rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2012 9:19:36 AM
Where are the refiners most dependent on Canadian crude?
What is a reduction in the discount on that crude going to do to the price of their products?
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,934
Points:751,010
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2012 8:15:57 AM
LOL, so rj, you did not say "raising gas prices in the Midwest"?
|
honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:18,599
Points:1,607,570
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2012 5:08:45 AM
happy Black Friday.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 10:18:05 PM
drpepperTX - >>>Clearly rj you put those words "raising gas prices in the Midwest", TransCanada never said that.
Once again, Mr. Pourbaix of TransCanada: “If you add significant new supply to a static demand for a product in a market, you should see the price go down,” Pourbaix explained. “So it is my absolute expectation, that over time, with incremental supplies of Canadian crude oil coming into the US market, you will see downward pressure on refined products prices, throughout US markets.”
You see the part about downward pressure on refined product?<<<
Did you read what you posted earlier?
"The pipeline would reduce the “discount on Canadian oil” currently paid by US refiners – an oil price increase for US refineries, Pourbaix said in a congressional hearing last May."
And, of course, you ignored what I posted previously. Sending significant amounts of Canadian crude to the Gulf means that it's not priced by the US market anymore, but the world market. The refineries that are using Canadian crude now are already using about all they can handle, thus the discount and the urgency to build the southernmost leg of Keystone, to get it out of Cushing.
There doesn't seem to be any real need for the disputed portion of Keystone XL, at least any need that will actually benefit either the US or Canada.
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 3:37:31 PM
right soda doc... that is when refineries "schedule" maintenance or have fires and explosions ....(grin)California has seen that pattern for decades... So try again McSoda
[Edited by: Gnusman53 at 11/22/2012 3:40:57 PM EST]
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,934
Points:751,010
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 1:02:39 AM
rjhenn, "And sending Canadian oil to the Gulf will increase the cost of Canadian oil to Midwestern refineries, raising gas prices in the Midwest. Even TransCanada admits that."
Clearly rj you put those words "raising gas prices in the Midwest", TransCanada never said that.
Once again, Mr. Pourbaix of TransCanada: “If you add significant new supply to a static demand for a product in a market, you should see the price go down,” Pourbaix explained. “So it is my absolute expectation, that over time, with incremental supplies of Canadian crude oil coming into the US market, you will see downward pressure on refined products prices, throughout US markets.”
You see the part about downward pressure on refined product?
|
honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:18,599
Points:1,607,570
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2012 12:01:15 AM
Happy Turkey Day, USA. Safe travels to all.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2012 8:33:33 PM
drpepperTX - "Please read those statements rjhenn, when you post a link to support your rhetoric it helps to read and comprehend the entirity, and the one who would have us eat the cake would do well to do the same."
Oh, I did read the whole thing. We've already got that "cheapest source of crude by a long shot". Keystone XL isn't going to increase the supply that Midwestern refineries have access to. They're already getting about as much as they can handle. In fact, it doesn't look like Keystone XL will increase the supply much, if any. The existing pipelines don't seem to be anywhere near full capacity.
And any additional supply will be going to the Gulf coast, where, as you have stated, it will replace Venezuelan heavy crude. So there won't be any "significant new supply". And once significant quantities reach the Gulf refineries, the price will go up. As TransCanada admitted.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2012 8:26:24 PM
honda0105 - "rjh: odd that Michigan prices just rose significantly."
Why odd? Lots of things can affect fuel prices in one part of the country. For example, does Michigan normally get much of its gas from East coast refineries?
I don't know, but it could have an effect.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,934
Points:751,010
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2012 9:01:13 AM
Curious response from the one who would have us eat the cake, especially since rjhenn completely over looks the following from the article linked, here's what TransCanada said:
{In hearings last May and December, TransCanada officials admitted to US legislators that the pipeline will indeed increase the price paid for Canadian oil in the Midwest – but suggested those higher crude oil prices would not necessarily mean higher gasoline prices in that region.
