3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

none of that is an argument for not completing the pipeline, which is your supposed point


the law gives pipelines the right of eminent domain..take that up else where should you not like that but its not an argument against the pipeline in this context

It is supposed to be used for the public good. That is a very slippery slope you are arguing for.

any tax deduction or credit or whatever it is that you have deduced, read in some misdirected blog or somehow devined, is some loop hole or undeserved tax break has nothing to do with the pipeline

Yes it does. Think Solendra.

the idea gasoline or other refined products enter the market to be sold where ever is no argument against the pipeline

When the work finishes later this year, this refinery will become the largest in the United States. It will have the capacity to process up to 325,000 barrels per day of heavy sour oil. The United States is not a significant producer of heavy sour oil. Countries that are expected to increase their production of this difficult-to-process crude include Canada (tar sands), Venezuela, Colombia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among others. So the subsidy received by this refinery is directly to enable the processing of a particularly dirty form of oil that is not produced in America.
Hmm, what was it pipeline proponents, including the owners of these refineries, were saying about reducing dependence on oil from hostile and unstable countries?

http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/


none of your arguments are on point or matter

Not to a fucking Fascist oil slut

additional refined products on any market will serve to increase supply and therefore help to keep prices down but that will be the case whether we refine the petroleum or someone else does

Bull shit...as of now, there is a oversupply of LPG , that has reduced the price in this country , to the joy of some chemical makers. There is a big fight going on as we type about this. Do I need to do that research for you too?

the reason the pipeline is good for america is jobs ..jobs to built it, jobs to maintain it, and jobs to refine the crude and ship it and all manner of ancillary economic drivers Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I am for the pipeline but I think they should pay a fair price for the land they take and they should not be afforded tax breaks. But then I'm not some Fascist oil slut.

Should people in Kansas have to pay higher school taxes because of Keystone's tax breaks?


http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/news/ar...tax_exemption/

Officials with Kansas counties upset over tax breaks made available to Canadian-based pipeline company Keystone say they are formulating legislation they hope will restore revenue they say they need.
Officials with Dickinson, Washington, Clay, Marion and Cowley Co. met with their attorneys, legislators representing their districts and two representatives with Keystone in Topeka yesterday afternoon in the conference room of the Kansas treasurer’s office.
They are upset over 2006 legislation offering some pipeline companies incentives to build in Kansas including a 10-year property tax exemption. Keystone plans a pipeline through six Kansas counties including Clay County.
The officials say the exemption will cost counties and school districts $8.5 million a year in forgone property tax revenue, including $1.3 million in Clay County alone.
But Keystone spokesperson Jim Prescott and lobbyist Ron Gaches told the group the company intends to apply for the exemption and will take the issue to court if the Kansas Property Valuation Department denies the exemption.
Several officials complained that the legislation also extended Kansas income tax credits to the company and an accelerated depreciation schedule before the pipeline becomes subject to property taxes after ten years.

Where are you anti government Tea Fuckers hiding? You shit your panties when money is given to say GM, something that actually saved a shit pile of jobs....Yet you hide when I expose basically the exact same thing or worse in this Keystone deal.

Are you Bastards really for the government taking your land for what is basically private business. This is not being done to help consumers in this country. It is being do to help a few oil companies, period.

Any of you Butt Fuckers wanna debate this issue?

I would love for you to help me understand how folks who champion private property rights , seem to think private pipelines should be afforded the same rights as a power company or railroad or highway and the benifit begot is a tax break to a refinery shipping gasoline overseas!

Do your own research. It is not rocket science.

If the oil refined oil were to stay in this country...lowering our prices, I can see the case for this thing. btw, why are you ok with the government taking private landowners land for what is basically a private company to make profits? Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not the one making the allegations. Congratulations. After 5 years of trying you can finally post hyperlinks on a board.

So, the landowners are receiving NO compensated for their land? Link, please?

Where are you anti government Tea Fuckers hiding? You shit your panties when money is given to say GM, something that actually saved a shit pile of jobs....Yet you hide when I expose basically the exact same thing or worse in this Keystone deal.

Are you Bastards really for the government taking your land for what is basically private business. This is not being done to help consumers in this country. It is being do to help a few oil companies, period. Originally Posted by WTF

One link of yours say that the state of Kansas gave 10 yr property tax holidays for the pipeline co's. That is the states prerogative. GM and other car manufacturers often have states get in a bidding war for their plants. The states do that because they know the loss of property tax will be offset by other increases in tax revenue. The Federal Govt GAVE money to GM, the states offered holidays for increased business. The holidays will be over and the state can collect the taxes.

The other link of yours says the refineries will receive from the Federal govt a ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION of refinery assets. The approximate 1 billion dollar figure in the article is depreciation of plant assets, not a tax credit. Thats 1 billion dollars is economic impact - re: jobs. All the refineries in CA are sour crude refineries.

So the govts are going to get its money and the people will get jobs. That's the chirping you hear...its not crickets.

