PDA

View Full Version : Follow the money ... $ ... $ ... $ ... $ ... $



LWW
01-25-2012, 06:51 AM
Much has been made about Obama killing the Keystone XL pipeline, with the conventional wisdom being that it was done to placate the moonbat crazy eco-left.

I've never quite bought into that because the regime's pollsters have to know that even though this group would wail and gnash their collectivist teeth ... but they would also never vote against dear leader. Come election day 2012 they would have been faithful bots and voted the way the regime told them to vote.

On closer inspection, if we look to see who made a buck on the pipeline not getting built, we fond it was WARREN BUFFETT (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/24/buffett-would-profit-keystone-cancellation/) ... and weare amazingly asked to believe that transporting the oil by rail is both safer and less expensive than by pipeline.

Imagine that?

This is quite similar to the regime using US tax dollars to promote Brizil's PETROBRAS drilling in the gulf at the same time the regime was banning US drilling.

I'm trying to remember ... who stood to make a killing off of that deal?

Ohhh ... I remember ... GYORGY SOROS. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html)

<span style="color: #6666CC"><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>LET THE EXCUSES BEGIN!</u></span></span></span>

Soflasnapper
01-25-2012, 01:00 PM
Since the oil company has already stated they will build a different pipeline, to the Pacific Coast of Canada, no oil will be transhipped from that project up there by rail to the Texas/Louisiana refineries, making Buffet's alleged financial benefit a phantom.

Morale of the story? Don't look to the WaTimes or other right wing sources for any kind of analysis contextualized with the complete facts. Somehow (yeah, like I wonder why) they left out the critical information I mention above, which guts their supposed point. Oh, right, that's why they did that.

LWW
01-25-2012, 01:28 PM
You mean the data that you ask us to believe on faith, in spite pf :

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, which is among the railroads that would transport oil produced in western Canada if the pipeline isn’t built. </div></div>

That's precious dude ... simply precious.

Soflasnapper
01-25-2012, 02:32 PM
Looking at BNSF's routes ( Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway) you go, look toward the bottom of the page), they do not even have rail lines in Alberta (where the tar sand source is), and no significant routes in Canada.

What this piece is alleging is that IF the oil STILL COMES SOUTH to US refineries, then it may come down by rail, and that is how BNSF would be involved.

However, should the threatened pipeline to the western shore of Canada be put in place instead, then BNSF wouldn't be carrying the oil anywhere-- it would flow BY PIPELINE to the Pacific coast of Canada.

LWW
01-26-2012, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at BNSF's routes ( Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway) you go, look toward the bottom of the page), they do not even have rail lines in Alberta (where the tar sand source is), and no significant routes in Canada.</div></div>

Other than where it pulls into Vancouver, per your map ... which oddly you chose not to post?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/BNSF_Railway_system_map.svg/800px-BNSF_Railway_system_map.svg.png

LWW
01-26-2012, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What this piece is alleging is that IF the oil STILL COMES SOUTH to US refineries, then it may come down by rail, and that is how BNSF would be involved. </div></div>

Let me get this straight ... when the possibility that Canada would just ship the oil to China, you argued the party line that this was never going to happen because it was definitely coming stateside.

Now that it is an embarrassment to the regime, you argue that it might in fact be going outside the US instead.

Oh ... and you want me to believe that you don't simply parrot the party line?

Gotcha.

LWW
01-26-2012, 04:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, should the threatened pipeline to the western shore of Canada be put in place instead, then BNSF wouldn't be carrying the oil anywhere-- it would flow BY PIPELINE to the Pacific coast of Canada.</div></div>

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Let's review the US pipeline infrastructure:

http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/images/CrudeLines.gif

OOPS!

What's that?

There actually is no pipeline from Vancouver down the Pacific coast?

There isn't one to the midwest refineries either?

Then how will it get there?

What's that?

By rail?

And what rail has the track in place to take it straight from Vancouver to the midwest refineries?

Who?

The very people you swore couldn't?

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
01-26-2012, 02:13 PM
Vancouver is not in Alberta. Isn't that obvious enough?

The alternative plan is NOT to tranship by a new pipeline to Vancouver, and then take it to California, but to tranship it from there to China. Which again doesn't involve railroads, but tanker ships.

The end products of the refining, even if it were in the US in TX or LA, is to overseas markets. Why? Because they make more money on those refined fuels overseas. Which is why we are now a net exporter of refined fuels.

LWW
01-26-2012, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vancouver is not in Alberta. Isn't that obvious enough?</div></div>

And, as usual, irrelevant.

There are plenty of rail lines to get the oil to Alberta.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Canadian_Pacific_System_Railmap.PNG/603px-Canadian_Pacific_System_Railmap.PNG

Soflasnapper
01-26-2012, 05:12 PM
Right, but none that are owned by BNSF.

Look, your instincts in writing this may not have been a bad guess, but it wasn't right.

Instead of such frenzied desperation, it wouldn't actually hurt you to say, 'well, ok, I guess not, then.'

Do you really have no grasp on the threat to pipe it to the west coast of Canada, and where they said it would go if they took that route? (Hint, not down the California coast and then to Tejas, but to the Far East.)

Stretch
01-27-2012, 01:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right, but none that are owned by BNSF.

Look, your instincts in writing this may not have been a bad guess, but it wasn't right.

Instead of such frenzied desperation, it wouldn't actually hurt you to say, 'well, ok, I guess not, then.'

Do you really have no grasp on the threat to pipe it to the west coast of Canada, and where they said it would go if they took that route? (Hint, not down the California coast and then to Tejas, but to the Far East.) </div></div>

China is already up there in the oil patch buying up everything in sight. Although there is strong opposition to the Western pipeline i can see it eventually happening in 5 to 10 years. St.

LWW
01-27-2012, 05:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right, but none that are owned by BNSF.</div></div>

What relevance does that have?

First you claim there are no rail lines there ... then you claim they don't reach to BNSF's connections ... just man up, you will defend the regime's fascist economic policy no matter what.

LWW
01-27-2012, 05:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really have no grasp on the threat to pipe it to the west coast of Canada, and where they said it would go if they took that route? (Hint, not down the California coast and then to Tejas, but to the Far East.) </div></div>

Most likely to the port of Long Beach ... and your point is?

What's that?

You don't actually have one?

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
01-27-2012, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right, but none that are owned by BNSF.</div></div>

What relevance does that have?

First you claim there are no rail lines there ... then you claim they don't reach to BNSF's connections ... just man up, you will defend the regime's fascist economic policy no matter what. </div></div>

The relevance is that BNSF won't make money on any railways used IN CANADA, and your claim is that the decision was based on helping BNSF's owner, Buffett.

Worse for your position, the fallback plan discussed is to pipeline the oil, not use railroads, at all. If there were going to use the existing rail lines already up there, they wouldn't be talking about constructing hundreds of miles of pipeline to the coast.

Soflasnapper
01-27-2012, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really have no grasp on the threat to pipe it to the west coast of Canada, and where they said it would go if they took that route? (Hint, not down the California coast and then to Tejas, but to the Far East.) </div></div>

Most likely to the port of Long Beach ... and your point is?

What's that?

You don't actually have one?

Imagine that. </div></div>

You are so grossly misinformed, so frequently. Or do you just play stupid on the board, but are really brilliant?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper is stepping up efforts to explore an alternative pipeline that would allow Canada to ship their tar sands oil to China.

On Tuesday, an independent federal panel in Canada will begin its review of a proposed <span style='font-size: 14pt'>western pipeline that would carry the oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia. From British Columbia, the oil would be shipped on tankers to oil-hungry China.</span></div></div> From USA Today, early January (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-canada-alternative-route-keystone-xl/1)

So, no railroads, and certainly no transhipment BY RAILROAD anywhere, and not the port of Long Beach.