Skip to main content

View Diary: Native Americans in "free speech zone" cage to protest Obama decision (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  um... (5+ / 0-)
    This morning President Obama will give a speech in Cushing Oklahoma to announce his decision to fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline carrying tar sands oil from Cushing to the Gulf.
    perhaps i could have been clearer in my wording, but the segment that runs from cushing to the gulf i believe is part of the keystone xl project.  

    further, there's already quite a lot of tar sands oil in cushing, that comes in through an existing pipeline from canada to cushing.

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:09:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So what are you proposing? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      That the President should reject this pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas, despite the verifiable, current bottleneck issue?

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:10:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he should rethink it... (4+ / 0-)

        the native americans mentioned in the diary have a number of quite reasonable and legitimate objections that have not been addressed.  the project should not move forward until these objections and such other legitimate objections that exist are successfully dealt with.

        i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

        by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:19:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And what about the bottleneck? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          Should we just have oil sitting around in Cushing, Oklahoma while we import oil from a bunch of non-democratic countries?

          We're going to need oil for quite a while longer even with a huge push for renewables, you know.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:25:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  None of the oil sands in the Keystone Pipeline (4+ / 0-)

            end up in the US, they're all for export.  So, no, it will not have an impact on the price of gasoline in the US.

            The best way to minimize those fluctuations in retail gas prices is to curb market speculation.  That can be accomplished through a small transaction tax on speculative trades.  See? Easy.

            •  Is this just you speculating or do you have facts (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan

              to back this up?

              The fact is that the U.S. is a huge net importer of oil, with nearly half of it coming from abroad.

              You haven't answered my question as to how the growing supply of U.S. produced oil in the midwest should be transported to Gulf Coast refineries, btw....

              How is all that additional oil going to get to the refineries if no new pipeline is built from Oklahoma to the Gulf?

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:35:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a fact (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe shikspack, poligirl, Damnit Janet

                The oil industry controls where product goes.  They'll ship it overseas to avoid paying taxes on it in the US.

                Link

                •  More for you (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poligirl, Damnit Janet

                  The end point of the XL pipeline is in Port Arthur, TX, a free trade zone.  That means they're planning to ship product there for export.

                  Link

                  I would have no objection to the XL pipeline if I thought it had built in benefits for US energy costs and supplies. But it simply doesn't.

                  •  Did you even read that article? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan
                    While pipeline backers say oil from Keystone XL is needed to help wean the United States off oil from politically volatile sources in the Middle East and Africa, government data show that the United States got three-fourths of its petroleum from the Western Hemisphere in 2010.
                    That Western Hemisphere oil came mostly from U.S. production (51 percent of the country’s consumption), Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.
                    “We’re (already) projecting for the U.S. to be increasingly less dependent on foreign oil,” said Jonathan Cogan of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
                    Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/...

                    The fact is that the U.S. can't cover its own oil needs.  That article does not state what you think it states.

                    I'm not in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline, in general, but I can see how a pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas is necessary since oil production in the U.S. is on the rise.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:48:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Read the second link (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joe shikspack, poligirl, Damnit Janet

                      Facts are facts.  There is no guarantee the tar sands end product will be used for US consumption, in fact, its highly unlikely.

                      I'm still not in favor of the Keystone Pipeline and, having spent over a decade calling on energy companies, I know that if you want them to do something, you'd better have an airtight contract with multiple, hard-core penalty clauses.

                      We don't have that with the XL pipeline, so there's no point in believing the oil companies false promises.  We should have a higher opinion of ourselves as Democrats and Americans that to allow ourselves to be fooled by those crooks.

                      Think of it as an exercise in self-esteem.  Aren't you worthy of something better than a bunch of false promises and spin?  I am, I'm sure you are too.

                      •  The Keystone pipeline already exists. (0+ / 0-)

                        The Keystone XL Pipeline, which has a different route than the Keystone Pipeline in its northern parts, is, indeed, likely a ploy to export Canadian oil to countries other than the U.S.

