January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes a pipeline delivers supplies. In this case, crude oil. And we have a supply problem. I dunno but seems like limiting supplies hurts our supply problem.

Who is "our". The oil goes overseas, Pete? This does nothing to drive US prices down. But ok, great idea, Pete!

Whats the plan for bacon and hotels. Pete?

Hotels will correct themselves. I’ve seen the development budgets and pro formas on many throughout the country. Because of the leverage on them that’ll self correct when all those mediocre flags (Fairfield Inn types) that have been built at $140-$150k/key in non core locations in secondary, tertiary and other markets can’t do $150-$175/night (ADR) at 72-75% occupancy on a 365 day year. And this time around new lenders and mezzanine capital at 7-9% cost won’t be around to bail them out.

Bacon? I don’t know… my seven year old daughter eats bacon like the Hunt brothers tried to aggregate silver…took her to a suburban bbq place last night where they have an open wood fired pit inside cooking and she asked why there wasn’t a whole pig hanging from a hook cooking as if the 20-30 large pork hocks roasted weren’t good enough….(she’s like 40th percentile on size not vertically challenged but a small girl with big energy-I gotta keep her away from the Jersey Shore and Daytona forever)

https://www.williamsonbros.com/about/

[youthathletics]

Elon is now a progressive...LOL. He took a handout from the feds for R&D and already paid it back, like a conservative would do

Dude, come on. You're gonna play dumb and tell me you are unaware of all the .gov incentives that kept Telsa afloat long enough to get it to where it is today? He hasn't paid diddly back. It's like some of you think we don't remember what you posted for the last decade plus around here.....complaining non stop about EV incentives or infrastructure.

Play dumb?....I literally just wrote he took a handout, cmon man, that's just sloppy on your part. I'll give you some slack since it was late on a Friday; it happens to the best of us.

And yes....he paid it all back, and .gov penalized him for paying it off early.

[CU88]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Nope, but it sure is entertaining watching him try and make everything fit into his "R's are awesome, D"s are bad" view of the world.

I'm wondering how he thinks the rest of the 1st world functions, where you can't blame Democrats for everything that's wrong.

Since they all changed the subject, can we assume that they understand this pipeline is not the product of the r party?

[Peter Brown]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Nope, but it sure is entertaining watching him try and make everything fit into his "R's are awesome, D"s are bad" view of the world.

I'm wondering how he thinks the rest of the 1st world functions, where you can't blame Democrats for everything that's wrong.

Since they all changed the subject, can we assume that they understand this pipeline is not the product of the r party?

Did Joe Biden (D-DE) on January 20, 2021 revoke the permit for the pipeline? Was that his first day in office?

(wonder if the fact that Koch Industries refines 25% of all crude oil in America had anything to do with it…hey but the good news is everyone gets to be equally miserable with high energy prices, yay equal misery!)

[runrussellrun]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Nope, but it sure is entertaining watching him try and make everything fit into his "R's are awesome, D"s are bad" view of the world.

I'm wondering how he thinks the rest of the 1st world functions, where you can't blame Democrats for everything that's wrong.

Since they all changed the subject, can we assume that they understand this pipeline is not the product of the r party?

Did Joe Biden (D-DE) on January 20, 2021 revoke the permit for the pipeline? Was that his first day in office?

(wonder if the fact that Koch Industries refines 25% of all crude oil in America had anything to do with it…hey but the good news is everyone gets to be equally miserable with high energy prices, yay equal misery!)

Pete.....just SAD, that you don't understand that this was all smoke N mirrors. The Biden admin has to buy new "approved" rubber stamps for the BLM office. Federal land, permits, fossil fuel.....blah blah blah........keep on focusing on the cheap seats, US vs THEM........in other words, do some follow up research to the pipeline issue. Otherwize, you are NO different than those you engage with. 4 sides to every story.....lil r or d ain't a story, it's a lazy way out.

[Farfromgeneva]

Elon is now a progressive...LOL. He took a handout from the feds for R&D and already paid it back, like a conservative would do

Dude, come on. You're gonna play dumb and tell me you are unaware of all the .gov incentives that kept Telsa afloat long enough to get it to where it is today? He hasn't paid diddly back. It's like some of you think we don't remember what you posted for the last decade plus around here.....complaining non stop about EV incentives or infrastructure.

