OBAMA TO CONGRESS: FUCK YOU ON KEYSTONE COMPROMISE...

Does anyone really believe that the unfettered increase in the supply of a global commodity will increase it's price anywhere? Some of you need to take economics 101.

. Originally Posted by boardman

Do you understand that there are price differentials between domestic oil and foreign oil. You are talking about oil in a pre fracking world. Here is a pretty good article that may help you understand it is a tad dated but the facts have not changed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-...-and-pipelines

The characteristics of WTI and Brent crude oils did not change during 2010, so the pricing reversal must have stemmed from the other factor that impacts crude-oil prices: infrastructure. More specifically, WTI prices started to slide because of a lack of infrastructure

YES - particularly right here in the US. I'm not an expert in the area so let me explain why via copy paste. These are the facts you're likely missing and it's not to insult you in any way it's just FACTS.

While the quotes (not in totality) are great sources of information this video will better help explain the rationale. If you have issue with FACTS I'd like to hear them. Personally I was unaware of these facts until doing a bit more research in this area.



http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/...rices-u-s.html Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Sorry but those arguments are just silly. They are opinion based and politically motivated.

But if we are going to deal in opinion mine is that any price increase that "might" occur in the midwest would be very short lived until the oversupply creating lower than normal pricing in that region stabilizes itself. Then those prices would standardize to regional and national norms. A pipeline that helped get a supposed glut out of a particular area would hasten the process.

Once again my stance all along has been that Keystone a red herring. The sooner y'all figure that out the better off we'll all be.

Never said that.

I was talking about accelerated depreciation granted to that industry for processing that particular type crude, during that particular time frame. Which amounts to nothing more than a tax break and a huge competitive advantage should and other plants want to come to the party after that date.

You need to make a U turn if you want to get off Stupid Street. Originally Posted by WTF

Ok, Who received a tax break through ACRS or MACRS and what was it?
I honestly don't know. A link will suffice.

Once again my stance all along has been that Keystone a red herring. The sooner y'all figure that out the better off we'll all be. Originally Posted by boardman

On this we agree.

My problem was giving accelerated depreciation to refineries to gear up for heavy crude and now we have all this light crude to refine. Yet Gulf Coast refineries are stuck looking for heavy crude.

Do you understand that there are price differentials between domestic oil and foreign oil. You are talking about oil in a pre fracking world. Here is a pretty good article that may help you understand it is a tad dated but the facts have not changed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-...-and-pipelines

The characteristics of WTI and Brent crude oils did not change during 2010, so the pricing reversal must have stemmed from the other factor that impacts crude-oil prices: infrastructure. More specifically, WTI prices started to slide because of a lack of infrastructure Originally Posted by WTF

Of course. Light Sweet Crude has always been more desirable because of the refinability. Technology that has closed the gap in refinanbility though so the cost difference isn't as great as it was say 20 years ago thus the increasing demand for lower quality oil.

What exactly is your point in arguing for or against Keystone?

Sorry but those arguments are just silly. They are opinion based and politically motivated.. Originally Posted by boardman

Huh? ok If you say so. This is why I have a hard time with most Republicans. You guys like to Spin and make up your own facts. We cannot work from two different sets of facts. I don't need to hear your spin arguments. Come up with a valid FACT based argument and show yourself to be a reasonable person based on FACTS. If not it really is a shame.

Very weak rebuttal boardman. Very weak I don't know why I expected more from you.

On this we agree.

My problem was giving accelerated depreciation to refineries to gear up for heavy crude and now we have all this light crude to refine. Yet Gulf Coast refineries are stuck looking for heavy crude. Originally Posted by WTF

Where and when were they given special depreciation rules?

I know that from 2008 to 2012, I along with any other business, had the option of expensing the entirety of certain capital acquisitions in the first year as opposed to using MACRS. That applied to everyone and was part of the stimulus. It may or may not be a tax break depending on how long I chose to keep the equipment.

Same thing if a refinery chooses to take a more accelerated approach to depreciation. If they lower their basis by accelerating depreciation on a 20 year asset and functionally expense it over ten years then sell the refinery they pay more capital gains tax. If they keep it then they have no depreciation expense associated with owning the equipment in the final 10 years of it's life and have higher earning on which they pay tax.

My guess is if special depreciation rules were allowed for this particular industry it was meant as a way to stimulate gearing up to get capital expenditures going and increasing capacity in the US as an ongoing effort to get away from foreign supply, not specifically as a tax break "just because".

Do I support that? No, not really because I don't support the government interfering in free enterprise. I don't support the Republicans pushing for Keystone any more than I support the Democrats for opposing it. They need to stay the fuck out of it because they are only using it as a political tool. Let the market determine whether the fucking thing needs to be built.

Huh? ok If you say so. This is why I have a hard time with most Republicans. You guys like to Spin and make up your own facts. We cannot work from two different sets of facts. I don't need to hear your spin arguments. Come up with a valid FACT based argument and and show yourself to be a reasonable person based on FACTS. If not it really is a shame.

Very weak rebuttal boardman. Very weak I don't know why I expected more from you. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Again, what you listed as facts are politically motivated opinions. I can find politically motivated opinions that support the opposite argument. We can rebut opinions all day long and never get anywhere. Hell just read the title of the link you supplied. It is an OPINION.

