I will worry about the dignity of the office when

[Bob Juch]

Will the economic benefits of building the pipeline as proposed outweigh the risks? That is what this whole debate is about. Not if the Canadian Oil companies will get richer or not. The flip side of that argument is "is it being held up because the government wants more of the action". By putting in that 'get richer' comment, it looks like you assume the Canadian oil companies are automatically the bad guys. If you assume greed is bad, why don't you ever think that perhaps the government is greedy as well. (When I say 'you' I mean people who are always bashing big business, not you in particular).

Americans along the pipeline route will bear the risks. Why should we ask Americans to bear a risk in order to benefit Canadian (or any other non-American) companies? --Bob

The major beneficiaries will be the Koch brothers. They're probably keeping most of their money offshore though.

[Jeemie]

Either we all will benefit from it or we won't.

How do you figure that?

Will the economic benefits of building the pipeline as proposed outweigh the risks? That is what this whole debate is about. Not if the Canadian Oil companies will get richer or not. The flip side of that argument is "is it being held up because the government wants more of the action". By putting in that 'get richer' comment, it looks like you assume the Canadian oil companies are automatically the bad guys. If you assume greed is bad, why don't you ever think that perhaps the government is greedy as well. (When I say 'you' I mean people who are always bashing big business, not you in particular).

You have to make a shitload of assumptions about what I wrote to come to the conclusion you came to.

The comment I made was "If you want to find out what something is really about...follow the money".

The money flowing into this debate on the "build the pipeline" side is coming from the Canadian companies that will benefit from the pipeline being built.

This was not a moral point I was making- it was a factual one.

I think it will be easier for you to understand my posts in the future if you keep one thing in mind.

I rarely, if ever, make moral arguments.

Any "moral judgments" you see in my arguments are ones you are dragging in there yourself.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The major beneficiaries will be the Koch brothers. They're probably keeping most of their money offshore though.

You Lie

We rate it Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... it-koch-b/

[flockofseagulls104]

You have to make a shitload of assumptions about what I wrote to come to the conclusion you came to.

The comment I made was "If you want to find out what something is really about...follow the money".

The money flowing into this debate on the "build the pipeline" side is coming from the Canadian companies that will benefit from the pipeline being built.

This was not a moral point I was making- it was a factual one.

I think it will be easier for you to understand my posts in the future if you keep one thing in mind.

I rarely, if ever, make moral arguments.

Any "moral judgments" you see in my arguments are ones you are dragging in there yourself.

I went out of my way to point out I was not talking about YOU. I was talking about people like the "Koch sucker" above, who have no ability to reason, but who seem to have a lot of political power these days.

I understand that, but there will be benefits to everyone who uses oil, there will be benefits to us in building it and supporting it.

[Bob Juch]

The major beneficiaries will be the Koch brothers. They're probably keeping most of their money offshore though.

You Lie

We rate it Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... it-koch-b/

Did I say anything about $100 billion? Note this in the article:

Koch Industries is, however, a major player in the Canadian oil market. The Washington Post identified the company in April 2014 as the largest foreign leaseholder of acres of Canadian oil sands.

Don't you think they'll sell more oil if the pipeline is built? The article refutes the amount, not that they're involved.

[Jeemie]

I understand that, but there will be benefits to everyone who uses oil, there will be benefits to us in building it and supporting it.

The benefits the US will get directly are very small compared to all the fuss being made about it.

PS I went back and looked at your response, to which I was responding. Everything in your response was a response to ME not Juch.

So yes- you were making assumptions about MY post.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The major beneficiaries will be the Koch brothers. They're probably keeping most of their money offshore though.

You Lie

We rate it Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... it-koch-b/

Did I say anything about $100 billion? Note this in the article:

Koch Industries is, however, a major player in the Canadian oil market. The Washington Post identified the company in April 2014 as the largest foreign leaseholder of acres of Canadian oil sands.

Don't you think they'll sell more oil if the pipeline is built? The article refutes the amount, not that they're involved.

Your weasel words don't save your lie. You said the major beneficiaries. That is a lie.

[Bob Juch]

Did I say anything about $100 billion? Note this in the article:

Koch Industries is, however, a major player in the Canadian oil market. The Washington Post identified the company in April 2014 as the largest foreign leaseholder of acres of Canadian oil sands.