Play dumb?....I literally just wrote he took a handout, cmon man, that's just sloppy on your part. I'll give you some slack since it was late on a Friday; it happens to the best of us.

And yes....he paid it all back, and .gov penalized him for paying it off early.

A large proportion of his revenue and newly minted profitability is due to production tax credits. He lobbies hard for further incentives and a big part of the reason he’s relocating to broke and plentiful land TX. It’s still very unclear there’s anything close to a reasonable ROE for the Trillion dollar market cap and billions invested by others without significant corporate subsidies.

[MDlaxfan76]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Nope, but it sure is entertaining watching him try and make everything fit into his "R's are awesome, D"s are bad" view of the world.

I'm wondering how he thinks the rest of the 1st world functions, where you can't blame Democrats for everything that's wrong.

Since they all changed the subject, can we assume that they understand this pipeline is not the product of the r party?

Did Joe Biden (D-DE) on January 20, 2021 revoke the permit for the pipeline? Was that his first day in office?

(wonder if the fact that Koch Industries refines 25% of all crude oil in America had anything to do with it…hey but the good news is everyone gets to be equally miserable with high energy prices, yay equal misery!)

I think the accurate statement would be 25% of tar sands crude refining, not all crude. Mostly from Canada.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1005 ... ta-canada/

But this continued argument that a pipeline that's not actually been built has diddly to do with US or world oil prices today can only be described as trolling at this point in the conversation. It's been thoroughly refuted.

As I wrote earlier, there are possible strategic reasons to consider building Keystone, and certainly there are some US business interests who would love to have this additional cash machine personally. Refining of that oil won't be in the US, it'll need to be in Canada. Still goes to the world market, just not necessarily through the US refining companies in New Orleans. Those refiners have more competition if not in the US.

And yup, the Koch brothers have a very large stake in such decisions. Which is why they're a huge part of the lobby that controls the GOP top to bottom these days. And quite a significant chunk of the Dems too, though much less.

Let's be clear. The Koch are interested in their personal profit, not the public interest. It's understandable. But we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[a fan]

Elon is now a progressive...LOL. He took a handout from the feds for R&D and already paid it back, like a conservative would do

Dude, come on. You're gonna play dumb and tell me you are unaware of all the .gov incentives that kept Telsa afloat long enough to get it to where it is today? He hasn't paid diddly back. It's like some of you think we don't remember what you posted for the last decade plus around here.....complaining non stop about EV incentives or infrastructure.

Play dumb?....I literally just wrote he took a handout, cmon man, that's just sloppy on your part. I'll give you some slack since it was late on a Friday; it happens to the best of us.

And yes....he paid it all back, and .gov penalized him for paying it off early.

That's the R&D, YA. That's the FIRST handout.

You're telling me that you don't know about all the tax credits etc. for EV's?

Guess not. Here ya go....

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

[a fan]

LOL, now r's are taking credit for the idea behind a CANADIAN pipeline???

Anyone keeping track on how many times PB has been wrong?

Nope, but it sure is entertaining watching him try and make everything fit into his "R's are awesome, D"s are bad" view of the world.

I'm wondering how he thinks the rest of the 1st world functions, where you can't blame Democrats for everything that's wrong.

Since they all changed the subject, can we assume that they understand this pipeline is not the product of the r party?

They don't understand any of it. They don't know that the XL is simply a shortcut.

If I'm a stockholder? I'm firing the idiot who came up with the XL. The OBVIOUS thing to do is to add the second, larger pipe...and put it right next to the existing pipeline. Capacity increased. And no political entanglements because who cares if you put a second pipe right next to an existing pipe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

[a fan]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

As you say, oil is a global market. The Congressman's false choice question is as silly as some of yours.

Nope. That would be on the ridiculous claims made by Republicans. The Keystone chair didn't claim that the oil would stay in the US....the idiots in the R party did. And the D Congressmen laid that lie bare.

Pretty sure the Keystone chair wishes the R's would have shut up about the pipeline, and let him deal with questions.

[old salt]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

[a fan]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

[old salt]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

Yes. It's a way for Canada to export crude oil -- much of it for US refining & consumption.
It will also yield a net increase of Canadian crude refined & consumed in the US. That benefits the US.


... but focus on what's most important. Who benefits most if it's built or denied.
Koch bros pipelines or Warren Buffet's rail cars ?

[MDlaxfan76]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

Yes. It's a way for Canada to export crude oil -- much of it for US refining & consumption.
It will also yield a net increase of Canadian crude refined & consumed in the US. That benefits the US.


... but focus on what's most important. Who benefits most if it's built or denied.
Koch bros pipelines or Warren Buffet's rail cars ?

if you've followed along, I've agreed that there are possible strategic arguments for Keystone. I haven't bothered to discuss the downsides, but neither has been what this discussion veered of into (having nothing to do with the thread topic).

The assertion was that, if Keystone was approved instead of not, gasoline prices would be lower, indeed way lower, right now...which is a total crock.

It's irrelevant.

Back to thread topic.

[PizzaSnake]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

Yes. It's a way for Canada to export crude oil -- much of it for US refining & consumption.
It will also yield a net increase of Canadian crude refined & consumed in the US. That benefits the US.


... but focus on what's most important. Who benefits most if it's built or denied.
Koch bros pipelines or Warren Buffet's rail cars ?

Tar sands petroleum production is a disaster. Needs to stop.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-figh ... -sands-oil

[Farfromgeneva]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

Yes. It's a way for Canada to export crude oil -- much of it for US refining & consumption.
It will also yield a net increase of Canadian crude refined & consumed in the US. That benefits the US.


... but focus on what's most important. Who benefits most if it's built or denied.
Koch bros pipelines or Warren Buffet's rail cars ?

Tar sands petroleum production is a disaster. Needs to stop.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-figh ... -sands-oil

Curious what you think about this growing topic since you seem to follow environmental science closely

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popsci ... sea/%3famp

[Peter Brown]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

Yes. It's a way for Canada to export crude oil -- much of it for US refining & consumption.
It will also yield a net increase of Canadian crude refined & consumed in the US. That benefits the US.


... but focus on what's most important. Who benefits most if it's built or denied.
Koch bros pipelines or Warren Buffet's rail cars ?

if you've followed along, I've agreed that there are possible strategic arguments for Keystone. I haven't bothered to discuss the downsides, but neither has been what this discussion veered of into (having nothing to do with the thread topic).

The assertion was that, if Keystone was approved instead of not, gasoline prices would be lower, indeed way lower, right now...which is a total crock.

It's irrelevant.

Back to thread topic.

Of course ‘one decision’ such as Keystone won’t dramatically impact the price of global oil. Heck, a brand new oil field in Nebraska with reserves more than Venezuela wouldn’t necessarily move the gas price needle ‘way lower’ overnight.

Keystone is a piece of a narrative which informs traders whether this administration is friendly to decisions which collectively impact global oil prices.

Almost every decision made to date by the Biden administration is harmful to oil pricing. As he is seen as mentally weaker with each passing week, more aggressive FLP’s in his administration will fill the leadership vacuum and make even worse decisions for energy. Many traders are betting on this scenario. We see it in Jet A and 100ll futures trading. They’re betting on increased confusion and outright harm.

[youthathletics]

Elon is now a progressive...LOL. He took a handout from the feds for R&D and already paid it back, like a conservative would do

Dude, come on. You're gonna play dumb and tell me you are unaware of all the .gov incentives that kept Telsa afloat long enough to get it to where it is today? He hasn't paid diddly back. It's like some of you think we don't remember what you posted for the last decade plus around here.....complaining non stop about EV incentives or infrastructure.

Play dumb?....I literally just wrote he took a handout, cmon man, that's just sloppy on your part. I'll give you some slack since it was late on a Friday; it happens to the best of us.

And yes....he paid it all back, and .gov penalized him for paying it off early.

That's the R&D, YA. That's the FIRST handout.

