DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:...in what SHOULD have been a politically neutral issue...

Yea, like the pipeline...

agreed, Spidey. No sane person should have supported that mess. No jobs, no benefit to the US(mainly to Canada) public, threatens the water supply of millions, creates NOTHING of value. Should have been bipartisan rejection from the outset.

I'm not so sure that pipeline would be a benefit to us, either.

likely true, Ferno, if you give a hoot about your environment.

I do in the sense that it's worth not completely srewing up. we (life) may be able to adapt to whatever conditions are thrown at us, but that doesn't mean we should turn the place into a puddle of goo.

With that said, I believe pipelines are a little bit safer than both road and rail. Those kind of accidents are just plain nasty. With a pipe, you could design something akin to self-sealing fuel tank that can catch any kind of spillage, should it happen.

Since we're getting onto the topic of the keystone xl pipeline, I suggest a split here.

Ferno wrote:I do in the sense that it's worth not completely srewing up. we (life) may be able to adapt to whatever conditions are thrown at us, but that doesn't mean we should turn the place into a puddle of goo.

With that said, I believe pipelines are a little bit safer than both road and rail. Those kind of accidents are just plain nasty. With a pipe, you could design something akin to self-sealing fuel tank that can catch any kind of spillage, should it happen.

Since we're getting onto the topic of the keystone xl pipeline, I suggest a split here.

So the obvious question becomes…will not building XL have any affect on the development of shale oil? (or sands, fracking…or whatever)

Spidey wrote:So the obvious question becomes…will not building XL have any affect on the development of shale oil? (or sands, fracking…or whatever)

Honestly? I don't know. I'm not in a position to answer that. Of course, no one's really in a position to answer that. We'd get their best guesses; but that's just it. It's guesses.

Fair enough…but I’m willing to listen to a guess…hell it’s only opinions and guesses around here anyway.

Alright, here goes noting.


Right now, i think the difference would be minimal. Sure it would be easier for the product to be shipped via pipeline, but it might make a bit of difference if they were to ship by rail/road and not a dramatic difference.

Let me inject this, would the pipeline be safer to get oil to the refineries or is it safer being shipped by boat? Because if we don't use the pipeline the oil will still be shipped in. For all I know tho, even with XL we may still not diminish the amount of oil being shipped in by tanker.

There was a veto of the pipeline for only 1 reason. And those that claim the environment are lying to you. It was vetoed because Warren Buffet is a huge contributor to the Democratic cause and the president, and in 2009 Buffet spent 34billion on rail cars to transport oil from Canada to the refineries in the US. Its still coming but instead of it only costing $5 a barrel to transport by the pipeline, its costing close to $15 a barrel to transport by train and line Buffets pockets. So this veto was bought and paid for by Buffet. Stop with the sob party, faux environmental caring bull★■◆●. Its about Buffet buying influence in the white house

bold assertion, CUDA, now prove it. Buffet did NOT buy railcars for that purpose, whatsoever, and in fact, most of his rail operations are on the east coast, now that he controls Norfolk Southern. You can't throw out a BS guess and claim it to be true. This one was facing multiple lawsuits, provided NO JOBS, wouldn't have been built with US Steel, not one shred of evidence for the need.

You make it sound like Warren Buffet wouldn't have just bought out the republicans if they had been in charge at the time...

All of congress and the white house are always for sale, but what kind of idiot would buy the minority party when they want something from the government? This is the whole reason Democrats and Republicans try so hard to win the majority, it makes them worth more! It has nothing to do with political ideologies, anything can be painted as working for one ideology or another by a professional politician depending on what message they want to send. Tomorrow conservatives could declare that some of the core principals of conservatism are the support of free abortions, homosexual marriage and strict gun bans. And they wouldn't be wrong either, because just like liberals they will support or attack absolutely anything as long as someone pays them to do it. You can even see sometimes they will simultaneously support and attack something because they are getting paid both ways on it.

I still want to hear that Buffet explanation.......as a longtime holder of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, I'll gladly go look at the annual reports and see if the claim has any accuracy, because such a long-term plan would be right there in black and white.

But he didnt buy out the republicans did he? He bought out the democrats under the lie of the environment. The oil is still being transported, its just costing you more to do so. And with more potential environmental damage from derailment.

slick look it up your own lazy self. Anything I post you will just try to discredit as biased anyways. That is how you do things isnt it? You always go straight to discredit the source and not the evidence. That is after all what you, vision and ferno do on this forum isnt it?
You mock insult and discredit woody an will and NEVER actually get into an actual discussion of the facts. Yep they do it too. This cesspool of a forum called "Ethics and commentary" there are no ethics, and the commentary consists of how can I insult fellow members

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... f-pipeline
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... came-cheap

as I suspected, not one word about Keystone causing him to do anything, nor him doing anything in anticipation of any influx in business. In fact, after the pipeline veto, "Berkshire Hathaway fell $945 to $118,830 in New York trading today". Really lame of you to pin blame for a truly BAD idea being vetoed upon Buffet. Berkshire went into the railroad business steadily over the past 12 years, hardly some sort of recent plan. Even the Bloomberg article notes that his share of oil transport from the Bakken is less than Canadian National's share. No mention of purchasing extra rolling stock, nothing.

oh, and the REASON Berkshire has gone into railroads? Because as there is going to be pressure on trucks from fuel costs(railroad is far less demanding of fuel per unit carried), he sees the opportunity to haul not only oil, but everything else. He's bought a ton of box cars over the past decade from makers, and refurbed a ton more. Think those are for oil, too? Also, he is converting his locomotive fleet to natural gas powered for even less carbon emissions.

