But we do agree on something!

[zelmo1234]

I think that we as a nation have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, and stop putting those poison pills onto the things that we agree about!

For example here are a few things that the vast majority of people actually agree on, and we can't get them done, because the opposition poisons the legislation with items that the other side would never vote for.

#1 Instant back ground checks using the same criteria as they use today for every gun sale!

#2 Allowing people and companies to bring money back into the USA and invest it in the US economy without having to pay an additional tax on these earnings. NO double taxation on this money

#3 approval of the Keystone pipeline

#4 passage of an equal protection act granting all persons the same rights under a government recognized Civil Union and get the Government out of the marriage business!

#5 Stop the illegals from coming across the boarder, using the national Guard if necessary

And while not everyone is going to agree with all of these, they could be done on a bi partisan basis and the majority of Americans would support it!

Each and every issue could be handled by taking everything that both parties agree with and passing just that! Then trying to work out the differences in other legislation

[Green Arrow]

I would only support Keystone if we could be assured of its safety to the environment and the Americans that rely on it, and if that oil was going to the US instead of us paying to have it shipped across our country to China (which, as it stands , is exactly what will happen if Keystone is approved).

[Don]

I would only support Keystone if we could be assured of its safety to the environment and the Americans that rely on it, and if that oil was going to the US instead of us paying to have it shipped across our country to China (which, as it stands , is exactly what will happen if Keystone is approved).

We already have thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. I think their safety record is better than trucks and trains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/USgas.jpg

I think Canada just wants a place to cheaply transport their filthy tar sand oil to get refined and then of course sold on the open market. This way they don't have to build state of the art refineries that are almost impossible to get approved there anyway. The U.S. can refine the stuff and add to our pollution output while Canada can stay clean. Warren Buffet will still make billions transporting the filthy stuff here on his trains.

[zelmo1234]

I would only support Keystone if we could be assured of its safety to the environment and the Americans that rely on it, and if that oil was going to the US instead of us paying to have it shipped across our country to China (which, as it stands , is exactly what will happen if Keystone is approved).

I would agree with this as well, this would take a change in EPA regulations as you can't burn that oil here in the USA at this time.

and Remember the oil is going to the gulf already by rail! it is just more expensive and less safe than a pipeline would be!

But see how fast things can get done. I have no issue with your requests, Boom it gets done that the country moves forward

[donttread]

I think that we as a nation have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, and stop putting those poison pills onto the things that we agree about!

For example here are a few things that the vast majority of people actually agree on, and we can't get them done, because the opposition poisons the legislation with items that the other side would never vote for.

#1 Instant back ground checks using the same criteria as they use today for every gun sale!

#2 Allowing people and companies to bring money back into the USA and invest it in the US economy without having to pay an additional tax on these earnings. NO double taxation on this money

#3 approval of the Keystone pipeline

#4 passage of an equal protection act granting all persons the same rights under a government recognized Civil Union and get the Government out of the marriage business!

#5 Stop the illegals from coming across the boarder, using the national Guard if necessary

And while not everyone is going to agree with all of these, they could be done on a bi partisan basis and the majority of Americans would support it!

Each and every issue could be handled by taking everything that both parties agree with and passing just that! Then trying to work out the differences in other legislation

Number one violates the Constitution. The Second Amendment cannot be circumvented via mob rule

[Green Arrow]

We already have thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. I think their safety record is better than trucks and trains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/USgas.jpg

I think Canada just wants a place to cheaply transport their filthy tar sand oil to get refined and then of course sold on the open market. This way they don't have to build state of the art refineries that are almost impossible to get approved there anyway. The U.S. can refine the stuff and add to our pollution output while Canada can stay clean. Warren Buffet will still make billions transporting the filthy stuff here on his trains.

I'm not entirely sure, Don, if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me :tongue:

[Mainecoons]

I would only support Keystone if we could be assured of its safety to the environment and the Americans that rely on it, and if that oil was going to the US instead of us paying to have it shipped across our country to China (which, as it stands , is exactly what will happen if Keystone is approved).

They would be paying us to ship it. Some of it would go to refineries in Texas. These days with transport costs up it is most cost effect to refine and then ship.

[Green Arrow]

They would be paying us to ship it. Some of it would go to refineries in Texas. These days with transport costs up it is most cost effect to refine and then ship.

I don't care. We should not turn our nation into China's pipeline. The only oil that should be passing through this country and getting sold to other nations is our own.

[Bob]

I think that we as a nation have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, and stop putting those poison pills onto the things that we agree about!

For example here are a few things that the vast majority of people actually agree on, and we can't get them done, because the opposition poisons the legislation with items that the other side would never vote for.

#1 Instant back ground checks using the same criteria as they use today for every gun sale!

#2 Allowing people and companies to bring money back into the USA and invest it in the US economy without having to pay an additional tax on these earnings. NO double taxation on this money

#3 approval of the Keystone pipeline

#4 passage of an equal protection act granting all persons the same rights under a government recognized Civil Union and get the Government out of the marriage business!