You're telling me that you don't know about all the tax credits etc. for EV's?

Guess not. Here ya go....

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

Glad we can now agree he paid back his debt on R&D.
Of course I know....so your argument is the fed should not send cash to what the people want? We can certainly debate that, now that we have moved on.

Subsidies are just that, they are allocated cash lent out for goods and services that help advance the US and what they the people want. So now your telling us you are against that....but are just fine with billions to advance our infrastructure. Seems your argument comes right back to bite you in the rear...or maybe I am missing your point. To be clear....I think Musk, by saying get rid of subsidies is his way of saying get the F off my back when I am grinding on green technology that you all want, then you try and cut me down. And yet, his subsides are pennies in a pond compared to big oil.

[PizzaSnake]

You made a blanket statement that the oil goes overseas. That is simply inaccurate.

I made the blanket statement the that XL portion will go overseas. Happy to wager on that.

They already have Keystone pipelines that go to Illinois refineries. They're all set domestically.

...& an extension that goes to the Gulf Coast, see the map :
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ ... map-102951
A significant amount is already refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Look at the #'s in TX & LA :
http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php
XL is not just a shortcut. It's increased capacity which can reduce rail transported crude.

Whatever excess that is not refined on the Gulf Coast can be exported from there.
It is in our interests to maximize our refining capability, even if some of the refined product is exported.
Both the crude & resulting refined product enter the global market, increasing global supply & reducing Russia's potential for oil blackmail.

I agree with all of it. It should have been built, and it's stupid to play these games with permitting.....so long as planes and gas powered cars are around, it's hypocritical not to find efficient ways to handle and transport energy sources.

I'm just telling you, they want this line and its increased capacity for export. Which, again, is fine by me.

Yes. It's a way for Canada to export crude oil -- much of it for US refining & consumption.
It will also yield a net increase of Canadian crude refined & consumed in the US. That benefits the US.


... but focus on what's most important. Who benefits most if it's built or denied.
Koch bros pipelines or Warren Buffet's rail cars ?

Tar sands petroleum production is a disaster. Needs to stop.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-figh ... -sands-oil

Curious what you think about this growing topic since you seem to follow environmental science closely

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popsci ... sea/%3famp

At this point, given the size of the human population, I’m afraid the end of this feature is inevitable. The die is cast. Between the CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean, and the rate of methane from permafrost thawing, the carrying capacity of the big blue marble is going waaaaaaaayyyyyy down.

Even if we had access to virtually free, unlimited power from fusion tomorrow, there is a staggering amount of accumulated issues. Did I mention the chemical load we have? We didn’t just burn oil, we made an unbelievable variety of novel chemical compounds out of those long hydrocarbon chains. Sometimes, with organic lifeforms, novel is not a good thing.

[a fan]

Glad we can now agree he paid back his debt on R&D.
Of course I know....so your argument is the fed should not send cash to what the people want? We can certainly debate that, now that we have moved on.

Subsidies are just that, they are allocated cash lent out for goods and services that help advance the US and what they the people want. So now your telling us you are against that

No. Keeping to the topic at hand.....these handouts were widely hammered by FoxNation as more progressive fluff. My point is: scoreboard. We went from a POS Prius to a freaking Telsa in 10 years with Government help.

but are just fine with billions to advance our infrastructure. Seems your argument comes right back to bite you in the rear...or maybe I am missing your point.

??? Infrastructure that benefits all isn't even in the same universe as direct handouts and tax breaks to a small sector of transportation (EV's). Or do you like collapsing bridges and dams, and potholes?

To be clear....I think Musk, by saying get rid of subsidies is his way of saying get the F off my back when I am grinding on green technology that you all want, then you try and cut me down. And yet, his subsides are pennies in a pond compared to big oil.

Elon asking to get rid of subsidies is to ensure that startup competitors don't get the same help that he got, YA. Come on, you're smarter than that. Elon, like so many fake conservative business owners wants to kick the ladder out for the next guy, so that only he gets the Federal handout.

See: Boomers. That's their whole ideal for living.....only THEY get the government handouts. Everyone else has to quit complaining and work for it.