Skip to main content

View Diary: The State Department's analysis of the oil market and KXL is outdated (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This report is out of date...and wrong (0+ / 0-)

    It may be the case that reports are always months behind, but the point is that in this case the outdated analysis is so wrong that it fundamentally undermines key assertions that the State Department's analysis has put forward.

    The State Department analysis suggests that tar sands oil flowing through KXL would back out other heavy oil coming from other regions of the world...which would in essence mean that there might be no net increase in emissions from KXL (wrong for many reasons). But a more up-to-date analysis of the oil market and refinery market in the Gulf Coast -- such as the one we put out today -- makes it clear that this is simply not the case.

    Now that Barack Obama has made it clear that the Keystone XL pipeline won't be approved if it were to cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, it's vitally important that our understanding of the market in which Keystone XL will be a part of is clear. Our analysis today points out major flaws in the State Department's understanding of that market as reflected in their draft impact statement.

    I don't think this is something we should just throw our hands up about and say "oh well, all reports are going to be out of date by the time they are produced." We need to hold our government to a higher standard than that, don't you think?  Especially when it comes to something that could have such a major impact on the climate and future we live in.

    •  Can we hold Canada to a higher standard? (0+ / 0-)

      The natural resource belongs to Canada and is theirs to produce, sell (exploit) to whom ever they choose. I choose the United States over China. China adheres so no standards of environmental concern such as coal fired electric generation facilities with somewhere between zero and none pollution scrubbers. At least  we (United States) are willing to impose some controls over the production, transportation and refining of the Canadian natural resource which can assist North America (Canada, United States & Mexico) in being energy independent from the rest of the world. No more involvement in  wars in the Middle East over oil.

      •  Read our report(s) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WheninRome

        I encourage you to read the report I've linked to above, as well as many other reports that are out there (you can find a lot of them here: http://priceofoil.org/...) that essentially debunk all of the arguments you've made regarding the Keystone pipeline.

        First: Keystone XL is vital to expansion of the tar sands. Canada won't be able to develop the tar sands at the levels they'd like, without Keystone XL.

        Second: Keystone XL is an export pipeline. It won't increase energy security, independence, or whatever other term you want to use for increased domestic oil supply. We can't drill our way to energy security, and we certainly can't drill our way to a safe climate.

        If you want to ensure that China doesn't get this oil, you might consider opposing Keystone XL, not supporting it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site