The pipeline would reduce the “discount on Canadian oil” currently paid by US refiners – an oil price increase for US refineries, Pourbaix said in a congressional hearing last May. Even so, “that crude will still remain the cheapest source of crude by a long shot that U.S. refineries have access to,” he testified.
“If you add significant new supply to a static demand for a product in a market, you should see the price go down,” Pourbaix explained. “So it is my absolute expectation, that over time, with incremental supplies of Canadian crude oil coming into the US market, you will see downward pressure on refined products prices, throughout US markets.”}
Please read those statements rjhenn, when you post a link to support your rhetoric it helps to read and comprehend the entirity, and the one who would have us eat the cake would do well to do the same.
I'll continue to stick to the facts, you guys can stick to the rhetoric.
One other thing rjhenn, the Keystone XL would carry tar sands oils in addition to Bakken oils from North Dakota and Wyoming. The overwhelming majority of the oil from Canada is tar sands. Thus the discount to WTI.
Happy Thanksgiving to you guys!
|
honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:18,599
Points:1,607,570
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2012 5:46:04 AM
rjh: odd that Michigan prices just rose significantly.
|
LetemEatCake
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:5,596
Points:1,203,730
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 11:31:26 PM
Thank You rjhenn for setting the issue straight! Nice comments!
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 8:13:12 PM
drpepperTX - "That would be a great in ADDITION to a line to the Gulf Coast, however East Coast refineries are not geared to process Canadian oil, we need to get the Bakken oils there."
Canada produces more than just tar sands crude.
"Safety of oil transport is a huge part of the question."
Not this question, This question is whether or not we actually benefit from Keystone XL, or whether there are better things to spend time and reosurces on.
"No, they have not."
How much would Keystone pipeline help US consumers?: “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil,” concludes a 2009 analysis on behalf of TransCanada by Purvin & Gertz, Inc., an oil economics firm based in Houston. “Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”
Also: "Why Canadian crude oil producers would choose Keystone XL when other pipelines to the US are running well below capacity has much to do with diversifying away from the US market to more lucrative markets in Europe, China, and other Asian countries, Verleger and others argue. Trends seem to support this thesis."
|
BurntOrange
Champion Author
Austin
Posts:8,717
Points:1,581,065
Joined:Nov 2007
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 11:19:32 AM
Wow.
Strong Opinions.
Let's all have a virtual group hug.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,934
Points:751,010
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 9:20:57 AM
rjhenn, "So build a pipeline to the east coast. Those refineries are almost totally dependent on foreign oil."
That would be a great in ADDITION to a line to the Gulf Coast, however East Coast refineries are not geared to process Canadian oil, we need to get the Bakken oils there.
rjhenn, "Not part of the question. The question is whether or not we need THIS pipeline, or whether there are better alternatives."
Safety of oil transport is a huge part of the question.
rjhenn, "And sending Canadian oil to the Gulf will increase the cost of Canadian oil to Midwestern refineries, raising gas prices in the Midwest. Even TransCanada admits that."
No, they have not.
rjhenn, "That's what 'change' is supposed to mean."
Do you mean HOPIUM?
Most of the oil WILL be refined and used here, you still have nothing to back up anything to the contrary.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 3:32:35 AM
drpepperTX - "1) Bringing in another 500,000 bbls of oil a day from Canada would help to lessen the over 900,000 bbls a day of heavy bituminous crude we imported from Venezuela in 2011."
So build a pipeline to the east coast. Those refineries are almost totally dependent on foreign oil.
That may not be the best thing for the oil companies, but it's probably the best thing for both the US and Canada.
"2) Pipelines are proven by the USDOT to be safer than rail or road delivery."
Not part of the question. The question is whether or not we need THIS pipeline, or whether there are better alternatives.
"3) Canadian oil still sells at a huge discount over WTI and our Gulf refineries are already suited to process these heavy oils."
And sending Canadian oil to the Gulf will increase the cost of Canadian oil to Midwestern refineries, raising gas prices in the Midwest. Even TransCanada admits that.
"Build refineries??
Surely you don't believe that will happen in today's heavily regulated atmosphere."
