PDA

View Full Version : Keystone Pipeline?



large
11-11-2011, 11:07 AM
Pros and cons here . .

While it might sound like a good idea to the conservatives and a bad idea to the tree huggers, what's the real truth?

The idea is being sold as a pipeline to the refineries. Also as a great job creator . . . "Oil for Americans" . .

The Enviros are screaming that it'll pollute the Ogalallah Aquifer. (dunno how really, that would have to be a hell of a spill. Perhaps covering Nebraska and Kansas with a foot of oil?

On the other hand . . I see a pipeline to the Gulf as a means to put oil on Ships and sell it to other than American motorists . . Or based on what we know now . . The highest bidder . . . Which, usually, ain't us!

MTDismuke
11-11-2011, 01:01 PM
I'm not against or for domestic drilling. It has it's ups and downs. I more for investing into technology and getting away from fossil fuels. We're right on the horizon of creating super batteries with the invention of Graphene. I'd rather see our money invested there. Not only will we move away from fossil fuels, but most likely, the world would also convert over to this new super battery and would open a massive industry in our nation.

large
11-11-2011, 03:36 PM
Battery powered Automobiles are nothing more than passing the buck. If you plug the car in, instead of pouring a petrochemical hydrocarbon fuel into it, where does the electricity come from? Probably either a coal or gas fired power plant . .

And a storage battery is nothing more than an electrical fuel tank. You aren't going to get anymore out of it than you can put into it . . and the laws of physics tell us that the faster you go, the more fuel you use, with no difference between a combustable Fuel or elecrtricity . .

A chevy Volt might be an example . . on it's battery, you can go about 30-36 miles, depending on how heavy your foot is. Now that's on a full 1 hour charge. Now, after those 36 miles (ideally) you have a gasoline engine that puts in electricity at one end and an electric motor that's draining the battery just as fast on the other end . . It's nothing more than an "Electric Transmission" and a ****ed expensive one at that!

Currently, Battery development is only part of the problem . . you need to deal with what drains the battery, the electric motors that actually drive your little buggy . . and although we're making some headway on that, the motors are really, really expensive, and to date, not that dependable . . But they are high torque, low draw devices that will get better, cheaper and more reliable . . it will have to come with time . . but not tomorrow . .

masonranch
11-11-2011, 06:47 PM
:biggrin:
Battery powered Automobiles are nothing more than passing the buck. If you plug the car in, instead of pouring a petrochemical hydrocarbon fuel into it, where does the electricity come from? Probably either a coal or gas fired power plant

From 11/12/2007 the very first post on Electric Cars thread.

Electric cars fueled by standard coal fired power plants would reduce CO2 and other pollutants by 2/3!

How can this be? A coal fired power plant converts 58% of fossil fuel to electricity. A gasoline engine converts 19% to mechanical energy. 58%/19% = 3.05 OR 3 times the actual extracted energy for the same fossil fuel content.

AND at a cost of less than $1 per gallon energy equivalent (based on 5 cents per Kwh (demand metering). The actual energy component from coal is less than 35 cents per gallon.

I wonder how the emissions to generate 23 Kilowatt hours from a standard, non-sequestering coal fired power plant would compare with burning 1 gallon of gasoline? 23Kwh is the actual mechanical energy produced by 1 gallon of gasoline in a modern internal combustion engine.

Right now we can't burn coal in our cars. Convert to electric cars and all energy sources level. In effect we could burn coal, Nuclear, Hydro, photovoltaic, wind, tidal current, methane, and even gasoline (if we were so stupid to do so) once electricity is the primary fuel.

AND, as opposed to Hydrogen, the distribution system is already in place in the form of High Voltage transmission lines and feeders.

We would achieve energy independence. We would be able to use some of the 267,000 million tons of coal reserves we have instead of funding Islamic Tyrants and fanatics by buying their oil.

We could develop our own oil shale reserves which are greater than 4 times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. We could turn back from what appears to be certain long term economic disaster.

large
11-12-2011, 09:29 AM
I wonder how the emissions to generate 23 Kilowatt hours from a standard, non-sequestering coal fired power plant would compare with burning 1 gallon of gasoline? 23Kwh is the actual mechanical energy produced by 1 gallon of gasoline in a modern internal combustion engine.

I can't give you exact figures, but, oddly, Gasoline is the most efficient fuel to be used in an internal combustion engine (so far) because of the energy output. All the other fuels tried or currently used are either far less economical or provide less energy no matter the amount. Ethanol (and other Alcohols) have less energy and require a greater fuel/air ratio. Natural (or other combustable gases, Butane, Propane, Methane,etc.) Gas offers one of the least energy producing methods (or Fuels, if you will) that has and is being used.

Perhaps the New Diesels coming from Volkswagen and being engineered by other automobile companies will become the next generation of the internal combustion engines used for personal transportation. They are quiet, they don't smoke or smell, and they've begun to perform at a level that will attract the average Automobile purchaser.

The problem you have with the Electrics are twofold at this time and while it's been batted around in the other thread, but they still remain . . They use batteries. And electric motors. As I said in the above post, a battery doesn't "Make" electricity, it just stores it, just like the Gas tank on your pickup stores Gasoline. And Watts equals Horsepower/Torque. Stand on the throttle (or Rheostat) and you use either Gas or electricity at a greater rate . . Curently the CAFE standards show us that your new pickup should be getting 21 mpg. That's almost as far as a Chevy Volt will go on an Eight hour charge . . and if you flatfoot the Volt, according to published trials, 21 miles is just about as far as it will go . . . A gallon on gas put through a 350 ci V8 goes the same distance or a little less if you hammer it . . . And in a block long drag race, my bet is the pickup is gonna blow the doors off of the Volt.

Yeah, I know about the 9 second electric motorcycle and the 10 second electric dragster, and the 240 mph electric Bonneville Streamliner. But . . None of the above came right back, put it in the other lane and did it again. Simply because they had to recharge the batteries, and the batteries they are using work great for the speeds they run, but need to be cooled before recharging, and because of the rapid discharge rate, have very short lives. We ran 9.80 ETs all summer and only had to add about a gallon and a half of 116 octane per run . .

Point is, Those who use cars and trucks for their personal transportation are spoiled. They want to buy (For the most part) a V6 that gets 32 mpg and develops 275 hp in the process . . Electric cars don't do that. Not even the $100,000 dollar ones . .

Just sayin'

MTDismuke
11-12-2011, 10:17 AM
Super batteries: 500 miles on a 5 minute "fill-up". That's the potential. That will change everything.

large
11-12-2011, 11:17 AM
Super batteries: 500 miles on a 5 minute "fill-up". That's the potential. That will change everything.

Probably ought to start looking into the physics of Perpetual Motion, also . . .

Look Ma . . No Fuel! . . .

masonranch
11-12-2011, 04:18 PM
Probably ought to start looking into the physics of Perpetual Motion, also . . .

Look Ma . . No Fuel! . . .

:happyno:Come on Large, don't P*ss on his parade. Dreamers got to dream if the future is to arrive.

Of course to "fill up" a 2,000 lb car to go 500 miles in 5 minutes would draw 1.56 megawatts from the grid for those 5 minutes(your 240 volt 200 amp house service is 48 Kilowatts max) or 6,548 amps at 240 volts or 3,274 amps at 480 volts for 5 minutes to get the charge equivalent of 20 gallons of gas (6.5 KWH per gallon equivalent). It is possible, but I'd be very sure not to pull the plug while charging, welders operate on much lower currents than this

large
11-12-2011, 04:33 PM
To dream is one thing, to mis-understand basic physics is another . . If I were to make a similar comment anywhere in this forum, first, all of you engineer types would be all over me like a cheap suit . . because I'm supposed to know better.

But, as far as I know, we're discussing this, not having a war of words. And I'm pretty sure MT knows the last post was a little tongue in cheek and not some kind of cheap shot.

On the other hand, until we figure out where all the "Dark matter" is, according to universal laws, "There is no free lunch" . . .

MTDismuke
11-12-2011, 04:41 PM
I read that straight from a report. Don't mean they are correct but they said that's the potential. A sheet of graphene weighing only 1 gram covers an entire football field. If you know anything about capacitors you'd understand how many layers of charged material could be stacked. They're already making it. Each layer is capable of holding and releasing a charge.

masonranch
11-12-2011, 04:48 PM
I read that straight from a report. Don't mean they are correct but they said that's the potential. A sheet of graphene weighing only 1 gram covers an entire football field. If you know anything about capacitors you'd understand how many layers of charged material could be stacked. They're already making it. Each layer is capable of holding and releasing a charge.

Sounds like a great advance it's just that you'd bring the power grid to its knees if too many people tried to fill up at the same time and each "fill up" station would have to be a major substation, you know one of those things with really big transformers and chain link fences etc.