Don't you think they'll sell more oil if the pipeline is built? The article refutes the amount, not that they're involved.

Your weasel words don't save your lie. You said the major beneficiaries. That is a lie.

"the largest foreign leaseholder of acres of Canadian oil sands" = "major beneficiaries".

Why is that hard to understand?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

you went from "the major beneficiaries" to "major beneficiaries" to protect your lie. Largest foreign leaseholder is much not nearly the same as largest leaseholder

[Bob Juch]

you went from "the major beneficiaries" to "major beneficiaries" to protect your lie. Largest foreign leaseholder is much not nearly the same as largest leaseholder

The Kochs have 2 million acres. Who has more?

[flockofseagulls104]

I understand that, but there will be benefits to everyone who uses oil, there will be benefits to us in building it and supporting it.

The benefits the US will get directly are very small compared to all the fuss being made about it.

PS I went back and looked at your response, to which I was responding. Everything in your response was a response to ME not Juch.

So yes- you were making assumptions about MY post.

Well, you can be offended if it makes you feel better. My problem was the 'oil companies get richer' comment. Which was in your post. Whether you think that way or not, I don't know. I was talking about people who are knee jerk-hate business-love government people like the person I referenced later.

[Beebs52]

I'll see your Koch bros and raise you a Soros. Again.

[Bob Juch]

I understand that, but there will be benefits to everyone who uses oil, there will be benefits to us in building it and supporting it.

The benefits the US will get directly are very small compared to all the fuss being made about it.

PS I went back and looked at your response, to which I was responding. Everything in your response was a response to ME not Juch.

So yes- you were making assumptions about MY post.

Well, you can be offended if it makes you feel better. My problem was the 'oil companies get richer' comment. Which was in your post. Whether you think that way or not, I don't know. I was talking about people who are knee jerk-hate business-love government people like the person I referenced later.

I hope that oil trickles-down all over you.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, you can be offended if it makes you feel better. My problem was the 'oil companies get richer' comment. Which was in your post. Whether you think that way or not, I don't know. I was talking about people who are knee jerk-hate business-love government people like the person I referenced later.
I hope that oil trickles-down all over you.

Hater

[BackInTex]

The major beneficiaries will be the Koch brothers. They're probably keeping most of their money offshore though.

The Kochs have 2 million acres. Who has more?

You've outdone yourself on wrongness this time. Congrats. I apologize for all the various quotes, but each one stands on its own as a fact that disproves your assinine [misspelling intentional for emphasis] assertions.

Real facts about Keystone and the Kochs

Actually, nearly all of the tar sands leaseholders are smaller companies that you haven’t heard of–dozens, if not hundreds of them. Koch is not, in fact, the largest leaseholder

The IFG folks (and Bob J) apparently were too lazy to check on any other companies’ leaseholds

shows the leaseholds of Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd., which are obviously much more extensive. Probably there are other companies that also have more acres under lease than Koch, if anyone has the time to spend on the Alberta web site

So the fundamental point of the Post story, which relied uncritically on a goofball far-left report, is dead wrong. Moreover, the Post story itself acknowledges that the tar sands encompass 35 million acres, so Koch’s 1.1 million comprise less than 3% of the total. The whole point of this exercise is to make the Keystone Pipeline all about Koch, and that premise is implausible from the start.

why is the Post indulging the left-wing fantasy that the Keystone Pipeline is all about Koch? I would add this, from Wikipedia: the Athabasca Oil Sands planned production through 2024. Koch isn’t even on the list. Zero. Nada:

The new report by IFG, on which the entire Post story is based, merely supplements another report that IFG produced last October. The only change in the current report is that it reduced the estimate of Koch’s Alberta leases from 2 million acres to 1.1 million acres. But last October’s IFG report (and Bob J's use of its information) was (is) a laughingstock.

Money Quote

The astonishing thing about the IFG report is that it admitted that the Keystone Pipeline will damage Koch’s economic interests. Keystone would create competition for Alberta oil, raising the price of oil that Koch buys in the Midwest for its Pine Bend refinery. The original IFG report admitted that this would cost Koch $120 billion! Now, that is a stupid number based on a 50-year projection. But still, the basic point is correct: the Keystone Pipeline would hurt Koch Enterprises economically, which is why Koch has never come out in favor of the pipeline or lobbied on its behalf.

