Skip to main content

This should blow one of the most persuasive arguments for building the Keystone XL pipeline, Energy Security, RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER!

 

Report: Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Oil for Export, Not for U.S. Energy Security

Industry Documents Reveal Scheme to Reach Lucrative Markets Abroad

Steve Kretzmann

A new report from Oil Change International lays out the case, based on data and documents from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the Canadian National Energy Board, corporate disclosures to regulators and investors, and analysis of the rapidly shifting oil market.

The facts:

 *   Keystone XL is an export pipeline. The Port Arthur, Texas, refiners at the end of its route are focused on expanding exports to Europe, and Latin America. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.

 *   Valero, the key customer for crude oil from Keystone XL, has explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. Because Valero’s Port Arthur refinery is in a Foreign Trade Zone, the company can carry out its strategy tax-free.

 *   In a shrinking U.S. market, Keystone XL is not needed. Since the project was announced, the oil industry acknowledges that higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth mean declining U.S. oil demand, even as domestic production is booming. Oil from Keystone XL will therefore displace American crude from new, “unconventional” domestic fields in Texas or North Dakota.

“To issue a presidential permit for the Keystone XL, the Administration must find that the pipeline serves the national interest,” said Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International. “An honest assessment shows that rather than serving U.S. interests, Keystone XL serves only the interests of tar sands producers and shippers, and a few Gulf Coast refiners aiming to export the oil.”

This revelation strips away the smokescreen relieving the real agenda behind building the Keystone XL pipeline: pumping its oil into tankers for overseas export. Routing Canadian Tar Sands Oil across the U.S. by pipeline is only the least expensive short cut to the end users most of whom won't be living in the United States.

Roger Fox's excellent post earlier today looked at three other pipelines to the Pacific for Canadian tar sands oil in the planning stage: 3 Pipelines battle for Tar Sands oil

Here is one of the maps from Roger Fox's post:


I live 30 miles from Anacortes.

Originally posted to Lefty Coaster on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Koch Brothers? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, jimraff, Creosote

    Isn't Valero owned by the Koch Brothers

  •  We are going to pull extremely dirty (31+ / 0-)

    tar sand our of Canada, transport it through the US through a totally unsafe pipeline, to refine it near our drinking water, and dump the waste into our drinking water, so we can sell it to China?

    Seriously?

    This is totally wacked.

    After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

    by jimraff on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:59:13 PM PDT

  •  So they found a warm water port in a (17+ / 0-)

    corporate friendly state with all kinds of existing processing infrastructure. Wow, good deal for them...Now, what's our cut of the profits for letting the pipeline cross our property?

    -- We are just regular people informed on issues

    by mike101 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:15:28 PM PDT

  •  I talked about this last night on Netroots Radio (15+ / 0-)

    this needs to be stopped. It's really just about oil companies making money. Texas does not have the cracking capacity in their refineries to process this oil. The bitumen, diluted with naphtha (so it can be pumped through a pipeline) would just be loaded onto tankers and shipped overseas.

    You could be listening to Netroots Radio. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

    by yuriwho on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:27:03 PM PDT

  •  I have a question (9+ / 0-)

    I am wondering about the water that will be involved with this transfer of sludge.  I am from South Dakota and one of the states involved with this.  In the mid 1980's there was a plan to take Missouri River water and mix it with coal from Wyoming and then pipe it to Texas.  Texas was just going to use the coal that was slurried and discard the water, or so they said.  We raised hell with that and it was never done.  Now I am reading about the fact that we will be sending fresh water with this mess down the pipeline to Texas, it sounds to me like this deal is not so much for the sludge, although they will be able to extract that from the water, but it will be for the water man!  Think of it.  Americans get duped once again and Texas oil wins big.  Think I am crazy, check out ETSI Pipe line and do some research on that puppy.  I will say this, Texas and big oil know that in order to keep that marriage, they must have water in the state and they do not.  They are very limited on what they can buy and Texas is on fire right now.    The oil from Canada goes to China or wherever and the free American water is used in Texas.  A helluva deal is you ask Rick Perry and no risk except along the way.  The only ones that lose are us along the way.   Also, check out what T. Boone Pickens has the water rights to.  Pickens also knows that water will be a lot more valuable than oil and he has the ownership of a lot of water rights.