MTDismuke
11-12-2011, 04:56 PM
Yeah, that's just my original point. We obviously have a lot of potential in that area. I'd like to see further investment there before drilling. Assuming that it's not one of those, "Yeah it works, but it um... It will take 100 years before we're able to manufacture it due to cost and demand."

masonranch
11-12-2011, 05:55 PM
IA sheet of graphene weighing only 1 gram covers an entire football field. If you know anything about capacitors you'd understand how many layers of charged material could be stacked. They're already making it. Each layer is capable of holding and releasing a charge. Well Graphene sounds like a great thing if it can be produced cheaply and in great quantity. BUT, a capacitor also consists of an insulator between layers. So the conducting surface is increadibly small, to make it work the insulating layer must also be incredibly small. Air arcs over at 25,000 volts per inch. At a micro inch that's 0.0025 volts i.e the capacitor will "arc" over at 2.5 thousandths of a volt. Of course you could make it a 1/1000 of an inch and it would arc over at 2.5 volts but then again it did you no good to make the conductor so that 1 gram covers a football field. Carbon that thin won't be able to take or deliver much of a charge.

But anyway it's good to be thinking. Certainly don't want to rain on your parade, but certain realities must be overcome. Of course all of these objections could be overcome if Graphene were a superconductor at room temperature. Is it?

large
11-12-2011, 07:48 PM
Problem here would be the "Scale Effect" or perhaps IS the scale effect . . Those little batteries, capacitors, transistors work great in very small, low voltage and low draw applications. Currently, a lithium Battery the size of a dime will power a trio of LEDs for an amazanig amount of time. Scale it up, nowhere the output in candles, or wattage and the charge times become ridicolous.

Currently, all Hybrid and Electric Automobiles with Lithium Batteries are under a Fire warning by the NTSA. A Chevrolet Volt burst into flames a couple of months ago and it is seen by the government (the same agency promoting these cars) as "Unsafe" . . . Again, heat is the problem with rapid discharge Battery applications . .

And rapid discharge, no matter the provider, is the enemy of storage batteries, no matter their composition. On the other hand, capacitive discharge doesn't seem to create quite as much heat as an equivilent storage device does. But, as far as I know, capacitive discharge in a smooth and controllable current requires a continous power supply and a relatively complex switching system . .

But then WotthehelldoIknow because they might have invented something yesterday afternoon that debunks everything I just wrote . .

west4567
11-15-2011, 12:23 AM
We obviously have a lot of potential in that area. I'd like to see further investment there before drilling.

Well, now you're onto something. You should not invest in drilling. If you think battery technology is a good investment, I suggest you invest in it, and I sincerely wish you good luck.

I'll choose to invest in coal and natural gas and new technologies to increase the recoverability of U.S. energy resources.

And I won't get mad if you make a mint investing in cars powered by lemon juice, dog poop, or recycled tequila.

But I intend to proceed with drilling, mining, and harvesting the low hanging fruit that the U.S. has been blessed with. The U.S. is actually energy-rich. We just have to politely resist those who insist that we continue to buy our energy from our adversaries.

large
11-15-2011, 10:28 AM
I do believe in investing in the future as far as other methods of fueling transportation goes. I'm just not into the idea that we have a lot of miraculous solutions waiting for the Government to finance them . . Again, the Government cannot pick winners and losers. Even with the best of information and intentions, research and development of new anythings is risky. It's been, for the most part, the private sector that developed most of the current technology that we currently have at our disposal, and there are people who got rich off it, as they should.

But, as there are no (as of yet, anyways) miraculous solutions to storage batteries, low draw high torque Electric motors, and all the other things we need to get away from Fossil Fuels being the energy core of the world, we must work harder at using less and finding more of it . . And the harder to find and retrieve, the more expensive it will get . . And that's just a simple economic Fact of Life . .

And, as I have continually stated, we're a spoiled humanity. We want the next best energy source to be as cheap and put out as much energy as the last one did . . probably not . . but to sell to the public and be successful, you'll have to be close . .

And I'm not as much a naysayer as I am the Devil's Advocate . .

masonranch
11-15-2011, 11:12 AM
we must work harder at using less and finding more of it . . And the harder to find and retrieve, the more expensive it will get . . And that's just a simple economic Fact of Life . .



Both the Rand Corp and Shell estimate the in-situ recovery of oil shale gas and oil at $25-$40 per Barrell. With oil shale reserves in the western US at about 8 times that of Saudi Arabia and oil presently $86 per barrell, all of the economic, energy, and Jobs problems are self imposed by elitest environmental tyrants like Obama. Chose Wealth and prosperity or poverty. It's as simple as that.

large
11-15-2011, 02:46 PM
Both the Rand Corp and Shell estimate the in-situ recovery of oil shale gas and oil at $25-$40 per Barrell. With oil shale reserves in the western US at about 8 times that of Saudi Arabia and oil presently $86 per barrell, all of the economic, energy, and Jobs problems are self imposed by elitest environmental tyrants like Obama. Chose Wealth and prosperity or poverty. It's as simple as that.

But . . today's Oil Futures price is $99.54 a barrel . . That's not the cost of oil, that's the cost of Oil through speculation by commodity traders all over the world . . And, I'll bet, that once the Keystone Pipeline is built, or a refinery is built in Parachute or Rifle, that the actual cost of producing that barrel will be a moot point . . The price of any of those Barrels, whatever the source, will be what the market can bring, based upon speculation, not reality. Even with a surplus, which there has been several times in the last two years, Oil and Refined Gasoline prices haven't gone down to any great extent, due again, not to supply and demand, but pure speculation and sometimes nothing more than panic . . .

From the same pricing source, Bloomberg, Gasoline futures were as low as $2.47 a gallon this AM, currently up to $2.59 . . Tie that, if you can, to the $99+ oil . .

Problem here is, not particularily the Supply and Demand parameters, but the value of the American Dollar V. the world's various currencies, starting with China . . and commodity speculators . .

A solution to some of this might be the opening of the offshore fields in Brazil . . Not that they're particularily interested in exporting their oil to us, but if they fill a certain demand by China and some of the rest of the world, our prices might go down, but even there, no guarantees . .

Another solution might be requiring speculators to put up 50% of their bids on Oil and Gasoline futures instead of the currently required 30%. Require them to get more skin in the game . .

ButwotthehelldoIknow?

MTDismuke
11-15-2011, 04:02 PM
Let's forecast into the future and say we became energy independent using Oil. Based off what we know about current day drilling and markets, we can then try to project into the future.

What would the long term effects be? Who would own them? Who would control the price? Who would suffer? Who would profit? What would we have to give up? What would we gain? What are the risks? What are the rewards? How would it affect the world?

Those are just a few of the many questions one should evaluate before drilling. Nothing is as cut and dry as one would think.

large
11-15-2011, 06:25 PM
For answers, see post #18, this thread . . .

Or, simply . . The same people who own and profit from the Oil supply and the refined energy products would still be the profiting beneficaries. You would give up nothing your're not giving up now, pretty much, and the gains would be supply stability.

Whether that would make it any cheaper, I doubt it, because there's still going to be a world market and the highest bidder gets the product. Take the speculators out of it and you'd have a far more stable and transparent pricing structure, but I don't know how that could be done . .

Risks, Rewards, World Effects,? Who knows? Grt out the Ouija Board . .

MTDismuke
11-15-2011, 06:49 PM
Risks, Rewards, World Effects,? Who knows? Grt out the Ouija Board . .

This would be my first thought without really doing any research. I would assume those who already control it, would own it. Being in a free market, I could see middle east buying many of them out if they could. Secondly, I don't foresee prices being that much cheaper, so ultimately, the only people who benefit are those who own it. However, if one day we were to wake up and found that nobody would sell oil to the USA, we would have our own. Unfortunately if that day ever did hit, I most likely wouldn't be able to afford the new gas prices anyhow so it really wouldn't matter to me.

large
11-15-2011, 07:32 PM
The Middle Eastern Countries aren't particularily interested in owning the world's retail supply of gasoline. They prefer to be producers and wholesalers, which keeps their part in World Oil Prices rather opaque. We blame them for many things, some of which they control, and a lot which are completely outside their areas . . But in most cases, they are generally the beneficiaries of whatever price fluctuations occur anywhere in the world.

Basically there are five Corporations that trade in the largest amount of Oil and oil products. We all know their names and where they live . . Two are American Corporations . . And their influence over all of the little companies who work in the world energy industry is immense. Across the spectrum of the oil industry, the big corporations touch all of the elements and affect all of the contractors and sub contractors, and through this, control pricing.

By that I mean, in one area, big oil is the refiner, in another, the drilling operations, in yet another, perhaps exploration, and as example, another might be negotiating leases with either governments or individuals . .