These facts caused a considerable amount of hilarity at IFG’s expense last October, and the Post reporters (and Bob J) could have found out that the IFG report was a joke in about five minutes if they knew how to use Google.

The material about Koch and its oil sands leases has been provided to The Post by Victor Menotti, who was arrested during the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle back in November 1999.

Why would the Washington Post embarrass itself by republishing a thoroughly discredited attempt to link the Koch brothers to the Keystone Pipeline? Because that is a Democratic Party talking point, and the Post is a Democratic Party newspaper. But the truth is a little worse than that.

Who is Post reporter Juliet Eilperin? Among other things, she is married to Andrew Light, who writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress is an Obama administration front group headed by John Podesta, who is a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. CAP’s web site, Think Progress, has carried out a years-long vendetta against the Koch brothers that has focused largely on the environment. Ms. Eilperin’s conflict in writing about environmental issues has already been a subject of controversy at the Post. The paper’s ombudsman should examine this latest example of Ms. Eilperin throwing facts to the winds in her eagerness to promote her (and her husband’s) far-left agenda.

[BackInTex]

Americans along the pipeline route will bear the risks. Why should we ask Americans to bear a risk in order to benefit Canadian (or any other non-American) companies? --Bob

What part of "Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport oil, gas and refined products. " did you not understand, or believe.

Also, the only 'no' votes in the Senate came from senators in states NOT impacted by the routing of the pipeline. In fact, the 'no' votes were almost exclusively the coast states (with a few mid-western states), those the farthest from the route, and farthest to the left.

But why should we ask Americans along the rail lines to bear a greater risk in order to prevent benefiting any company (if that is your goal, which it seems to be)?

[Jeemie]

"the largest foreign leaseholder of acres of Canadian oil sands" = "major beneficiaries".

Why is that hard to understand?

Sorry Bob- you cannot definitively claim they will get the most benefits on that equation alone. Their holdings are quite complex and byzantine- hard to figure out., so technically, seersucker is correct.

Although my gut reaction that the Kochs will lose money, as BiT is claiming with his sources, is also a lot of hooey. Overy the past year, Americans for Prosperity has been lobbying pretty hard for Keystone- I doubt if they stood to lose a lot of money they would be doing that.

Kochs are definitely all about oil, all the time, in spite of them trying to claim they are for all sources of energy. Once again, if you follow the money, their money goes to promoting oil exploration, and they promote knocking all alternatives pretty damn hard on the head.

Follow the money...

[Jeemie]

Americans along the pipeline route will bear the risks. Why should we ask Americans to bear a risk in order to benefit Canadian (or any other non-American) companies? --Bob

What part of "Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport oil, gas and refined products. " did you not understand, or believe.

Also, the only 'no' votes in the Senate came from senators in states NOT impacted by the routing of the pipeline. In fact, the 'no' votes were almost exclusively the coast states (with a few mid-western states), those the farthest from the route, and farthest to the left.

But why should we ask Americans along the rail lines to bear a greater risk in order to prevent benefiting any company (if that is your goal, which it seems to be)?

I don't mind building the pipeline, but here I will moralize a bit and tell the pipelines proponents to stop telling tall tales about how much it will benefit America because it really won't all that much.

[BackInTex]

Although my gut reaction that the Kochs will lose money, as BiT is claiming with his sources, is also a lot of hooey.

I'm not claiming that. I simply quoted a source stating that the source of BJ's propaganda says the exact opposite of what BJ inferred about that propaganda.

The Koch's have maintained the Pine Bend refinery because it provides above market returns because it can get the syncrude on the cheap because it is one of the few choices of where to send it for refining. But the capacity of Pine Bend is 320,000 bbls/day. XL would add 700,000 bbls/day capacity to southern refineries. That will significantly increase the supply of available refining capacity but it will cost more to get the barrels to Cushing and on to the Gulf refineries than to Pine Bend. Pine Bend's feed stock prices may increase but crack spreads are a complicated economic business and nobody plays it better than Koch.