  •  the EROI on tar sands oil is terrible (16+ / 0-)

    James Hansen is right, this pipeline is game over.

    It's also going to be an unequivocal commentary on Obama's outlook on energy and the environment.

    This pipeline, EVEN IF ALL THE OIL WENT TO THE US, won't make a dent in our energy needs.

    It's outrageous.

    Start working on plan B...

    big badda boom : GRB 080913

    by squarewheel on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:46:42 PM PDT

  •  Exactly! (11+ / 0-)

    If they were planning to move it only within Canada and the U.S., why would they need to move it to the Southern U.S. for processing?

    Answer: they wouldn't.

    It's a lie, it's a lie, it's a lie, they're lying.

  •  Business as usual. Oil Business. n/t (5+ / 0-)
  •  I'm in Alberta and I know the oil industry pretty (5+ / 0-)

    well.  

    At this point, stopping the oil sands development is like standing in front of a freight train.  It ain't going to happen.  A huge investment has already been made to develop this oil source.  The important people who really run the world have decided that North America needs a secure supply of oil and nothing is going to stop the oil sands.

    Sorry.  For the environment this sucks but it may stop or delay the next oil war.

    If Keystone isn't built they will build an oil pipeline directly over the Rocky Mountains to a salt water port on the West Coast of British Columbia.  That is a more direct way to get the oil to export markets, which would make the oil sands into a secure source of oil for China or India.  They will probably build this pipeline anyway, even if Keystone isn't built.   The plans for this pipeline, it's called the Gateway Pipeline, are already moving forward.  There is a huge amount of oil in the oilsands (as much as in Saudi Arabia) and it is going to be developed.  

    New technologies such as "in situ" developments will reduce the carbon footprint of the oilsands significantly over time but it will always be dirty oil.  It is also worth while to point out that we should be protesting coal energy as much as oil sands energy because it is just as damaging to the environment.

    And I do understand the people that don't want Keystone in their back yard, or over their aquifer.  

    Let's be honest; Americans are addicted to oil and they want it cheap.  Wind energy is great for the environment and we need the jobs to build it, but it is expensive to build and I don't see a lot of people lining up to pay more for energy.   And we've seen enough in Iraq to know that we don't want to pay in blood and treasure for the next oil war.  

    Energy companies think in terms of 10, 15 or even twenty years ahead when they develop oil sources.  Okay, let's say we stop the oil sands; we better be ready to invest in a huge way in wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, tidal energy, and the electrical grid to move all that energy around.  And I mean in a huge way, because that is a lot of energy to replace and if we don't have energy, the whole continent shuts down.  

    I'm all for it, but I don't see any political support for the expensive green solution.  

    Please don't shoot the messenger.  I have kids.  I want them to grow up in a clean environment.   I'm just trying to get some realism into the debate.

    Okay. flame away!

     

    God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

    by alphorn on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:05:56 PM PDT

    •  No flames, but I disagree about the wars. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox

      They'll be fought anyway.

      Otherwise: I hope you're wrong.

    •  "North America needs a secure supply of oil" but (4+ / 0-)

      diary is about that supply of oil being sold overseas, not kept for our use.
      Are we to think that if oil gets too high they will nicely decide to only sell to us?

