In stopping the Keystone pipeline, the administration is acting to blockade Canadian oil from reaching the world market.
This supports the interests of OPEC against those of the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, and the rest of the civilized industrial world, and imposes a cruel, extremely regressive, tax on the globe’s poorest nations. It imposes a tax on the American economy that is inimical to an economic recovery, without even offering the fiscal benefit of other taxes, since the revenue in question will be paid not to our own government, but to other governments, several of which are engaged in, supporting, promoting, or preparing acts of war and terror against the United States.
At a time when the need for action to deal with the threat of the Iranian nuclear bomb program demands that the government do everything in its power to assure supplies of liquid fuel from non-mideast sources, the Obama administration is doing the exact opposite.
Instead of seeking to create energy security, it is maximizing our energy vulnerability.
Instead of seeking to reduce oil prices, it is acting to increase them.
Instead of seeking to expand our economy, it is acting to contract it.
Instead of seeking to stop the Iranian nuclear bomb program, it is acting to protect it and help fund it.
Instead of seeking to strengthen America and weaken our enemies, it is acting to weaken America and strengthen our enemies.
The question that needs to be put to the Obama administration is this: Which side are you on?
What Crap! Canada can refine this oil so your evil OPEC and "US national security" premise does not match reality. Canada can refine this oil locally or build a much much shorter pipeline to the coastal refineries and pump refined fuel into existing pipelines. The truth of the matter is the US is now a very large EXPORTER of refined gas and sales these products to the highest bidder, whether an American or not. That is how prices are set, world demand not internal production. Fool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo Joe, your analysis the "crap." Businesses and industry have been gearing up to have this pipeline. Now serious adjustments will have to be made -- new pipeline route and previously unplanned upgrades to Canadian refineries. That or sit and wait for the election to be over -- so that the pipeline can proceed when either a new Republican President keeps his promise or re-elected President Obama (shudder) can break another one.
Either way, U.S. jobs are delayed or lost. New oil to market is delayed or lost -- allowing OPEC to keep prices higher. Crap indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt should be obvious whose side Barack the Usurper is on: the side of our enemies, the side of those greenies who would take our economy back into the early 19th century, if not earlier (like pre-Industrial Revolution days). Lord help us all if we do not defeat this man in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerfectly stated. But the conclusion is wrong. We need not and ought not wait for the next election--the Egyptians didn't. A million angry white males filling the national mall and demanding BHO's resignation would be a hard sign to ignore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoe Dadi,
"That is how prices are set, world demand not internal production. Fool."
Umm, it isn't the "law of just 'demand'" - it's "SUPPLY and Demand" ... the more SUPPLY there is, at a given demand level, the lower the price.
Maybe ease up on the name calling ... rocks and glass houses and such, eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnswer to the question, Which side are you on? , is easy, but this is actually a trick question. They are on Obama's side. That means whatever decision/ action/ inaction/ immoral/ illegal/ subversive/ hateful/ lie/ deceitful/ disdainful/ action or statement it takes to get O elected is the side they're going to be on. Moral character is NOT an attribute of the radical left, and obviously would disqualify one from the inner ring of the Obama Administration.
Too bad, this could've been quite beneficial to this country. But, China, having bought up considerable Candian oilsands assets, will effectively come into this hemisphere, with our largest oil supplier (Canada), and with our dollars steal what should be "our" oil supplies right out from under us. Decades from now, people will be sitting around or standing around office watercoolers asking each other, How could that have happened? Wasnt' the obvious O-B-V-I-O-U-S? How could a President, and we mean a US President, just let the Chinese come in and in clear view for the world to see, appropriate a stable source of energy supply right out from under us in our own backyard (no offense Canadians, I merely mean that in context of geographic proximity)?
We will tell our children/ grandchildren that it was because we had a narcissitic, socialist in office my son. A man of little intelligence, but one whom everyone thought was smart, but only so because nobody asked him what 2 + 2 was. They all just assumed he knew. And though he didn't know up from down, he really knew how to manipulate the media and campaign. Boy could he campaign! He could hop out of Air Force One, run into a small town, pretend to stand up for some long past Republican President's ideals, and sound as eloquent as a snake oil salesman. The liberal women would swoon, the liberal men would smile knowingly, and the liberal media would see that all was good. And so he marched down the primrose path of indeterminate outcome, ignorant choices, and selfish goals. And so that's why we are where we are and must make our offering to the Imams in Saudi Arabia this month and pay homage to the Iranian dictators my son.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZubrin knows better than this. Even if the pipeline had gone through it would make NO difference, NONE, not even on the margins. Because as he himself has pointed out in other contexts, OPEC can respond to any increase in non-OPEC production, and any decrease in consumption of OPEC-provided oil, by cutting its own production to match, keeping oil just as scarce, propping up the price, and preserving the revenue stream its member regimes use to make war on us, either openly or via a double game. OPEC can do this because it has over 78% of world oil reserves while the rest of the world has less than 22%. And because OPEC is responsible for less than half of world oil production, it is sitting on its vast hoard as the rest of us race through what little we have, so each year OPEC's fingers tighten around our throat.
