You guys REALLY don't want that Canadian oil pipeline?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-army-declines-mps-hormuz-exercise-remarks-132115297.html

Iran army declines comment on MP's Hormuz exercise remarks
Reuters – Mon, Dec 12, 2011

Mon, Dec 12, 2011
TEHRAN (Reuters) - A member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee said on Monday that the military was set to practice its ability to close the Gulf to shipping at the narrow Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil transit channel in the world, but there was no official confirmation.
The legislator, Parviz Sarvari, told the student news agency ISNA: "Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure."
Contacted by Reuters, a spokesman for the Iranian military declined to comment.
Iran's energy minister told Al Jazeera television last month that Tehran could use oil as a political tool in the event of any future conflict over its nuclear program.
Tension over the program has increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.
About a third of all sea-borne shipped oil passed through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.
Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through a 4-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.

[boutons_deux]

oilcos will totally love the Iranians messing around in the Hormuz. The oil price will spike and their windfall will be in the $10Bs.

[boutons_deux]

XL oil is not going to USA, but to central/south America

[CosmicCowboy]

XL oil is not going to USA, but to central/south America

Of course some of the manufactured products will be exported. Why keep repeating it? Bottom line is the oil will be in Texas and not bottled up in the Persian Gulf.

[ChumpDumper]

What does that have anything to do with the pipeline?

[boutons_deux]

Payroll Tax Cut Fight: Republicans Embrace Showdown With Obama Over Keystone XL

Sensing a political opening, congressional Republicans are moving toward a high-stakes showdown with President Barack Obama over a plan to link fast-tracked approval of an oil pipeline to a measure renewing a payroll tax cut.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas will help the president achieve his top priority – creating jobs – without costing a dime of taxpayer money.

"There is no reason this legislation shouldn't have the president's enthusiastic support," McConnell said Monday on the Senate floor. "The only reason for Democrats to oppose this job-creating bill would be to gain some political advantage at a time when every one of them says job creation is a top priority."

The State Department said last month it was postponing a decision on the pipeline until after next year's election. Officials said the delay is needed to study routes that avoid environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska.

The GOP language would require approval of the pipeline within two months unless Obama declares it is not in the national interest.

The State Department warned Monday the congressional interference in the approval process would likely lead to a rejection of the pipeline. The State Department has authority over the project because it crosses an international border.

"Should Congress impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision, its actions would not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the department from acting consistently with National Environmental Policy Act requirements by not allowing sufficient time" for the project to be considered, the State Department said in a statement.

In that case, "the department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project," the statement added.

McConnell and other Republicans dismiss such procedural objections.

"The only thing arbitrary about this decision is the decision by the president to say, `Well, let's wait until after the next election,'" said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/republicans-payroll-tax-cut-keystone-xl_n_1145323.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

[RandomGuy]

I think the pipeline is a fairly good idea, as long as it is done responsibly and with a fair amount of care.

If you are worried about being vulnerable to oil supply disruptions though, it will make our economy *more* vulnerable to oil supply disruptions, not less, unless you institute some pretty drastic government restrictions on the free oil market.


If you are worried about Iran's army, and you like a free market system, then simply tax carbon intensive energy, and let the free market decide how to make us less dependent on oil overall.

Stick that in yer head and let it roll around a bit. :)

[RandomGuy]

oilcos will totally love the Iranians messing around in the Hormuz. The oil price will spike and their windfall will be in the $10Bs.

That right there is the crux of the issue.

Let's say we produce a lot more oil and import less.

The global price is set by GLOBAL supply demand.

If we import less, then that makes oil in general more affordable overseas.

In any event we will still be importing oil AND doing so at the GLOBAL price, because the producers of that oil can sell it to us, or to anybody else they choose.

Over the long term, cheaper oil will mean that the up and coming economies with young populations will build more of their energy infrastructure around it, and increase longer term demand.

We are going to increasingly compete with the energy demands of 3 billion or so new consumers, whose economy and ability to pay are increasing much faster than our is.

The world changed while the "drill here, drill now" head in the sand crowd wasn't looking.

Sad thing is that their moronic policies will cost us all a lot in the long run.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are any of you old enough to remember the last time middle east oil production got disrupted? 1980...when Iran/Iraq war started? You couldn't BUY gas...stations would get a truckload of gas and the lines would back up for dozens if not hundreds of cars...They would sell out their weekly gas allotment and lock the door and go home...It really sucked too, because I was driving a L88 Vette that got like 130 miles on a tank of gas...

[ChumpDumper]

We never had such lines where I was living back then. Only when we went to Dallas or something.

And I'm really not afraid of the Iranian Navy.

[CosmicCowboy]

We never had such lines where I was living back then. Only when we went to Dallas or something.

And I'm really not afraid of the Iranian Navy.

They don't need a navy to close the strait...it's only 4 miles wide at the neck...They could mine it or just shoot the tankers trying to run it with land based missiles/artillery.