Another thing that isn't often included in discussions about Oil and oil products are non energy uses of the same materials. Plactics, chemicals, building materials and a plethora of things few of us ever think of as being an "Oil Product" are consumers of about a quarter or more of the oil produced or imported into this country. These item's prices don't fluctuate as fuel prices do, but continue to increase across the board everytime there's a "Crisis" in some oil producing company. That's one of the reasons Automotive Paint costs $1150 a gallon (Jewel Merlot, 2011 Camaro) and the "Paint Thinner" (PPG DT 885) you use in it costs $60-$80 a gallon . . everytime it goes up, 4-5 times a year, it doesn't come down . . ever! And that goes for a large amount of the things we use everyday . . from plastic plates to the bodies of your cell phones . .

That's some of the things about OIL . . .

west4567
11-15-2011, 10:11 PM
What would the long term effects be? Who would own them? Who would control the price? Who would suffer? Who would profit? What would we have to give up? What would we gain? What are the risks? What are the rewards? How would it affect the world?


These decisions are all made within the free-market system. It's extremely efficient - it punishes those who make bad decisions and rewards those who make good decisions.

The alternative is to subjugate your decisions to the whims of Congress; in other words, you would be allowing ME and millions of other strangers to approve or disapprove your private decisions, using the capricious levers of government. Make no mistake: Politicians will decide anything for you that you give them the power to decide. Why would you want to do that?

large
11-16-2011, 08:45 AM
These decisions are all made within the free-market system. It's extremely efficient - it punishes those who make bad decisions and rewards those who make good decisions.

And this is where the rubber meets the road . . ANY sort of Government intervention (Regulation, price controls, subsidizing competing energy sources, etc.) changes the free-market and enables others to game the system and in most cases foment government intervention when the politicians step in to either correct or further game the system . .

In other words, the free-market puts the risk/reward level where it's 90% transparent to all, simply because the players require it to be so . . Add Government intervention and regulation, the risk is removed and the process becomes opaque to all but the most informed, usually those who wrote the rulesets that the energy source operates within . .

large
11-17-2011, 09:09 AM
Suspicions confirmed . . In this morning's business section, under the article about $100 dollar Oil, is the notation attempting to explain the uptick in crude prices:


The price of U.S. benchmark crude crossed the $100 mark early Wednesday, rising $2.85 to $102.22 per barrel in New York.
They jumped Wednesday by another 2.6 percent after a Canadian pipeline company announced it would ship crude overseas and away from a key delivery point in the Midwest.
The delivery point in Cushing, Okla., has been historically oversupplied with little access to international oil markets.
That appeared to change Wednesday when Enbridge Products Partners L.P. announced it bought a 50 percent stake in the Seaway pipeline from ConocoPhillips for $1.15 billion.
The company plans to use it to transport oil from Cushing to refineries along the Gulf Coast, where much of it will be shipped overseas because of rising demand from Latin America.

So, who was going to finance the "Keystone Project" and who was going to be the greatest benificiary?

And . . Where was the refined products (as well as some of the crude) going to go?

Apparently, not the good ole USA . .

masonranch
01-31-2012, 08:42 AM
From the State Deaprtment (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/11/176964.htm)

Based on the Departmentís experience with pipeline project reviews and the time typically required for environmental reviews of similar scope by other agencies, it is reasonable to expect that this process including a public comment period on a supplement to the final EIS consistent with NEPA could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013. After obtaining the additional information, the Department would determine, in consultation with the eight other agencies identified in the Executive Order, whether the proposed pipeline was in the national interest, considering all of the relevant issues together. Among the relevant issues that would be considered are environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy.

Marc.N
01-31-2012, 06:43 PM
Them thar executive orders sure sound like we gotta communist dictatorship.

MTDismuke
01-31-2012, 08:21 PM
So, who was going to finance the "Keystone Project" and who was going to be the greatest benificiary?

And . . Where was the refined products (as well as some of the crude) going to go?

Apparently, not the good ole USA . .

That was my concern. Okay, sure it will create jobs. That is, enough jobs to get the project done. After that, we'll have miles of pipeline with a handful of jobs to maintain it. The same amount of jobs that several small businesses could easily match. Not to mention, this is a permanent scar on our land. In the short term, I can see why those short sighted enough would vouch for this project. It's the long term affect that greatly out weights the short term that bothers me. This is a bad idea.

large
02-01-2012, 08:40 AM
Not really . . For every job created, it affects positively another 7 in a ripple effect. Some of that 7 currently aren't working, and would be, were the pipeline operating. Add to that the same ripple effect during the construction and you can readily see the monetary benefit.

Also, although a lot of, probably more than half of the refined products produced in Louisana would be exported to . . China(?) and other parts of the world, due mostly to the world markets that affect the prices of oil and it's products, it would serve to stabilize prices here in the US . . And possibly even create a surplus leading to a decrease in overall world prices.

As far as "Leaving a Permanent Scar", we all do, to one extent or another . . on the open prairies, you can still see the tracks left by wagons that passed going west over a hundred and fifty years ago . . So don't let that keep you up at night . .

large
03-05-2012, 08:10 PM
Further digging reveals . . . Canada isn't serious about building a pipeline across their Western Mountains and risking a spill there . . It's in their own Environmental Impact Statement . . Their preference is South to Louisana or Houston, into a refinery declared an "Entrerprise Zone", tax free. Thus Canada can export their oil as refined products and pay no US taxes on any of it . .

Just sayin . .

large
03-07-2012, 10:15 AM
Add to that . . Currently, in the Rocky Mountain area, we are enjoying (dunno if that's really the right term) lower gasoline prices than the rest of the country, including places like Houston, Corpus Christi and a lot of places with local (and more than one) refinery . . Because? Canadian Oil! We are their current marketplace . . Give them a pipeline out of the country and we'll pay the same prices as New York and Los Angeles . . .

masonranch
04-05-2012, 06:56 AM
An interesting question on Gleen Beck this morning. Here's my answer.

The Rand Corp. (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf) says the in situ recovery cost of Oil Shale crude is $30/barrell (42 gallons). Refinery/distribution/profit is about 25%. Taxes are about 44 cents.

OK here we go $30/barrell is 71 cents per gallon. Add 25%for processing/delivery/profit comes to 89 cents that would be the sales price before taxes.

Add 44 cents per gallon taxes and the final price would be


$1.33 per gallon

That is the Obama administration by its war on fossil fuels has driven fuel cost up 300%. When he took office gas was $1,89 per gallon. Our economy is energy driven. He is totally responsible for the continuing economic mess we face.

large
04-05-2012, 10:36 AM
Hmmmm, not exactly. Right now, the Bloomberg Gasoline Futures has Gasoline at $3.33. (actual $332.07 in cents) per gallon. That's, assuming, Wholesale @ the refinery. Add in 40 cents (average) for delivery, wholesaler's profits and retail markup and you have the average price of gasoline across the board. About $3.72 per gallon, which is below the current National average. But not by much.

Here's the interesting part. While most think tanks and expert pundits can estimate the cost of refining Gasoline and Diesel, the actual cost is kept very secret by the oil companies, as generally, is the amount they have in stock (or surplus). Quite like the politicians, they only want us to know what they want us to know . .

And based upon that, they use many excuses for the varying prices. World politics, national energy agendas, national politics, regulation. Any of which they take and distort to their (and some politician's) advantage.

But, without a doubt, Obama has given the whole energy industry reason to charge like there's no tomorrow, because, to them, if he gets re-elected, there may not be . . .

Sandra
04-05-2012, 10:48 AM
Whether he's right or not, I still like masonranch's figure much better. :D

large
04-05-2012, 01:29 PM
The other thing that drives Oil Costs, is World demand. IF a barrel of low sulfur crude is worth $103 in Europe or China, it's basically worth that in New Orleans, FOB. No matter that it might only cost Exxon or Conoco $30. I dunno how much the cost of a a barrel of Permian Basin oil is today but four years ago it was quoted to me by a man from Midland, Texas as being about what it was in 1972 and that was $28. And on the same day, at a gas station across I-20 from the refinery, Diesel was $3.25 a gallon . .

Now, I realize that with the state of the art gasoline production, unintentional by products are pretty much a thing of the past. They can refine a barrel of crude into just about any hydrocarbon petrochemical they want to sell and have little or no "By Product" which Diesel, Kerosene, and all the other oil based compounds that were created in the past. Kinda like butchering a cow, they use everything but the "Moo" to get a specific compound, and that's priced by demand on the world market.

And while Obama and his fools are a portion of the blame for the present inflation, just like the National debt and the deficit, it's taken 75 years to get where we are and Obama had a lot of historical help!

