Thread: The Keystone XL Pipeline, which Trump just advanced, will carry the dirtiest fossil

Originally Posted by johnwk

What happens if the United States does not build the pipeline? Will the oil still be collected and transported? If so how? As I understand the issue, a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil, especially with newly developed safeguards which immediately detect significant leaks and shut the pipeline down. And who will be using the oil? It seems to me the extraction of the oil will happen, whether or not we like it. And who will do the refining?


Please note these questions are not an indication that I support the pipeline. At this time I have no opinion based upon facts.


JWK

Another question you should be asking is, why is it okay for a private company based in Canada to use our eminent domain laws to trample U.S. citizens property rights? Supposedly the Keystone XL pipeline oil is going to be refined in Oklahoma and Texas for eventual shipping to the Gulf Coast of Texas for export to foreign countries. One of the key ingredients, as I understand the law of eminent domain, is that condemnation under the law requires the land to be used for public benefit. How does sending oil from Canada to the gulf coast of Texas for export benefit the public?

The more oil on the market the lower the price of oil-based products for the Americans who per capita are the higher users of crude oil so we realize the greatest financial benefit. One of the greatest public benefits is a financial benefit that benefits all Americans.

Originally Posted by MW

Another question you should be asking is, why is it okay for a private company based in Canada to use our eminent domain laws to trample U.S. citizens property rights? Supposedly the Keystone XL pipeline oil is going to be refined in Oklahoma and Texas for eventual shipping to the Gulf Coast of Texas for export to foreign countries. One of the key ingredients, as I understand the law of eminent domain, is that condemnation under the law requires the land to be used for public benefit. How does sending oil from Canada to the gulf coast of Texas for export benefit the public?

You are talking about the Kelo Case in which the Majority opinion ignored the actual wording in our Constitution "public use", and engaged in judicial tyranny by referencing "public benefit".


Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:


"while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:

”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history,and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”



JWK


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12,1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I already responded in length - USA is the No1 nation, the progressives, let us NOT permit further destruction/risks to our people and lands for THE RICH TO GET RICHER. Trump is a million times better than hillary BUT he is not GOD, he has faults, he is a spoiled rich guy looking out for himself and his buddies. He wants to be a patriot but he has to come clean and stop the shenanigans.

He lacks knowledge of what is healthy for all because he only sees the $$$. That is why he eats mickeyD's food - he is basically cheap and fills his gut with garbage. Why would a billionaire not have clean food available? Look at some of his cabinet choices for epa, for state dept etc. The fox guarding the hen house extraordinaire - isn't anyone insulted or is it refusal to see the reality/results of his choices? They are to the detriment of us all for decades to come if they can push thru what they would like to do for their profits. They will be challenged at every step they try to take and rightfully so. Honest is honest and deceitful is deceitful.

CANADIAN TAR SANDS SHOULD BE SHUNNED NOT ENCOURAGED!

Originally Posted by Judy

The more oil on the market the lower the price of oil-based products for the Americans who per capita are the higher users of crude oil so we realize the greatest financial benefit. One of the greatest public benefits is a financial benefit that benefits all Americans.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way with the Keystone XL pipeline. The only real winners of the pipeline will be Canada and its investors.

Keystone XL Gas Price Myth Busted

Lorne Stockman, May 22, 2012

NRDC, Oil Change International and ForestEthics Advocacy released a report today, “Keystone XL: A Tar Sands Pipeline to Increase Oil Prices,” that blows apart the tar sands industry’s claims that building the Keystone XL pipeline would lower gasoline prices in America. The report lays out how Keystone XL would reduce gasoline supplies in America by diverting Canadian tar sands crude from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast.
The findings show that the industry mantra, “more supply = lower prices” just doesn’t play out when it comes to the way the oil industry is configured today. The mantra should actually read, more pipelines = more profits. Building Keystone XL will likely raise gasoline prices in America for the following reasons.

• The pipeline would not add to oil supply coming into America for at least 15 years. This is because there is currently around 2 million barrels per day of spare pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States. Keystone XL would therefore divert oil that would have been processed in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast.
• The Gulf Coast produces less gasoline per barrel of oil than the Midwest. Midwest refineries are configured to produce much more gasoline from a barrel of crude and over 90% of the gasoline produced in Midwest refineries stays in the United States. Gulf coast refineries are configured to produce more diesel than gasoline. The majority of gasoline and diesel produced in Gulf Coast refineries is exported.
• Midwest refineries have been enjoying discounted crude oil prices for the past 18 months. This is due to the glut of Canadian and American oil in the region. The stated purpose of Keystone XL is to relieve that glut and raise the price tar sands producers receive for their oil both in the Midwest and in Canada. Midwest refineries will pay more for their crude and will either pass on the cost to consumers or reduce their production, which eventually will have the same effect.