That's what 'change' is supposed to mean.
|
52MPG
Champion Author
Dayton
Posts:7,254
Points:1,740,670
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 12:15:16 AM
BO cannot stand for re-election so expect things to get worse than the last four years.
|
honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:18,599
Points:1,607,570
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 12:01:38 AM
gnu: I admit, you bring some badly needed humor here.
|
bston
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:1,810
Points:640,325
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 10:34:41 PM
Can't trust Obama or environmental groups. They don't have our best interests at heart.
|
LetemEatCake
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:5,596
Points:1,203,730
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 9:42:33 PM
Very interesting article, thanks for posting, even though the trolls are out in force!
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 6:57:45 PM
Dblecheck? why are you quoting Karl Rove???? (grin)
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 6:55:43 PM
Z51 tell those in Alaska who USED to live near a glacier.....
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 6:52:57 PM
Poor Alaydown......factually upside-down and inside out --- as usual....
But then after more than 30 years of redistributing weath, why would he even notice it.... (grin)
[Edited by: Gnusman53 at 11/19/2012 6:54:54 PM EST]
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 6:50:45 PM
Color the princeLH clueless..."He's a clown and the mainstream media got him re-elected. It's now the end of American Exceptualism. "VERY CLUELESS and factually---completely wrong
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 6:46:49 PM
rjhenn posts more fact-based than those from soda
|
Gnusman53
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,003
Points:1,111,445
Joined:Feb 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 6:44:18 PM
poor soda....loves suckling on all that bitumen (grin)
|
F81M
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:1,489
Points:785,185
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 10:55:58 AM
Doesn't matter as the greenies will win again, thank you BO.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,934
Points:751,010
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 10:44:04 AM
rjhenn - "Very little says the pipeline should be approved. Both the US and Canada would be better off building a pipeline to the east coast, which is largely dependent on foreign oil.
And the US would be better off building refineries in the Dakotas, instead of maintaining about 60% of our capacity in or near the Gulf Coast.
Most of that oil will simply be used to refine products for export. It will not reduce prices here."
=======================================
Still believing this stuff rj?
There's a whole lot saying the pipeline should be approved.
1) Bringing in another 500,000 bbls of oil a day from Canada would help to lessen the over 900,000 bbls a day of heavy bituminous crude we imported from Venezuela in 2011.
2) Pipelines are proven by the USDOT to be safer than rail or road delivery.
3) Canadian oil still sells at a huge discount over WTI and our Gulf refineries are already suited to process these heavy oils.
Build refineries??
Surely you don't believe that will happen in today's heavily regulated atmosphere.
Do you think it's a coincidence that not one major new refinery has been completed in the US since the EPA really set their agenda???
Most of the oil WILL be refined and used here, you have nothing to back up anything to the contrary.
|
eschroth442
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:1,069
Points:330,795
Joined:Nov 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 9:53:51 AM
didn't I just read that climate change stopped 10 years ago?
|
tomok
Champion Author
Portland
Posts:32,970
Points:2,344,535
Joined:Aug 2006
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 7:28:22 AM
Pressure builds on Obama over oil pipeline: Jobs vs. climate change and if the US doesn't build the pipeline, Big Oil will find a way and build it anyway. Sneeky will continue to oppose the Keystone pipeline, so your are in a dream world if you expect him to approve it. The Keystone XL pipeline is Not in his plans to help the US, the sheep voted him in again so you have to live with it now for 'four more years.'
Big Oil and Big Gas exports fuel and natural gas to other countries that will pay more for it, much more than here. The Canadian pipeline, Jobs vs Climate Change, will help export that refined crude oil and natural gas by way of the refineries on the Gulf Coast. There will be NO price reduction or cheaper prices for fuel or natural gas IN the US, so it does NOT matter how much crude oil or natural gas is produced.
'Coming out of the closet' Sneeky's lousy, smoke and mirrors, lack of jobs, dog and pony show and in the crapper economy, the 'jobs' are Not here. Sneeky's economy is not improving but continues to hurt the population and the job numbers continue to be down. People will still drive and buy fuel no matter what but it sure helps to have a job too!