      •  I think alphorn stopped reading after the title (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, WisePiper, gchaucer2

        Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

        by Lefty Coaster on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:29:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think this diary oversimplifies the issue. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joynow

        Keystone One, the first leg of the pipeline, is already built and delivering oilsands bitumen to the hub in Oklahoma.  From there is goes to various refineries in the United States.  This won't stop.  Also, there are other pipelines transporting oil sands bitumen to refineries in the midwest.  The United States doesn't have enough oil refining capacity to refine the oil that is used in the United States.  Oil refineries are filthy themselves and there has been a reluctance to build any new ones in the United States for the last twenty years.  The reality is that the United States exports oil to refineries in other countries and then imports it in the form of gasoline or heating oil from those same foreign refineries.   Oil markets are international and if this diary implies that Keystone is being built only for the export of oil sands oil then it is an oversimplification and probably misleading.   There is no doubt that the bitumen produced by the oil sands will be increasing in volume over the next twenty years.  I think this next phase of Keystone is intended to carry that extra capacity and replace some of the Middle East oil the United States is importing.

        As I said above, the people who really run the United States have decided that the oil sands are the key to the energy security of the United States.  If a pipeline is built to transport the oilsands to the west coast of Canada, the oil sands will be oil security for China and India.  I think, but I have no way to be sure, that this is an underlying reason that the next phase of Keystone will get approval.

        Of course, oil lobbies paying huge sums of money to politicians in Washington probably has something to do with it too.

        God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

        by alphorn on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:00:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not only for the export, mostly for export (0+ / 0-)

          Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

          by Lefty Coaster on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:04:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Respectfully no (0+ / 0-)

          The idea that tar sands oil will replace mideast oil is just not floating, if I were to believe that, then I would believe that the oil from the NPRA, is the better choice because its super light crude, API of 40 to 60, vs tar sands API of 10 or less. NPRA oil could be transported thru the existing Trans Alaskan Pipeline (TAP) to tankers waiting in Valdez.

          Mid East oil does go to North East coast refineries, the distance oil is shipped in tankers is a consideration that is taken into account. TO suggest that Mid East oil would travel the extra distance to Texas (which adds 1500 miles) does not take this into account.

          Vancouver  to Asia is about 4500 miles, Persian Gulf to Asia is 5000 miles, the oil companies know this.

          Texas to Asia means the Panama canal, taking that route out of consideration.

          SO where does bitumen that arrives in Texas go? Texas has the least catalytic cracker capacity of any refinery region in the US.

          SO yeah connect the dots.. but to leave out so many data points makes your analysis incomplete.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 11:58:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sticking w discredited Energy Security BS huh? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisePiper, gchaucer2, Roger Fox

      Did you even bother to read the post?

      Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

      by Lefty Coaster on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:28:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's the "big oil" line but it's BS (9+ / 0-)

      Canada is a long way from piping the oil over the Rockies and it's way more expensive. If we can stop the pipeline in the USA it will seriously slow their ability to ship their oil to the world market. If we slow them down enough we'll buy time to develop clean sources that can out-compete tar sands oil. So 'big oil' is putting out a bunch of lies to make believe it's inevidable that they'll get it to market. It isn't.

      Only American politics are standing in their way though so we must fight and win the political battle here in the states. Big oil is very used to getting its way but recent developments such as the GOP govenor of Nebraska coming out in opposition have them scared. Humanity can win this dispite their money and power.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:05:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Admittedly, with over $200 Billion already (5+ / 0-)

      invested in tar sands development, we are fighting an uphill battle.  But a battle worth fighting never-the-less.

      As far as "in situ", more appropriately called Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage it is even more energy intensive than strip-mining, and causes all kinds of ground water pollution problems.

      •  Thank you. Another thoughtful reply to my (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zutroy, RunawayRose, DawnN, Roger Fox

        comment.   As an Albertan I have all sorts of environmental concerns about the oil sands development.  Calgary was a much more liveable city twenty years ago.  Now sometimes the traffic looks like Los Angeles.

        There are many good reasons to protest the next phase of Keystone.  I don't doubt the sincerity of anyone here.  I just think the fix is in.

        For the record, I'm a musician for a living.  I don't work in the oil industry, but most of my neighbors do.

