Let's talk about Keystone...

[Bardox]

I've been hearing alot about how high gas prices are and how the keystone pipeline would bring it down and create 20,000+ jobs in America. If it's true then how would anyone justify stopping the pipeline? If it's not true then why doesn't anyone come out revealing these frauds? So of course I turn to the knowledgeable folks of LPSG for your input.

From what I can tell, if the pipeline was approved today it would not be completed until 2014 at the earliest. Seriously, what construction project has ever been completed on time?? So no effect at the current prices at the pump this year. So far I haven't been able to find any statement from an expert that agrees that the prospect of the pipeline being built would effect the price of gas. Even after the pipeline is up and running at full capacity the majority of the refined product would be sold in china, japan, a other oil hungry countries around the world.
　
There are many contributing factors to determining the price of gasoline. The largest being the price of crude oil. Despite the claims of some, no president has control of crude oil prices. The free market sells oil around the world. The oil goes to the highest bidder. Because of the nature of the global oil market and domestic supply, the Keystone pipeline would contribute very little, if anything, to U.S. energy prices.

The number of jobs being created is also a bit strange. At first members of the GOP came forward saying that 20,000 jobs would be created and 100,000 spinoff jobs would be created. The state department did it's own study and came to the conclusion that only 5 to 6 thousand jobs would actually be created. The 20,000+ claims came from a study from Transcanada. That study used a "one person/one year" model. Using that model, if 5,000 people are hired and it takes 2 years to finish that's 10,000 jobs

And if that isn't fuzzy enough for you, the calculations for the 100,000 spin-off jobs is based on the "one person/one year" model in addition to something called the multiplier effect, which takes the capital costs of the project and feeds it into a formula. In short, these job numbers are about as reliable as a politician's campaign promise.

Your thoughts?

 

[bobg4400]

Sounds fascinating. I don't know huge amounts about it but I have heard people saying the job numbers are grossly overinflated on other government estimates about things. They always do that to make themselves look better.

I think the pipeline would contribute a bit to lowering oil prices since if there's more oil then it's automatically worth less, although it's worth noting that companies tend to just price things in a way which gets them the most money,not according to logical economic principles.

Also I was under the impression that people are becoming more energy-conscious and green as a whole, and so building more oil pipelines is silly, especially if they won't even start building till 2014 and it usually takes 3-4 years to build all the pipeline and stuff it probably wouldn't be finished till 2018 or so and that's not including delays due to any more protest or controversies.

 

[lucky8]

We're going to need more and more oil for the next 100 years at least. Why not build another pipeline? There isn't going to be a miracle discovery that changes this. It's just not a realistic view. It would probably have a very minor effect on oil prices being that oil price is driven by future expectations, but the important thing is there would be another supply line to the US, which could potentially reduce gasoline prices here

Gas Price Historical Price Charts - GasBuddy.com
Play around with this chart and you'll see that oil is not the only contributing factor to gas prices. There are things that can be done to lower gasoline prices in a country, if the government wants to. Although building a pipeline wouldn't reduce oil prices by much, it could have a positive impact on gasoline prices in America. As far as "jobs," all estimates are bs. Our government and most "experts" around the country have proven inept at accurately estimating anything, so I would ignore any estimates because these people usually don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. The positive thing is it would create jobs and provide the US another supply line for oil, the discussion shouldn't be about how many jobs it may create. It's going to create jobs, no need to try and put a negative spin on it

 

[midlifebear]

At this moment the price per gallon of #2 diesel costs exactly what it cost in Nevada along Hiwghway 93 as it did last year: $4.19.9 a gallon. By the end of September 2011 the price began to fall down to about $3.19.0.

It is a seasonal gouging that is true of all gas and oil products. Plus, this is an election year. The rise in oil is dictated primarily by the futures market, the anticipated "travel" season, and public relations wonks who know how to place the fear of potential war in the minds of everyone, not just 'Mericuhns.

Haven't you heard? We are preparing for war with Iran, after all.

 

[Mensch1351]

I have a way that we could bring down the price of oil world-wide REAL fast. While countries along the Arabian Peninsula have OIL -- we in this country have a much more valuable resource -- WHEAT! If the farmers in America were to found a "WHEAT cartel" much like the Arabs have formed their oil cartels..........I think it would be a phenomenal idea to regulate the price of wheat according to the price of oil. (and we don't have the expense of "finding" it -- just growing it!

Just how many nations in the world buy our wheat? Let's see: Price per "barrel" $110 -- price per bushel $55! (just how many bushels in a barrel?? I'll guess 2) Our farmers could live the luxurious life of an Arab Sheik!

 

[lucky8]

I have a way that we could bring down the price of oil world-wide REAL fast. While countries along the Arabian Peninsula have OIL -- we in this country have a much more valuable resource -- WHEAT! If the farmers in America were to found a "WHEAT cartel" much like the Arabs have formed their oil cartels..........I think it would be a phenomenal idea to regulate the price of wheat according to the price of oil. (and we don't have the expense of "finding" it -- just growing it!

Just how many nations in the world buy our wheat? Let's see: Price per "barrel" $110 -- price per bushel $55! (just how many bushels in a barrel?? I'll guess 2) Our farmers could live the luxurious life of an Arab Sheik!

We already do that. Do you know how many foreign farmers can't make a profit because of subsidies we place on domestic crops? We intentionally fuck plenty of people over, trust me

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

We need more energy. Would you want a power plant or refinery next door to you? Building a plant would create jobs but probably destroy the value of your house and be detrimental to your personal health. And if your own personal little sanctuary was destroyed in the process, well that's just the freemarket in action right?

For all the hullabaloo, the USA is producing more oil than it has in years. That's something the right wingers don't like to mention. The US only has about 2%-5% of the conventional oil in the world. So even if magically every drop of conventional oil appeared on the surface in giant lakes and got scooped up and sent to refineries it would still eventually run out. The USA is the THIRD largest oil producer in the world.

Most of the refining capacity of the USA is in TX/LA. The Keystone pipeline would take oil from Canada to the Gulf to be refined. Even if the pipeline is fully built will it just be a glut of crude oil and no refinery capacity?

There is such limited pipeline capacity from TX/LA to the east and northeast states that the USA actually became a net exporter of gasoline last year. If another New Madrid earthquake happened and just happened to rupture the main pipelines delivering oil/gas from the south it would put a severe tailspin on all economic activity east of the Mississippi River.



Gotta love the speculating in oil.
Saudi Arabia can't save us from high oil prices - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet

Now, blaming speculators for high prices is nothing new. What is new is that one of the largest speculators in the oil markets, none other than Goldman Sachs (GS), admitting that heavy speculation does have an impact on oil prices. How much? Well, Goldman's oil analyst wrote in a note last month that every million barrel equivalent of oil futures that was net long the market adds 10 cents to the price of oil. The market is currently net long US benchmark crude, or WTI, by 258,406 contracts which is equivalent to 258 million barrels of oil. At 10 cents per every million barrels, that would mean speculation is currently adding $25.80 to every barrel of oil -- without the excess speculation, oil would trade at around $81.52.

We already do that. Do you know how many foreign farmers can't make a profit because of subsidies we place on domestic crops? We intentionally fuck plenty of people over, trust me

I'll help ya with some links in case you're not believed.

You mean how about 1 million Mexican corn farmers were driven out of business because of NAFTA? Or the fact that the USA pays Brazil $147,000,000 a year because the WTO found that America subsidizes cotton. We still subsidize cotton AND pay Brazil because we won't stop.

 

[LambHair McNeil]

True, if another NM earthquake occured, it could wreck economic devastation. If a massive CA earthquake took place and tore that state asunder, that could send us into a deep recession if not an outright depression. If war with Iran takes place, it could spike oil to well over $150 if not $200 and take the whole world's economy into decline before calmer heads prevail. If...

By searching for and producing more oil from N. American sources, we marginally reduce the power that nations like Iran and Venezuela can wield over us and the world's economy as a whole when their leaders decide to get pissy. With an energy source that isn't going away anytime soon, to me that's something worth pursuing.

 

[vince]

The other good reason to not build Keystone is that to feed it, the tar sands open pit mining project in northern Alberta would need to be expanded. It's already one of the largest environmental disasters in the world and the plans are to double it's size. Processing the bitumen to extract the liquid crude requires huge amounts of water and electricity. The tailing ponds of toxic waste already cover over 700 sq miles of land.

At a time when we are trying to become more "green", it seems a folly to invest in extraction of the dirtiest and most expensive energy on the planet.

Dene Nation opposes Oil Sands expansion

 

[FuzzyKen]

As I understand it this pipeline was stopped not because it was a bad idea, it was stopped because the route chosen created environmental concerns. When those opposing the pipeline spoke of the route issue, the other side took the attitude of "My way of the highway" and that was it. A different route was proposed and those in favor of the original route that had been disapproved would not concede playing politics in an election year.

As much as I want to see lower fuel prices personally, I have also seen the results and destruction caused when people make environmental concerns the last on the list. About 4 miles from my own property is an abandoned plant that was used in the processing of copper from Phelps Dodge Mining Company. That property is less than 10 acres and it will cost millions to clean up the site.

The main problem with petroleum product pricing has nothing to do with supply at all in spite of what is being said. Right now there are full tankers waiting off the coast of California because the refineries have no where to put their contents. The entire rise has been driven based on speculation regarding the Iranian closing of the Straight of Hormuz (forgive the spelling) near Iran. There is zero shortage at this time. AS USUAL

 

[houtx48]

I know it's all the governments fault that gas is expensive but with a barrel of oil on the world market for a hundred dollars just why in the fuck would you think gasoline would be two dollars a gallon?

 

[Bardox]

From what I heard about the negotiations, the Democrats were concerned about the environmental dangers, but the nail in the coffin was when the president made the condition that a significant portion of the oil would be used in the states. The Republicans dug in and refused to budge. Transcanada only wants the pipeline to use our refiners to process the crude then sell it on the world market. So not much incentive to over look the environmental issues. A relatively low number of jobs and little to no oil for us... not so much as a discount.

The US oil production has gone up and our actual consumption of the world oil has gone down and yet the prices are shooting up more and more. So it's not a supply and demand problem. It's just greedy bastards being greedy bastards. Keep in mind that compared to other countries America has some of the lowest prices at the pump.

Renewable energy resources are more desirable to the majority of Americans. Wind, solar, and bio-fuels to name a few. Problem is that at our current ability to create the tech and build the instillation's are not cost effective. Mainly due to resistance from big oil and just republicans in general. Actually cheaper and faster to build oil rigs.

I have 2 solar panels on the roof of my home. Cost about 600 bucks a piece to buy and install. My electric bill is zero and the panels are a tax write off. So not only have my expenses gone down by $6,242.33 a year, but the government is paying me just for having the panels. The value of my home has gone up as well. Solar may not be the way to go for the nation, but for home owners... Go for it!

 

[Redwyvre]

I don't know these things first hand, but I've heard China is buying more and more oil. Beijing has traffic jams that last for ten days! In 1988 China's per capita annual income was just $704 (last year it was $5,184). Long story short, the price of gas is not trending down. Won't really matter that much "at the pump" if this pipeline is built or not.