Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
21 - 40 of 78 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
So you're okay with all the inflation, censor ship of free speech, the ballot stuffing that took place in 2020&2023 , the vaccine mandates, the locking up of political prisoners for two years without trials, and the supply shortages and the like. I guess you are one of those folks that have been pandered to and just love can't do without all the free goodies from the government
Inflation and supply chain problems are not the fault of the democrats nor the republicans. Inflation like this is the inevitable result of having a debt-centric economy, and supply chain problems are the price of having a highly efficient transport system to begin with.

When you have a debt based economy, you're locked in to a cycle of perpetual growth with a total collapse being the alternative. You need to look no further than a chart of the USD's purchasing power over the last century to see why this may be a problem (spoiler: banks have to print more and more money to keep up, screwing over the majority of people who are not able to purchase appreciating assets). Sure, democrats pass massive spending packages that no doubt contributes to inflation, but so do republicans. Both parties are merely acting logically in a system that does not disincentive them from doing so. In fact, all politicians are of the asset-holding class, so inflation actually makes them richer, incentivizing politicians across the isle to spend recklessly.

Likewise supply chain issues are readily understood by anyone who understands efficiency. Suppose you have a transport system that is highly efficient: supplies leave rapidly and are likewise processed rapidly once they arrive. The problem is that a breakdown at any stage, whether departures taking longer or processing taking longer, leads to a buildup directly proportional to the speed of goods arriving at that step and the set-back time at the now delayed step. These backups cannot just go away; many of these supplies are necessary for basic functioning of society at worst and are the means by which a private company survives at best. Thus, the backups must eventually be processed. But by the time they are, additional backups have formed, and this cycle will continue unless a subsequent increase in efficiency is achieved (a tall order coming off of a global economic crisis).

In short, you'd be dumb to blame the libs for your economic woes, you'd be a lot smarter to blame the economic requirements of a technologically advanced society.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Lordy you have a real warped understanding of reality. Illegal immigration is just that against the law. We've got enough criminals we don't need to bring in any more. The major lock downs stemmed from democrat executives. The current administration is working with Big tech to silence anyone who disagrees with the government line of BS. And it's the current administration that has locked up almost five hundred political prisoners without trial.

And to say that republicans are just as bad is delusional to say the least.
Define what makes them a political prisoner, be specific especially when you want to take this tough on crime approach that you are, because I’m pretty sure that entering a secure facility such as the capital building, especially when the vice president is there is a crime. It seems funny that you choose to ignore the fact that there are thousands of others waiting for trials that have been waiting just as long if not longer than two years, is that because you don’t care or believe in double standards? I guess you missed the part where I said I didn’t agree with the lockdowns but at the same time, I am going to assume your choosing to ignore the 19 republican controlled states that issues forms of lockdown orders as well. As far as censorship, the last administration was just as guilty of that as well, especially when they were sued over removing press credentials, and more than once for blocking people on twitter, again either your willfully ignoring that or want to create a double standard. Everything you mention applies to both parties equally.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
No both sides are not equal. Sure folks do tend to lie on occasion, but the left is bound and determined to erase the constitution and divide the population into the elite (including the deep state) and the serfs (we that don't toe the party line). Think I'm wrong just look at the USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela or Cuba.


If that's ok with you then so be it. It's not for the rest of us
I'll quote my post from the "Preparing for Socialism" thread since it applies nicely to this. You reference leftist authoritarian regimes, which are things we certainly want to avoid, but say nothing of rightist authoritarian regimes. To a non-religious moderate looking at someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, they would be worried about the fascist regimes of the past (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., none of which had the liberties we all love) with equal disdain that you likely feel for people like Bernie Sanders, AOC, etc. But both sides miss the fundamental mark: the threat that both sides (rightfully) fear is authoritarianism, which can be present regardless of the economic flavor (left or right) it takes on. If you want to talk about things like "the democrats being the deep state," and then ignore Mitch McConnell being a member of the republican part, then I think you're missing a pretty significant amount of information to be talking about the shadowy workings of the US government.

I believe you're confusing socialism for authoritarianism.