        God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

        by alphorn on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:05:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I recently finished Andrew Nikiforuk's book (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RunawayRose, DawnN, semiot

          Tar Sands which was very informative on the big picture of tar sands oil, including environmental and social impacts locally.  It makes me sick thinking what oil consumption is doing to the people in the area, and the future of our planet.  I'm trying to get every one I know educated about what's going on up there, and tell them to think about tar sands oil every time they start the car.

          I hope we can make the changes we need to in society before it is too late for us all.

          •  We all need to study up on this. And keep up (0+ / 0-)

            the good fight.

            In my humble opinion, the solution to our energy needs are many:  Less consumption and green energy from many sources will be a contribution and will hopefully replace some of the dirtier forms of energy (conventional oil and gas, coal and oil sands bitumen) we consume.  

            I've studied green energy as well, and the challenges to developing green energy on a huge scale are very formidable.  It will take a long time and the cost will be great.  I just don't see the political will to make such an investment.  I wish it were different.  

            As I said, my neighbors work in the oil industry.  I've studied the issues.  Our energy needs are great.  The great Saudi oilfield in Gwahir is running out.  The Russian, Mexican and Venezuelan oilfields are well past their prime.  The same for Alaska and the conventional oilfields from Alberta to Texas.  Oil from the Gulf of Mexico has been proven unsafe for the environment; the BP spill was at 5,000 feet in the gulf and now they are drilling at 20,000 feet.  Central Asia (the Caspian basin), Nigeria and the Middle East are not secure sources.  I have two brothers in the United States military and I don't want to see another oil war.  All of the big energy companies are now investing in the oil sands.  In developing the oil sands the oil companies are just doing what they do very well; looking ahead for twenty years for future sources of energy with little regard for the environment and, of course, making a pile of money doing it.  But without energy this world we live in will grind to a halt.  

            I am a realist.  If the premise of this diary is that the importance of a secure source of energy is hogwash, I respectfully disagree.  And further, I just don't think dismissing a secure source of oil as big as the oil sands is responsible policy.    

            For these reasons I think the energy from oil sands will be a part of the final energy package.  I hope with the proper use of technology we can minimize the environment damage, but Alberta will probably get the worst of it.  That puts me and my family on the front line.

            God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

            by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:27:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Still clinging to discredited Energy Security (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              semiot, dirtfarmer, Delta Overdue

              argument while avoiding the issue of Greenhouse gas emissions, leaves gaping holes in the logic your arguments.

              Honestly taking the threat of climate change into account of there is absolutely no way we can morally justify using oil produced with such GHG intensive processes.  

              Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

              by Lefty Coaster on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 02:43:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Climate change is a serious issue. (0+ / 0-)

                I live in Alberta.  That puts me and my family on the front lines.  

                As I said, I hope we can replace some of our dirtiest fossil fuel energy with green energy.  I'm just realistic about how quickly we can do this.

                42% of the world's oil goes through the straits of Hormuz.  Iraq has 300 of the latest surface to surface laser guided missiles, provided by the Soviet Union.  One oil tanker sunk in the Straits of Hormuz will stop the tanker traffic.  Nigeria is in a state of civil war.   Conventional oil in most of the worlds' oilfields is depleting at a rapid rate.  And you think energy security is discredited?  

                With due respect, is it you or me that isn't living in the real world?

                God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

                by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 08:43:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, I meant Iran has the surface to surface (0+ / 0-)

                  missiles.  My bad.

                  God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

                  by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 08:47:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What missile? (0+ / 0-)

                    A topic I've covered in some depth in the past. I have more than perfunctionary knowledge of what Iran has.

                    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                    by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:06:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry, I don't know the details. My brother is (0+ / 0-)

                      an officer in the U.S. Navy.  I heard it from him.

                      God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

                      by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:38:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  mmmm (0+ / 0-)

                        Navy family, WW2 and Korea, Carriers.

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        I'm going to guess your brother is talking about the Sunburn a mach 3 cruise missile, dives at mach 4, even though its from China, as the Russian triple5 cruise missile is not for export.

