The Keystone I has had more first-year spills (12) than any other pipeline in history.

 

12 spills is not something we should just write off as "it happens."(not your words) It speaks to their commitment to quality and safety.

 

Would have to see the causes of the spills but I would think on this one they and the unions constructing it would both be under the microscope given the high profile.

Would have to see the causes of the spills but I would think on this one they and the unions constructing it would both be under the microscope given the high profile.

 

The pipeline itself is being made in China ( I think).

Are you assuming the oil that makes it to the Gulf stays in the States?

 

Yes, I've said that twice. It can certainly be arranged as part of the approval. Even if it doesn't it's another influx of oil which will impact prices worldwide. Look what our friends in the mid east do when there's even talk about releasing some of our reserves.

The pipeline itself is being made in China ( I think).

 

I would think the spills are in the seams, not thru the material but I don't really know.

Research Clyde.. Looking at both sides of the subject. Not just one side. The true facts often lie somewhere in the middle.. Care to expound as to why you believe what you believe ?

Yes, I've said that twice. It can certainly be arranged as part of the approval. Even if it doesn't it's another influx of oil which will impact prices worldwide. Look what our friends in the mid east do when there's even talk about releasing some of our reserves.

 

The refineries in the Gulf are looking to increase exports. The US demand is decreasing due to more efficiency and slow economic growth plus increased production will lead to more exports.

 

Many of the companies, such as Valero, who have contracted for portions of the supply have detailed exporting strategies to their investors.

 

The oil market is global. US companies will sell to the market regardless of where that oil is going.

 

I just have not read any reports that show why the refined product will stay in the States and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I guess I'm asking what you're basing your belief upon.

edit

Edited December 18, 201114 yr by Clyde

One more thing: I mentioned Valero. They are one of 6 companies who have committed to buying the refined product. As I stated they have told investors they plan on being big exporters. The other 5 are all foreign-owned companies. Are we to assume they will be good US allies and not play the world markets?

I don't understand the whole scope of this project. I'm confused how it would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the line would produce oil for exporting. Which leads me to another question...why would we export our own oil? Why not keep it domestic and reduce the amount of foreign oil we purchase?

 

Who is "we" when you say "why would we export our own oil?

 

Corporations buy the refined product.

All environmental studies have been complete for some time now. Nebraska had some questions about one of their water systems so they changed the route of the pipeline to Nebraska's satisfaction. Obama is the main hold up on this project,period.

 

Please forward to the forward this info to the proper agencies so can can go and read the completed studies. Fine example of the government failing to do their job.

The refineries in the Gulf are looking to increase exports. The US demand is decreasing due to more efficiency and slow economic growth plus increased production will lead to more exports.

 

Many of the companies, such as Valero, who have contracted for portions of the supply have detailed exporting strategies to their investors.

 

The oil market is global. US companies will sell to the market regardless of where that oil is going.

 

I just have not read any reports that show why the refined product will stay in the States and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I guess I'm asking what you're basing your belief upon.

 

I haven't seen anything that would make me believe they wouldn't sell to the US either. The approval could certainly be made contingent on the US getting some, if not all of the oil. It is global and as I've said, you put that into the market and it will have a positive effect on worldwide prices even if it's going elsewhere.

 

Why do you think Obama's former National Security Advisor thinks it is a matter of national security?

 

Why do you think Obama was set to ok it before the protest at the White House?

One more thing: I mentioned Valero. They are one of 6 companies who have committed to buying the refined product. As I stated they have told investors they plan on being big exporters. The other 5 are all foreign-owned companies. Are we to assume they will be good US allies and not play the world markets?

 

If they want to bring it across our land we can make any demands we want.

 

As for what investors have been told, that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I haven't seen anything that would make me believe they wouldn't sell to the US either. The approval could certainly be made contingent on the US getting some, if not all of the oil. It is global and as I've said, you put that into the market and it will have a positive effect on worldwide prices even if it's going elsewhere.

 

Why do you think Obama's former National Security Advisor thinks it is a matter of national security?

 

Why do you think Obama was set to ok it before the protest at the White House?

 

"Could" be made? I haven't seen that approval requirement.

 

While I agree that it can have an impact on prices that's not the reason people are saying to approve it. They're saying it will lessen our dependence. There is no evidence of that.

 

I do not know the answers to your last two questions. I do know I just read that a General said it will not make us safer .

 

I also seem to remember that global warming is now considered to be a potential national security issue. The process required to move and process the bitumen is much, much more harmful to the climate than conventional crude oil. The Pentagon now monitors global warming in regards to safety.

If they want to bring it across our land we can make any demands we want.

 

As for what investors have been told, that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You're speaking about what we "could" do. None of what you mention as "could" has been proposed yet. Why are we bringing that into the debate when it's not reality? The issue is granting the right to a company to move tar sand oil from Canada to the Gulf. That's it. They've made no promises about anything. That's what's being said should be approved.

I do know I just read that a General said it will not make us safer .

And this General thinks different: “I feel strongly approving the project serves the economic and security interests of the United States,” said Ret. Gen. Jim Jones, who served as Obama’s national security adviser from January 2009 through October 2010. “Continued dependence on far-flung supplies creates uncertainties that impede competitiveness and send the wrong message to (manufacturers).”