This seems to be a fairly accurate description of the pipeline and it's effects: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/keystone-oil-pipeline-seen-raising-gas-prices-in-midwest-energy.html
The Economist wrote: "The final section of the pipeline would have taken oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf coast, helping to alleviate a persistent price differential between Brent crude, the global benchmark oil, and West Texas Intermediate. Cushing, where most American oil is delivered is landlocked. There is not nearly enough pipeline capacity to the Gulf where global markets set prices. Unfortunately for American drivers, petrol (gasoline) is globally traded. The upshot is that local refiners can buy cheap Cushing crude and sell petrol at dearer global prices." http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/keystone-xl That part of the pipeline has been approved. Gerry From: "Curt Raymond" <curtlud...@yahoo.com> > As of today there is no approved route through Nebraska. How could Obama > approve a pipeline where the route is unknown? Are we supposed to take the > oil companies word for it? > -Curt > > From: Rich Thomas <richthomas79td...@constructivity.net> > They are going to mine it anyway, and sell it to the Chinese, so whether > it is dirty or whatever is not relevant to the argument. The Canadians > are not so tied up in the fringe issue at this time. > > I don't know if the pipeline will be above ground or below ground > through Nebraska (have not seen the design). If it is below ground it > is basically "out of sight, out of mind." There are thousands of miles > of pipelines (hundreds of thousands in the US I think) and most of them > are underground, and basically unnoticeable. I observed a large > pipeline being laid in Texas (probably 24" or maybe bigger, hard to tell > from the road) and once they finished a section and back-filled it, > there was no evidence it was even there, save the occasional pump > station every mile or few. And there are even pipelines in > Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen there yet (well, that is > debatable, but you know what I mean...). > > The arguments against the pipeline (not the oil) are basically > political, depending on where you fall on the spectrum, and are mostly > unfounded based on anecdotal reality or any objective assessments. > Keystone is going to build the pipeline (at least parts of it) anyway, > the issue is the connection across the border, which for some reason the > Dept of State has weighed in on, and maybe the Nebraska route aspects > (which was approved, environmentally, already). The oil seems to be > fairly nasty stuff, but given it is going to be produced anyway, might > as well get the benefit for the US economy. > > The whole thing is a political treat tossed to Obama's enviro base (at > the expense of the union base that would build the pipeline), and after > the election, either way it goes, the pipeline will be approved, actual > private-sector and privately-funded jobs will obtain, and life will go > on. Nothing more complicated than that. > > --R > > On 2/29/12 1:02 PM, Curt Raymond wrote: >> Its dirty and they have to basically boil it out of the ground or strip mine >> it, it doesn't flow on its own. Environmentally its not particularly great >> stuff. It also takes quite a large energy input to retrieve... >> >> Read up on the Keystone XL through Nebraska. In a lot of cases the pipeline >> people threatened land owners with land takings (eminent domain) if they >> didn't want to allow the pipeline across their land. In a lot of Nebraska >> Keystone XL just ain't gonna happen. As far as I'm concerned our president >> is NOT in the wrong in rejecting the proposal. >> >> -Curt _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