There is no real threat of America becoming a socialist state despite what Twitter checkmarks may want; global economics demand efficiency above all else, and the inefficiencies that would come with a socialist America would be intolerable by global capital at large. There's a reason that China, Cuba, and Russia all implemented "limited" "private enterprise" after their communist revolutions: you need an economy to operate efficiently to compete with other nations on the modern global stage. America can hardly centrally plan its infrastructure, so I'm not really worried about a centrally planned economy being in effect for more than a few days.

Authoritarianism is the real threat, and it really doesn't care about what economic system it uses. Both the communists and fascists were authoritarians, and I personally wouldn't have wanted to live under either group. Authoritarianism is likely a more efficient system for the government to operate with today than the constitutional model of authority dispersed amongst the states. Among the long list of advantages it offers the government are the circumvention of constitutional rights, greater command over national commerce and the monetary system on the whole, and a more robust monopolization on violence. To put it simply, if America goes to war against China (an advanced authoritarian system, with good control over its population, economy, etc.), America is at a disadvantage because it lacks many of the options available to China.

What's concerning about the movement towards American authoritarianism is that it isn't just one fringe political faction pushing for it, but rather that authoritarianism seems to be favored by the macroeconomic trends we've seen in a post-Ukraine War global society.

The distinction has extreme significance since your insistence that it is socialism (a left wing ideology) rather than authoritarianism completely blinds you to authoritarian pushes that come from the right as well. I agree that the erosion of the second amendment is a massive threat - but I also remember that it was the Trump administration that arbitrarily ordered the ATF to classify bump stocks as machine guns, effectively eliminating any hesitation they had with regards to arbitrarily redefining terms. I also remember that Reagan was one of the most effective anti-gun politicians in recent history.

On a separate issue, consider policing. The right openly support police even in instances where constitutional rights are obviously violated, and often make legislative pushes to immunize police from being responsible for violating the rights of citizens. Is that not a threat? What good are your rights if the police do not legally have to recognize them? This is decidedly an authoritarian threat stemming from the right - not today's left.

I certainly agree that democrats pursue aggressive authoritarian policies. But they often work with the establishment republicans to advance these policies: people who are certainly not socialists. Blaming socialism rather than authoritarianism also weakens your political arguments: people on the right crying "socialism/communism" means absolutely nothing to your political opponents or undecided voters in the same way that people on the left crying "fascism" also means nothing.

To point out that both wings are trying desperately to erode the rights of the individual is to get it right. Your town republicans (often populists) are not the same as the house/senate republicans.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Inflation and supply chain problems are not the fault of the democrats nor the republicans. Inflation like this is the inevitable result of having a debt-centric economy, and supply chain problems are the price of having a highly efficient transport system to begin with.

When you have a debt based economy, you're locked in to a cycle of perpetual growth with a total collapse being the alternative. You need to look no further than a chart of the USD's purchasing power over the last century to see why this may be a problem (spoiler: banks have to print more and more money to keep up, screwing over the majority of people who are not able to purchase appreciating assets). Sure, democrats pass massive spending packages that no doubt contributes to inflation, but so do republicans. Both parties are merely acting logically in a system that does not disincentive them from doing so. In fact, all politicians are of the asset-holding class, so inflation actually makes them richer, incentivizing politicians across the isle to spend recklessly.

Likewise supply chain issues are readily understood by anyone who understands efficiency. Suppose you have a transport system that is highly efficient: supplies leave rapidly and are likewise processed rapidly once they arrive. The problem is that a breakdown at any stage, whether departures taking longer or processing taking longer, leads to a buildup directly proportional to the speed of goods arriving at that step and the set-back time at the now delayed step. These backups cannot just go away; many of these supplies are necessary for basic functioning of society at worst and are the means by which a private company survives at best. Thus, the backups must eventually be processed. But by the time they are, additional backups have formed, and this cycle will continue unless a subsequent increase in efficiency is achieved (a tall order coming off of a global economic crisis).

In short, you'd be dumb to blame the libs for your economic woes, you'd be a lot smarter to blame the economic requirements of a technologically advanced society.
Yes there was some republican inflation due to excessive spending, but the current inflation is clearly due to the current administration s really great large spending packages and Joe's war on fossil fuels. With regard to the shortages it's directly tied to the major lock downs of school and the need for the industry to shift from large bulk institution packages to a lot more smaller ones aimed at the family level to serve the children not in school. That tp you couldn't find in Wally world was probably locked up in those closed schools.