                        The pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast possibly is necessary, though, as oil production has spiked alot in the Midwest.

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:57:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  what you need to know is that us is a net exporter (4+ / 0-)

                      of fuel products.  it would be a mistake to assume that all of the oil that we import is for domestic consumption.

                      Fuel exports, worth an estimated $88 billion in 2011, have surged for two reasons:

                      — Crude oil, the raw material from which gasoline and other refined products are made, is a lot more expensive. Oil prices averaged $95 a barrel in 2011, while gasoline averaged $3.52 a gallon — a record. A decade ago oil averaged $26 a barrel, while gasoline averaged $1.44 a gallon.

                      The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier.

                      There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.

                      Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says.

                      link

                      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                      by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:05:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. uses (0+ / 0-)

                        far more oil than it can produce.  Far, far more.

                        Oil products aren't just fuel, btw.  Chemicals, plastics, etc. are oil products too.

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:41:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  sure, but here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

                          most of our oil comes from the us, canada and mexico.  canada and mexico while foreign countries are not havens of terrorism or destabilizing forces in the world.  we get a bunch of oil from venezeula too.

                          we export a lot of oil and oil products, many of the products that you're talking about chemicals plastics are exported as well.  the oil companies, whose mission is to maximize their profits want to export the oil that we create and that which we import from canada, mexico and venezeula to places in the world where demand is rising and prices are higher.  here, the demand is declining and it is only speculation and demand competition from foreign markets that are keeping oil prices high.  

                          i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                          by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:01:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The oil market is a global market. (0+ / 0-)

                            That's what is keeping the price of oil high.

                            And the U.S. economy, as a huge importer of oil, is a huge contributor to that high price.

                            If the U.S. were to solely rely on oil produced in the U.S., the U.S. economy would immediately collapse because the price of oil would go through the roof.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:09:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the question is can we provide enough for (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Lawrence

                            domestic consumption?

                            we don't really need as much as we import.

                            check this out:

                            Every president since Richard Nixon has called for energy independence. Nevertheless, U.S. reliance on imported oil long seemed to be headed in only one direction—up—and that pointed to inevitably increasing dependence on the huge resources of the Middle East.

                            No longer. U.S. petroleum imports, on a net basis, reached their peak—60%—of domestic consumption in 2005. Since then, they have been going in the other direction. They are now down to 46%.

                            What's happening? Part of the answer is demand. U.S. oil consumption reached what might be called "peak demand" in 2005 and has since declined. The country has become more efficient in its use of petroleum, and that will continue as vehicle fuel economy goes up. The economic slump has also muffled demand.

                            But developments on the supply side are particularly striking. U.S. crude oil output has risen by 18% since 2008. Some of that has come from an increase in deep-water output, although after last year's Deepwater Horizon oil spill the pace of future growth is more uncertain. The big surprise is onshore, where the United States is experiencing an oil boom.

                            i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                            by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:37:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's an oil boomlet, due to oil fracking (0+ / 0-)

                            techniques.

                            It won't last forever.

                            But if the U.S. drastically reduces energy consumption quickly, it could theoretically return to not having to depend on oil imports.

                            It's a race against time, though.... oil fields continue to be depleted.

                            The President's increased CAFE standards are a huge step in the right direction, that much is sure.... halving the amount of gasoline used for transportation will be huge.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  the bottleneck is not a problem for me... (4+ / 0-)

            or for people in the midwest whose gas prices remain lower because of the bottleneck.   that bottleneck means that the oil stays in the us rather than getting sold to other countries.  you might not have noticed this, but us demand for refined oil products is down and we are now a net exporter of them.

            i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

            by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:34:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The U.S. is a huge importer of oil. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan

              That it is a slight net exporter of oil products does not change the fact that the U.S. requires far more oil than it can produce.

              How is the oil going to keep your gas prices down if production keeps going up in the midwest yet it can't get shipped anywhere or get refined?

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:40:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it can be refined in the midwest... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Betty Pinson, poligirl

                the lack of access to a global shipping port means that it is more efficiently sold locally.

                i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:06:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The midwest doesn't have that kind of refining (0+ / 0-)

                  capacity.  The Gulf Coast is the primary refining area in the U.S.

                  And it sure can't be shipped more efficiently to other parts of the country from the midwest, ie. to the south or east.

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wouldn't it be most sensible to build a refinery (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poligirl, joe shikspack

                    in OK and distribute the gas & diesel to the midwest?  Or does that inhibit the big profit plans of the big oil companies?  

                    Why not have a few government built and operated refining plants in the midwest if the big oil companies keep refusing to do this?  Let profits reduce national debt or fund national education programs.

                    Seems if the economical availability of gas and diesel for US consumption is truly a national security concern and a matter of national energy policy, building refining capacity inland would be the first sensible thing the White House would push for...and force the oil companies to live up to all their hype about drilling America for American way of life.  Build it or we will and we will nationalize it ought to kick some sense into their corporate heads.  Then there really wouldn't be so much of a need for XL sort of 'solution'.  It seems the only American way of life that really matters to oil copmanies is that of the 1% shareholder classes.

                    When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

                    by antirove on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:37:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not really that sensible, unless you want a (0+ / 0-)

                      whole bunch of gasoline pipelines built from that refinery to other parts of the U.S.

                      And it's especially not sensible since the already established hub for oil refining, with all the necessary infrastructure, is on the Gulf Coast, not too far from Oklahoma.

                      I can't stand oil companies and am totally against the Keystone XL project in its entirety(and tar sands mining, in general), but an additional pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast seems to make sense at this time.  

                      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                      by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:47:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  not enough capacity in the midwest? (0+ / 0-)

                    surely you jest.

                    here's what's in oklahoma alone.  which by a quick count comes to more than half a million barrels a day capacity. illinois, another place that the transcanada pipeline goes has nearly a million barrel a day capacity.

                    and there's more to the midwest than oklahoma and illinois.

                    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                    by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:53:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Texas and Louisiana have single refineries (0+ / 0-)

                      that refine more than all the refineries in Oklahoma combined.

                      And what does Illinois have to do with this?  Are you saying that we should build pipelines from the Dakotas, Oklahoma, etc to Illinois so that we can deliver oil to newly-built refineries in Illinois?

                      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                      by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:06:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  illinois is both in the midwest and a terminal... (0+ / 0-)

                        point where the trans canada pipeline (that also goes to cushing, ok) goes.  see, the trans canada pipeline at current has a capacity of half a million barrels per day.  between illinois and oklahoma there are 3x that in refining capacity right now.

                        i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                        by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:22:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You don't seem to fully understand the petroleum (0+ / 0-)

                          infrastructure in the U.S.  

                          Somewhere around half of the U.S. refining capacity is on the Gulf Coast and it is connected to a gasoline pipeline structure that supplies the east of the U.S., where energy consumption is greatest.  That made sense when it was built, as most of the oil came from Texas when that infrastructure was built.

                          The choice for getting more U.S. oil to the east coast is either:

                          A. build an additional, 500 mile pipeline from Cushing, OK to Gulf Coast refineries.

                          B.  Build a bunch of refineries and new gas pipelines from the midwest to the east coast.

                          Illinois and Oklahoma don't have that infrastructure, and they don't have the capacity to refine all the oil from the region plus the oil from the already existing Keystone pipeline.

                          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                          by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:43:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the oil once it goes to the gulf and is refined... (0+ / 0-)

                            is going to the east coast of china and other foreign countries where the oil industry can get a better price.  not the east coast of the us.

                            i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                            by joe shikspack on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:56:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's too simplistic. (0+ / 0-)

                            Diesel products might go elsewhere, but that's only a limited part of refining capacity.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:52:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site