                        The Chinese Sunburn is the most serious threat to any carrier.

                        The Russians just dont sell front line carrier threatening weapons, they havent for decades.
                        AS far as the Russians selling anything to Iran, no deal

                        http://www.google.com/...

                        SO ask your brother, for me, WTF are you talking about.

                        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                        by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:57:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Dont need details, a name is more than enough to (0+ / 0-)

                        confirm bullshit.

                        I got the details on anything. I can confirm anything.

                        So you have no name. no details, ... what evah......

                        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                        by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 01:00:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Here is your answer. A quick internet search was (0+ / 0-)

                          all I needed.  It may be a chinese missile that I asked my brother about, but it is clear in this article that the Russians have been selling this technology as well.   You seem angry for some reason.  I don't claim to be perfect but a better tone would be appreciated.  Thanks.

                          The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome
                          Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile
                          The Weapon That Could
                          Defeat The US In The Gulf
                          By Mark Gaffney

                          "Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

                          The Sunburn Missile

                          I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

                          Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."
                           

                          God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

                          by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 01:31:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My links, I wrote about this in Jan 2007 (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Iran likely purchased the Sunburn from China in 2004. China bought the Sunburn from Russia in '98 or '99.

                            Unfortunately  Mark Gaffney writes for Rense and is, lets be polite, prone to hyperbole.

                            By the time Mark Gaffney writes this article in 2011 the Navy had already deployed new close in anti missile defensive systems to augment the Phalanx system specifically to counter the Sunburn. See Aegis system, Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

                            In fact when I wrote my article in early 2007, design work had been completed, and a prototype existed. This is the problem with Rense, in this case they ignore whats been in the public domain for 4 years in order to sensationalize.

                            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                            by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 02:36:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So your Navy brother reads Rense? (0+ / 0-)

                            LOL. Kidding

                            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                            by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for the polite response. (0+ / 0-)

                            This discussion of missiles may not have originated from my brother at all.  I may have found this on the internet myself and brought up the subject with him.  It was a while ago.  I bow to your superior knowledge on matters of armaments.

                            My original point was that tankers in the Straits of Hormuz (and elsewhere in the world for that matter) are vulnerable.  There is much that confirms that.  This was in support of the argument that Canada's oil sands provide a secure North American supply of oil and that energy security is an issue that many people who posted comments on the original diary seem to want to deny.  

                            If you read my other comments you will see that I have many concerns about oilsands production and the harm to the environment that they create.  I am just trying to be realistic about the balance between meeting our future energy needs, energy security in a dangerous world, on what realistic timeline can alternative green sources of energy be expected to replace fossil fuels, and the damage that is currently being done to the environment.  

                            I think a made a few points and maybe broadened the discussion in what was otherwise a comment section that was pretty boring with everyone agreeing.  This is all to the good.

                            God is innocent: Noah built on a flood plain.

                            by alphorn on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 03:06:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But we can get hi quality oil from Alaska's NPRA (0+ / 0-)

                            Why look to Alberta?

                            API 40 to 60 in NPRA,  2.7 billion barrels. SO you say you are concerned about harm to the environment, so why do you fail to support oil production from NPRA?

                            Heres the choice,
                            1) API 35+ oil from the Middle East?
                            2) API -10 oil from ALberta
                            3) API 40-60 oil from NPRA

                            You say your concerned about the environment, but you choose the dirtiest option.

                            You say you dont want buy oil from other countries, but you fail to support oil production in the US (NPRA).
                            Then you bring Hormuz in...., WTF, a WW2 US Tank the Sherman, can sink tankers, SO FUCKING WHAT.

                            Then you site the Sunburn and then refuse to acknowledge that the Navy has deployed a defense specifically designed to thwart the Sunburn.

                            But you are right about recycling li poly batteries. 100% correct.