Get rid of the deadbeats in Congress, Get rid of Obama and his socialists, and rewrite the TAX Laws, the Energy policies that bind this country to a 100 year old supply and demand system, and quit financing other countries' technologies . . That would be a start.

masonranch
04-06-2012, 06:14 AM
The other thing that drives Oil Costs, is World demand. IF a barrel of low sulfur crude is worth $103 in Europe or China, it's basically worth that in New Orleans, FOB.

Stop right there. World oil is about $103 per 42 gallon barrel or $2.45 per gallon just for the raw crude. Add 44 cents per gallon tax and $2.89 is the cost before refining, distribution or profit. Using your $3.33 retail price at the pump means that the whole system is running on $3.33-$289 = 44cents per gallon to refine, distribute and profit.

Now look at what gas would cost if a barrell of oil cost the oil companies $30 as the Rand Corp estimates the recovery cost of shale oil would be.

The $2.45 per gallon crude oil component becomes 71 cents per gallon and if everything else remained the same the cost at the pump would be:


$1.59 per Gallon

So again if idiots hadn't put Obama in office gas would be $1.33-$1.59 AND

No recession
No defict
No unemployment
No Iranian sword of Damcleas
No American decline

If America wakes up and throw these bums out we may be able to be great again if it isn't already too late.

large
04-06-2012, 09:13 AM
What I'm basically saying, Mike, is that oil probably still costs on average, below $50 a barrel, to get out of the ground. It's part supply, and part market demand that drives price, for both the basic product and the refined product. The whole d@mned thing has literally spiraled out of control because of a number of reasons, with the current administration as the number one cause, folowed by Refineries being closed due to more and more stringent regulations concerning upgrading the refineries and the costs to do so, the expanding market in the Far East and Africa, and the speculation in the commodities market.

Combined, it's a rotten meal of fish for the consumers anywhere in the world . . Just moreso here because we depend upon refined oil products more here than a lot of other places in the world . .

Take Mexico as another example. There, the Oil Company, PEMEX, is Nationalized. Thus, the profits from their sales of exported oil goes back to the country's government, which in turn subsidizes the retail prices and keeps the consumer cost to about a buck and a half lower than a comparable city in the USA, just across the border . . Several Countries do this, and I dunno if it's to help their state economies or to keep their consumers in the dark and happy.

I would say this. We certainly don't want "Nationalized" anything, but given the chance and another 4 years in the White House, the Zero will have done that as well . .

MTDismuke
04-06-2012, 09:38 AM
$1.59 per Gallon

So again if idiots hadn't put Obama in office gas would be $1.33-$1.59 AND

No recession
No defict
No unemployment
No Iranian sword of Damcleas
No American decline

If America wakes up and throw these bums out we may be able to be great again if it isn't already too late.

Blaming Obama for gas prices is like blaming him for the civil war. I'm one of those idiots that voted for him and will so again based on the choices. The problem isn't Obama, it's the 'type' of individuals that are elected to run for president. Some people vote based on specific reasons such as appeal, abortion, gay rights, war, social issues, capitalist issues, or they profile them to either be a good guy or bad guy based off their looks. I'v heard it all. Many of those same people could give a rats *** about anything else other than their main concern. Many let the media decide for them. Some, like myself, tend to vote for the lesser evil of the two. Was Obama my first choice? Hell no, he wasn't even a second or third until it came down to him and Clinton. Then it was him. Then it came down to Him and McCain... In the end, its the far left and far right that put the general candidates before us which Leaves the rest of us 'normal' people in a grim situation. Perhaps it's the process.

To change the government we first have to change the way it is formed because right now, it's the far left and right that create it. It's almost impossible for any third party candidate to even be heard.

Sandra
04-06-2012, 10:05 AM
Isn't it funny how "it isn't Obama" yet when Bush was in office it was all his fault? "It isn't Obama" really means "It's Bush's Fault". As if.

I do blame Obama for the increase in oil prices - you can't blame that on any other administration, especially since Obama stated, many times, that the price of gas is going to go up. He stated this while telling people, in so many words, to just grin and bear it.

You can't blame today's gas prices on Bush. They've tripled since Obama took office - that's not a Bush "thing". The entire time Bush was in office gas prices never did that.

large
04-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Here's probably the biggest single Item that Obama holds blame for. and it's not just oil but 90% of the commodities on the US Markets today . . Printing US Dollars and driving the value of that dollar down to nothing.

And then telling us, You, Me, and MT, that there's little or no inflation . . If you look at the value of the dollar it's sunk like a stone since 2007, when the Democrats began shoving spending down our throats . . Hard fact. The rest is circumstantual . .

masonranch
04-06-2012, 02:33 PM
What I'm basically saying, Mike, is that oil probably still costs on average, below $50 a barrel, to get out of the ground.

Maybe, but the oil companies and anyone else will sell their product for whatever the market will bare. DUH!

Economics 101 double the supply, drive down the price. Saudi Arabia could probably sell their oil for $8 a barrel. That's what they did last time to drive Oil Shale out of business including a several Billion dollar loss in Colorado in the 70s. But why would they do that when the world is willing to pay $103 a barrel and you have Obama sabotaging additional competitive sources? You want conspiracy could it be a Saudi payoff to Obama? They supposedly gave generously to him in his first term run and he bowed to the Saudi prince maybe to say thanks.

large
04-06-2012, 03:52 PM
Well, there we go again . . According to Bloomberg and Forbes, Oil Companies are shutting down refineries, some because they're so out of date, they can't be economically remodeled, and most first and Second World Countries are hammering them with regulations that make operating and complying too expensive to keep producing, and the regulations change so quickly that you can't plan, build and put a refinery into production before it's obsolete.

It's kind of a Pandora's Box, but probably 75% of the problems with Our energy Policy and those of the rest of the world are purely Political, although the politics are varied and many. If I could actually put my finger on the root cause I would.

Granted this administration's energy agendas have been disastrous to the Consumers and the economy, and if they stay where they're at, there's a good chance the economy will dive again before election. But that wouldn't be ALL BAD . . Because unless there's more Idiots out there voting than I think there are, Obama's History. But, the dismissal of an Idiot President isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference unless 534 other people pull their heads out of their @ss. Or get voted out too . . Preferably the latter. That group of people have been sticking it to the citizens for long before The Zero was even born, wherever that might be . . .

No, I agree completely that the Jackass we have as President must go. but I don't think his leaving is going to give us $2 gasoline . . It's just a lot more complex than that . . and will take as much "Undoing" as it might take "Doing" . .

Marc.N
04-07-2012, 02:21 AM
The anti-oil hysteria is very destructive to our nation's health.

I don't totally blame the fad-of-the-moment voters as we do have a Repesentative Republic where our Congress is supposed to make wise decisions for us.

World class free consultant/lobbyists virtually BEG our representatives to create a business friendly home and even give them answers to the final exams.

masonranch
04-11-2014, 10:22 AM
Europe is dependent on Russian Energy which, unlike a good efficient capitalist, Russia is blackmailing for its own geopolitical expansion. For our own survival we need to build the Keystone Pipeline, expand energy production and ship LNG natural gas to europe until they can become energy independent themselves! Yes, wth fracking, Poland can provide its own energy, but Russia has threatened to cut them off if they try. Fracking and Methane "Ice" could make Europe and Japan energy self sufficient.

large
04-12-2014, 06:17 AM
Yeah, BUT . . Great big "BUT" . . After studying and discussing this for probably 5 years at least, with a lot of that someplace in this forum, I have to say that Energy Independence isn't going to be easy or cheap . . Many on the right maintain that the Keystone Pipeline is just the panacea that the West needs to make Gasoline cheap in the USA and to press Russia and the Saud Families to "toe the Line" in Oil prices, as well as take some of the Russian's leverage off the European Union . . That's not really the case . .

First of all, the Keystone Pipeline isn't going to make refined Oil products cheaper in the USA to any degree . . any impact it might have would be the lowering of prices of refined products across the globe because of more supply in a high demand market . . Simply because 90% of the refined products coming from the Canadian Tar Sands will be exported into the world market.

That's why the Canadians want the Keystone Pipeline so badly. They have no refineries in Canada, and to build and operate one in those latitudes is about twice as costly as refining their products in a already built tax exempt refinery in Louisiana. and while the Canadians continue to make the threat of piping their crude over the Rockies to Vancouver, that's all posturing and bluster, because they still have to ship it to someplace to be refined . . On a big boat . . Because they wouldn't be allowed, by the people who live there, to build a refinery in Vancouver . . not a chance!

And no matter how we do this, exporting LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) to Western Europe is almost twice as expensive as the gas they are now buying from Russia . . So, in the end the Russians would be able to raise the price of their gaseous Commodity and still be lower priced than our exported Gas . . Bottom line, on the selling of natural Gas to Europe? The Russians win by a mile, simply again, because they are there, with a much lower priced commodity and the citizens will go for price before they go for liberty . .