[ChumpDumper]

They don't need a navy to close the strait...it's only 4 miles wide at the neck...They could mine it or just shoot the tankers trying to run it with land based missiles/artillery.You really think they would do that?

I don't think they want to give the Sunni an excuse to finance a military action against them.

[CosmicCowboy]

You really think they would do that?

I don't think they want to give the Sunni an excuse to finance a military action against them.

Quite honestly, I don't know what to think about the current rulers of Iran...they aren't exactly stable and predictable...

[ChumpDumper]

Quite honestly, I don't know what to think about the current rulers of Iran...they aren't exactly stable and predictable...The religious leaders are fairly predictable tbh. Focusing on the president is folly. Hell, there's a good chance the office won't exist soon.

[cheguevara]

Iran is out to get us, they are a bunch of meanies :lol

[Yonivore]

Iran is out to get us, they are a bunch of meanies :lol
I think it's a bit more complicated and sophisticated than that but, yeah, you get the gist.

[cheguevara]

only thing to get is the fear mongering is starting early this eleciton cycle

[CosmicCowboy]

Fear mongering?

the Iranians threatening to close the straits is really just Republican fear mongering?

Got DAMN you are a fucking idiot....

[MannyIsGod]

Iranian leaders are actually extremely predictable. But in any event, No. That pipeline is a terrible idea for a fuel we need to be moving away from.

[MannyIsGod]

You act as if this is the first time they've said this. They ALWAYS threaten that shit. Its their biggest threat. You see a reason to build a pipeline. I see a reason to make an even stronger push toward alternative energy.

[Yonivore]

You act as if this is the first time they've said this. They ALWAYS threaten that shit. Its their biggest threat. You see a reason to build a pipeline. I see a reason to make an even stronger push toward alternative energy.
By next week? What alternative would that be?

[ChumpDumper]

Just widen the Suez Canal so ships don't have to wait to pass each other.

[ChumpDumper]

By next week? What alternative would that be?Would the pipeline be ready next week?

[MannyIsGod]

By next week? What alternative would that be?

Oh I'm sorry, you're planning on building the pipeline by next week?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

You act as if this is the first time they've said this. They ALWAYS threaten that shit. Its their biggest threat. You see a reason to build a pipeline. I see a reason to make an even stronger push toward alternative energy.

Why can't we do both? It's not an either/or decision.

And lets face it...the middle east is much more volatile now than it's been in 20 years and there is no end in sight...

[MannyIsGod]

Its really not. Iran Iraq war through the 80s. Israel wars with Eygpt prior.

And it can't be both the pipeline is terrible for the environment.

[MannyIsGod]

Its really not. Iran Iraq war through the 80s. Israel wars with Eygpt prior.

And it can't be both the pipeline is terrible for the environment.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just widen the Suez Canal so ships don't have to wait to pass each other.

???????

WTF does the Suez Canal have to do with the Persian Gulf?

but since you brought it up, how stable is Egypt/Suez Canal? Thats another huge question mark....

[CosmicCowboy]

Its really not. Iran Iraq war through the 80s. Israel wars with Eygpt prior.

And it can't be both the pipeline is terrible for the environment.

Why is that pipeline terrible for the environment and the thousands of others already in existence aren't? You have been conned, Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

You kinda have to go through the straits of hormuz to get to the suez canal. In any event, I don't give a shit about Iran's threats because they always make empty threats like this. Same shit when they go out and buy new Russian anti ship weapons.

Iran's leaders are far more rational than many give them credit for.

[MannyIsGod]

Why is that pipeline terrible for the environment and the thousands of others already in existence aren't? You have been conned, Manny.

When did I say the ones that were in existence now weren't?

[CosmicCowboy]

Its really not. Iran Iraq war through the 80s. Israel wars with Eygpt prior.

And it can't be both the pipeline is terrible for the environment.

I specifically said last 20 years.

[CosmicCowboy]

When did I say the ones that were in existence now weren't?

Why are pipelines terrible for the environment?

[MannyIsGod]

I specifically said last 20 years.

Fair enough. Although I don't think thats true either. The situation was worse in the past 10 years.

[MannyIsGod]

Why are pipelines terrible for the environment?

Um, REALLY?

Spills, increased CO2 emissions, interruption of animal movement patterns just to name a few off the top of my head.

[CosmicCowboy]

Um, REALLY?

Spills, increased CO2 emissions, interruption of animal movement patterns just to name a few off the top of my head.

Most pipelines are buried and you don't even know they are there. There are thousands.

[CosmicCowboy]

These are just the major pipelines in Texas...

Have you ever seen one? Seen a spill from one?

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/texas-ng-pipeline.gif

[cheguevara]

Fear mongering?

the Iranians threatening to close the straits is really just Republican fear mongering?

Got DAMN you are a fucking idiot....