So put simply, Keystone XL moves existing crude oil supply from refineries that have been producing gasoline predominately for the US market to refineries that are predominately producing diesel for the export market. This will lower the amount of gasoline produced in America, raise the price Midwest refineries pay for crude oil and lead to higher gasoline prices.

None of this should be a surprise. The industry has no interest in lowering gas prices, why should it? It has for a long time enjoyed a monopoly on transportation fuel. Today, as demand trends shift slowly towards greater efficiency and alternatives, the prospects of raising American demand for oil are fading. The response is to export in order to maintain revenues and maintain prices. The industry is doing its fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maintain and grow profits in a changing global market. It has no such duty to consumers and citizens.

This report should help dispel the myth that somehow the oil industry is striving to lower prices and help consumers and that this is worth the risks and costs of pollution and climate destruction while justifying subsidies. When it comes to gas prices and energy security, America is being sold a boondoggle in the shape of Keystone XL. It’s high time its supporters recognized the truth and end their cover for the scam.

http://priceofoil.org/2012/05/22/key...e-myth-busted/

Anyone who knows anything about oil and gas prices knows that the more there is in supply the lower the prices especially in a world market, whether it's gasoline or diesel or fuel oil or whatever it is, the more the better. But if people want to defy laws of the universe to criticize a pipeline, who wants to stop them? Not me. Have at it.

The stuff is going to get through...whether it goes through a pipeline...or on mega rich Warren Buffet's trains and semi-trucks.

I think Obama shot the pipeline down because his "special interest" buddy Buffett lined his pockets.

What is the least damage to the environment and lower risk of spillage?

I vote for the pipeline...not railroad.

Originally Posted by Judy

Anyone who knows anything about oil and gas prices knows that the more there is in supply the lower the prices especially in a world market, whether it's gasoline or diesel or fuel oil or whatever it is, the more the better. But if people want to defy laws of the universe to criticize a pipeline, who wants to stop them? Not me. Have at it.

Your view is extremely simplistic and doesn't consider the numerous variables and market nuances corporations and oil producers utilize to control and manipulate petroleum pricing. What Canada does is insignificant where world supply is concerned. However, as shown in the article I provided earlier, the Keystone XL pipeline will actually reduce the amount of gasoline provided to U.S. markets. This reduction is expected to actually raise the price of gasoline in our country's Midwest.

Excerpt:

“Keystone XL is not an economic benefit to Americans who will see higher gas prices and bear all the risks of the pipeline,” said report author Judy Dugan. “The pipeline is being built through America, but not for Americans.”

The report found that Canadian crude oil currently being sent to the Midwest from Canada would be easily diverted to Keystone XL to satisfy overseas demand.

Much of the Canadian oil would go directly to Gulf Coast refineries owned by the same multinational companies investing in tar sands. These companies include Exxon Mobil, former employer of Trump’s Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson, Chevron, Koch Industries, Marathon Oil and Shell Oi. Gulf refineries would refine the tar sands crude oil into diesel oil, which is in high overseas demand, and gasoline for export.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-..._14365706.html

After a lot of research on the issue, I just can't find any long-term benefits to running Canada's filthy crude through our country. Oil pipeline do rupture and leak, it's inevitable.

https://hip.phmsa.dot.gov/analyticsS...ll?Portalpages

Is this really what we want to risk?

http://www.ibtimes.com/enbridge-oil-...e-move-2022591

https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/04/0...ar-sands-spill

Considering that I worked for a chemical company that owned a major oil company, I seriously doubt that my views on the subject are "simplistic."

Originally Posted by Judy

Anyone who knows anything about oil and gas prices knows that the more there is in supply the lower the prices especially in a world market, whether it's gasoline or diesel or fuel oil or whatever it is, the more the better. But if people want to defy laws of the universe to criticize a pipeline, who wants to stop them? Not me. Have at it.

What I think is being missed in the discussion is, the oil will be extracted and we, here in America, have no say so over it. On the other hand, I don't think it would be wise to forbid the transportation of the oil through our country. If this be true, would it not be to our benefit to move the oil in the safest way, not to mention the benefit of jobs from building the pipeline and refinement?

JWK