[Beebs52]

What happened to the original post in this thread and its followup?

[Bob Juch]

The major beneficiaries will be the Koch brothers. They're probably keeping most of their money offshore though.

The Kochs have 2 million acres. Who has more?

You've outdone yourself on wrongness this time. Congrats. I apologize for all the various quotes, but each one stands on its own as a fact that disproves your assinine [misspelling intentional for emphasis] assertions.

Real facts about Keystone and the Kochs

Actually, nearly all of the tar sands leaseholders are smaller companies that you haven’t heard of–dozens, if not hundreds of them. Koch is not, in fact, the largest leaseholder

The IFG folks (and Bob J) apparently were too lazy to check on any other companies’ leaseholds

shows the leaseholds of Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd., which are obviously much more extensive. Probably there are other companies that also have more acres under lease than Koch, if anyone has the time to spend on the Alberta web site

So the fundamental point of the Post story, which relied uncritically on a goofball far-left report, is dead wrong. Moreover, the Post story itself acknowledges that the tar sands encompass 35 million acres, so Koch’s 1.1 million comprise less than 3% of the total. The whole point of this exercise is to make the Keystone Pipeline all about Koch, and that premise is implausible from the start.

why is the Post indulging the left-wing fantasy that the Keystone Pipeline is all about Koch? I would add this, from Wikipedia: the Athabasca Oil Sands planned production through 2024. Koch isn’t even on the list. Zero. Nada:

The new report by IFG, on which the entire Post story is based, merely supplements another report that IFG produced last October. The only change in the current report is that it reduced the estimate of Koch’s Alberta leases from 2 million acres to 1.1 million acres. But last October’s IFG report (and Bob J's use of its information) was (is) a laughingstock.

Money Quote

The astonishing thing about the IFG report is that it admitted that the Keystone Pipeline will damage Koch’s economic interests. Keystone would create competition for Alberta oil, raising the price of oil that Koch buys in the Midwest for its Pine Bend refinery. The original IFG report admitted that this would cost Koch $120 billion! Now, that is a stupid number based on a 50-year projection. But still, the basic point is correct: the Keystone Pipeline would hurt Koch Enterprises economically, which is why Koch has never come out in favor of the pipeline or lobbied on its behalf.

These facts caused a considerable amount of hilarity at IFG’s expense last October, and the Post reporters (and Bob J) could have found out that the IFG report was a joke in about five minutes if they knew how to use Google.

The material about Koch and its oil sands leases has been provided to The Post by Victor Menotti, who was arrested during the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle back in November 1999.

Why would the Washington Post embarrass itself by republishing a thoroughly discredited attempt to link the Koch brothers to the Keystone Pipeline? Because that is a Democratic Party talking point, and the Post is a Democratic Party newspaper. But the truth is a little worse than that.

Who is Post reporter Juliet Eilperin? Among other things, she is married to Andrew Light, who writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress. The Center for American Progress is an Obama administration front group headed by John Podesta, who is a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. CAP’s web site, Think Progress, has carried out a years-long vendetta against the Koch brothers that has focused largely on the environment. Ms. Eilperin’s conflict in writing about environmental issues has already been a subject of controversy at the Post. The paper’s ombudsman should examine this latest example of Ms. Eilperin throwing facts to the winds in her eagerness to promote her (and her husband’s) far-left agenda.

Your source is just another conservative blog. Why should I believe them?

[BackInTex]

Your source is just another conservative blog. Why should I believe them?

1. Because it contains facts.
2. You don't believe your own source.

[Bob Juch]

Your source is just another conservative blog. Why should I believe them?

1. Because it contains facts.
2. You don't believe your own source.

Who says they're facts?

[BackInTex]

Your source is just another conservative blog. Why should I believe them?

1. Because it contains facts.
2. You don't believe your own source.

Who says they're facts?

It appears I did. Can you read?

[Jeemie]

What happened to the original post in this thread and its followup?

Hey Beebs.

When BiT initially mentioned Keystone (and that "Leftist hypocrite Warren Buffet") you responded with "You formenter!"

So you were present when this thread went off its original path onto this one. Don't play all "What happened?" now.