:lmao

Iranians have said all kinds of shit from threatening Israel to oblivion to blockading this and that. They are full of shit. It's funny that retards like you start listening to them in election season. :lmao

[cheguevara]

:lol

You kinda have to go through the straits of hormuz to get to the suez canal. In any event, I don't give a shit about Iran's threats because they always make empty threats like this.

pssst, it's election season

[CosmicCowboy]

Unlike you, I'm not stupid enough to underestimate our enemies.

[cheguevara]

but you are stupid enough to believe Iran is out to start a war with us :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

pssst, it's election season

Damn you are a fucking idiot. You didn't even understand what he was talking about. The Suez Canal has nothing to do with the Persian Gulf and the Straits of hormuz.

[cheguevara]

LOL you mad

[CosmicCowboy]

but you are stupid enough to believe Iran is out to start a war with us :lol

Dummy.

They don't have to start a war to fuck up the industrial world as we know it. All they have to do is close the straits.

They know our current President is such a pussy that he wouldn't do anything about it except to ask them "pretty please will you open them up again?" just like he asked "pretty please, will you give us our top secret spy drone back?"...

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL you mad

LOL you stupid.

[Yonivore]

but you are stupid enough to believe Iran is out to start a war with us :lol
Start a war? They've been at war with the United States for decades.

[cheguevara]

Dummy.

They don't have to start a war to fuck up the industrial world as we know it. All they have to do is close the straits.

They know our current President is such a pussy that he wouldn't do anything about it except to ask them "pretty please will you open them up again?" just like he asked "pretty please, will you give us our top secret spy drone back?"...

yes, keep telling yourself they will close the straights :rolleyes

[Drachen]

Dummy.

They don't have to start a war to fuck up the industrial world as we know it. All they have to do is close the straits.

They know our current President is such a pussy that he wouldn't do anything about it except to ask them "pretty please will you open them up again?" just like he asked "pretty please, will you give us our top secret spy drone back?"...

You really think that we should have given the Iranian people a reason to coalesce around their government against us by starting a war over a drone?

He asked as a matter of procedure, no one thought they would give it back. If you believe that it was an earnest request then I feel sorry for you.

Also, if you think that Iran doesn't think that our president (OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY'S LEADER) would think twice about squashing them then, again, I feel sorry for you.

[cheguevara]

You really think that we should have given the Iranian people a reason to coalesce around their government against us by starting a war over a drone?

He asked as a matter of procedure, no one thought they would give it back. If you believe that it was an earnest request then I feel sorry for you.

Also, if you think that Iran doesn't think that our president (OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY'S LEADER) would think twice about squashing them then, again, I feel sorry for you.

he fails to understand the simple "cause and effect" concept. how sad

[CosmicCowboy]

If in fact, the military knew where it had crash landed on the ground and wanted to destroy it without any collateral damage before the Iranians could capture it and he stopped them from doing so, then yeah, I think it was a mistake.

[cheguevara]

Start a war? They've been at war with the United States for decades.

link to the declaration of war? :downspin:

[Yonivore]

If in fact, the military knew where it had crash landed on the ground and wanted to destroy it without any collateral damage before the Iranians could capture it and he stopped them from doing so, then yeah, I think it was a mistake.
And, it's beginning to sound like that might have been the case.

[Yonivore]

link to the declaration of war? :downspin:
I'm not familiar with the Iranian constitutional requirements for "declaring war" but, if it's acts of war you're unclear about; you can start with attacking our Embassy on November 4, 1979, rummage through several dozen Iranian acts of hostility over the ensuing decades, and arrive at Ali Musa Daqduq as one of the latest examples of Iranian acts of war against America. Not to mention they've been arming every anti-Western Iranian proxy in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


For one of their latest declarations of war, see this article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082383203542526.html?m od=googlenews_wsj):

Obama and the Hezbollah Terrorist (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082383203542526.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)


In the early evening of Jan. 20, 2007, in the city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, five black SUVs approached the location of a regular meeting between U.S. and Iraqi military officers. Inside the vehicles, which mimicked U.S. transports (to avoid heightened scrutiny), were a dozen individuals dressed in U.S. military uniforms and bearing U.S. weapons. Their drivers spoke English.

Upon reaching their target, the occupants opened fire on the Americans. One U.S. soldier was killed on the spot. Four others were kidnapped, tortured and executed.

The mastermind of this brutal attack? Ali Musa Daqduq, a Lebanese national and Hezbollah commander. U.S. forces captured him in March 2007, and, in interrogation, he allegedly provided a wealth of information on Iran's role in fomenting, training and arming Iraqi insurgents of all stripes.

Obama is getting ready to release this murderer, at the end of December, and he will probably be welcomed in Iran as a hero.

[ChumpDumper]

You kinda have to go through the straits of hormuz to get to the suez canal.Right. I failed the geography on that one.

Why don't they build more pipelines away from the strait?

Nonetheless, I'm not terribly worried at this point. It's not like we don't perform military operations that are essentially practice to keeping the strait open.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama is getting ready to release this murderer, at the end of December, and he will probably be welcomed in Iran as a hero.He's being released to the sovereign government of Iraq. You know, the government you wanted there.