LNG is a shipper's nightmare . . I watched a LNG ship leave the shipping channel out to Aransas Pass and into the Gulf a few years ago . . The ship, once it's underway, is escorted by two US Coast Guard Armed Zodiacs about a quarter mile ahead of it, and two Zodiacs on it's flanks, followed by a USCG Patrol Boat . . And those escorts only go away when the ship is in the Gulf and away from populated shores . . Which, if we decided to get into the shipping of LNG from our ports, very expensive for just the security alone . .

The other thing about the dream of cheap (or "Cheaper") gasoline and other refined products is that it costs more to find, drill, frack and recover crude oil than it did just ten years ago, simply because most of the "easy" oil has been found, and used. Now it's in harder to reach places and costs more to refine . . The South Dakota Baakken sweet crude is kind of an exception . . And it has, to a point, softened the market for Sweet Crude, but not so much that Diesel and JP products have gone down to any great degree . .

But there's a lot of grist for discussion here and above . .

Gotta go racing but I'll be back . . .

monroe
04-12-2014, 07:26 AM
That's why the Canadians want the Keystone Pipeline so badly. They have no refineries in Canada, Canada does have refineries. What they lack is a market. A population that is one tenth that of the US consumes 90% less oil products. Canada will lose money on every barrel pumped through Keystone.

If you follow the money, you will see that it is Big Oil in the US that wants Keystone. Due to a lack of port facilities, Canada has no significant market for its oil other than the US. When the buyer controls the market, the prices fall. I understand that Canadian oil is discounted as much as 25% below world price for sale to US refineries.

Big Oil is funding the resistance to the pipeline to the west coast and to the pipeline to the east (Montreal, I think) because the result of those exports would mean Canada would then be able to charge full world price for every barrel.

Although products distilled and manufactured from Keystone oil may be exported, they would be considered US products since Keystone imports Canadian oil only into the US refinery market. Even if raw crude were pumped into the tankers to ship to Europe or China, it would be considered a US export and sold at world price even though much or even all of it may be sourced in Canada and bought at a 25% discount.

At a world price of $100, even if Keystone is restricted to a million barrels per day (bought at $75), Big Oil stands to make $25 million per day just pumping it onto tankers and calling it a US export. They can make even more by refining the oil and selling the product at a "value added" price.

masonranch
04-12-2014, 08:02 AM
And no matter how we do this, exporting LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) to Western Europe is almost twice as expensive as the gas they are now buying from Russia . . . .

I understand from my Polish exchange student, that they pay 3 times as much as we pay for Natural Gas right now. Is it that expensive to ship LNG?

In 2007, 38.7% of the European Union's natural gas total imports and 24.3% of consumed natural gas originated from Russia.[1][3] As of 2009, Russian natural gas was delivered to Europe through 12 pipelines, of which three were direct pipelines (to Finland, Estonia and Latvia), four through Belarus (to Lithuania and Poland) and five through Ukraine (to Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Poland).[3] In 2011, an additional pipeline, Nord Stream (directly to Germany through the Baltic Sea), opened.[4]

masonranch
04-12-2014, 10:48 AM
These costs are typically amortized over 20 years. The most significant of those fixed costs are:

1) Liquification plant $1.1 per Mcf +/- $0.20
2) Shipping costs (LNG tankers and operating costs) $0.70 per Mcf +/- $0.30 depending on distance.
3) Cost for regasification $0.35 per Mcf.

The costs come out to $2.15 per Mcf. This does not include the costs to develop the natural gas resource and get it to to the LNG facility.

Since a Mcf (1,000,000 Btu) is 10 therms, the add on for LNG is 21.5 cents per therm (100,000 BTU). The NYMEX wholesale cost of Natural Gas is 46 cents per therm. Russia's wholesale price is $1.10 per therm. We can deliver Natural Gas to Europe for 46 cents plus 21.5 cents = 67.5 cents wholesale compared to Russia's $1.10. The least it would do is lower the cost of Gas for Europeans and maybe it might change Russian Geopolitics. Certainly it would provide choices for, what now is a captive audience.

Published on Apr 2, 2014
Gazprom has announced a massive increase in the price Ukraine must pay for gas. Russia's natural gas producer wants over than 40 percent more,

large
04-14-2014, 03:39 PM
Mike, the Russians charge $1.10 because they can . . They could lower their prices to 65 cents flat, and be a half cent below the estimated retail price and close any competitive justification for building a fleet of LNG ships . . Kind of like the MJ deal . . It has come to pass that after the first swell of retail and legal MJ has had the "New and legal" rubbed off and the reality of the drastic increases in price due to the taxes levied on it, now the "Street dealer" is back in vogue, and according to the Police in this state, gotten a price increase in the process . . Just as I said it would . .

Same for the Russians . . simply because today's estimate of cost to export LNG to Western Europe is probably a little low . . I can't give a reason other than Murphy's Law . . and government estimates . .

Regarding Monroe's reply about Canadian refineries . . The operating refineries are either too small or aren't state of the art to handle the tar sand separation process, as well, as was said, no export capabilities . . All of which I believe I covered, more or less without endless detail . . Primarily, it's to enable Canada and it's oil companies to export their refined products without the cost of building more expensive refineries . . They have a total of 16 refineries, 5 of which are for specific product and two that are shut down because of either maintenance or obselesance, and the rest are limited capacity although they can refine almost any product . .

Basically they have more crude than they have market in their country . . kind of like Saudi Arabia, except canadian Tar Sand Oil requires a lot more cost to turn into Gasoline . .

masonranch
04-14-2014, 04:55 PM
Mike, the Russians charge $1.10 because they can . . They could lower their prices to 65 cents flat, and be a half cent below the estimated retail price and close any competitive justification for building a fleet of LNG ships . . Kind of like the MJ deal . ..

Reminds me of what OPEC did when Shell and others figured they could develop oil shale for $25 a barrel (it was at $45) at the time. They dropped the price of oil to $8 a barrel and shell and others folded up their oil shale projects, ate Billions of dollars in loss. Then once oil shale was shut down OPEC raised their price back to $45 a barrel.

LNG ships can move "waste" natural gas that is presently being burned off from not just the US but from Qatar or the Arabian penninsila or the North sea or any other place in the world. Since it is a waste product it could be supplied at the cost of transportation (21 cents per therm [100,000 Btu]about the same energy as in a gallon of gas[115,000 Btu]) long enough to drive competitors out of the market. Additionally there is more energy in Methane Hydrate than all of the oil reserves of the world combined. LNG ships can move that to eager users as Methane is the same key ingedient in Natural Gas.

Russian petroleum products are more expensive to get out of the ground since they come from Siberia. They could not survive a long price war that would drive the price lower than their production costs, so the Arabs could do to them what they did to Shell and oil shale or maybe we are the Arabs. Is the cost of production of Russian gas low enough that they could compete with 65 cent Natural gas?

large
04-15-2014, 05:56 AM
But the overall point is . . Like the Arabs did to Shale Oil, the Russians could (and might) do to shipped LNG . . Just lower prices long enough to maintain the EU monopoly . . and maintain the threat so that investors would shy away . . remember, all of the Government types believe that they have the ability to literally give away a resource if it aids their policies . . On both sides of the pond . .

And, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Messiah attempt to spend that kind of money in an attempt to save face in all of this . . After all it doesn't take much bravery or imagination to spend somebody else's money in an effort to make himself look good . .

monroe
04-21-2014, 10:57 PM
Regarding Monroe's reply about Canadian refineries . . The operating refineries are either too small or aren't state of the art to handle the tar sand separation process, as well, as was said, no export capabilities . . All of which I believe I covered, more or less without endless detail . . Primarily, it's to enable Canada and it's oil companies to export their refined products without the cost of building more expensive refineries . . They have a total of 16 refineries, 5 of which are for specific product and two that are shut down because of either maintenance or obselesance, and the rest are limited capacity although they can refine almost any product . . .Hmm.. Who are the oil companies that are extracting the oil from the tar sands?

When you get down to dollars and cents, Keystone will create an oil glut and drive the prices down.

large
04-22-2014, 06:31 AM
Hmm.. Who are the oil companies that are extracting the oil from the tar sands?

When you get down to dollars and cents, Keystone will create an oil glut and drive the prices down.

Chevron . . .