                            FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                            by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  1) not going to be NA's "secure supply of oil." (6+ / 0-)

      2)people are lining up to pay for wind, etc., but our goddamned unrepresentative government is getting in our way.  we'd love to have some green energy jobs to revitalize our economy and make the world better for our kids
      3)the greatest powers in the world are lined up against us.  Yep, pretty much standard in everything we do.
      4)Because the greatest powers in the world apparently don't give a sh*t if they drive the world off a cliff in the long or medium run as long as it means more billions for them in the short run.
      5)Yes, 15 years is the short run.
      6)Because we have a goddamned unrepresentative government it will apparently take civil disobedience on a large scale to get anything done right.
      7)I'm open to other suggestions or any suggestions at all as to how to accomplish this with the least muss and fuss.
      8)I'm not open to despair, since if we do what climate scientists say amounts to "game over" then we might as well all shoot ourselves in the heads now.  And that goes double for our children and grandchildren.

      Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:56:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like the "drill baby drill" idea, taxpayers pony (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, aliasalias, gchaucer2, DawnN

    up for new exploration and 10 years later the oil goes on the world market.  Much like North Slope oil from Alaska ends up in Japan.

    Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

    by J Edward on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:08:31 PM PDT

  •  It's a strange National Security (7+ / 0-)

    where the well-being of the actual members of the nation are excluded from being protected. This while Corporate Persons, and whether American or foreign, have everything flow their way.

    Political Corruption is so entrenched as King, it hardly makes a ripple anymore when it's conducted openly. And against the interests of the citizens.


    "Whatever you do, don't mention The War." Basil Fawlty, while mentally impaired.

    by Jim P on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:09:07 PM PDT

  •  The economic viability of the pipeline is (8+ / 0-)

    questioned in this Bloomberg Businessweek article about Nebraska ranchers opposed to the pipeline that includes this:

    TransCanada says it has received commitments from oil producers to ship 440,000 barrels a day of crude on the Keystone XL, or 63 percent of its 700,000-barrel-a-day capacity. The project is “not economic” at that rate, says Bradley Olsen, a pipeline industry analyst at Tudor, Pickering, Holt in Houston.

    The more we can cast doubt on this pipeline, chances increase we can strangle it's viability.  Then we have to do whatever is possible to shut off the alternatives covered in today's post by Roger Fox mentioned above by Lefty Coaster.

    •  I hope that this is true (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, DawnN, Delta Overdue

      Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

      by Lefty Coaster on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 02:45:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Build it and they will come (0+ / 0-)

      The tar sands is expected to ramp up from the current 1.3mbd to 5-6mbd.

      Right now the Morgan Kinder pipeline takes 300k bpd out of Alberta, the remaining 900k bpd goes elsewhere, its relatively easy for the tar sands to increase production the 900k it'll take to fill Keystone to capacity.

      I seriously doubt that pointing out that Keystone not being economic is a good selling point. Keystone is not expected to be at capacity, initially.

      AS soon as Keystone is opened, its a route that allows oil companies to get their oil to market, you can bet your rear end they will do just that.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 12:14:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Post this *everywhere* far and wide (4+ / 0-)

    Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:47:57 PM PDT

  •  None of this matters if Obama signs off on it.. (0+ / 0-)

    Cause most will still vote for him anyway. shame.

    "Proud member of the Socialist Party USA so I do not have to eat Satan sandwiches or wraps."

    by hangingchad on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:51:58 PM PDT

  •  The American Government has a long history... (4+ / 0-)

    of intentionally conflating 'security' with corporate profits.

    This pipeline is not meant to ensure the security of the American people - not by any definition. As is so often the case, securing corporate profits is what is at stake here.

  •  I think it's pretty safe to say.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    ...that no big projects approved by our government or undertaken by major corporations are designed for the benefit of the American people. From trade agreements to wars to off-shore drilling....we are simultaneously pummeled with pretentious propaganda, idiotic distractions and more difficult means of getting by while everything that happens around us is meant to empower and enrich the ruling class. We are being forced to be witnesses to our own decimation through abject neglect.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site