[cheguevara]

I'm not familiar with the Iranian constitutional requirements for "declaring war" but, if it's acts of war you're unclear about; you can start with attacking our Embassy on November 4, 1979, rummage through several dozen Iranian acts of hostility over the ensuing decades, and arrive at Ali Musa Daqduq as one of the latest examples of Iranian acts of war against America. Not to mention they've been arming every anti-Western Iranian proxy in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


For one of their latest declarations of war, see this article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082383203542526.html?m od=googlenews_wsj):

Obama and the Hezbollah Terrorist (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082383203542526.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)



Obama is getting ready to release this murderer, at the end of December, and he will probably be welcomed in Iran as a hero.

so no war. k tnx

[cherylsteele]

:lol

You kinda have to go through the straits of hormuz to get to the suez canal. In any event, I don't give a shit about Iran's threats because they always make empty threats like this. Same shit when they go out and buy new Russian anti ship weapons.

Iran's leaders are far more rational than many give them credit for.
Actually, you have to go through the Bab el Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea to get to Suez Canal. The Straits of Hormuz lead to the Persian Gulf.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, you have to go through the Bab el Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea to get to Suez Canal. The Straits of Hormuz lead to the Persian Gulf.

I'm pretty sure Manny knows that. His point was that an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf (say from Saudi Arabia) wouldn't be able to get to the Red Sea/Suez Canal if the Iranians blocked the Straits of Hormuz. Higher capacity in the Suez Canal would be irrelevant to the flow of oil.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm pretty sure Manny knows that. His point was that an oil tanker in the Persian Gulf (say from Saudi Arabia) wouldn't be able to get to the Red Sea/Suez Canal if the Iranians blocked the Straits of Hormuz. Higher capacity in the Suez Canal would be irrelevant to the flow of oil.So why don't the Gulf states build pipelines to bypass the strait?

[CosmicCowboy]

So why don't the Gulf states build pipelines to bypass the strait?

I'm pretty sure it's because they don't trust each other. Plus, the pipelines are vulnerable to sabotage (as we have seen in Iraq) Theoretically the Saudi's could build pipelines to the Red Sea (most of their oil fields are in the East) but they would still be vulnerable to Egypt. Kuwait and Iraq would have to send the pipeline through Syria or Turkey to get to the Mediterranean.

[ChumpDumper]

Iraq is the big reason I don't think Iran will shut down the strait. Why undermine other Shiites? Doesn't make the sense it did when Saddam was in charge -- and they didn't even close the strait when they were at war with him.

[Wild Cobra]

This is so funny. You all wait for some talking head to tell you to worry about a pipeline project that was already started, and probably half completed. When I mentioned the "Keystone Pipeline" more than a week back (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5493521&postcount=10), nobody jumped on it till some talking head told you too.

[RandomGuy]

Are any of you old enough to remember the last time middle east oil production got disrupted? 1980...when Iran/Iraq war started? You couldn't BUY gas...stations would get a truckload of gas and the lines would back up for dozens if not hundreds of cars...They would sell out their weekly gas allotment and lock the door and go home...It really sucked too, because I was driving a L88 Vette that got like 130 miles on a tank of gas...



If you are worried about being vulnerable to oil supply disruptions though, will make our economy *more* vulnerable to [global] oil supply disruptions[B] [INCLUDING whatever the Iranians do], not less, unless you institute some pretty drastic government restrictions on the free oil market.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not familiar with the Iranian constitutional requirements for "declaring war" but, if it's acts of war you're unclear about; you can start with attacking our Embassy on November 4, 1979, rummage through several dozen Iranian acts of hostility over the ensuing decades, and arrive at Ali Musa Daqduq as one of the latest examples of Iranian acts of war against America. Not to mention they've been arming every anti-Western Iranian proxy in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


For one of their latest declarations of war, see this article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082383203542526.html?m od=googlenews_wsj):

Obama and the Hezbollah Terrorist (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082383203542526.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)



Obama is getting ready to release this murderer, at the end of December, and he will probably be welcomed in Iran as a hero.




If you are worried about being vulnerable to oil supply disruptions though, will make our economy *more* vulnerable to [global] oil supply disruptions[B] [INCLUDING whatever the Iranians do], not less, unless you institute some pretty drastic government restrictions on the free oil market.

[RandomGuy]

This is so funny. You all wait for some talking head to tell you to worry about a pipeline project that was already started, and probably half completed. When I mentioned the "Keystone Pipeline" more than a week back (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5493521&postcount=10), nobody jumped on it till some talking head told you too.




If you are worried about being vulnerable to oil supply disruptions though, will make our economy *more* vulnerable to [global] oil supply disruptions[B] [INCLUDING whatever the Iranians do], not less, unless you institute some pretty drastic government restrictions on the free oil market.