So yeah the blame for this mess does fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dems
 

· Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Yes there was some republican inflation due to excessive spending, but the current inflation is clearly due to the current administration s really great large spending packages and Joe's war on fossil fuels. With regard to the shortages it's directly tied to the major lock downs of school and the need for the industry to shift from large bulk institution packages to a lot more smaller ones aimed at the family level to serve the children not in school. That tp you couldn't find in Wally world was probably locked up in those closed schools.

So yeah the blame for this mess does fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dems
Wow. This is hilarious, explain to me how schools, not even open (so not using/ordering) that get the cheapest one ply sold in bulk, would cause why is sold in stores to vanish. That makes absolutely no sense. Think about what your saying. Your saying that because they had to shift from bill to non bulk, that caused the shortages. That makes no sense given that for the most part all of those bulk products are made in the same plants as non bulk products. What you are suggesting is a reach at best.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Yes there was some republican inflation due to excessive spending, but the current inflation is clearly due to the current administration s really great large spending packages and Joe's war on fossil fuels. With regard to the shortages it's directly tied to the major lock downs of school and the need for the industry to shift from large bulk institution packages to a lot more smaller ones aimed at the family level to serve the children not in school. That tp you couldn't find in Wally world was probably locked up in those closed schools.

So yeah the blame for this mess does fall squarely on the shoulders of the Dems
Inflation takes time to develop: if the fed prints a bunch of money (like it did for far too long by keeping interest rates so low) it takes a while for the market to price that in to the value of the USD. I'd like to direct your attention to the now infamous M1 money supply with this in mind:
Rectangle Parallel Font Pattern Slope


Notice the exponential jump in 2020. This was caused by two things: 1) a redefinition of assets included in M1 and 2) the massive government spending that occurred during 2020 to keep the US economy afloat during COVID. Now ask, who was in political control then? Trump was president, the senate was split, and the democrats had a very narrow margin in the house. Now ask, who is responsible for this spending? This is worth asking because this COVID spending is what caused the current inflationary crisis, and that spending was only necessary because of the US economy being centrally built on debt. Much of this was bipartisan. That is simply a fact. Your argument that it is the current administration's fault completely fails: this administration's fed is the first in a long time to create a deflationary environment. The federal reserve has only begun to hike interest rates. This takes a good deal of time to take effect, and even when it does people will still be pissed off because that will mean a loss of jobs when companies make less money. This is the main economic dilemma currently at work right now: the federal reserve had to try and find a (purely theoretical) middle ground between hyperinflation (which would be the death of America as a country via currency death) and a major recession (on par with or surpassing 2008). So no, however politically inconvenient it may be, the current inflationary crisis is not caused by Ukraine spending, but the inevitable inflation 1-2 years from now will be.

Believe me, I really hate this administration, but you're completely wrong on some of these economic issues.

I also can't help but find it entertaining that you concede that schools are an important aspect of growing the economy (especially colleges, since many students prop up many small towns' entire economies), yet would likely be against paying off any amount of student loans (which, under your own reasoning, would be a strong investment to jumpstart the economy since it would fuel institutions financially so that they can buy more while also freeing students from debt to increase consumer spending).

That last part was a bit mean-spirited, but I couldn't help myself. You're missing the mark on industry, though. The problem of industry was largely uncoupled from schools: the problem was that industry effectively shut down. Most modern industry ships product globally, but the rest of the world shut down far harder than the US did. With no places to accept the product, no money was made. Hence the increased federal spending to keep those companies alive. I'm sure schools were relevant for a small minority of companies, but small minorities of companies don't always paint the macro picture of economics (excluding banks)
 

· Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
11,052 Posts
The Fed has been printing money since its inception. It has an effect on inflation. It is not the driver of our current stint, from what I can see.

The driver for our latest inflation is two-fold.
1. A year of world-wide lockdowns which crippled the supply chain. Production came to a halt for basic goods. Trying to wind that back up is not an overnight ordeal. Delays in supply cause an imbalance in price as demand remains steady or increases.
2. Day 1 of the Biden administration saw an overt attack on oil production/refining in the U.S. Oil is the lifeblood of this country, and Joseph Robinette Biden single-handedly shut down the new Keystone XL pipeline by revoking their cross border permit. He proceeded to impact new drilling permits as well. When the cost of energy rises, the cost of EVERYTHING rises.

