Printable View
Ithink what delta did was one of the most innovative business decision of a decade.
My former boss believes that I am over crediting delta.
How delta did that, and Get a state subsidy is amazing business idea.
Moreover, how they worded to investors , fund mgrs , and analysts were excellent.
It is like similar to Cisco acquiring sysco to save $$$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
how would it possibly make it through the US without us seeing anything from it? No jobs at all? How is that possible
definitely impressive if it works out for them. I think they are just about to start producing jet fuel. selling off the gasoline to lower prices for them nationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPrena
supposedly $300 million a year in fuel savings. a very small percentage of their annual fuel bill, but that is a good bit of cash. I'm amazed that if the numbers work out right, that in 1.5 years the plant will have paid for itself, they will have put a lot of people to work, and will have complete profit/savings from here on out if fuel prices don't drastically drop.
I missed most of the debate tonight. I heard about 15 mins of it on the radio and just yawned.
There was a conservative commentator I read earlier today (I forget who) who wrote that as long as Mitt held his ground and didn't totally crater that this debate would have little effect on things. Most folks are clueless on foreign policy anyway, so it makes sense to me.
Ridiculous and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
If business decisions dictated, then not so wrong. Oil and gasoline are commodities. We the people have nothing to say where the oil goes. We don't even have a say in where the workers to build the pipeline come from, if the contracts let allow for foreign (Canadian and Mexican, for example) workers. It's a Canadian company - why wouldn't they hire their own?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
You need to quit believing huffpost or left propagandas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
There is not much demand for crude oil from the US to abroad. There are however demand for US refined products. Either way, the Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the United States: Illinois Refineries, Oklahoma hub, and to the many refineries along the gulf coast of Texas.
The environmentalists are against the pipeline for just that, environmental concerns! There is already a pipeline from Illinois to the gulf called the seaway pipeline. Noone seems to have any issue with that one. The Keystone XL is larger capacity and would have been built directly from Canada for the obvious logistic reason (500 oil trucks a day at the moment are transporting this).
Speculative. One of the stipulations put onto Transcanada plan/contract is it is to hire local workers. The US State Department, which is siding w/ the White House (obviously) and must approve the multinational contract, has lowered its estimate to 5000 local jobs from 20000 local jobs previously estimated (read: political). So even if you use this low low end estimate, it still is 5000 more jobs locally. The indirect impact of 700000 barrels of Canadian oil is thousands more jobs at the US refineries as US gas production will increase by 5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
What's ridiculous is that Ridge posted pure speculation as if it were solid known fact. The rationale for running the pipeline all the way down south was to get the oil to refineries, presumably so they could sell the products in the North American continent. The Canadians can already ship oil to other countries without an American pipeline. Does Canada have enough workforce to build the pipeline on their own? I don't think so.
Can you make a financial case to build the pipeline and then sell all the product abroad rather than domestically? Sure you can -- you can also build 21st century military tactics around horse cavalry (which we actually did in isolated cases in Afghanistan) if you choose.
Then again, Obama was more interested in sound bites and zingers than credible policy or demonstrated results so I can see why he'd rather talk about horses and bayonets than why he's telling the Navy and AF to live with less than their projections require or why he went to a fundraiser immediately after our embassy spent 7 hours fighting for their lives or why his economy is still the second worst since the Great Depression despite having a filibuster-proof majority in both houses for two years and having boosted government spending beyond Keynes' wildest dreams.
Ignore that one, Justin.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Ridge is saying that boiling oil sands, building a $7billion pipeline then pumping through it for 3000 miles to the gulf coast just to export it will save the oil company tons of money compare to the current method of trucking it to the west coast ports for the same reason. [Tooth]