It's amazing that all of your dumb asses ignored a rather cogent point that speaks directly to the OP, simply because you let your ideological blinders get in the way of seeing the economic reality, because that reality runs counter to your belief system.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's amazing that all of your dumb asses ignored a rather cogent point that speaks directly to the OP, simply because you let your ideological blinders get in the way of seeing the economic reality, because that reality runs counter to your belief system.

:lmao

speaking of belief systems getting in the way...

The disruption in 80 was a SUPPLY issue. The refineries couldn't run because they couldn't get OIL to run them. it wasn't a supply/demand issue where we just didn't want to pay enough for oil...we couldn't get enough at any price...

And pointing out that history can repeat itself if you ignore it DOES NOT make me a dumb ass.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

speaking of belief systems getting in the way...

The disruption in 80 was a SUPPLY issue. The refineries couldn't run because they couldn't get OIL to run them. it wasn't a supply/demand issue where we just didn't want to pay enough for oil...we couldn't get enough at any price...

And pointing out that history can repeat itself if you ignore it DOES NOT make me a dumb ass.

No industry or government projection, even the MOST optimistic ones, show that we can EVER produce enough oil to wean ourselves from oil imports.

The pipeline will not change that, merely prolong and deepen our overall dependence and vulnerability to foreign supply disruptions.

If you would like, I can message the economics PhD and he will confirm this.

Answer one fundamental question, and be honest:

If you are running an oil company, and one customer says he will give you $90 for your product, and another will pay $110 for it, who will you sell it to?

[JoeChalupa]

I remember all the hype in 1980 and it didn't disrupt our driving habits.

[CosmicCowboy]

No industry or government projection, even the MOST optimistic ones, show that we can EVER produce enough oil to wean ourselves from oil imports.

The pipeline will not change that, merely prolong and deepen our overall dependence and vulnerability to foreign supply disruptions.

If you would like, I can message the economics PhD and he will confirm this.

Answer one fundamental question, and be honest:

If you are running an oil company, and one customer says he will give you $90 for your product, and another will pay $110 for it, who will you sell it to?

Of course I understand there is a free market in commodities. It was never a question of willingness to pay market price it was a supply issue when production/shipping was disrupted. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[CosmicCowboy]

I remember all the hype in 1980 and it didn't disrupt our driving habits.

Yeah, you apparently don't remember a lot of things.

[RandomGuy]

Of course I understand there is a free market in commodities. It was never a question of willingness to pay market price it was a supply issue when production/shipping was disrupted. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

That is not the question I asked.

You imply that this pipeline will make us less vulnerable to Iran shutting off supply, because it increases our oil supply.

That is patently false.

If any domestic producer suddenly gets bids from Britain or Europe for their oil for more than what we are bidding, they will export the oil, until our bid matches theirs.

This would apply even if we supplied 100% of our current needs.

In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's dicking around with global supply.

The only way to change that is to make our economy use less oil.

We don't need a pipeline, we need a carbon tax that alters the market dynamic.

That is if you are really as concerned about the Iranian threats in the OP as you seemed to imply.

Are you concerned about our energy security or not?

[Yonivore]

No industry or government projection, even the MOST optimistic ones, show that we can EVER produce enough oil to wean ourselves from oil imports.
The USGS begs to differ...

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Permian Basin Province of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, 2007 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3115/)


The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently assessed the undiscovered oil and gas potential of the Permian Basin Province of west Texas and southeast New Mexico. The assessment was geology based and used the total petroleum system concept. The geologic elements of a total petroleum system are petroleum source rocks (quality, source rock maturation, generation, and migration), reservoir rocks (sequence stratigraphy, petrophysical properties), and traps (trap formation and timing). This study assessed potential for technically recoverable resources in new field discoveries only; field growth (or reserve growth) of conventional oil and gas fields was not included. Using a this methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated a mean of 41 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and a mean of 1.3 billion barrels of undiscovered oil in the Permian Basin Province.
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911)


Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.
Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin, Montana and North Dakota, 2008 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1353/)

Between those two sources alone, America could survive for about 40 years without importing any oil from anywhere else.

And, there's an estimated 2 Trillion barrels under the Rocky Mountains just waiting for a inexpensive technology to tap it.

I'd say 40 years is enough time to noodle that one out.

EVER is a long time RG.

[boutons_deux]

"America could survive for about 40 years without importing any oil from anywhere else"

so why isn't it being done by the oilcos? too expensive? can't get past those regulations (not that MMS would ever enforce them anyway) nat gas is their hot target now, not domestic oil.

[JoeChalupa]

It is these issues that urk democrats about the GOP plan:
-Require millions of seniors to pay more for health care.
-Cut unemployment insurance benefits for one million Americans.
-Tack on the unrelated, controversial provision like the Keystone XL Pipeline while cutting environmental air quality standards.
-Let billionaires and big oil off the hook. They won’t pay one more cent under the Republican plan.

It ain't all about the pipeline. Many democrats support the pipeline but not the above cuts.

[RandomGuy]

The USGS begs to differ...

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Permian Basin Province of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, 2007 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3115/)


3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911)


Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin, Montana and North Dakota, 2008 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1353/)

Between those two sources alone, America could survive for about 40 years without importing any oil from anywhere else.

And, there's an estimated 2 Trillion barrels under the Rocky Mountains just waiting for a inexpensive technology to tap it.

I'd say 40 years is enough time to noodle that one out.

EVER is a long time RG.

Even non-existant inexpensive technologies take time to ramp up. If one optimistically assumes we can get all of this oil, we would be faced with the problem making up for other sources' depletion.

We are increasing our consumption globally at 2-3% per year, but over the last thirty years or so, have used more oil than we have globally discovered every year. This is a long term unsustainable trend.

Ultimately you can't cheat physics. That itself works against any technology.

There might be 2 trillion barrels of oil locked in shale rock formations in the Rockies, but if it takes 1.9 trillion barrels worth of energy to get that to a usable form, that doesn't help us much.

In any event, that oil will still be part of a global market, and my assertion about dependency on foreign supply still stands.

Are you worried about Iranians disrupting oil supplies or not?

[Yonivore]

Even non-existant inexpensive technologies take time to ramp up. If one optimistically assumes we can get all of this oil, we would be faced with the problem making up for other sources' depletion.
Which is why there has been a clarion call for "drill here - drill now" for quite sometime now.


We are increasing our consumption globally at 2-3% per year, but over the last thirty years or so, have used more oil than we have globally discovered every year. This is a long term unsustainable trend.

Ultimately you can't cheat physics. That itself works against any technology.

There might be 2 trillion barrels of oil locked in shale rock formations in the Rockies, but if it takes 1.9 trillion barrels worth of energy to get that to a usable form, that doesn't help us much.
There is at least 40 years worth of oil available with technology available today. I'm thinking we can develop a cost-efficient method for tapping the Rockies by 2051.


In any event, that oil will still be part of a global market, and my assertion about dependency on foreign supply still stands.
A whole lot of Kentucky windage in there, RG.

Yes, we will be part of a global market that we have the potential to increase the supply in by over 2 Trillion barrels. Just think what that will do to the global price of oil.


Are you worried about Iranians disrupting oil supplies or not?
Worried? No.

Convinced we need to tell the envirowhackos to STFU and start tapping our own resources? Yep.

And, we don't have to be totally self-sufficient, off the bat. How much of our imports are from that volatile regional of the globe?

[Yonivore]

Hey, RG! How much, per gallon, do Saudis pay for gasoline?

And, Why?

[CosmicCowboy]

I get it now RG. You want a carbon tax. That explains a lot.

[Yonivore]

A chink in Reid's armor...

bK0rjkLxfTY#!

Looks like at least one Democrat is tired of being part of an obstructionist Senate.

[RandomGuy]

Which is why there has been a clarion call for "drill here - drill now" for quite sometime now.




In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's dicking around with global supply.


Not sure you saw this part when I posted it four or five times in a row.

[CosmicCowboy]

i saw it rg...i just believe that a unilateral carbon tax is fucking idiotic..

[RandomGuy]

I get it now RG. You want a carbon tax. That explains a lot.

I want to be less dependent on oil in general. A carbon tax is one means to that end.

I suggest that because I know you won't like it, even though it makes more sense economically than building new pipelines, *if* your goal is to reduce our exposure to foreign supply disruptions.

There are other things we can do, other than hope for non-existant technologies to appear that made currently inaccessable oil suddenly economical to produce.

[RandomGuy]

i saw it rg...i just believe that a unilateral carbon tax is fucking idiotic..

What it does is picks winners, non-carbon energy forms, and losers, carbon energy.

Markets do this all the time.

What it doesn't do is pick the technologies or forms of non-carbon energy that win. You let the market do its thing.

It is the *least* invasive way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supply disruptions.

If you have an alternative, feel free to present it.

[spursncowboys]

In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's dicking around with global supply.


Not sure you saw this part when I posted it four or five times in a row.

I didn't know canada was apart of OPEC.

[CosmicCowboy]

The market itself provides the financial incentive for people to seek alternatives. Four dollar gas is a good example. See Toyota Prius.

You realize that carbon taxes are incredibly regressive, right?

It hurts the ones least able to afford it the most.

how do you square that with your other progressive ideals?

[spursncowboys]

What it does is picks winners, non-carbon energy forms, and losers, carbon energy.

Markets do this all the time.

What it doesn't do is pick the technologies or forms of non-carbon energy that win. You let the market do its thing.

It is the *least* invasive way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supply disruptions.

If you have an alternative, feel free to present it.

Markets do it a little more efficiently, than corrupt politicians.

This is as idiotic and illogical as requiring ethanol in gasoline.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't know canada was apart of OPEC.

I like donuts.

[spursncowboys]

The market itself provides the financial incentive for people to seek alternatives. Four dollar gas is a good example. See Toyota Prius.

You realize that carbon taxes are incredibly regressive, right?

It hurts the ones least able to afford it the most.

how do you square that with your other progressive ideals?

Flat tax if it is to manipulate the stupid average man who doesn't know what is best for him.

[Yonivore]

In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's dicking around with global supply.

Not sure you saw this part when I posted it four or five times in a row.
Would that not depend on how much we introduce to the market? Exploiting new found reserves and drilling in currently prohibited (for no good reason) reserves will increase the global supply so, unless Iran could affect a reciprocal amount of supply, your point is meaningless.

As it stands, if Iran cuts supply, we have no recourse. By fully exploiting domestic sources, we can mitigate those affects.

[spursncowboys]

I like donuts.

I would say that too if I knew Canada's unrefined oil had nothing to do with OPEC decided prices.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=OPEC+member+countries

[RandomGuy]

The market itself provides the financial incentive for people to seek alternatives. Four dollar gas is a good example. See Toyota Prius.

You realize that carbon taxes are incredibly regressive, right?

It hurts the ones least able to afford it the most.

how do you square that with your other progressive ideals?

The market will provide a ton of incentives with gas far more expensive than 4 dollars a gallon in about ten years.

A carbon tax will be regressive. It is also possible to mitigate the most regressive aspects. That is a definite cost.

The benefit is that we don't have to wait, as I have pointed out, for the 3-4 billion Asians and Africans whose incomes and populations are rising far faster than our, to out-bid us for a diminishing supply of oil.

That will be pretty regressive in and of itself, and have the same function, but we will have less ability to mitigate it.

I want to just get out ahead of the curve.

It is a lesser of two evils. Sorry, that is our choice box.

[RandomGuy]

I would say that too if I knew Canada's unrefined oil had nothing to do with OPEC decided prices.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=OPEC+member+countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

[RandomGuy]

Would that not depend on how much we introduce to the market? Exploiting new found reserves and drilling in currently prohibited (for no good reason) reserves will increase the global supply so, unless Iran could affect a reciprocal amount of supply, your point is meaningless.

As it stands, if Iran cuts supply, we have no recourse. By fully exploiting domestic sources, we can mitigate those affects.

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

No, not really.

[RandomGuy]

... and by fully exploiting you mean pulling non-existant technologies out of the hat?

How is that different than simply encouraging the current trend of renewables towards cheaper units of energy?

[Yonivore]

Carbon Tax <> Free Market development of alternative energy sources.

To where does the Government direct the collected taxes?

That's right, they pick winners and losers so, instead of developing technologies to recover a viable energy source.

You end up with Solyndra.

Alternative energy sources will be developed when the free market sees the need.

[CosmicCowboy]

The market will provide a ton of incentives with gas far more expensive than 4 dollars a gallon in about ten years.

A carbon tax will be regressive. It is also possible to mitigate the most regressive aspects. That is a definite cost.

The benefit is that we don't have to wait, as I have pointed out, for the 3-4 billion Asians and Africans whose incomes and populations are rising far faster than our, to out-bid us for a diminishing supply of oil.

That will be pretty regressive in and of itself, and have the same function, but we will have less ability to mitigate it.

I want to just get out ahead of the curve.

It is a lesser of two evils. Sorry, that is our choice box.

It is not a choice.

It is economic suicide to do it unilaterally and the developing nations will never agree to implementing an equal carbon tax.

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility


OPEC's ability to control the price of oil has diminished somewhat since then, due to the subsequent discovery and development of large oil reserves in Alaska, the North Sea, Canada, the Gulf of Mexico, the opening up of Russia, and market modernization. As of November 2010, OPEC members collectively hold 79% of world crude oil reserves and 44% of the world’s crude oil production, affording them considerable control over the global market.[6] The next largest group of producers, members of the OECD and the Post-Soviet states produced only 23.8% and 14.8%, respectively, of the world's total oil production.[7] As early as 2003, concerns that OPEC members had little excess pumping capacity sparked speculation that their influence on crude oil prices would begin to slip.[8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

[RandomGuy]

Would that not depend on how much we introduce to the market? Exploiting new found reserves and drilling in currently prohibited (for no good reason) reserves will increase the global supply so, unless Iran could affect a reciprocal amount of supply, your point is meaningless.

As it stands, if Iran cuts supply, we have no recourse. By fully exploiting domestic sources, we can mitigate those affects.


The strait at its narrowest is 54 kilometres (34 mi) wide.[1] It is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum-exporting Persian Gulf. About 13 tankers carrying 15.5 million barrels (2,460,000 m3) of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 33% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 17% of all world oil shipments in 2009.[2]

The US produces 10% of the worlds oil.

Iran can stop 17% or more from reaching world markets, just by hitting the straits. Call it an even 20%.

If you can find someone who thinks we can achieve, even with completely unrestricted drilling and magic technology, a three fold increase in our oil capacity, I would love to hear it.

