That would have only delayed it. It was shut down because of an executive order by Biden.
Obama delayed it by demanding environmental review after environmental review... It passed every time, eventually he gave up and just shut it down via executive order. It probably would have been done by now if he hadn't stalled it. Oh well.
Not true. The Supreme Court nixed it in 2020 during Trump's presidency. Biden just didn't allow a permit that wouldn't have had any teeth anyway. Also, this pipeline extension wasn't going to deliver sweet crude. It was to deliver dirty tar sands. The tar sands are still being delivered...just not by pipeline. Now, you can make an argument about what is more efficient or bad for the environment, but you can't say that the completion and use of that pipeline would have had any positive effect on the price of oil or gas here in the US. It's a global market. That pipeline extension would have been such a TINY bit of the whole worldwide system of production and delivery.
So confident... yet so wrong... LOL!
Trains and trucks are much more expensive than pipelines.
The laws of supply and demand don't care how desperate you are to defend diaper Joe.
Obama delayed it [Keystone Extension] by demanding environmental review after environmental review... It passed every time, eventually he gave up and just shut it down via executive order. It probably would have been done by now if he hadn't stalled it. Oh well.
The completed Keystone Pipeline consisted of construction phases 1, 2, 3a and 3b. All were finished and commissioned to flow oil-sands from 2011-2016. The president during those years was Obama. Oil has been flowing down the pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico since 2016. The oil is processed, and mostly exported to foreign countries, where it is further refined and then shipped shipped to other countries, including the U.S., for sale.
The "extension" is unnecessary. Exporting oil sands for processing because it is cheaper than paying American workers to process it is idiotic. Keep the sand in place until it is viable to process them in the U.S. using American workers, and sell the processed oil to Americans.
Oh, well. this Hardloper poster is against that. Sell the American oil sands NOW to foreign countries! Don't save the oil for American workers to process ... they cost too much! This poster hates the concept of America first.
If Biden had allowed Keystone to continue, it would not be completed by now. It was only 8% completed under Trump. So it could not possibly be making a difference today.
Also, it is monumentally stupid to build new oil and gas infrastructure right now. Fossil fuels are being phased out in favor of cheaper alternatives.
The "cheaper" alternatives aren't cheaper.
The president of the USA being openly hostile to an industry impacts that industry.
Denying this is lunacy.
The president of the USA can impact the prices of a market with 1 tweet.
Oil and gas aren't going anywhere for decades. It's monumentally stupid to pretend the country is ready for EVs 30 years before it will be.
Solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world. It's certainly true in the US. According to the US Energy Information Aministration, new energy sources coming online in the US this year:
Solar: 46%
Natural Gas (methane): 21%
Wind: 17%
Batteries: 11%
Nuclear: 5%
Coal: 0%
Solar, wind, and batteries together make up 78% of new capacity. That's because they are cheaper.
Gasoline demand is expected to fall sharply in the next few years. We will still have gas-powered cars for awhile but new car sales will be 90% plug-in by the end of the decade.
Not true. The Supreme Court nixed it in 2020 during Trump's presidency. Biden just didn't allow a permit that wouldn't have had any teeth anyway. Also, this pipeline extension wasn't going to deliver sweet crude. It was to deliver dirty tar sands. The tar sands are still being delivered...just not by pipeline. Now, you can make an argument about what is more efficient or bad for the environment, but you can't say that the completion and use of that pipeline would have had any positive effect on the price of oil or gas here in the US. It's a global market. That pipeline extension would have been such a TINY bit of the whole worldwide system of production and delivery.
So confident... yet so wrong... LOL!
Trains and trucks are much more expensive than pipelines.
The laws of supply and demand don't care how desperate you are to defend diaper Joe.
Pipelines only make sense if you can amortize the cost over several decades. But if Keystone was built it would become a stranded asset by 2030 as nobody will want the low-quality tar sands oil.
You continue to show how dumb you are. As Fat Hurts mentioned to you, the pipeline wouldn't be completed by now anyway if it had been allowed to continue. Those tar sands are still being delivered...just not by pipeline, and they are refined and sent over seas to make cheap rubber and other petroleum-based products. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You show your stupidity and lack of civility with every post.
Even the leftists at Politifact disagree with you.
"a 2014 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on railroad transportation of crude oil that said "railroad transport reportedly costs in the neighborhood of $10 to $15 per barrel compared with $5 per barrel for pipeline." That report also said the Keystone XL "could move a significant proportion" of crude oil shipments "off the rails, as pipeline transportation is likely to cost less per barrel."
You are literally wrong on every issue yet maintain your smugness. Hilarious. You're like a guy walking around a fancy dinner party with your nose in the air... but there's dog mess all over your face and everyone knows it but you.
Just stop.
From your link:
"Keystone XL suspension probably won’t boost oil prices for Americans
"But most of them said they doubted that those higher costs would make their way to U.S. consumers, given where the Canadian oil was likely headed, and how the oil markets operate."
"Other experts don’t see those higher transport costs automatically being passed on to U.S. consumers, for a variety of reasons. They point to larger market forces that affect prices, including the relatively high worldwide supply of oil. Plus, they note, most oil passing through the Keystone would have been exported, so Americans wouldn’t be the ones paying for it."
"Economics professor Robert Godby, deputy director of the University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Regulation and Policy, said oil prices are set in world markets and '"we don’t suffer from supply constraints in this country that raise the cost of oil.'"
The president of the USA being openly hostile to an industry impacts that industry.
Denying this is lunacy.
The president of the USA can impact the prices of a market with 1 tweet.
Oil and gas aren't going anywhere for decades. It's monumentally stupid to pretend the country is ready for EVs 30 years before it will be.
Solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world. It's certainly true in the US. According to the US Energy Information Aministration, new energy sources coming online in the US this year:
Solar: 46%
Natural Gas (methane): 21%
Wind: 17%
Batteries: 11%
Nuclear: 5%
Coal: 0%
Solar, wind, and batteries together make up 78% of new capacity. That's because they are cheaper.
Gasoline demand is expected to fall sharply in the next few years. We will still have gas-powered cars for awhile but new car sales will be 90% plug-in by the end of the decade.
LOL! No it's not because they are cheaper it's because the government is putting it's finger on the scale.
Trains and trucks are much more expensive than pipelines.
The laws of supply and demand don't care how desperate you are to defend diaper Joe.
Pipelines only make sense if you can amortize the cost over several decades. But if Keystone was built it would become a stranded asset by 2030 as nobody will want the low-quality tar sands oil.
The amortize part is for sure correct. There is reason to believe the rest of your comment is correct also, but we will have to see how things pan out. There will still be SOME need to use petroleum to make products even if we stop or greatly slow down using it to fuel cars and trucks. Also, 2030 will arrive before we know it. Lots of things can get in the way of electric cars really taking off.
"a 2014 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on railroad transportation of crude oil that said "railroad transport reportedly costs in the neighborhood of $10 to $15 per barrel compared with $5 per barrel for pipeline." That report also said the Keystone XL "could move a significant proportion" of crude oil shipments "off the rails, as pipeline transportation is likely to cost less per barrel."
You are literally wrong on every issue yet maintain your smugness. Hilarious. You're like a guy walking around a fancy dinner party with your nose in the air... but there's dog mess all over your face and everyone knows it but you.
Just stop.
From your link:
"Keystone XL suspension probably won’t boost oil prices for Americans
"But most of them said they doubted that those higher costs would make their way to U.S. consumers, given where the Canadian oil was likely headed, and how the oil markets operate."
"Other experts don’t see those higher transport costs automatically being passed on to U.S. consumers, for a variety of reasons. They point to larger market forces that affect prices, including the relatively high worldwide supply of oil. Plus, they note, most oil passing through the Keystone would have been exported, so Americans wouldn’t be the ones paying for it."
"Economics professor Robert Godby, deputy director of the University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Regulation and Policy, said oil prices are set in world markets and '"we don’t suffer from supply constraints in this country that raise the cost of oil.'"
Read the rest of it not just the bits you agree with. Politifact is openly in the tank for the left and they admit it will impact prices.
"But most of the experts we spoke with said they didn’t expect the higher transport to affect U.S. buyers, since the Canadian oil was mostly destined for export and producers would face competitive pressure to absorb the added transport costs rather than passing them along. They also say transportation costs are a small factor in the cost of oil products."
Whenever anyone tells you a company will just bend over and eat losses rather than pass them on to consumers you know you're dealing someone who's speaking politically and not economically.
Transportation costs are factor. They will impact price even if the impact is small.
The article doesn't even touch the obvious truth that the federal government being openly hostile to the oil industry will cause prices to go up...
Pipelines only make sense if you can amortize the cost over several decades. But if Keystone was built it would become a stranded asset by 2030 as nobody will want the low-quality tar sands oil.