#5 Stop the illegals from coming across the boarder, using the national Guard if necessary

And while not everyone is going to agree with all of these, they could be done on a bi partisan basis and the majority of Americans would support it!

Each and every issue could be handled by taking everything that both parties agree with and passing just that! Then trying to work out the differences in other legislation

We did Number 4 in California and the US Supreme Court tossed it out.

Years ago, we voted to have civil unions to correct problems for a group of citizens.

They challenged it by saying the civil union is a ban. It was not a ban but it did not matter since the change to our state constitution was eliminated by a court.

When the goal of Obama is to import more Democrat voters, i doubt he would agree to seal the border.

And more, I saw them lying to Congress on the illegals as well.

To wit: The admin insisted the illegal children come from violence ridden areas. Problem is another testified there was no problems for the children where they came from. (testimony stated kids were interviewed to find out problems and there have been none) The admin is trying very hard to hunt down any sort of relative to put the kids with. This is a direct result of the Dreamers EO issued by Obama. This is 100 percent his fault.

[Bob]

I would only support Keystone if we could be assured of its safety to the environment and the Americans that rely on it, and if that oil was going to the US instead of us paying to have it shipped across our country to China (which, as it stands , is exactly what will happen if Keystone is approved).

Keystone is far more safe than rail. Oil pipes are all over America. I doubt we can purchase gasoline that has not been in a pipeline. States all over America would be frozen out of fuel were pipelines prevented.

Merely because a pipeline crosses into Canada does not mean the steel for the pipe is not safe. Engineers work this out.

The myth that Keystone oil ends up in China is just a myth.

By law, the oil sent to TX must be used in the USA or to currently approved places who trade with the USA. Mexico ships oil to the USA and so does Canada. Naturally it would be wrong to get their oil and not ship back gasoline. @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

[Bob]

We already have thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. I think their safety record is better than trucks and trains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/USgas.jpg

I think Canada just wants a place to cheaply transport their filthy tar sand oil to get refined and then of course sold on the open market. This way they don't have to build state of the art refineries that are almost impossible to get approved there anyway. The U.S. can refine the stuff and add to our pollution output while Canada can stay clean. Warren Buffet will still make billions transporting the filthy stuff here on his trains.

I admit to being baffled. I simply do not understand the term "filthy oil." Democrats love this nonsense term but is this a term used by the oil industry?

Sand is clean normally. Oil is oil. It would perhaps be "dirty" if high in sulfur, but sulfur is easy to cull out of crude oil. It is done all the time.

FACTS (some great data by Alberta)
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp

[Green Arrow]

The myth that Keystone oil ends up in China is just a myth.

By law, the oil sent to TX must be used in the USA or to currently approved places who trade with the USA. Mexico ships oil to the USA and so does Canada. Naturally it would be wrong to get their oil and not ship back gasoline. @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

Source, Bob.

[Chris]

We already have thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. I think their safety record is better than trucks and trains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/USgas.jpg

I think Canada just wants a place to cheaply transport their filthy tar sand oil to get refined and then of course sold on the open market. This way they don't have to build state of the art refineries that are almost impossible to get approved there anyway. The U.S. can refine the stuff and add to our pollution output while Canada can stay clean. Warren Buffet will still make billions transporting the filthy stuff here on his trains.


Even the government said Keystone was safe. And TransCanada added safety features still.

[zelmo1234]

Number one violates the Constitution. The Second Amendment cannot be circumvented via mob rule

NO it does not, If you have bought a gun in the past 15 years you had an instant background check!

The NRA is not against the instant background check! They helped put the system together!

I am as pro gun as anyone, but waiting 5 mins to get your gun from the store is not denying your rights

[zelmo1234]

We did Number 4 in California and the US Supreme Court tossed it out.

Years ago, we voted to have civil unions to correct problems for a group of citizens.

They challenged it by saying the civil union is a ban. It was not a ban but it did not matter since the change to our state constitution was eliminated by a court.

When the goal of Obama is to import more Democrat voters, i doubt he would agree to seal the border.

And more, I saw them lying to Congress on the illegals as well.

To wit: The admin insisted the illegal children come from violence ridden areas. Problem is another testified there was no problems for the children where they came from. (testimony stated kids were interviewed to find out problems and there have been none) The admin is trying very hard to hunt down any sort of relative to put the kids with. This is a direct result of the Dreamers EO issued by Obama. This is 100 percent his fault.

Yes if the government issues marriage license for one group and civil union for others, you have an issue.

If it issues civil union for all, and does not have a marriage license, and leaves marriage to the church? Then it is constitutional

[Bob]

Yes if the government issues marriage license for one group and civil union for others, you have an issue.

If it issues civil union for all, and does not have a marriage license, and leaves marriage to the church? Then it is constitutional

An interesting point you made.

Church does not issue marriage licenses in CA. Nor the civil union in the case of homosexuals.

I look at it the way I look at drivers licenses.

Here we get a license to drive vehicles. If one drives a truck, they get the license that allows that. I have not heard of a trucker that did not also drive a car thus they get two licenses.

Homosexual licenses came about due to them saying they had a need. They kicked up a fuss that the term civil union was not called marriage. They got what marriage gave them and in my view, made much about nothing.

[Bob]

Source, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013).

I will do it gladly. After you prove your claim first, to wit: that the oil will be sent to China.

Thank you Green Arrow

[zelmo1234]

I will do it gladly. After you prove your claim first, to wit: that the oil will be sent to China.

Thank you @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

He is right.

Oil from the oil shale and the tar sands, is not light sweet crude, It has a higher sulfur level in it!

So the EPA does not allow the gas produced from it to be burned in the USA, so they ship it to other countries, Ship in light sweet crude from the middle east refine it and burn it here

But the oil is already going to the gulf, by trains! and it is refined and shipped to other nations.

I would love to see the laws change it would lower energy prices

[Chris]

He is right.

Oil from the oil shale and the tar sands, is not light sweet crude, It has a higher sulfur level in it!

So the EPA does not allow the gas produced from it to be burned in the USA, so they ship it to other countries, Ship in light sweet crude from the middle east refine it and burn it here

But the oil is already going to the gulf, by trains! and it is refined and shipped to other nations.

I would love to see the laws change it would lower energy prices


True, Keystone is just a pipeline to get it to refiners before shipping it out elsewhere. Kill Keystone and CA will ship it elsewhere for refining.

[Bob]

He is right.

Oil from the oil shale and the tar sands, is not light sweet crude, It has a higher sulfur level in it!

So the EPA does not allow the gas produced from it to be burned in the USA, so they ship it to other countries, Ship in light sweet crude from the middle east refine it and burn it here

But the oil is already going to the gulf, by trains! and it is refined and shipped to other nations.

I would love to see the laws change it would lower energy prices

All I have to say is read the factual report

http://keystone-xl.com/facts/myths-facts/

Crude oil is not exclusively used to produce gasoline
Crude oil is used to produce thousands of products that we use every day, not just gasoline and diesel. Crude oil feedstock is used to create the plastics that encase our cell phones and televisions, asphalt for our roads and even the latex gloves doctors use when delivering a baby. The people suggesting that the oil Keystone XL will transport will be used to exclusively to make gasoline or diesel is simply a guess and they know that.
The United States consumes the vast majority of its refined products
The claim that “much of this oil is for export (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-keystone-pipeline-20140202,0,5029170.story) ” is actually contrary to the facts, market analysis and what actual refiners and customers of Keystone XL have said. The fact is the U.S. consumes the vast majority of all the refined products it produces. In 2012, only about 9% of U.S. refined on-road motor fuel was exported (http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/keystone-xl/~/media/Files/Policy/Keystone-XL-Pipeline/Exports-talking-points-6-6-13.ashx) – the other 91 per cent was consumed in the United States first.
State Department’s finds Keystone XL won’t impact export trends
The State Department’s market analysis in Keystone XL’s final supplemental environmental impact statement states (http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205654.pdf) , “U.S. product exports are not sensitive to different scenarios of pipeline development.” Essentially saying that exports occur (and have occurred for more than 20 years) with or without Keystone XL and the project would not impact those those trends.
What do our customers say?
Bill Day, spokesperson for oil refining company Valero, has told media (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/keystone-supporters-hit-back-at-pelosis-export-criticism/article9843411/) that the export allegations are, “completely wrong” and that “Over the past several quarters, Valero has exported less than 10 per cent of the gasoline it makes. The vast majority of what we make in the U.S. stays in the U.S.”
- See more at: http://keystone-xl.com/facts/myths-facts/#sthash.M1cjw76X.dpuf

More on exports
To sell abroad or stay at home: Those are the terms of a debate roiling the U.S. oil industry. At the heart of the disagreement is a 1975 ban on U.S. oil exports imposed by Congress when domestic reserves were dwindling and the country was still spooked by the 1973 Arab embargo. Thanks to new technology, oil production in the U.S. now tops 8 million barrels a day, the highest since 1988. That’s prompted U.S. producers to call for an end to the ban so they can serve new markets. Refiners and other companies want the ban maintained to benefit from the cheap prices of the local oil they use to make gasoline, chemicals, and plastics. “This debate is a major slugfest between industrial consumers and producers of oil,” says Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas.
A recent development has put a spotlight on the dispute. In late June, the Commerce Department determined that two Texas companies, Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=PXD)) and Enterprise Products Partners (EPD (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=EPD)), could start exporting an ultralight type of crude called condensate, which occurs naturally as a gas and condenses into a liquid once drilled out of the ground. Condensate is added to heavier crudes to make them easier to refine, and is a basic ingredient for chemicals. Horizontal drilling has unlocked far more condensate than the U.S. can use. Exporting it should relieve the surplus building up. The two companies had asked Commerce if minimally processed condensate could be classified as a refined product, which can be exported. Commerce said it could but insisted the ruling doesn’t open the door to abolishing the ban.
http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-07-10/econ_oilchart1_29_315.jpg
The ruling could be a precursor to rolling it back. In April, Texas Republican congressman Michael McCaul introduced a bill to end the ban, but the likelihood of Congress passing it seems slim, with both houses in near-gridlock and powerful industries lined up on either side of the issue. Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is perhaps the person in Congress best placed to lead the effort to kill the ban. But she’s facing a tough reelection this year and has both refiners and oil producers in her state. Two senators, Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), are asking Commerce why its ruling doesn’t violate the ban. And there’s some movement from the executive branch. In May, presidential adviser John Podesta said the possibility of allowing crude exports is “a topic that’s under consideration” at the White House.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-10/u-dot-s-dot-oil-export-ban-the-debate-heats-up
Green Arrow zelmo1234