ALL OIL IS JHAD JUICE, even from those nice Canadians, even from rip roaring all American Texas. Because buying and consuming oil from ANY source removes that oil from being available to the world market, thus draining the pool of available oil, making what's left more scarce and expensive, and thus enriching our enemies. A dollar form being indirectly enriched is just as good as a dollar from being directly enriched.
The way out of this trap is to stop the suicidal stupidity of letting millions of new cars be sold in America that are locked in to jihad juice as the ONLY way they can move. It only costs about $130 at most per new car at the factory for automakers to add compatibility with fuel made from sources we actually DO have in abundance and which the enemy cannot control, such as coal, natural gas, and biomass. Fuels like methanol with an M in particular, which is higher octane and cheaper than gasoline without subsidies and even taking mileage into account. The only catch is our cars can't use it - it's time to end that as a national security measure and require that new cars from now on be methanol compatible. Strike some other mandate such as the 70s era requirement for an FM radio (civil defense measure) for no net gain in big government if you're going to be a fanatic about regulation even for national security.
Keystone is a giant distraction, an irrelevant time-waster. What MATTERS, as Zubrin has rightly pointed out, is to break FREE from oil, and to use resources OPEC does NOT control to move around instead. See OpenFuelStandard dot org
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd have to take issue with some of your points.
1) Yes, oil markets, to a great extent are a fungible, dynamic market wherein all major global refining centers purchase crude and move it around the world. And while global supply / demand balances eventually work themselves out, the fact is that all crudes can't be refined everywhere. If a Singapore refiner's crude slate is subject to risk - eg. no Qatari supply - they'll bid up other non-Gulf crudes to get it and substitute. No incremental money to OPEC, but to some other lucky producer.
2) Yes, OPEC is the marginal producer. They remain that way primarily due to the lack of sound energy policy - no, let me rephrase that - inept, incompetent energy policy - by the West, most especially the US. Most US imports come from Canada, Mexico. Venezuela. Mideast imports have declined considerably. A key OPEC concern had always been having prices rise too much, thereby providing the impetus for both increased efficiency/ conservation and new, alternative oil development and / or energy sources. The US govt. has worked diligently to not interrupt this OPEC strategic objective.
3) Yes, OPEC can cut production, but it doesn't always mean higher prices as the market reacts pretty well nowadays. And though one can look at the balance of ex/im $$$, it can't be forgotten that in today's world, OPEC countries NEED their oil revenue every bit as much as we need their oil. Why do you think the Iranians are so scared about an oil embargo. And shutting down the Strait of Hormuz - well, that'd be like you holding a gun to your foot and stating that you'd blow it off if you didn't get new retro-Jordans. Iranian revenues and economy would be shut down. And while Middleeasterners don't have near the freedoms we have, believe me, take away their govt. handouts and money and they'll take to the streets just like your good 'ol European will.
4) Back to point, yes, oil can flow everywhere, but geographic proximity matters, especially inre. transit time, risk of loss, security of supply. If I'm a USGC refiner and I'm relying on Qatar or Saudi crude and they threaten to cut off my supply as they cut back production, well my risk factor has just risen and their reliability has just dropped. I'll go elsewhere and lock up a longer term deal. Then, when they come back into the market in 6, 9, X months - well, I'm sorry, I already have a supply source. And they have to scrounge to find another or deeply discount to get me back.
5) Yes, the US should examine new sources of transportation fuel (about 2/3 to 3/4 of our oil use is in that form). But it won't come from coal - coal is no longer allowed in the US due to Obama and his EPA. Biomass? Sure, maybe 5 or 6 stations in CA could do it, but exactly how are you going to achieve that? Easy said, but incredibly difficult. And natural gas - well, strong possibilities, but unlikely in the next 20 - 25 years for use by typical consumers. Perhaps as fuel for govt. vehicles (including Post Office), all 18 wheel trucks, all police cars, UPS, FedEx, and other such vehicle categories. Start in an area easily controlled, with limited need for refueling infrastructure (note: truck stops could readily accomodate interstate truckers).
BUT -- the problem with all these alternatives is that the US Feds screw it up. They're going after fracking with such a degree of impunity that they'll likely cut the projected reserve base in half (my guess). Biomass is just another huge wasted subsidy especially when applied to ethanol and other such ethereal energy journeys. For the dollar, for the efficiency - nothing beats a simple fill up at the gas station. You can get it anywhere, it's always there, costs vary, but let's say a 20-gal tank at even $3. 50 / gal gives you somewhere in the 300 - 350 mile range of transport capability for $70. With pollution equipment, etc. a very effective, easy form of fueling our lifestyle.
Lastly, there have been a few postings regarding the supposed miracle fuel, - Methanol. There's a reason it is not "out there" now - it's really, really nasty stuff with serious health and safety issues - hence it's use being restricted for all practical purposes to racecars. Everyone I have spoken to has said the same thing about it - it's nasty stuff. So, in today's world of heightened environmental sensitivity, lawyers controlling energy policy, litigious energy regulation and an EPA who almost fraudulently conducts cost/ benefit analyses - exactly why in the world would a fuel distributor/ major retailer want to take on that multi-billion dollar contingent liability? Think MTBE !
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting world you play in there Carney.
Please explain how selling less oil, even if at the same price, results in just as much money going to the Saudis?
BTW, there is no alternative to oil, and probably won't be for 100 years or more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse