Yesterday's Republican sweep in the US Government

Page 1 of 4  
People on the north side of the border are saying that the Republican majority in Washington will likely make the XL Pipeline that carries heavy oil from Alberta to Texas a high priority.
I think it's a win-win situation for both Canada and the USA. The USA has always wanted to break it's dependance on mid-East crude oil, and Canada has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, only it's in the form of tarsand oil. The reliable source of petroleum will be good for the US manufacturing sector in that factories that produce everything from pesticides to plastics, from carpets to containers and from cosmetics to aviation fuel will have a reliable supply of crude oil feed stock. Canada will benefit by having a reliable and steady customer for it's tar sand oil.
When the XL Pipeline was first proposed, most people thought it was a no-brainer. The US needs petroleum for heat and power, and Canada has lots of it. Also, there's tons of unused refining capacity in Texas. But, Obama got elected running on a "green future" campaign, and that threw a monkey wrench into the machinery of getting that pipeline built. Things may change now.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/5/14, 6:12 PM, nestork wrote:

sending crude oil to American refiners, I'd want to block competition.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In belched:

Warren Buffet comes to mind. Being that he currently owns the railroad that transports the oil now, he has alot to lose if the pipeline gets built. Not surprising that he is a BIG backer of obammy, too
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 19:21:46 -0500, J Burns wrote:

Today my brother was telling me how the Saudis are lowering the price of their oil to try and stamp out initiatives over here to drill. He said their target goal was $70usd/barrel. That's still enough to make money but cheap enough to stop any major investments to try and get to the harder to reach oil here in North America.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nestork wrote:

The US has never before been in a position to affect the price of oil. Now that we are... if anyone in DC has a lick of sense... (highly unlikely) we will do everything possible to keep oil under 70 dollars a barrel. Without firing a single shot we could almost destroy every shithole country that is against us. This would include the middle east, Venezuela as well as Russia and others. Of course, in this 'global economy' we'd have some blowback, but it would still be more than worth the cost. IMO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:01:36 PM UTC-5, 83LowRider wrote:

Say what? We created the industry and were the industry for a good part of the last century. Even in 1980, when Reagan took the BS windfall profits tax off oil, we had a drilling boom and the result was the price plummeted in the 80s. Crude was below $10 a barrel by the time it hit bottom.

Great idea. Turn a free market that is working into an economic war or more likely, a real war.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/6/2014 7:18 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I remember the eighties. The economy was active, and a man could make honest living. I'd like to go back.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 6:17:09 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

It's definitely a high priority for the Republicans. But you still have Obama. The big thing that has now changed is Harry Reid can no longer shove every bill that gets passed by the House into his drawer and refuse to even allow discussion of it to protect Obama. The House will pass a K p ipeline bill, the Senate will now allow it to be discusses and voted on. I t will pass and then go to Obama. He'll then be forced to either sign it o r veto it. Knowing him, I would not be surprised to see him veto it. But i t will force him to do something, instead of endlessly delay by phony BS excuses.
Another thing to watch is that the voters have spoken. Now watch what Obama does, as a clear indication of where the real problem is. He's still planning on pulling an illegal executive order stunt, allowing millio ns of illegal aliens to avoid deportation, instead of working with Congress. If he pulls that, it will totally poison the well for the remaining two years. And it will show that the real problem is Obama doesn't give a damn about the voters or Congress.

Most people still think it's a no brainer, Obama and certain loons are the exceptions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is a good thing, though. It keeps their oil flowing whilst ours stays in the ground until they run out, or at least run out faster. win/win
--
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.”
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/5/2014 6:12 PM, nestork wrote:

I'd rather send my money to Canada, as compared to the middle East. That said, I'm sure there is a lot of hidden agenda going on, people want this or that, and the hidden agendas are often not what the US populace wishes.
I have a faint glimmer of hope, but only a tiny hint of a maybe. Please, Canada, don't get your hopes up.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They haven't. They have a different, domestic pipeline under construction that will (instead of getting the oil to US refineries) will get it to export terminals to send it to other places. Well played, US.
--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/6/2014 9:51 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

It takes a 2/3 congressional vote to overcome a presidential veto. We can hope, if he gets a pipeline bill, that he signs it or lets it sit on his desk which would allow it to pass. I'm betting that his loyalties to his big donors will take precedence and he will veto a pipeline bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:02:17 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:

So far Obama has shown that he doesn't give a damn about Congress or the recent message sent by the voters. So, I think you might be right. But, I don't think Obama is so popular with many Democrats in Congress anymore either. It would probably be easy to override his veto in the House. And it may be possible to override a K pipeline bill in the Senate too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/7/2014 7:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Obama has reacted as anticipated. He won't compromise with a Republican congress and I believe fact is that he never compromised or worked with a Democrat congress. On the job training did not work for him. His idea of leadership is to dictate to, not work with others.
I agree that thinking Democrats will abandon him if they want to keep their jobs. Don't forget, 1/3 of the senate is also up for re-election in two years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/7/2014 8:54 AM, Frank wrote:

Since O governs by executive orders, maybe the new House leader can pass impeachment by executive order, and the Senate Majority leader can approve it by executive order, and be done with it? All done in about two days time.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I remember the '80s. The oil industry crash landed and a lot of millionaires suddenly were broke. Must have been a different planet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 16:12:37 -0700, nestork

I hope Canada has addressed the 'lack of maintenance' BP has been doing on all their cross country piping. Running 'dirty' abrasive compounds through the pipes have thinned the walls at corners, junctions, and even out in the open in unknown [at least not monitored] amounts. When one of these pipes thins to the extent of breakage and Canada will have a spill that trivializes the likes of BP's Gulf oil platform burst. Major land damage.
Just a 'heads up' for you.
PS: a little budget and a bit of effort ALL the pipes could be evaluated, then repaired at weak junctions. But winter is upon us, so...duck and cover until Spring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 12:06:48 PM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:

Just a heads up for you. It's impossible for any pipeline to create a spill even close to the BP Gulf spill. Unless you think that someone won't figure out how to turn a pump off for 3 whole months. Modern pipelines have automatic leak detection and automatic shutdown. If a pipeline scares you, better stay in bed. Good grief.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/7/2014 8:04 AM, trader_4 wrote:

You scratch a greenie on this matter and you find that they object to getting the oil transported by any method. They oppose pipeline, truck and train. These numbnuts figure if US get it, they will just create more pollution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yes, by 80's MUCH better.
Am I the only one that remembers during the Carter years, as we waited in line for gasoline, that off the coast of Bay Area of California were SIX tankers who had NO place to leave their oil so had to wait out there? Meaning, all the storage was FULL, but NOT being transferred to the public AND still more than enough off the coast to last quite a while!
Plus, the news photo of all those 'competitor' gasoline trucks like Standard, Texaco, Shell, etc ALL lined up to get gasoline out of the SAME spigot!
Plus, during those years, I was involved in providing Security Systems for Strateic Oil Reseves. I was only allowed to know a small fraction [so not one compnay knew where all the reserves were] and what I knew about would supply oil for the US for at least two years! Shortage? not really, more a contrived shortage.
It is my contention that the Oil companies finally woke up to a principle, "Remove a commodity people deem important and you can charge ANY price you want!" And they did. Now what is frightening is that all those 'profits' went into buying farm production land across the US, so I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. When suddenly food is taken off the market so it is possible to charge ANY price you want.
...end of rant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.