The amortize part is for sure correct. There is reason to believe the rest of your comment is correct also, but we will have to see how things pan out. There will still be SOME need to use petroleum to make products even if we stop or greatly slow down using it to fuel cars and trucks. Also, 2030 will arrive before we know it. Lots of things can get in the way of electric cars really taking off.
Solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world. It's certainly true in the US. According to the US Energy Information Aministration, new energy sources coming online in the US this year:
Solar: 46%
Natural Gas (methane): 21%
Wind: 17%
Batteries: 11%
Nuclear: 5%
Coal: 0%
Solar, wind, and batteries together make up 78% of new capacity. That's because they are cheaper.
Gasoline demand is expected to fall sharply in the next few years. We will still have gas-powered cars for awhile but new car sales will be 90% plug-in by the end of the decade.
LOL! No it's not because they are cheaper it's because the government is putting it's finger on the scale.
The amortize part is for sure correct. There is reason to believe the rest of your comment is correct also, but we will have to see how things pan out. There will still be SOME need to use petroleum to make products even if we stop or greatly slow down using it to fuel cars and trucks. Also, 2030 will arrive before we know it. Lots of things can get in the way of electric cars really taking off.
California electricity bills are among the highest in the nation and are set to continue surging, putting state and national green ambitions in the spotlight.
"Keystone XL suspension probably won’t boost oil prices for Americans
"But most of them said they doubted that those higher costs would make their way to U.S. consumers, given where the Canadian oil was likely headed, and how the oil markets operate."
"Other experts don’t see those higher transport costs automatically being passed on to U.S. consumers, for a variety of reasons. They point to larger market forces that affect prices, including the relatively high worldwide supply of oil. Plus, they note, most oil passing through the Keystone would have been exported, so Americans wouldn’t be the ones paying for it."
"Economics professor Robert Godby, deputy director of the University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Regulation and Policy, said oil prices are set in world markets and '"we don’t suffer from supply constraints in this country that raise the cost of oil.'"
Read the rest of it not just the bits you agree with. Politifact is openly in the tank for the left and they admit it will impact prices.
"But most of the experts we spoke with said they didn’t expect the higher transport to affect U.S. buyers, since the Canadian oil was mostly destined for export and producers would face competitive pressure to absorb the added transport costs rather than passing them along. They also say transportation costs are a small factor in the cost of oil products."
Whenever anyone tells you a company will just bend over and eat losses rather than pass them on to consumers you know you're dealing someone who's speaking politically and not economically.
Transportation costs are factor. They will impact price even if the impact is small.
The article doesn't even touch the obvious truth that the federal government being openly hostile to the oil industry will cause prices to go up...
1) Shut down by the Supreme Court under TRUMP's watch.
2) Too small of an issue to affect gas prices.
3) Bound for over seas to make rubber and other petroleum-based products.
You post an opinion piece from the Heartland Institute? These are climate deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Go look at some real data. Wind and solar are cheaper almost everywhere in the world. Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind.
It's the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Unless it comes directly from Al Gore you'll dismiss it.... lol...
"Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind"
LOL! Okay AOC!
Are you unaware that parking your Tesla in the sun isn't enough to get it to work?
You post an opinion piece from the Heartland Institute? These are climate deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Go look at some real data. Wind and solar are cheaper almost everywhere in the world. Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind.
It's the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Unless it comes directly from Al Gore you'll dismiss it.... lol...
"Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind"
LOL! Okay AOC!
Are you unaware that parking your Tesla in the sun isn't enough to get it to work?
His Ph.D. is in applied philosophy. And the fossil fuel industry pays him to trash renewables.
You couldn't have found a more biased source if you tried.
Wind and solar energy are cheaper. Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind. That's why it's so cheap. Yes, my Tesla runs on renewable energy quite well.
You post an opinion piece from the Heartland Institute? These are climate deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Go look at some real data. Wind and solar are cheaper almost everywhere in the world. Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind.
It's the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Unless it comes directly from Al Gore you'll dismiss it.... lol...
"Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind"
LOL! Okay AOC!
Are you unaware that parking your Tesla in the sun isn't enough to get it to work?
Wait, did you with a straight face just hold up H. Sterling Burnett as a credible source? You are a moron.
It's the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Unless it comes directly from Al Gore you'll dismiss it.... lol...
"Nobody has to pay for sunshine and wind"
LOL! Okay AOC!
Are you unaware that parking your Tesla in the sun isn't enough to get it to work?
Wait, did you with a straight face just hold up H. Sterling Burnett as a credible source? You are a moron.
You being the imbecile you are can't comprehend that the people being paid to promote green energy have an agenda....