Whatever the size or shape of the vehicle, vehicle manufactures Produce and the population ‘Drives’ vehicles with high MPG, are very safe, reliable, have a ‘reasonable’ cost and a good ‘value’ for the money.
The price of fuel at the pump is too high!
XII/XXII/MMXII!
|
honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:18,599
Points:1,607,570
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 5:58:10 AM
Mickey, you got that right.
|
honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:18,599
Points:1,607,570
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 5:55:21 AM
it's usually not a bad move when the person making it is attacked by everyone. Except, perhaps in this case.
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,074
Points:95,675
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:26:37 AM
Got to stop the profits, any way we can.
Oh my god! Multi-national? Ewwwwwwww....
Must be evil.
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,074
Points:95,675
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:14:13 AM
This forum cracks me up.
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,074
Points:95,675
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:12:53 AM
You've got to be kidding? Sarcasm meter broken. Me complain about oil companies making money? Holy crap, batman! Are you telling me that a business actually is in business to make money? Wow! Revelation time.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:10:10 AM
FluffyDogAttack - "Oh Good! Wouldn't want any of them to make money! Money is evil!!!!
Thanks for clearing that up.TOOL"
Let's see. First you're complaining because some oil companies make money, but others don't, which there doesn't seem to be any rational basis for.
Then all you can do is call names.
What's that make you?
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,074
Points:95,675
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:07:21 AM
Oh Good! Wouldn't want any of them to make money! Money is evil!!!!
Thanks for clearing that up.TOOL
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:06:00 AM
FluffyDogAttack - "Yeah, it's better that other country's oil companies get the money. We wouldn't want our own oil companies to actually make money or provide jobs."
Most oil companies, and all of the biggies, are multinationals.
|
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author
Riverside
Posts:1,074
Points:95,675
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:02:32 AM
Yeah, it's better that other country's oil companies get the money. We wouldn't want our own oil companies to actually make money or provide jobs. Profits are evil. Being dependent on government is noble.
IDIOTS
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 2:01:30 AM
Zonk - "Everything says the pipeline should be approved, but then we have obama."
Very little says the pipeline should be approved. Both the US and Canada would be better off building a pipeline to the east coast, which is largely dependent on foreign oil.
And the US would be better off building refineries in the Dakotas, instead of maintaining about 60% of our capacity in or near the Gulf Coast.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,500
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 1:47:21 AM
backup - "The pipeline would help get the U.S. out from under the middle east oil thumb. Not to mention the jobs and boost to our economy!"
Most of that oil will simply be used to refine products for export. It will not reduce prices here. There are very few jobs associated with the disputed part of the pipeline; most of the jobs being claimed have already vanished.
So there wouldn't be any significant boost to the economy, just to oil company profits.
|
Nancy&Len
Champion Author
Cleveland
Posts:2,043
Points:1,943,865
Joined:Sep 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:59:58 AM
Obama will screw it up, you can count on it.
|
spud5559
Veteran Author
Yakima
Posts:287
Points:85,465
Joined:Jul 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:18:32 AM
ok
|
SaturnSC
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:1,051
Points:830,850
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:13:01 AM
Bad Prez
|
Zonk
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:6,476
Points:2,101,040
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:10:25 AM
Everything says the pipeline should be approved, but then we have obama.
|
boatfloyd
Champion Author
Jacksonville
Posts:1,713
Points:387,000
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:08:46 AM
Lots of pressure from many people.
|
jrsva
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:9,846
Points:1,611,275
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:06:24 AM
It is not just “jobs vs. climate change.” Why would we want that trash”oil” entering the US or even flowing across it for export? Mining the tar sands is destroying the Canadian sub-arctic. We should be encouraging them to leave the junk in the ground. If that does not work then they should use it in Canada. Keep it out of the USA.
|
judgemobile
Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:7,560
Points:2,443,185
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:05:39 AM
Bummer don't have to run again so he don't care.
|
PrinceLH
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:2,687
Points:537,070
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:04:03 AM
He's a clown and the mainstream media got him re-elected. It's now the end of American Exceptualism.
|
pastorpaulcg
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:3,615
Points:775,785
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:03:34 AM
Okay
|