[Common]

I think that we as a nation have to agree to disagree on a lot of things, and stop putting those poison pills onto the things that we agree about!

For example here are a few things that the vast majority of people actually agree on, and we can't get them done, because the opposition poisons the legislation with items that the other side would never vote for.

#1 Instant back ground checks using the same criteria as they use today for every gun sale!

#2 Allowing people and companies to bring money back into the USA and invest it in the US economy without having to pay an additional tax on these earnings. NO double taxation on this money

#3 approval of the Keystone pipeline

#4 passage of an equal protection act granting all persons the same rights under a government recognized Civil Union and get the Government out of the marriage business!

#5 Stop the illegals from coming across the boarder, using the national Guard if necessary

And while not everyone is going to agree with all of these, they could be done on a bi partisan basis and the majority of Americans would support it!

Each and every issue could be handled by taking everything that both parties agree with and passing just that! Then trying to work out the differences in other legislation

I agree with damn near all of them, let me read them again to be sure I may agree with all of them, I agree with all of them completely except two. I can go for allowing them to bring money back in and not tax it. After that NO more tax breaks and subsidies you either make it or break it on your own dime. But were on the same page zelmo

Whether you realize it or not, your actually right in the middle of the two parties and its called being reasonable and having common sense. Something the far right and far left have none of and thats why this country is where its at

[Chris]

Yea, zelmo's becoming more libertarian everyday!!

[Bob]

True, Keystone is just a pipeline to get it to refiners before shipping it out elsewhere. Kill Keystone and CA will ship it elsewhere for refining.


A ban still exists on exports.

CA does not get Keystone oil. We do get Baaken oil by rail. We prefer it come by pipes.

Pipes are proven to be safe and they last a very long time.

[Bob]

He is right.

Oil from the oil shale and the tar sands, is not light sweet crude, It has a higher sulfur level in it!

So the EPA does not allow the gas produced from it to be burned in the USA, so they ship it to other countries, Ship in light sweet crude from the middle east refine it and burn it here

But the oil is already going to the gulf, by trains! and it is refined and shipped to other nations.

I would love to see the laws change it would lower energy prices

I hate to put it this way, but as usual, Green Arrow is just wrong. I proved it in a post above this post several up from this one.

There is a federal ban. Obama has been looking at if it should be stopped.

[Green Arrow]

I will do it gladly. After you prove your claim first, to wit: that the oil will be sent to China.

Thank you @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

So, you can't prove my claim wrong. Awesome.

[Chris]

A ban still exists on exports.

CA does not get Keystone oil. We do get Baaken oil by rail. We prefer it come by pipes.

Pipes are proven to be safe and they last a very long time.


CA has the shale oil. They want to sell it.

Yes, even a study Obama requested found it safe.

[Bob]

CA has the shale oil. They want to sell it.

Yes, even a study Obama requested found it safe.

Chris, I admit that I have never carefully studied the oil we have in CA though I know where the oil fields are.

I believe we may have shale oil. But as I said, I have not checked it out.

[Bob]

So, you can't prove my claim wrong. Awesome.

I proved you are wrong. You are welcome Green Arrow

[Dr. Who]

Chris, I admit that I have never carefully studied the oil we have in CA though I know where the oil fields are.

I believe we may have shale oil. But as I said, I have not checked it out.
Bob, Chris means Canada when he says CA.

[Common]

Yea, zelmo's becoming more libertarian everyday!!

Shows he has common sense and the ability to reason on his own and make his own decisions, unlike partisan puppets and parrots.

[Green Arrow]

I proved you are wrong. You are welcome @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

No, you really didn't. You posted TransCanada's defense of their own product. If I created a website that said "Everything Green Arrow says is true," would you accept that as acceptable proof in a debate?

[Bob]

No, you really didn't. You posted TransCanada's defense of their own product. If I created a website that said "Everything Green Arrow says is true," would you accept that as acceptable proof in a debate?

So, you suffer with sites you don't like. Green Arrow

I also posted a link proving that this country bans oil exports.