Maybe Yes, and maybe No . . I'd venture to guess, the prices of gasoline will remain someplace around $3.30 because that's where the retailers seem to try to keep the prices at currently, anyway, with spikes upward of $3.45-.50 to keep the buying public thinking that the #3.30 price is cheap . . The Oil Companies know that anything much over $4.50 isn't going to fly and they'll start losing money at the pump because people will quit driving . . They've proven that in the past . . Although price creep is inevitable due to the increasing cost of Crude Oil. The fact that they have lots of crude won't alleviate the cost of recovering it, shipping it to a refinery and then marketing it . . all of that increases the end prices . . So price probably won't change much, I expect.

On the "Glut" . . won't happen . . IF . . The oil companies can use the canadian crude to stabilize international oil prices, they probably will, at least to maintain credibility of the countries they extract from and where they retail their products, but if there was such a surplus that it would drive the profit margins down, they just close down one refinery, maybe two, jack up the prices and tell the world that because the refinery bottleneck is there, demand is up and supply is down . . And while that's not accusing them of "Price Fixing" it's close, because once one of the big 5 does that, the rest are quick to follow . .

Another stakeholder in the scheme is the Saud family, who, at least up to now, has had a major effect on the price of crude, and of course, the prices of the end products . . The Saudis are quick to look after their own, and Saudi Oil still is the cheapest oil in the world to recover. It's practically artesian and a well drilled and producing in 1980 is still pushing oil up into tanks sitting on the Arabian desert. and quite like the Premian Basin Oil, it's "Old Oil" that doesn't cost much more to recover today than it did 20-30 years ago . . But the Saudis protect their resource and the money it brings them. And even if there is a "Glut", were it to affect the Saudi's income, they'd shut down their production in a new york minute and the world would feel it . .simply because it's hard to tool up to cover that sort of loss of supply in a large competitive market . . They have done this several times in the past, and they can do it again . .

The idea of being "Energy Independent" is not having all you can use, but maintaing a balanced supply and demand system. And if something in that system hiccups, you see spikes in prices of all stages of production and marketing . . Plus, because of how it's used, Petrochemical Hydrocarbon products aren't all used as "Energy" but are a large contributor to our state of the art technologies . . 90% of the plastics used today are Oil derivatives, as are the hardeners and catalysts used to make them durable . . Granted, most of those products come from "Sweet Crude" or the Low Sulphur Oils from the North Sea and the Baaken Formations of the Dakotas, but they again, are affected by the general supply and cost of crude, and so when crude goes up, generally the Sweet Crude goes up even a little more . .

monroe
04-24-2014, 07:23 AM
Factors against Keystone: International obligations, oil companies, environmentalists; and by extrapolation - China and Russia and the value of the Dollar.

masonranch
04-24-2014, 08:24 AM
Factors against Keystone: International obligations, oil companies, environmentalists; and by extrapolation - China and Russia and the value of the Dollar.

Is that all? Then are there any factors for the pipeline, like the public that would like cheaper energy?

monroe
04-24-2014, 08:26 PM
Is that all? Then are there any factors for the pipeline, like the public that would like cheaper energy?In my mind I can hear one of the moguls shout: "Public? What's the public got to do with it? This is about Money."

The following are my fantasies and I have no proof (yet) that any of them are real.

But "What If...:"
...Chinese manufacturing feels threatened by increased refining leading to American made products and pays environmental activists?
...Russia feels that less dependence on middle east oil will lead to an American military advantage and pays environmental activists?
...The value of the US Dollar is propped up only by the continued spending on middle east oil?
...American oil companies pay environmental activists because they feel that Canadian oil will threaten their profit margin?
...America has a treaty obligation to Saudi Arabia to continue to buy Saudi oil?

Bottom line: If one or more of these scenarios is real, Keystone has little chance to be approved.

On the flip side, if Russia were to restrict the flow of middle east oil to the US, environmental activists would be shot and Keystone would be completed in less than six months.

large
04-25-2014, 06:01 AM
The problem I see in all this is the weight of a few Enviros (a small percentage of the population) is politically damaging a source of energy or it's path to market, in a method far more efficient than current. In this country, the majority os supposed to have the say . . In any case involving the Enviros, or Greens, a small minority dictates not just a local policy, but a seemingly International one and one that affects the economies of many countries, starting with the most developed . . But harming them all.

Pipelines are considered by the risk industry as one of the safest methods of shipping or transportation of liquid or gas commodities know or used. For every pipeline leak or fire theres a dozen involving ground transportation. And of course, when a train with tank cars containing crude derails, the conflagration usually involves a few ruptured cars, and the fire burns off any spill . . so you have little leftover environmental damage, and clean up is usually done with a front end loader(s) and dump trucks to haul off the burned surroundings . . In the case of the pipeline, the one from the North slope of Alaska to Valdez, AK is a good example of how pipelines should work. Over a 37 year period there have been 4 major leaks, all of which took little remediation and did minor damage to a very local area around each spill. There ware two incidents of spillage at pumping stations and one of the Oil Company partners was fined for poor maintenance when a leak disclosed faulty or poorly maintained pipe . . and considering that almost the entire pipeline is above grade and subject to vandalism, etc, there have been only two incidents of ruptures caused by outside forces, both involving people shooting at the pipeline . .

Based on the fact that the majority of the Keystone pipeline will be buried (as are 90% of the rest of the pipelines crisscrossing the country) thare is very little chance of a major spill . . ever . .

Soooo . . It's strictly politics . . . or fear of a very small and very loud minority . .

monroe
04-25-2014, 02:46 PM
In this country, the majority os supposed to have the say . .In this country, where does the majority get it's information? How do we know what to say? Who will listen?


In any case involving the Enviros, or Greens, a small minority dictates not just a local policy, but a seemingly International one and one that affects the economies of many countries, starting with the most developed . . But harming them all.Why is the Bureau of Land Management preventing geothermal development? Why are water rights extorted or confiscated? Why are rivers suitable for hydroelectric development labeled as endangered species habitat? Why are forests declared off limits for logging? Why is transportation of coal in railway hopper cars declared a danger to the environment?

Because that's what the environmentalists want. We are apparently powerless to stop them because they have infiltrated every government department and every level of government. That small minority is bigger than we know.


Soooo . . It's strictly politics . . . or fear of a very small and very loud minority . .It's destroying the economy. It's keeping us dependent on middle east oil. It's creating immense wealth for a few.

large
05-05-2014, 05:37 PM
Very simple . . A very small number of people, who make lots of noise and "rent" Legislators with PAC Money, "outnumber" the majority . . Common sense and empirical example and history have no place in the new world order . .

Until we open season on them . . No bag limit, and hunt 'em til they're extinct . . Then, don't outlaw Abortion or birth control . . Keep 'em extinct!

Go here, read this. Probably ought to get a piece of leather to put between your teeth . . http://news.investors.com/politics-brain-trust/050514-699653-sunzia-power-line-planned-through-military-missile-base.htm?p=full

monroe
05-06-2014, 08:31 AM
Go here, read this. Probably ought to get a piece of leather to put between your teeth . . http://news.investors.com/politics-brain-trust/050514-699653-sunzia-power-line-planned-through-military-missile-base.htm?p=fullInteresting to note that the Bureau of Land Management is now already stronger than the DOD.

large
05-07-2014, 06:51 AM
Turns out, the Obama Administration has placed "Home Security Administration" offices in many of the Cabinet level departments and these "Agencies" are punitive and dictatorial in nature . . Investigating IGs who are supposed to be the investigative agencies within these government offices . .

Today's Pueblo Chieftain: http://hosted2.ap.org/COPUS/a87e093298b44f1f90ce5c51351f7c69/Article_2014-05-07-EPA%20Investigations/id-8ced274e75564432b4c612428df17adb


Obama's version of the KGB . .

masonranch
05-07-2014, 07:39 AM
Turns out, the Obama Administration has placed "Home Security Administration" offices in many of the Cabinet level departments and these "Agencies" are punitive and dictatorial in nature . . Investigating IGs who are supposed to be the investigative agencies within these government offices . .

Today's Pueblo Chieftain: http://hosted2.ap.org/COPUS/a87e093298b44f1f90ce5c51351f7c69/Article_2014-05-07-EPA%20Investigations/id-8ced274e75564432b4c612428df17adb

Obama's version of the KGB . .

Obama promised "the most Transparent Administration ever" but is delivering "the most opaque and obstructive Administration ever". It's all Double speak i.e. lieing taken to new unprecedented levels ever.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words

large
05-08-2014, 10:15 AM
Well, I tend to believe that, IF, we elect a Republican president in 2016, it is imperative that the president convene a "Constitutional Convention" and address Congressional Term Limits, a Balanced budget Amendment and reduce the Cabinet Level Departments in the Federal Government, giving back many of the rights the original Document gave to the states . . Among them but not exclusive, the Department of Education, The Department of Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services and greatly reducing the oversight and regulations of the others . . As well as awarding all Federal properties not defined by Article 17, Section 8 of the Constitution back to the states they are in . .

