Harper: "The politics of ruthlessness"

[Asher]

dp

[Asher]

Yeah, I'm going to need some evidence before I believe you over everything else I've ever read about the oil industry and the efficiency of modern shipping.

Dude.

Explain the WTI and Brent price differential. Go ahead and try.

Apply critical thought.

[Tupac Shakur]

It's actually driving down US prices compared to overseas prices, by ~$10 on average. Why is that? ...

Explain the WTI and Brent price differential. Go ahead and try.

According to the article you posted, it's because of a pipeline constraint that the Keystone XL would rectify. Thanks for providing another reason why Americans shouldn't want the pipeline.

We have all heard at least a partial explanation as to why West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent prices are so far apart. We have been told that the Midwest is oversupplied because of all of the Canadian imports, and the crude oil cannot get down as far as the Gulf Coast, because while there is pipeline capacity to the Midwest, there isn’t adequate pipeline capacity to the Gulf Coast. ...

Some have suggested that TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline (labeled as “3″ on Figure 8 ) will help solve the problem, when it is completed in 2013.

[Asher]

Suuuuuure it is. It's inconceivable that the writer of the article decided to use gallons because the reader is probably more familiar with that unit of measurement. Because, you know, the reader is really likely to give a **** about what measure the industry is using.

This makes no ****ing sense. A reader doesn't know what the **** good a "gallon of oil" is -- in fact, they're likely to confuse it with a gallon of gasoline (which I'm sure is the intent).

On the other hand, the price of Oil is always reported in price per barrel. THIS is the metric the reader is more familiar with.

[Asher]

As a side note before bed, a couple months ago my SO (who works for a very large engineering company) was put on a new project. He's a chemical engineer and is working on plans for a new pipeline out to BC. And I guarantee you that its job isn't to ship oil down south.

[Tupac Shakur]

And I guarantee you that its job isn't to ship oil down south.

Again, it doesn't matter where you ship the oil. America benefits from the increased production regardless through lower oil prices.

[giblets]

This makes no ****ing sense. A reader doesn't know what the **** good a "gallon of oil" is -- in fact, they're likely to confuse it with a gallon of gasoline (which I'm sure is the intent).

On the other hand, the price of Oil is always reported in price per barrel. THIS is the metric the reader is more familiar with.

Are people really that familiar with barrels? I though a barrel was 42 gallons but you said there's 31 gallons in a barrel, so now I'm confused.

[Asher]

Again, it doesn't matter where you ship the oil. America benefits from the increased production regardless through lower oil prices.

Pipelines do not produce oil.

[Asher]

Are people really that familiar with barrels? I though a barrel was 42 gallons but you said there's 31 gallons in a barrel, so now I'm confused.

They're familiar with the price of oil as it's always reported in the news.

I bet 0.01% of the population understands what a gallon of oil is good for. What's important is the perspective -- how much does it increase the cost for oil? Considering 99.99% of people know the price of oil in terms of price per barrel, that is the obvious choice for a metric. But they instead chose gallon. Because then it sounds like just a couple pennies..ain't no thang.

[Tupac Shakur]

Pipelines do not produce oil.

1. Don't be a ******.

2. If we're going to pretend that Canada won't increase production to use all available pipeline capacity, then the US won't obviously benefit through lower oil prices. It wouldn't be hurt, however, as it still doesn't matter where you ship the oil. The worst a pipeline through BC could possibly do is to reduce the beneficial glut of Canadian oil in the Midwest, which the Keystone XL would also do.

[Asher]

Well, if you're not going to increase production, then the US won't benefit. It won't be hurt, however, as it still doesn't matter where you ship the oil.

You would be absolutely correct if:
1) We lived in a world without transportation cost
2) The infrastructure to transfer oil at a reasonable cost was in place to handle shifts in where oil is coming from, which it's not
3) Capacity was infinite

The reality of the world is it very much DOES matter where you ship the oil. Which is exactly why there is a large price spread between Brent and WTI.

[Tupac Shakur]

You would be absolutely correct if:
1) We lived in a world without transportation cost

We are to the extent that matters for this argument, you moron.

[giblets]

They're familiar with the price of oil as it's always reported in the news.

I bet 0.01% of the population understands what a gallon of oil is good for. What's important is the perspective -- how much does it increase the cost for oil? Considering 99.99% of people know the price of oil in terms of price per barrel, that is the obvious choice for a metric. But they instead chose gallon. Because then it sounds like just a couple pennies..ain't no thang.

Yes, only .01% of the public understands that oil is good for shipping to refineries to make gasoline. But, they instinctively know how much, say, a 1% increase in the price of oil would increase the price of the gasoline they buy.

[Asher]

1. Don't be a ******.

2. If we're going to pretend that Canada won't increase production to use all available pipelines, then the US won't benefit through lower oil prices.

You're the one being retarded. What do you mean increase production? You think that they're not working at max production?

There's extra capacity in many of our pipelines right now due to lack of production.

You don't really understand how the industry here works at all.

It won't be hurt, however, as it still doesn't matter where you ship the oil. The worst a pipeline through BC could possibly do is to reduce the beneficial glut of Canadian oil in the Midwest, which the Keystone XL would also do.

A pipeline going to BC means that much of the oil currently going to the US will be going to China. That means you will need to import more oil from your friends in the middle east. And despite what you think, it costs a LOT more to ship oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq on tankers to the Gulf than it is to shoot it down a pipeline.

This is a really simple concept.

[Asher]

We are to the extent that matters for this argument, you moron.

Completely and utterly false. You guys have no clue whatsoever how much it costs to ship oil.

You know how much it costs to ship oil from North Dakota to the Gulf?

$15 per barrel