It could be argued that the constant and massive influx of illegal aliens (government's official term, yes apparently people can be illegal) into this country, following president Houseplant's lax border policies, is causing an increase in demand for goods, further exacerbating the problem with an already weak supply chain.

And for any sticklers, yes, I oppose the "free travel" of anyone who isn't allowed to be on the property they attempt to enter. You put up fences, lock your doors, and call the police if someone breaks in to your home. If "free travel" through your property isn't legal, "free travel" for illegal aliens through the U.S. should also not be legal. This is consistent. Everyone knows it to be true.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Joseph Robinette Biden single-handedly shut down the new Keystone XL pipeline
This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,184 Posts
This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.
So you're saying that the Keystone pipeline would not have affect the oil production here at all? I would have been just a drop in a large bucket, is what I'm reading.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,435 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.
Stop drinking the koolaid and back away from the liberal, business hating, white people are the cause of everything bad table....
Food Font Cuisine Ingredient Vegetable
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
The Fed has been printing money since its inception. It has an effect on inflation. It is not the driver of our current stint, from what I can see.
I would encourage you to take another look. Myself and many others in the market pointed out in 2020 that if ~50% of all USD in circulation was printed within 8 months, there was no way out of that situation without some massive inflation. Come late 2020, the fed claimed it was transitory inflation, and come late 2021, they finally admitted that it was a real inflationary crisis. As for this conversation, it just remains for me to point out that you can't double your money supply in a single year and then claim that is not a significant contributor to inflation. This was not just "the fed printing money as always" (the fact that is something you seem comfortable with is slightly cause for concern), this was the fed doing its best Weimar Germany impression.

The fed itself disagrees with you: if they believed that their money printing had not contributed to inflation, they would not be doing quantitative tightening nor raising interest rates since neither of those things would easily impact key commodity prices like oil, which you claim to be the primary drivers of inflation.

The driver for our latest inflation is two-fold.
1. A year of world-wide lockdowns which crippled the supply chain. Production came to a halt for basic goods. Trying to wind that back up is not an overnight ordeal. Delays in supply cause an imbalance in price as demand remains steady or increases.
2. Day 1 of the Biden administration saw an overt attack on oil production/refining in the U.S. Oil is the lifeblood of this country, and Joseph Robinette Biden single-handedly shut down the new Keystone XL pipeline by revoking their cross border permit. He proceeded to impact new drilling permits as well. When the cost of energy rises, the cost of EVERYTHING rises.
Both 1) and 2) are certainly contributing factors to current inflation, but they certainly are not the main driving force. For example, supply chains have been slowly improving, but during the same time period inflation has been consistently above trend (with the only exception being the recent CPI report - which is a heavily manipulated figure, and the continued price hikes in everyday expenditures shows how useless it is outside of stock valuations). Furthermore, oil has actually been decreasing in price (currently $77.95 per barrel) since its June peak ($121.11 per barrel), but again, inflation has only been consistently high. The Biden regime has certainly made absolutely baffling policy decisions on oil, which has contributed to inflation. But to say that Biden's idiotic energy policies are the main driving force behind it simply doesn't add up. What does add up is the fed diluting the currency by half a few years ago, compounded by international conflict and poor domestic policy centered on oil.

My point is that, even if Trump had won the presidency and issued good energy policies, you'd still be paying 2x for groceries as opposed to 2.5x.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,184 Posts
I would encourage you to take another look. Myself and many others in the market pointed out in 2020 that if ~50% of all USD in circulation was printed within 8 months, there was no way out of that situation without some massive inflation. Come late 2020, the fed claimed it was transitory inflation, and come late 2021, they finally admitted that it was a real inflationary crisis. As for this conversation, it just remains for me to point out that you can't double your money supply in a single year and then claim that is not a significant contributor to inflation. This was not just "the fed printing money as always" (the fact that is something you seem comfortable with is slightly cause for concern), this was the fed doing its best Weimar Germany impression.

The fed itself disagrees with you: if they believed that their money printing had not contributed to inflation, they would not be doing quantitative tightening nor raising interest rates since neither of those things would easily impact key commodity prices like oil, which you claim to be the primary drivers of inflation.
I've heard a number of experts in the financial world say the same thing.
 

· Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
11,052 Posts
This pipeline would have zero effect on US oil production or capacity. The fact that people don’t understand the basics of this pipeline boggles my mind. If you want to use it to hack your position then you should know more about it. Let’s discuss the physics first, building a 28 inch pipeline that hooks into a 17 in pipeline will not boost carrying capacity of the original Keystone pipeline. Then there is the fact that the intention of this pipeline system is for export mainly, especially given that large tankers can’t access Canadian harbors. Then there is the fact that the oil the US mainly refines isn’t the same as what is carried by the keystone, that oil is more caustic, requires more refining, different refinery equipment and is more costly to refine, which would lead to increased costs of productions. All of this is factual information.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but I have a strong guess on where you get your opinions...
The "export limited" portion would be a 36" pipe connecting to the Cushing expansion which is 34". The intent would be to get more synthetic crude from Alberta down to refineries in Texas. Along the way, the pipe would also pick up US-produced oil from Montana.
The original Keystone pipe and the proposed "XL" pipe would both come from the exact same location in Hardisty, Alberta. The synthetic crude produced there, following the bitumen "upgrading" process, is no different in refining than any other light sweet crude. This would be the same stuff Oklahoma and Texas refineries have been running since the Keystone expansions were completed.
The speculation that this pipe was primarily intended for export from the U.S. was a democrat fear tactic back in 2013. There was no actual evidence to support this claim.
It's an export pipe from Canada, for sure, ensuring an ally-provided source of oil for the U.S.
The XL pipe was expected to add over half a million barrels of crude capacity per day, bringing total Keystone capacity to 1.1 million barrels.

Any change to the production/refining of oil always leads to market fluctuations. With the XL, and expected higher capacities, being scrapped, the market reacted.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
So you're saying that the Keystone pipeline would not have affect the oil production here at all? I would have been just a drop in a large bucket, is what I'm reading.
That young fellow isn't telling the whole story. A keystone pipeline already exists and runs thru the US all the way to the gulf coast. It currently provides about half a million barrels s day to us refineries in Illinois (I think) and to us refineries on the gulf coast . I would imagine that keystone would have a future phase to replace the smaller line with a large one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: inceptor and Kauboy

· Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
11,052 Posts
I would encourage you to take another look. Myself and many others in the market pointed out in 2020 that if ~50% of all USD in circulation was printed within 8 months, there was no way out of that situation without some massive inflation. Come late 2020, the fed claimed it was transitory inflation, and come late 2021, they finally admitted that it was a real inflationary crisis. As for this conversation, it just remains for me to point out that you can't double your money supply in a single year and then claim that is not a significant contributor to inflation. This was not just "the fed printing money as always" (the fact that is something you seem comfortable with is slightly cause for concern), this was the fed doing its best Weimar Germany impression.

The fed itself disagrees with you: if they believed that their money printing had not contributed to inflation, they would not be doing quantitative tightening nor raising interest rates since neither of those things would easily impact key commodity prices like oil, which you claim to be the primary drivers of inflation.

Both 1) and 2) are certainly contributing factors to current inflation, but they certainly are not the main driving force. For example, supply chains have been slowly improving, but during the same time period inflation has been consistently above trend (with the only exception being the recent CPI report - which is a heavily manipulated figure, and the continued price hikes in everyday expenditures shows how useless it is outside of stock valuations). Furthermore, oil has actually been decreasing in price (currently $77.95 per barrel) since its June peak ($121.11 per barrel), but again, inflation has only been consistently high. The Biden regime has certainly made absolutely baffling policy decisions on oil, which has contributed to inflation. But to say that Biden's idiotic energy policies are the main driving force behind it simply doesn't add up. What does add up is the fed diluting the currency by half a few years ago, compounded by international conflict and poor domestic policy centered on oil.