I knew that because I studied it when you were still in diapers.

Learn to trust me son. I won't lie to you.

i would be interested in your spin why Alberta Canada would tell us a lie?

[Bob]

Shows he has common sense and the ability to reason on his own and make his own decisions, unlike partisan puppets and parrots.

Another name for libertarians is the tea party.

Actually I and Zelmo see 99.9999 eye to eye. The man is smart and I wish others laid off him over word spelling.

[Green Arrow]

So, you suffer with sites you don't like. @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

Answer the question. If I created a website that said "Everything Green Arrow says is true," would you accept that as acceptable proof in a debate?

[zelmo1234]

I agree with damn near all of them, let me read them again to be sure I may agree with all of them, I agree with all of them completely except two. I can go for allowing them to bring money back in and not tax it. After that NO more tax breaks and subsidies you either make it or break it on your own dime. But were on the same page zelmo

Whether you realize it or not, your actually right in the middle of the two parties and its called being reasonable and having common sense. Something the far right and far left have none of and thats why this country is where its at

It is because I am not a republican, I am a conservative and this and my guiding light!

http://www.monticelloshop.org/203289.html

I have the Declaration and the constitution on real parchment! Any thing that the government does that is not in here, is not OK in my book

And I think that you know I am totally for ending all subsidies for all business.

I think that we have to get the corporate tax under control as the world has lowered it! But that is not one of the things all can agree on right now.

They need to spend 2 years just getting the things done that they agree on, and many of them would make the government smaller, which is where it needs to be

[zelmo1234]

Another name for libertarians is the tea party.

Actually I and Zelmo see 99.9999 eye to eye. The man is smart and I wish others laid off him over word spelling.

Well you must admit that I have a condition!!!!! :)

don't ever waste your time trying to defend me, it really does not bother me!

When it comes down to spelling and grammar? I pretty much have them in a corner!

[zelmo1234]

Yea, zelmo's becoming more libertarian everyday!!

I think that you will find that I am a constitutional conservative, and that I have not really changed at all!

So if I seem more in line with you? you are likely moving toward me?

[zelmo1234]

So, you suffer with sites you don't like. @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

I also posted a link proving that this country bans oil exports.

I knew that because I studied it when you were still in diapers.

Learn to trust me son. I won't lie to you.

i would be interested in your spin why Alberta Canada would tell us a lie?

yes but not exports of refined products.

But I think that they changed that a few days ago???? Or are thinking about changing it?

Not really sure

[del]

yes but not exports of refined products.

But I think that they changed that a few days ago???? Or are thinking about changing it?

Not really sure

refined exports have always been allowed. the govt recently allowed the export of Condensate, which is a crude byproduct of fracking

since all the oil that would go through keystone is foreign, i don't understand why it matters.

keystone is a horrible plan and won't do shit to lower the price of energy in the us nor will it provide jobs at any meaningful level once construction ends

[Bob]

Answer the question. If I created a website that said "Everything Green Arrow says is true," would you accept that as acceptable proof in a debate?

Hell no. I don't believe half of what you say to begin with.

I do believe what the law says.

As I said, I not only posted from an official site in Canada, but posted the discussion of the law and why we can't ship products to China.

I asked you to prove we ship them to China but you refuse to. I believe you can't prove it and divert to this way to debate. Green Arrow

[Bob]

refined exports have always been allowed. the govt recently allowed the export of Condensate, which is a crude byproduct of fracking

since all the oil that would go through keystone is foreign, i don't understand why it matters.

keystone is a horrible plan and won't do shit to lower the price of energy in the us nor will it provide jobs at any meaningful level once construction ends

Do we believe del or the experts.

Hell, I guess I believe the experts.

Show us proof China gets products from crude made in the USA?

Still, Keystone is for crude and not finished products.

[Green Arrow]

Hell no. I don't believe half of what you say to begin with.

I do believe what the law says.

As I said, I not only posted from an official site in Canada, but posted the discussion of the law and why we can't ship products to China.

I asked you to prove we ship them to China but you refuse to. I believe you can't prove it and divert to this way to debate. @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

The "official site in Canada" you posted was the site of the business that is trying to build Keystone. It is the exact same thing as taking a website I created saying "Green Arrow is always right" as undisputed fact.

[Bob]

yes but not exports of refined products.

But I think that they changed that a few days ago???? Or are thinking about changing it?

Not really sure

Let's first be fair to @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868). I asked him for proof we sent products to China of crude.

Now, he refused to prove his claim. I then did more research.

I found that under Obama, he kicked it way up. That during Bush, a small trickle made its way to China.

I apologize to @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) since I am wrong on this issue.

As to the product going from the terminal where Keystone oil will head to? I don't know the source of crude sent to China.

Since China is off the west coast of the USA, it seems likely it went from a refinery in a western state. Might be a bit from Alaska. So the question was where does the crude go from Tx and the reply is not it heads to China.