Krom wrote:You make it sound like Warren Buffet wouldn't have just bought out the republicans if they had been in charge at the time...

Yea, but Krom…I do believe CUDA’s claim was against the environmental aspect of the resistance to the pipeline…not the issue you raise.

Rich people buy both parties...you would have to be blind and stupid not to see that, and they buy the people they need at the time.

Personally, I can believe this, I can't say I believe its a fact, but it sure sounds plausible, and there are rarely documents laying around to prove such conspiracies.

nonsense, Spidey, there are ALWAYS documents around corporate strategy. Maybe not 'buying' a candidate or such, but there is nothing in Buffet's railroad strategy, which I am privy to as a stockholder, and most of which is public record, that supports CUDAs goofy claim. NOTHING. He has had a stated goal for the longterm investment value of railroad transport in the US, and has acted on it for a decade, well before Keystone XL was even proposed.

annual letter excerpt. Note that capital spent on BN system was to address lost customers due to prior problems with service. Not for anticipated increase in volume........Note, also, that he sort of bailed on the oil industry as a whole.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingan ... ar-BBi5fjY

callmeslick wrote:He has had a stated goal for the longterm investment value of railroad transport in the US, and has acted on it for a decade, well before Keystone XL was even proposed.

So basically whether he bought representatives or not he did it to promote his business and not because he specifically hates pipes? That's a huge load off of my mind.

there is utterly ZERO proof that he did any such thing. None.

Then why don't you do logic a favor and just stick with that.

As Shakespeare once said regarding slick, "He doth protest too much"

speaking of protest....just imagine the right-wing loonisphere if this were being done for a wind farm, solar project, or anything that Obama
thought was a good idea:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... -property/

If conservatives support the pipeline then they have no basis for a protest, so I don’t really understand your premise, other than the usual political aspect. (each opposing the others ideas)

Slick, your argument is weak.
He doesn't have to have 'suddenly' moved into rail.

If he has railroad cars and railroads are moving oil at a profit then he would be against that profit going away.
Any lack of some corporate memo saying they are going into oil transport on a date specific is a red herring.

Lots of industry leaders have paid government to kill their competition off. DuPont and hemp for example.

Spidey wrote:If conservatives support the pipeline then they have no basis for a protest, so I don’t really understand your premise, other than the usual political aspect. (each opposing the others ideas)

that normally I would expect a TRUE conservative to oppose the broad application of eminent domain(and yes, as noted, especially if it was a project that the left favored, but should be anyway).

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, your argument is weak.
He doesn't have to have 'suddenly' moved into rail.

If he has railroad cars and railroads are moving oil at a profit then he would be against that profit going away.
Any lack of some corporate memo saying they are going into oil transport on a date specific is a red herring.

Lots of industry leaders have paid government to kill their competition off. DuPont and hemp for example.

Hell, back in the day, the duPont family ran the country with about 5 others. However, while I'm sure Buffet positioned himself so as to benefit from
increases in all rail traffic, he surely would be happy to pick up extra petroleum traffic. What I'm arguing is that there is ZERO proof he 'killed' the project or pressured for the veto. ZERO. No one has come remotely close to proving otherwise, yet CUDA made the bold assertion that not only was that a factor, it was the ONLY factor, trumping environmental concerns or local safety fears. I called BS.

There is zero proof of all sorts of motives assigned to republicans and you have no problem repeating them.

and every time you say that, I provide the proof. I'd think you would tire of that cycle, but see you deal with the reality by denial.

Bush
Iraq War
Fathers Legacy
Oil
Cheney
Halliburton
Profit

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:If conservatives support the pipeline then they have no basis for a protest, so I don’t really understand your premise, other than the usual political aspect. (each opposing the others ideas)

that normally I would expect a TRUE conservative to oppose the broad application of eminent domain(and yes, as noted, especially if it was a project that the left favored, but should be anyway).

Then you would have to expect a TRUE conservative to be against all types of infrastructure.

Most of the eminent domain protest I have heard about normally centers around the “abuse” of said, not the appropriate usage.

I feel that eminent domain, when used for a for-profit project is wrong. I felt that when the Bridgeport, CT case hit the SCOTUS and still do.

Eminent domain is used for rail, and most of that is for profit.

If Warren Buffet gets his way and builds his power farms, that will involve a hell of a lot of eminent domain for the transmission lines.

Public good trumps profit for eminent domain.

when does public good become defined as increased profit for a single entity? It's a valid concern, and the heart of the Bridgeport case. As that one turned out, they got the land, went bankrupt, and now the entire mess stands idle, generating no income for the city. I take it that you have no issue with eminent domain being used for windfarms, solar installations, etc, even when it means taking family farms and businesses that have existed for decades?

As long as completely legal means were used to acquire the land, the project is in the public interest, and the owners get a fair price for the land. (and this may mean their profit for many years out)

Yea, as long as everything is on the up and up.

I have seen too many cases where people lost their business so a mega corp. could have the land to build the same type of business…that’s abuse.

And there are many other examples of abuse, but the proper usage is ok, it has to be, or there can no longer be any major projects built…like a trans continental maglev system, for example, and the ones you gave.

what has been happening with the pipeline, and has happened here in our region(see PennEast pipeline for context), is that the builders of these proposed pipelines are threatening people with eminent domain seizure, at rock bottom prices, if they don't sell. Not cool at all.

Links or you are just babbling