Fat chance . .

masonranch
05-16-2014, 01:38 PM
MARK UDALL
COLORADO
730 SENATE HART OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
(202) 224-5941

United States Senate

WASHINGTON, DC 20510




May 16, 2014





Dear Mike,



Thank you for contacting me with your views on the Keystone XL pipeline. I appreciate that you took the time to express your specific concerns.

As you know, many Coloradans have raised concerns about the route and environmental impacts of TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil from tar sands into the United States. Others have argued that construction of the pipeline will create jobs while decreasing our dependence on oil from unstable regions of the world. Because the pipeline crosses an international border, the pipeline must be evaluated by the U.S. Department of State and approved by the president. Currently, the State Department is in the process of undertaking a lengthy, scientific evaluation of the pipeline's economic and environmental impacts.

During the March 2013 debate on the U.S. Senate's budget resolution (S.Con.Res.8), two amendments were introduced that sought to influence the pipeline's development as well as the ongoing State Department analysis. Throughout the administration's decision-making process on approval of the pipeline, many groups have sought to inject politics into what I believe ought to be an objective, merit-based process. I voted against both of these amendments because, in my estimation, they represented yet another Washington attempt to politicize the issue. I believe that the best course of action is to let the State Department finish the objective analysis using the best available science and then decide the pipeline application on its merits.

More generally, as a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and, more importantly, as a Westerner, I remain dedicated to seriously addressing our nation's outdated energy policies in a comprehensive way. I believe we will succeed in our pursuit of a promising energy future by working collaboratively. A smart, ambitious energy plan that takes advantage of all of our domestic energy options will create good-paying jobs for Americans that cannot be outsourced, improve security, help the environment, and place America at the forefront of the next great, global revolution - the clean energy revolution.
I will remain attentive to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Colorado and the nation. My job is not merely about supporting or opposing legislation, but also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation's politics. For more information about my positions and to learn how my office can assist you, please visit my website at www.markudall.senate.gov.

Warm regards,



Mark Udall
U.S. Senator, Colorado

Yeah Mark, we need to get you the h*ll out of the Senate! You are not for fossil fuel Energy independence and you've bought into the Global warming, Climate Change/Climate Disruption hook line and sinker. You need to go as it is impossible to convey any sense of proportion to you.

Yes man has increased CO2 by 0.01% of atmospheric gases and maybe warmed the earth 1 degree out of the 520 degrees it is above the coldness of empty space depending on when the start date is. SO WHAT! Plants require CO2 to live and thus we also require it to live. Pine trees grow 72% faster now that we have added 0.01% CO2 to the atmosphere. There has been no warming for 17 years now.The ice on the great lakes was thicker this year than since measurements have been made. That antarctic ship that went to measure receding ice was instead caught in advancing ice. Mark do you know the earth has Ice age cycles and that we are 6,000 years overdue for one? We need more CO2 not less. Because you are too stupid to recognize that only booting you out of the Senate will work. So here's the deal. We no longer will give you a dime but will ardently support your opponent.

Oh almost forgot rising sea levels of 3mm a year or 1 inch in 10 years that is until the next ice age finishes cutting in. Then sea levels will drop 400 feet as ice 1 mile thick covers Chicago and Detroit those corrupt crime ridden Democratic stronghold cities (can't be all that bad)

Have a good life just not as our next Senator.

Mike

monroe
05-23-2014, 02:30 AM
Currently, the State Department is in the process of undertaking a lengthy, scientific evaluation of the pipeline's economic and environmental impacts. While they are carrying out that evaluation are they also evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of transporting that same oil by rail and what the economic and environmental impacts are of a derailment or collision, not to mention loss of life? That Canadian crude will go to the gulf coast one way or another, either by a low risk pipeline or, as currently, a high risk rail.

monroe
06-15-2014, 05:23 PM
How about: instead of building the pipeline and avoiding the hazards of railroad transport, the feds build Elon Musk's Hyperloop in that north-south corridor. It can carry freight as easily as people and it should be safer than either the pipeline or the railroad. It would also be a project in scope equal to the Hoover Dam of the 30s and the Interstate of the 50s and 60s.

large
06-16-2014, 06:05 AM
Mike, I have a letter just like that . . same words n' everything . . . except it's "John" instead of "Mike" . . . From about 6 months back . . .



Regarding the Rail Transport of Crude from both Canada and S.D. . . There is not much more hazard than there was before they began shipping the Baaken Sweet Crude from South Dakota . . The railroad's safety record is pretty good. When you look at coal shipments and the miles/tons shipped, the record is better than the airlines. Add to that, the Tank Cars being used in most shipments are new, state of the art double hull, with the latest Trucks, axles, and brakes. A hellova lot better than the semi-trucks that haul bulk Gasoline down the freeways we all travel on . .

Rail isn't the fastest way to get anything anywhere. I know that because I used to ship a lot of our heavy eqipment from state to state, and it gets there when it gets there. but it always got there in just as good shape as it was when it was loaded, and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg to pay taxes on it when it crossed a state line on the back of a lowboy . . When each piece of equipment goes through the chicken coop at a state line, you have to buy your way in, and back out again . . each time!

And, while one tragic incident in Canada has underlined the risk of hauling any volatile material on railroads, most of rail shipment's detractors would be absolutely horrified if they had a clue of what rumbles through their towns and cities on the rails . . Those Brand new Black Tank Cars they're hauling crude in is nothing . . You really need to worry more about those old white tank cars . . they haul Anhydrous Ammonia, Hydrochloric Acid, Liquid Chlorine and other volatile or toxic liquids and gases that can kill hundreds if a tank is ruptured in the right location . .

Granted, the Baaken Sweet Crude is probably the most volatile crude that is being shipped in quantity in many years, but again, if you only knew what rolled down the freeways beside you during rush hour or rumbled through your town in the dark on railroad tracks, you'd dig a hole and crawl into it . . Plus, Pipeline safety ain't what it used to be these days either . . You might note their failure rates in the last decade . . something else to worry about . . just like lightning!

Economically, though, the Pipeline makes sense, even though probably not a gallon of refined product from that finished pipeline would ever get sold or used in the USA . . I've said that previously!

monroe
07-10-2014, 11:56 AM
Economically, though, the Pipeline makes sense, even though probably not a gallon of refined product from that finished pipeline would ever get sold or used in the USA . . I've said that previously!One question that, to my knowledge, has not been asked is whether the sale of Canadian crude from Texas will be treated as a US export or as a Canadian export. Almost all products and commodities have middlemen who reap a profit from buying and selling. There is a profit to be made buying Canadian crude and selling it on the world market and if the US can afford to export 300 to 500 million barrels a year it would have a terrific impact on the middle east oil prices. Nobody would care where that oil comes from.

large
07-12-2014, 09:27 AM
One question that, to my knowledge, has not been asked is whether the sale of Canadian crude from Texas will be treated as a US export or as a Canadian export. Almost all products and commodities have middlemen who reap a profit from buying and selling. There is a profit to be made buying Canadian crude and selling it on the world market and if the US can afford to export 300 to 500 million barrels a year it would have a terrific impact on the middle east oil prices. Nobody would care where that oil comes from.


Dunno, but probably a US Export because it is being refined in a US refinery, owned, I think by US interests . . But then, that could be way off base too . .

Because? The refineries are supposed to be "Tax Exempt' and in some sort of "Enterprise Zone" that isn't subect to Federal or other taxes . .

But the big point is the one you made concerning the injection of 300 to 500 million Barrels of refined product(s) into the world market, no matter where it's final destination might be, certainly would modify the world market . . and the world market is part of what makes Fuel costs so high . . Removes the "Arab Fart" consequence . .

masonranch
07-12-2014, 09:38 AM
Dunno, but probably a US Export because it is being refined in a US refinery, owned, I think by US interests . . But then, that could be way off base too . .

Because? The refineries are supposed to be "Tax Exempt' and in some sort of "Enterprise Zone" that isn't subect to Federal or other taxes . .

But the big point is the one you made concerning the injection of 300 to 500 million Barrels of refined product(s) into the world market, no matter where it's final destination might be, certainly would modify the world market . . and the world market is part of what makes Fuel costs so high . . Removes the "Arab Fart" consequence . .

So the delay/stonewalling of the Keystone pipeline is just more economic interference to try to drive the price of fossil fuels high enough so that wind and solar can compete. I think some of the radical enviro group would like to see $10 a gallon gas just to force us into electric/fuel cell cars. This is government acting not in favor of the voters but against their best interest - who needs it and for D@mn sure who should have to pay for their own oppression while funding with these same higher prices Russian black mail of Europe and Islamic Terror? This is nuts and the people that voted for this should all be sent to an insane asylum and committed for psychiatric therapy and brain transplant.

monroe
07-13-2014, 08:41 AM
So the delay/stonewalling of the Keystone pipeline is just more economic interference to try to drive the price of fossil fuels high enough so that wind and solar can compete. I think some of the radical enviro group would like to see $10 a gallon gas just to force us into electric/fuel cell cars. That's what makes me wonder if they aren't actually funded by the Koch brothers. Drive up the price of energy all around then kill the EV again. If they really wanted to kill the ICE and force us into EVs, they wouldn't be talking CO2, they'd be shouting about toxic emissions and particulate pollution. EG. Acid rain and lung cancer.


This is government acting not in favor of the voters but against their best interest - who needs it and for D@mn sure who should have to pay for their own oppression while funding with these same higher prices Russian black mail of Europe and Islamic Terror? This is nuts and the people that voted for this should all be sent to an insane asylum and committed for psychiatric therapy and brain transplant.Don't blame the ignorant voters. They only do what the media tells them after they have been indoctrinated.

"Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

masonranch
07-13-2014, 12:03 PM
That's what makes me wonder if they aren't actually funded by the Koch brothers. Drive up the price of energy all around then kill the EV again.

Whoa this is @ss backwards. Drive up the price of energy will make EV's more attractive not kill them. Right now at 10 cents per Kilowatt Hour, electricity is the equivalent of 72 cents per gallon gas i.e. 7.2 KWH per mechanical energy in a gallon of gasoline.

But Obama's war on coal may drive the price of electricity through the roof. Even at 20 cents per KWH, that's still $1.44 per gallon gas equivalent.

monroe
07-14-2014, 09:02 PM
Whoa this is @ss backwards. Drive up the price of energy will make EV's more attractive not kill them. Look at the big picture. Coal power plants and hydro power plants are being decommissioned and nuclear has a bad image. New hydro plants and geothermal are not getting permits. That leaves natural gas for electricity generation along with solar and wind. Who controls natural gas?

Legislators are pushing hydrogen fuel cells. At this time, the most promising method of producing hydrogen is still from natural gas. Who controls natural gas?

It isn't the price of energy that would destroy the EV, it is bad press and legislation; just like 100 years ago. Don't forget how much power the brothers wield.

monroe
10-18-2014, 05:45 PM
Keystone would allow Canadian oil to be sold to the world as an American export.
Environmentalists oppose and Obama delays.
Canada wants to build a pipeline to the west coast.
Environmentalists oppose.
Europe depends on Russian oil and gas.
Russia attacks Ukraine.
World imposes sanctions on Russia.
Russia threatens Europe's energy delivery.
War in Middle East attacks oil facilities.
Canada on verge of approving west coast pipeline & port.
Russia negotiates to sell oil to China.
Russian oil tanker adrift off Canada's west coast conveniently close to proposed oil port at end of proposed pipeline.
Environmentalists rejoice.

Question 1: Is there a thread of continuity through this series of events?
Question 2: Who is most likely to gain from these events?
Question 3: Can you predict the next three additions to this list?

masonranch
10-19-2014, 03:20 PM
Question 1: Is there a thread of continuity through this series of events?
Question 2: Who is most likely to gain from these events?
Question 3: Can you predict the next three additions to this list?

1. It sure seems there is a concerted effort todrive the price of oil products through the roof. Is this all a oil cartel manipulation.
2. Russia would seem to be the big winner, but ISIS in Iraq should have driven oil to $200 a barrel but it has dropped to near $75 a barrel hurting Russia
3. ?

A comment from another.

10-19-14 Jester: GUYS THIS SCENARIO IS UNDERWAY... ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK IN THE NEWS AND SEE IT...THE EAST IS WORKING THE PLAN... AND THE PLAN IS GOING TO RESULT IN THE FALL OF THE DOLLAR FROM GRACE... THEY DO NOT WANT IT ANYMOREÖ

AND WHEN RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE ON BOARD... AND JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA... AND THEN ALL THEIR BILATERAL TRADE PARTNERS START DOING THE SAME... HOW MUCH MORE CAN WE LAST PROPPING UP A USELESS COMMODITY THAT NO ONE WANTS.

AND THE LIST IS HUGE... THE ENDGAME IS UNDERWAY...

SO I HOPE YOU ARE ALL READY... THERE ARE 3 THINGS PROJECTED TO GET IN A FIGHT OVER... GAS... FOOD... AND MONEY... MAKE SURE YOU HAVE SOME OF THOSE ON HAND JUST IN CASE...

LETíS HOPE IT DOES NOT COME TO THAT... BUT IF THINGS DO FALL THAT BAD... THERE ARE GOING TO BE SHORTAGES AND THINGS WILL GET TIGHT... BEST TO JUST STAY HOME IF YOU CAN... HAHAHAHA....HOPEFULLY THE CABLE DOES NOT GO OFF...

monroe
10-19-2014, 08:22 PM
ISIS in Iraq should have driven oil to $200 a barrel but it has dropped to near $75 a barrel hurting Russia.The price of oil has been kept high by OPEC manipulating supply. However, as I alluded in the other topic, the increasing sales of electric and hybrid vehicles has shocked OPEC members into opening the taps and lowering the price in an attempt to put the genii back in the bottle.

I think technology has advanced to the point where alternate energy sources are becoming more appealing and affordable to the point where gasoline may become a byproduct with a diminishing market. If the sales of EVs and PHEVs continue to rise we may see $0.99/gal before 2017 regardless of strife in the Middle East.

monroe
10-19-2014, 09:24 PM
1. It sure seems there is a concerted effort todrive the price of oil products through the roof.Yes, and I too think that Russia is behind it.

Here is what I think will happen soon:
1. Russia will contract to sell oil and gas to China.
2. Russia will reduce oil and gas exports to Europe.
3. Canada will establish an east coast terminal.
4. Canada will establish a west coast terminal.
5. Canada will contract to sell oil to US at a discount.
6. Keystone will be approved.
7. US companies will buy Canadian oil and export to the world market as American oil.

large
10-20-2014, 06:00 AM
The original plan for the Keystone Pipeline was to enable the Canadians to sell their "Refined products" to the world without having to build the Refineries . . Plus, they wouldn't have to deal with the NIMBY's and Environmentalists for building a pipeline through their western mountains . . I dunno how far back I said that. .

monroe
10-20-2014, 02:08 PM
The original plan for the Keystone Pipeline was to enable the Canadians to sell their "Refined products" to the world without having to build the Refineries . . Plus, they wouldn't have to deal with the NIMBY's and Environmentalists for building a pipeline through their western mountains . . I dunno how far back I said that. .What refined products would they send through a crude oil pipeline?

large
10-23-2014, 08:17 AM
What refined products would they send through a crude oil pipeline?

Never said that . . The plan, according to the Law that is to be signed, if ever, states that the Canadian Crude, once shipped into West Louisiana or specific refineries in the Houston area, would be refined, and the refineries would be specified as "Tax Exempt for foreign products" (similar to an "Enterprise Zone" in the states) and the Canadian refined products, for all practical purposes, "never existed" in the US. It would be, strictly, a "World Product" . . "Leaving Louisiana in the dark Moonlight" as the song goes . .

monroe
10-23-2014, 08:39 AM
The plan, according to the Law that is to be signed, if ever, states that the Canadian Crude, once shipped into West Louisiana or specific refineries in the Houston area, would be refined, and the refineries would be specified as "Tax Exempt for foreign products" (similar to an "Enterprise Zone" in the states) and the Canadian refined products, for all practical purposes, "never existed" in the US. It would be, strictly, a "World Product" . . "Leaving Louisiana in the dark Moonlight" as the song goes . .The law was not signed and plans can change. Just like other commodities, oil can be bought outright, refined and the products sold as an American product. What's standing in the way? The debt to China?

large
10-27-2014, 07:41 AM
The law was not signed and plans can change. Just like other commodities, oil can be bought outright, refined and the products sold as an American product. What's standing in the way? The debt to China?

Obama . . .

monroe
10-27-2014, 08:47 AM
Obama . . . . . . is nothing but a figurehead. A good little marionette who does what he's told. Who is pulling the strings?

large
10-28-2014, 06:05 AM
. . . is nothing but a figurehead. A good little marionette who does what he's told. Who is pulling the strings?

Dunno. You can get all tied up in any number of conspiracy theories, from the AGW weinies, to the Faud Family in Saudi Arabia . . maybe even the Russians. Who the Hell knows for sure?

But you can bet it's basically one thing, political pressure on Obama and his handlers. Who has their hands on the thumbscrews is up for a long discussion . .

monroe
11-24-2014, 03:22 AM
The view from the other side of the border. CBC report. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/keystone-xl-loss-may-be-victory-in-disguise-for-pipeline-proponents-1.2843959)