My claim is zero went to China. My apology is sincere.

I had to prove it to myself to get the truth.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttexch1&f=a

[del]

Hell no. I don't believe half of what you say to begin with.

I do believe what the law says.

As I said, I not only posted from an official site in Canada, but posted the discussion of the law and why we can't ship products to China.

I asked you to prove we ship them to China but you refuse to. I believe you can't prove it and divert to this way to debate. @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

it's easily proven, bobby

4.25 million barrels in April

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXCH1&f=M

[del]

Do we believe @del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770) or the experts.

Hell, I guess I believe the experts.

Show us proof China gets products from crude made in the USA?

Still, Keystone is for crude and not finished products.

you got a mouse in your pocket, old man?

already did, bobby

you know keystone will transport canadian oil, right bobby?

do you think they'll give us a discount? lol

[Bob]

refined exports have always been allowed. the govt recently allowed the export of Condensate, which is a crude byproduct of fracking

since all the oil that would go through keystone is foreign, i don't understand why it matters.

keystone is a horrible plan and won't do shit to lower the price of energy in the us nor will it provide jobs at any meaningful level once construction ends

Let's see.

Saudi Oil .... good
Nigerian oil ... all good
Canada oil ... super good
Mexico oil .. awesome
Even oil from Venezuela ... super

If we send a bit out, terrible

I get it.

[Green Arrow]

Let's see.

Saudi Oil .... good
Nigerian oil ... all good
Canada oil ... super good
Mexico oil .. awesome
Even oil from Venezuela ... super

If we send a bit out, terrible

I get it.

I can't speak for del, but my opinion is that all of those are bad and only American oil is good. We should never be dependent on another nation's natural resources. Japan was dependent on our national resources in the lead up to WWII, and what happened when we cut those resources off?

[Bob]

it's easily proven, bobby

4.25 million barrels in April

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXCH1&f=M

You admit Obama allows this?

Holy cow sonny.

Since I found my proof earlier, you are correct.

Prove a drop of that comes from TX?

No point when the west coast has a lot of places to send oil products to China.

[Bob]

I can't speak for del, but my opinion is that all of those are bad and only American oil is good. We should never be dependent on another nation's natural resources. Japan was dependent on our national resources in the lead up to WWII, and what happened when we cut those resources off?

So, oil we get from Canada is bad? Do you fear Canada? Green Arrow

Bear in mind that the topic was oil from Keystone from Canada and your claim is the oil went to China.

Maybe you are right but it makes zero sense since we have plenty of sites in west states that are much closer to China and have ships able to go to China. Had you said oil from the west states get to China, I would still have recalled the law but it would have made more sense.

[Bob]

it's easily proven, bobby

4.25 million barrels in April

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXCH1&f=M

The issue was crude to TX ending up in China.

I see no proof you are accurate.

[Green Arrow]

So, oil we get from Canada is bad? Do you fear Canada? @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)


What an absurd question. Of course I don't fear Canada. I just don't believe we should be dependent on foreign oil, from any source.


Bear in mind that the topic was oil from Keystone from Canada and your claim is the oil went to China.

Some of it will be, yes. But pretty much all of it will be exported (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-everything-you-need-to-know), if not to China, then to some other nation. It's a bad deal.


Maybe you are right but it makes zero sense since we have plenty of sites in west states that are much closer to China and have ships able to go to China. Had you said oil from the west states get to China, I would still have recalled the law but it would have made more sense.

Shipping lanes rarely take direct routes, because they often deliver to multiple nations in one trip, and do not just deliver to one nation.

Besides, there's another concern that nobody is talking about with Keystone that has nothing to do with the environment or exporting.

[Bob]

Green Arrow; as VAST as your knowledge of crude oil is, and the vast knowledge of crude oil pipes, explain how oil from Canada ends up in China?

Canada has promised to sell the crude to China if Obama fucks up. Seems they can move it to China but how?

Pipes to TX or piles to west Canada?

China is much closer to the west of N. America.

Explain the logic of them sending it to TX and by magic it ends up in China?

You too del.

del, so long as Obama is in the white house, kiss your ass goodbye to lower fuel prices. His policy is to keep prices super high. He has zero interest in fair prices for gasoline.

He is the biggest shill for big oil I have ever seen in the white house.

[Green Arrow]

@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868); as VAST as your knowledge of crude oil is, and the vast knowledge of crude oil pipes, explain how oil from Canada ends up in China?

This is why I get tired of discussing things with you, Bob. You go off on ridiculous assertions about what I'm saying, instead of just sticking to what I actually say. It gets tiring. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post, because it's rude and doesn't once address a thing I've said, but just parrots your extreme extrapolations of what I've said.

[Bob]

What an absurd question. Of course I don't fear Canada. I just don't believe we should be dependent on foreign oil, from any source.



Some of it will be, yes. But pretty much all of it will be exported (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-everything-you-need-to-know), if not to China, then to some other nation. It's a bad deal.



Shipping lanes rarely take direct routes, because they often deliver to multiple nations in one trip, and do not just deliver to one nation.

Besides, there's another concern that nobody is talking about with Keystone that has nothing to do with the environment or exporting.

Son, there are no absurd questions. There are absurd answers though.

When you picked Obama, he vowed to make us pay for using petroleum products. He got caught flat footed by the Baaken oil and had not planned for it to show up.

Obama is the largest supporter of big oil. He has kept policies to keep prices high. Not merely in CA, but all over America.

If Canada wants that oil to get to China, all they need is a pipe to the west and bingo, oil to China.

We will fuck ourselves out of that crude if Obama gets his way. To ship to China, you ship from the west coast.

TX where Keystone ends is not a natural route to Asia.

Obama will fuck us all. I am sure he will.

[Bob]

This is why I get tired of discussing things with you, Bob. You go off on ridiculous assertions about what I'm saying, instead of just sticking to what I actually say. It gets tiring. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post, because it's rude and doesn't once address a thing I've said, but just parrots your extreme extrapolations of what I've said.

You mean you are not an expert?

Hell, all you had to do is say so.

[Green Arrow]

Son, there are no absurd questions. There are absurd answers though.

When you picked Obama, he vowed to make us pay for using petroleum products. He got caught flat footed by the Baaken oil and had not planned for it to show up.

Obama is the largest supporter of big oil. He has kept policies to keep prices high. Not merely in CA, but all over America.

If Canada wants that oil to get to China, all they need is a pipe to the west and bingo, oil to China.

We will fuck ourselves out of that crude if Obama gets his way. To ship to China, you ship from the west coast.

TX where Keystone ends is not a natural route to Asia.

Obama will fuck us all. I am sure he will.

I'm having difficulty finding a more modern map, but this is a map of world trade routes from 1912:

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/img/worldtraderoutes1912.png

As you can see, one of those routes goes from San Francisco to Liverpool. By your logic, why wouldn't they just trade from New York to Liverpool? Instead, the trade route from New York goes all the way down south of South America, and back up around to San Francisco.

Clearly, trade doesn't work like you think it works, which brings us back to my point that you could not rebut.

Oh, and by the way, do not call me "son" again. You are not my father, and I am not your son.

[Bob]

Bob to Green Arrow

I deleted references to you being the forum oil expert.

Now will you answer the questions?

Canada has promised to sell the crude to China if Obama fucks up. Seems they can move it to China but how?

Pipes to TX or piles to west Canada?

China is much closer to the west of N. America.

Explain the logic of them sending it to TX and by magic it ends up in China?

You too @del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770).

del, so long as Obama is in the white house, kiss your ass goodbye to lower fuel prices. His policy is to keep prices super high. He has zero interest in fair prices for gasoline.

He is the biggest shill for big oil I have ever seen in the white house.

[Green Arrow]

You mean you are not an expert?

Hell, all you had to do is say so.

Unlike you, Bob, I don't parade around like a peacock, trying to make myself sound like an expert when I'm really not. So, since I've never claimed to be an expert, I feel no need to say I am not one.

[Bob]

I'm having difficulty finding a more modern map, but this is a map of world trade routes from 1912:

As you can see, one of those routes goes from San Francisco to Liverpool. By your logic, why wouldn't they just trade from New York to Liverpool? Instead, the trade route from New York goes all the way down south of South America, and back up around to San Francisco.

Clearly, trade doesn't work like you think it works, which brings us back to my point that you could not rebut.

Oh, and by the way, do not call me "son" again. You are not my father, and I am not your son.

Since Crude is on the west coast, and China is off the west coast, the route would head directly to China today.

For some odd reason, you think oil from TX goes to China.

I will be happy if you prove that. I had to find my own proof any oil from the US ends up in China. I tried to allow you to prove it but had to do it myself.

Then i apologized. Do you ever apologize?

I call you son to honor you. am a very good father to my sons and they are all close to me.

But whatever. I did not say I am your father. Ask around, a lot of our generation call lads son. But i shant say it to you again.

What was going to Liverpool from SF at the time?

I doubt it was crude oil. More than likely it was raw products like silver or lumber.

[Bob]

Unlike you, Bob, I don't parade around like a peacock, trying to make myself sound like an expert when I'm really not. So, since I've never claimed to be an expert, I feel no need to say I am not one.

Lad, persist with the insults and see how far you get.

My knowledge took me almost 76 years to accumulate. How long you been at it?

Don't get pissy.

[Green Arrow]

Since Crude is on the west coast, and China is off the west coast, the route would head directly to China today.

Why? So far, I have nothing but your word to go on. And sorry, but "trust me" isn't good enough. I've shown you plenty of reasons to accept that trade routes don't always go in a straight line. Plus, there's also my response to your next sentence:


For some odd reason, you think oil from TX goes to China.

Conservative Forbes agrees, considering China's state-owned oil company, Sinochem, bought a Texas oil and shale field last year. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/02/03/china-co-buys-texas-oil-gas-field/)

Think they'll ship that oil through a foreign nation to California, or will they just use existing trade routes through the Gulf of Mexico to the Panama Canal, then out to the Pacific and to China?


Then i apologized. Do you ever apologize?

Only if I believe I'm wrong. And I don't.


I call you son to honor you. am a very good father to my sons and they are all close to me.

But whatever. I did not say I am your father. Ask around, a lot of our generation call lads son. But i shant say it to you again.

Yes, and every time someone who is not my father calls me "son," I tell them not to. I appreciate that you consider it respectful, but I do not. Thank you for honoring my request.


What was going to Liverpool from SF at the time?

I doubt it was crude oil. More than likely it was raw products like silver or lumber.

It was 1912, so you're probably right, but that's beside the point. Your assertion is that they wouldn't ship from such a route, they would ship directly from one coast to the other. I proved that trade routes are never straight lines.

[Bob]

Why? So far, I have nothing but your word to go on. And sorry, but "trust me" isn't good enough. I've shown you plenty of reasons to accept that trade routes don't always go in a straight line. Plus, there's also my response to your next sentence:



Conservative Forbes agrees, considering China's state-owned oil company, Sinochem, bought a Texas oil and shale field last year. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/02/03/china-co-buys-texas-oil-gas-field/)

Think they'll ship that oil through a foreign nation to California, or will they just use existing trade routes through the Gulf of Mexico to the Panama Canal, then out to the Pacific and to China?



Only if I believe I'm wrong. And I don't.



Yes, and every time someone who is not my father calls me "son," I tell them not to. I appreciate that you consider it respectful, but I do not. Thank you for honoring my request.



It was 1912, so you're probably right, but that's beside the point. Your assertion is that they wouldn't ship from such a route, they would ship directly from one coast to the other. I proved that trade routes are never straight lines.

I want to take just one thing you said.

Apparently you did not check out the oil field in TX very well.

Scott Sheffield, Chairman and CEO, said in a statement that, “We are very excited to work with Sinochem, a global energy and chemicals leader, in the southern horizontal Wolfcamp Shale area, and are pleased that they share our confidence in accelerating the development of this large, oil-rich acreage position. This accelerated development will add significant production and reserves for Pioneer while enhancing shareholder value. It will also reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil imports, create thousands of new U.S. jobs, further stimulate the Permian Basin economy and add significant tax revenues for use by local communities, schools, the state and the nation.”

Show me where they claim they will ship the oil to china.

Thank you very very very much.

[del]

:rolleyes:

[Mr. Right]

NO it does not, If you have bought a gun in the past 15 years you had an instant background check!

The NRA is not against the instant background check! They helped put the system together!

I am as pro gun as anyone, but waiting 5 mins to get your gun from the store is not denying your rights

Here in FL, there is a mandatory 3 day waiting period on handguns unless you have a CC permit... I do.

[Mainecoons]

We should all agree that the NSA needs to be severely curbed.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/the-ultimate-goal-of-the-nsa-is-total-population-control

Another whistle blower on these NSA Nazis comes forward.

[donttread]

We should all agree that the NSA needs to be severely curbed.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/the-ultimate-goal-of-the-nsa-is-total-population-control

Another whistle blower on these NSA Nazis comes forward.

The NRA's problem is that they lie in the muck with the politicians greasing their palms do get them to uphold the Constitution.
A much more effective strategy , in my opinion, would be to publize the gun defenses that occur everyday, or the fact that most shootings are one felon shooting another with a gun he already cannot possess under current law over drugs which we pretend to prohibit

[Dr. Who]

you got a mouse in your pocket, old man?

already did, bobby

you know keystone will transport canadian oil, right bobby?

do you think they'll give us a discount? lol
Not unless you expect a discount from Exxon Mobil or any of the other big oil producers that are extracting oil from the tar sands.

[zelmo1234]

Here in FL, there is a mandatory 3 day waiting period on handguns unless you have a CC permit... I do.

But that does not deny your right to have them? so if that is the law I am OK with that!

[zelmo1234]

Not unless you expect a discount from Exxon Mobil or any of the other big oil producers that are extracting oil from the tar sands.

Speculation is a huge part of the cost of energy, if you flood the market with oil, the speculators get out of the market

[Dr. Who]

Speculation is a huge part of the cost of energy, if you flood the market with oil, the speculators get out of the market
Tar sands oil is dirtier and harder to extract, so I imagine the price point won't drive away other cheaper and cleaner sources of oil. At best it will decrease reliance on middle eastern oil. Not that I'm a big supporter of pipelines. I only hope that the newer pipelines are less inclined to failure than the old ones. The environmental impact of transporting oil either by truck, train or pipeline has thus far been very expensive, and the cost has really been borne by the people. Farms rendered unusable and not fairly compensated, or towns living with toxicity. Nevermind the damage we've done to the oceans.