The law of supply and demand is just that. It's not called the theory or hypothesis of supply and demand. The only way to change a law is through outside political influences.

What an amazing title for this thread. I have I. The past two weeks received at least 8 calls urging me to write the WH and my congressional reps to push for Keystone. Most are recordings which I immediately hang up on--if I am not worth your actual time, then by definition you are not worth mine. But two have been humans (I think they were) and they used similar "compromise" terminology. I asked both of them what they thought a reasonable compromise was. Both essentially answered "build the pipeline". Building the pipeline may be the right answer, but for the Reps to say that is a "compromise" seems very disingenuous. You build it or not it seems. There may be some compromise on location, size, etc., but for the most part it seems a zero/one decision.

Again, what you listed as facts are politically motivated opinions. I can find politically motivated opinions that support the opposite argument. Originally Posted by boardman

Please find them and share them. I'll be keenly anticipating your very specific FACT based response to the video. I don't want generalities I want details of the Midwest refinery Ops as discussed by Mr. Slocum.

If you can't find the FACT based rebuttal of why the XL Pipeline won't raise Mid-West gas prices then I'd appreciate you conceding the point and moving on. I have a low tolerance for repeated political spin.

Building the pipeline may be the right answer, but for the Reps to say that is a "compromise" seems very disingenuous. You build it or not it seems. There may be some compromise on location, size, etc., but for the most part it seems a zero/one decision. Originally Posted by Old-T

Methinks you mean a "zero sum" decision, lol. I agree it's either a go/no go. I also think the pro-pipeline folks have "compromised" already by having been forced to wait 6 years for a fucking answer. Odumbo can't make up his mind whether to tick off his greenie-weenie or his union buddies so he keeps voting "present" on the issue and ordering another study. What a leader, eh?

Please find them and share them. I'll be keenly anticipating your very specific FACT based response to the video. I don't want generalities I want details of the Midwest refinery Ops as discussed by Mr. Slocum.

If you can't find the FACT based rebuttal of why the XL Pipeline won't raise Mid-West gas prices then I'd appreciate you conceding the point and moving on. I have a low tolerance for repeated political spin. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Again, Any response to the opinions you listed would also be opinions just from the other side. Why can't you get that through your head?

I have a low tolerance for passive aggressive tactics. In case you don't understand passive aggressive, that would be stating opinion as fact then challenging me to refute the opinion or concede. And you said I was the one that was weak? Really?
There is nothing to concede when it comes to opinion other than the fact that we all have one.

Here is my opinion in case you missed it. Keystone is a red herring. You people that keep arguing the faults or merits from building the pipeline have fallen hook, line and sinker for the political propaganda that your side wants you to believe. Fucking wakeup already.

Take a look at Tyson Slocum's credentials and history, He has a politically or financially motivated opinion. He is an advocate for renewable energy and is opposed to more conventional energy options. Whatchya wanna bet his salary is derived from expressing those opinions? Does being a frequent contributor on several news shows give you any insight?

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2579

Methinks you mean a "zero sum" decision, lol. I agree it's either a go/no go. I also think the pro-pipeline folks have already "compromised" by having been forced to wait 6 years for a fucking answer. Odumbo can't make up his mind whether to tick off his greenie-weenie or his union buddies so he keeps voting "present" on the issue and ordering another study. What a leader, eh? Originally Posted by lustylad

No, actually I meant zero/one as in binary. I build it or I don't.

And no, waiting six years is not a compromise, and the decision should not be based on how long the wait has been. That is hardly ever a good reason to make a decision.

Again, Any response to the opinions you listed would also be opinions just from the other side. Why can't you get that through your head.

I have a low tolerance for passive aggressive tactics. In case you don't understand passive aggressive, that would be stating opinion as fact then challenging me to refute the opinion or concede. And you said I was the one that was weak? Really?
There is nothing to concede when it comes to opinion other than the fact that we all have one.

Take a look at Tyson Slocum's credentials and history, He has a politically or financially motivated opinion. He is an advocate for renewable energy and is opposed to more conventional energy options. Whatchya wanna bet his salary is derived from expressing those opinions? Does being a frequent contributor on several news shows give you any insight?

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2579 Originally Posted by boardman

You're not answering my very specific question. Let me challenge you further. Please share with me an opinion on why the Mid-West gas prices won't rise based on my previously submitted information. I don't want to hear all your other bullshit commentary. You made a claim that adding the commodity won't raise prices and I've provided (let me help you out) an "Opinion" showing why and how it would raise prices.

You cannot honestly answer the question because it's a fact that I'm right or should I say Mr. Slocum is right. All I'm hearing from you is an e-version of sabre-rattling.

Very unimpressive

You're not answering my very specific question. Let me challenge you further. Please share with me an opinion on why the Mid-West gas prices won't rise based on my previously submitted information. I don't want to hear all your other bullshit commentary. You made a claim that adding the commodity won't raise prices and I've provided (let me help you out) an "Opinion" showing why and how it would raise prices.

You cannot honestly answer the question because it's a fact that I'm right or should I say Mr. Slocum is right. All I'm hearing from you is an e-version of sabre-rattling.

Very unimpressive Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

I did answer your question. I conceded that prices may rise from an already below average price. But it is my opinion that once that oversupply is relieved that prices will rebound and stabilize. The quicker we can move the oil the quicker that can happen.

Here's my backup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand