabbed their fellow OPEC members on the price of a barrel of oil is why our gas prices have gone down. They did that by making the supply larger.

...and the Saudis took this action because of the high US production from fracking. The whole reason they're doing this is to drive the price of oil down below the point where US production is profitable, so they can own the market and control it again, which brings us back to the whole idea of energy independence...

I don't pretend to have or know all the facts but, it would seem to me that the only folks (US) being hurt by the Saudi's lowering the price are those who are trying to make a living in the oil fields.    The lower price of fuel actually allows most of us to either save a little money or, spend that same money on other things that help drive our economy.     What I find ironic is that eventually, the Saudi's will deplete their oil reserves and we'll still be sitting on ours.   

In reference to the pipeline, it's going to be built.   It may be after Obama is gone but, it's going to happen.   It's not a matter of if, the only question is when.

[RDAbull]

...and the Saudis took this action because of the high US production from fracking. The whole reason they're doing this is to drive the price of oil down below the point where US production is profitable, so they can own the market and control it again, which brings us back to the whole idea of energy independence...

[/quote]

What I find ironic is that eventually, the Saudi's will deplete their oil reserves and we'll still be sitting on ours.   

[/quote]

At that time the Saudi royal family will be living in their mansions in London, Zurich & New York.
They will have a trillion or two to live on and the rest of the country can fight over the desert.  Just another poor desert country run by religious fanatics.

[Rams]

At that time the Saudi royal family will be living in their mansions in London, Zurich & New York.
They will have a trillion or two to live on and the rest of the country can fight over the desert.  Just another poor desert country run by religious fanatics.

While I don't know for a fact, I'm pretty sure those in power in already have those mansions.    I can show you several multi-million dollars properties here in the Bluegrass owned by people from that region of the world.

The Saudi Royal family already has more money than they know what to do with.   Twice a year I get to watch at least one (sometimes more) Boeing 747s and several smaller (but still large) jets land at LEX for the annual Keeneland Thorooghbred auctions where they pay millions of dollars for horses they ship back home on those planes.      Oil has empowered them to dictate many things and I believe, they are simply flexing their oily muscles.    The US is energy rich, between the oil and coal reserves, eventually, the world will once again come begging for us to save them.   Eventually, even the Liberals will see the light.

[Serk]

Anyone wanting some info on why OPEC is dropping prices:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-09/why-opec-is-talking-oil-down-not-up-after-48-selloff.html

[MP]

They are not looking to build the pipeline for US consumption - they are building it so they can get Canadian oil overseas easier (or wherever they can sell the oil products for the most profit) !

Now - do we REALLY need that pipeline ?

YES!

1.  At least 100,000 barrels of capacity is set aside for crude from the Bakken in ND and MT.

2. There will be some processing in the US, adding value.

3.  It still adds to world supply, thus driving down prices.  I raise wheat.  I guarantee you that if Russia, or another major country, has a very good year and produces a lot of wheat, the price of wheat goes DOWN in the US.
Adding supply to the world, DOES take down the price, even if not one barrel is actually consumed here in the US.  Why so many cannot understand that, I do not know.

4.  If the s++t really hit the fan in the future, and overseas countries shut us off from foreign crude, I guarantee you that the crude coming down that pipeline would be diverted, and stay here in the US, so it makes it a nice back up supply in case of emergency.

5.  Canada WILL produce the oil.  As Serk says, we can either get a cut, by shipping thru here, and maybe refining some, or we can force them to ship it west, and directly to Asia, bypassing us altogether.

Obama has done everything in his power to stop traditional energy production in this country.  In oil, he has put almost all oil in national areas off limits.  Thank God he has not found a way to stop production on individual lands, and state lands.

After shutting off new production on Fed lands, the b*****rd stands up there in front of us, and takes credit for our increased production of oil, and the lower gas prices!  Lying B*****RD!

I believe if we opened up Fed lands, and had a push to develop coal energy, using newer, cleaner methods, within 10 years we could be virtually energy independent. But, for Libs, that is terrible, because they HATE traditional energy sources.  And, he is a Lib to the core.

MP