I'm still waiting to hear from Munch and tim about the tax treatment of the oil coming thru.

.

So the govts are going to get its money and the people will get jobs. That's the chirping you hear...its not crickets.

. Originally Posted by gnadfly

its all a list of disjointed non-sequiturs without any, repeat, ANY, argument against the pipeline.

the argument that is unstated is that obama says no, so i say no.

the only reason obama said no was because his left wing, anti-oil, anti free enterprise, whacko-enviromentalists, anti-america support was against it.

Its early. In re-reading one link the total investment in the refineries in ten billion, not one billion. The author also included calculations on why he considers it a one billion dollar tax subsidy. Either way, its just accelerated depreciation and not a tax sub.

Its early. In re-reading one link the total investment in the refineries in ten billion, not one billion. The author also included calculations on why he considers it a one billion dollar tax subsidy. Either way, its just accelerated depreciation and not a tax sub. Originally Posted by gnadfly

So you think that the interest earned from that early return is not a tax sub? That extra 1-1.8 Billion that the oil companies recieve and the government is not a subsidy in your mind?

http://www.earthtrack.net/documents/...sands-pipeline


The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project, like all oil industry projects, benefits from substantial taxpayer subsidies. Some, like reduced property taxes, are directed at the pipeline itself. Others increase the viability of the pipeline by reducing the cost of the oil going into it, or the cost of processing it at the other end. Three refineries have embarked on more than $10 billion in capital investment projects with a core objective of building capacity to process Canadian tar sands oil that will be delivered via the Keystone pipeline. These include Valero Port Arthur’s Hydrocracker Project, Total Port Arthur’s Coker project and Motiva Port Arthur’s expansion project. The largest subsidy to these investments is through special depreciation provisions under section 179C of the tax code (“Election to Expense Certain Refineries”).The provision enables refineries to write off 55% of the total investment from taxable income in the year the facility opens (50% expensing, plus the first year of depreciation of the remaining expenditure). By the end of year three, more than 70% will have been deducted. In comparison, depreciating the asset over even lower-bound estimates for the actual life of the asset (20 years for example) would result in a much lower 12.5% of the investment written off by year three.The rapid write-off turns out to be quite a valuable subsidy to the refineries: $1 to $1.8 billion on a net present value basis. The low-end of the range uses a lower bound cost of capital and a shorter assumed asset life. Our calculations indicate that this one tax break alone is equal to between 10 and 17 percent of the total project cost.

I'm not the one making the allegations. Congratulations. After 5 years of trying you can finally post hyperlinks on a board.

So, the landowners are receiving NO compensated for their land? Link, please?



. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You added no compensation. I said a land grab from private citizens to foreign company:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=keyston...=0-22&sp=-1&sk=


DURANT - An Oklahoma family is fighting TransCanada Corp.'s efforts to build a crude pipeline across its land.
The late A.L. and Dollie White bought a farm near the Texas-Oklahoma border about seven decades ago, land the family is now being forced to sell to make way for the pipeline.
Some of the couple's children and grandchildren have filed a court challenge to Calgary-based TransCanada's use of eminent domain to take control of the land.
Eminent domain means the state can force landowners to sell their property for public use.
Sue Kelso, the Whites' daughter, says it's not fair for a foreign company to take her family's land without its consent.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/oklahoma-famil...#ixzz2M0o9hWqn

its all a list of disjointed non-sequiturs without any, repeat, ANY, argument against the pipeline.

the argument that is unstated is that obama says no, so i say no.

the only reason obama said no was because his left wing, anti-oil, anti free enterprise, whacko-enviromentalists, anti-america support was against it. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I have said I was for it. I am not for the lies of the true benifits of this pipeline, tax breaks needed to achieve their profits and land grab they have used.

Now go back to your guard duty on those oil rigs, I heard they ruled you an independent contractor. Now you are your own man!

Obama has no say at all on whether its built or not, except for the 20 yards right up to the Canadian border. Its a states/counties issue, exactly as it should be. Its a private enterprise and no land will be "taken" by the government via imminent domain. They will purchase rights of way from the landowners, just like has been done with every railroad track forever. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

No land will be taken by the government via imminent domain?

Are you sure about that?

No land will be taken by the government via imminent domain?

Are you sure about that? Originally Posted by WTF

if there is an absolute need there can be, but payment is made

if there is an absolute need there can be, but payment is made Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

If I took your land and paid you what I thought it was worth....that is the new Twa Party standard?

If I took your land and paid you what I thought it was worth....that is the new Twa Party standard? Originally Posted by WTF

sometimes ppl go to court over it , i understand

but eminent domain laws are what you are seemingly objecting to, not the keystone pipeline

sometimes ppl go to court over it , i understand

but eminent domain laws are what you are seemingly objecting to, not the keystone pipeline Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

That is like saying one objects to slavery laws and not to slave owners who used them. I object to eminent domain being used and then shipping the refined product out of country and getting a tax break to do so. I see no ' public good' in that. I'm really kinda shocked that you Tea Nuts do.