My point is that, even if Trump had won the presidency and issued good energy policies, you'd still be paying 2x for groceries as opposed to 2.5x.
I never claimed to be comfortable with the Fed printing money. I'll thank you to keep your assumptions about me to yourself.
I clearly stated, and you quoted, that this printing is having an effect on inflation. We simply disagree on the proportions.
The global supply chain being egregiously impacted for over a year grossly outpaces the printing of money, in my estimation. We can disagree on this too.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Stop drinking the koolaid and back away from the liberal, business hating, white people are the cause of everything bad table....
View attachment 115054
Lmao who’s been drinking the koolaid? The one who actually took time to learn about the project and understand the physics or ones who watch a news site who admits no one would actually believe their reporters, and who’s slogan is real opinion? I mean if you have a 8 inch waterline running water to your home, and the city goes in another inlet pipe to that, that’s also 8 inch, the original 8 inch pipe isn’t going to carry more water simply because there is another source of input, it physically can’t carry more than it was already carrying. Physics be damned it isn’t possible. Not to mention any other facts such as a foreign company coming in and wanting to claim eminent domain of us citizen’s property. I mean your showing your true colors here, zero factual knowledge, zero concern about your fellow citizens property rights, zero knowledge of working physics.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but I have a strong guess on where you get your opinions...
The "export limited" portion would be a 36" pipe connecting to the Cushing expansion which is 34". The intent would be to get more synthetic crude from Alberta down to refineries in Texas. Along the way, the pipe would also pick up US-produced oil from Montana.
The original Keystone pipe and the proposed "XL" pipe would both come from the exact same location in Hardisty, Alberta. The synthetic crude produced there, following the bitumen "upgrading" process, is no different in refining than any other light sweet crude. This would be the same stuff Oklahoma and Texas refineries have been running since the Keystone expansions were completed.
The speculation that this pipe was primarily intended for export from the U.S. was a democrat fear tactic back in 2013. There was no actual evidence to support this claim.
It's an export pipe from Canada, for sure, ensuring an ally-provided source of oil for the U.S.
The XL pipe was expected to add over half a million barrels of crude capacity per day, bringing total Keystone capacity to 1.1 million barrels.

Any change to the production/refining of oil always leads to market fluctuations. With the XL, and expected higher capacities, being scrapped, the market reacted.
Those numbers come from the businesses involved. For example Valero one the the companies who was going to receive the oil, told their stakeholders, that it would allow them to increase the export of products by at least 20%, and had installed equipment at the refinery to refine it into diesel fuel for export…
 

· Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
11,052 Posts
Those numbers come from the businesses involved. For example Valero one the the companies who was going to receive the oil, told their stakeholders, that it would allow them to increase the export of products by at least 20%, and had installed equipment at the refinery to refine it into diesel fuel for export…
The numbers I referred to were your pipe specs, since those were the only numbers you actually provided.
As for exports, I'll ask you to reread what I wrote. Export from the U.S. was not the "primary" intent behind the oil capacity increase the pipeline would bring.
But with an increase of 85+% capacity, it's simple deduction that previously existing exports could increase in volume and still increase domestic supply too.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
The numbers I referred to were your pipe specs, since those were the only numbers you actually provided.
As for exports, I'll ask you to reread what I wrote. Export from the U.S. was not the "primary" intent behind the oil capacity increase the pipeline would bring.
But with an increase of 85+% capacity, it's simple deduction that previously existing exports could increase in volume and still increase domestic supply too.
Let me ask you this, how can a existing 36 inch pipeline that has a maximum output of 0.7 mbpd, see an increase of 85+%, which would equal to 595,000 or more bpd OVER the maximum possible discharge rate?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Lmao who’s been drinking the koolaid? The one who actually took time to learn about the project and understand the physics or ones who watch a news site who admits no one would actually believe their reporters, and who’s slogan is real opinion? I mean if you have a 8 inch waterline running water to your home, and the city goes in another inlet pipe to that, that’s also 8 inch, the original 8 inch pipe isn’t going to carry more water simply because there is another source of input, it physically can’t carry more than it was already carrying. Physics be damned it isn’t possible. Not to mention any other facts such as a foreign company coming in and wanting to claim eminent domain of us citizen’s property. I mean your showing your true colors here, zero factual knowledge, zero concern about your fellow citizens property rights, zero knowledge of working physics.
Guess you've never worked around high pressure fuel lines. Flow thru the lines are regulated not only the size of the pipe but the amount of pressure applied. Also you forgot that where the lines were to join us close to an inland refinery. I'd be willing to bet was to increase the amount up to that point and then be able to increase the amount of petroleum being sent to the gulf coast to feed both the local refinery and the off shore demand
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Maine-Marine
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Top