Other places will step in, Canada, Brazil, and Veneula come to mind, but again, the issue of how long it takes to ramp up rears its ugly head.

Years.

The Iranians can affect this instantly.

Meh.

I would rather not bother being vulnerable at all.

Hell, if we switched over our economy and drilled enough to export, that would make be happy.

Iran could dick with supply all they want, the only thing it woudl do is make our oil more valuable.

[Yonivore]

... and by fully exploiting you mean pulling non-existant technologies out of the hat?
Current technologies used to not exist. Necessity is the mother of invention -- not artificially inflated prices.


How is that different than simply encouraging the current trend of renewables towards cheaper units of energy?
Because we already know petroleum fuels can be produced in extremely cheap units of energy.

None of the proposed alternatives have yet proposed how they can be scaled up to meet the same energy requirements and not cost exponentially more. If they could, we would already be scaling them up.

[RandomGuy]

Carbon Tax <> Free Market development of alternative energy sources.

To where does the Government direct the collected taxes?

That's right, they pick winners and losers so, instead of developing technologies to recover a viable energy source.

You end up with Solyndra.

Alternative energy sources will be developed when the free market sees the need.

A carbon tax would bypass picking individual winners/losers, like Solyndra. Thanks for the example.

[RandomGuy]

Current technologies used to not exist. Necessity is the mother of invention -- not artificially inflated prices.


Because we already know petroleum fuels can be produced in extremely cheap units of energy.

None of the proposed alternatives have yet proposed how they can be scaled up to meet the same energy requirements and not cost exponentially more. If they could, we would already be scaling them up.

We are actually. That is my point.

Renewables are coming into parity with other sources for electricity, and that will be a game changer.

Efficiencies of scale are already here, and some serious money is flowing into them.

I would like to see a bit of a push in that direction, to accelerate an existing market process.

[Yonivore]

The US produces 10% of the worlds oil.

Iran can stop 17% or more from reaching world markets, just by hitting the straits. Call it an even 20%.

If you can find someone who thinks we can achieve, even with completely unrestricted drilling and magic technology, a three fold increase in our oil capacity, I would love to hear it.
I believe I posted a link to the USGS report that says we can do this now with existing technology.


Other places will step in, Canada, Brazil, and Veneula come to mind, but again, the issue of how long it takes to ramp up rears its ugly head.

Years.

The Iranians can affect this instantly.

Meh.
No time like the present to get started.


I would rather not bother being vulnerable at all.
But, we are vulnerable. And, frankly, I'd rather be vulnerable while we work our asses off to supplant our imports from that region of the world than to be vulnerable waiting for magic alternative technology to be developed.


Hell, if we switched over our economy and drilled enough to export, that would make be happy.

Iran could dick with supply all they want, the only thing it woudl do is make our oil more valuable.
So, "Drill here - drill now!"

[RandomGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC


According to Mikael Höök, who researches the life cycles of oil fields, despite technological advances that increase the productivity of oil wells, the rate of decline of oil fields will eventually increase as time continues.[34] Energy policy expert Joyce Dargay accuses OPEC, along with several other institutions, of drastically under predicting future oil demand by 2030 by more than 25%, a difference of 28 million barrels per day (4,500,000 m3/d) or about twice the current amount supplied by Saudi Arabia.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

[CosmicCowboy]

RG, no one is arguing that oil is a finite resource or that alternative energy is bad.

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

That was written in 09

[RandomGuy]

I believe I posted a link to the USGS report that says we can do this now with existing technology.


No time like the present to get started.


But, we are vulnerable. And, frankly, I'd rather be vulnerable while we work our asses off to supplant our imports from that region of the world than to be vulnerable waiting for magic alternative technology to be developed.


So, "Drill here - drill now!"

"technically recoverable" does not mean "economically recoverable".

How much oil would you buy at $1,000 per barrel?

You don't seem to be understanding either what you are posting, nor are you bothering to read what I post.

I have other things to do than to spoon feed you economics and reality.

[Yonivore]

According to Mikael Höök, who researches the life cycles of oil fields, despite technological advances that increase the productivity of oil wells, the rate of decline of oil fields will eventually increase as time continues
This statement is made in the context of a Wikipedia article about OPEC. Could he be referring to those fields and not the vast reserves, now discovered and waiting to be exploited here?

I think it's a legitimate question.

I don't know who is Mikael Höök but, the footnote is a paper he co-authored and the title doesn't indicate whether or not he's even referring to domestic oil reserves and their capacity to produce over the next decade or century.

[Yonivore]

"technically recoverable" does not mean "economically recoverable".

How much oil would you buy at $1,000 per barrel?

You don't seem to be understanding either what you are posting, nor are you bothering to read what I post.

I have other things to do than to spoon feed you economics and reality.
According to the USGS, "technically recoverable" means recoverable with technology available and in use today.

Care to source that $1,000 per barrel nonsense?

And, I'd rather pay more for petroleum based fuel than to keep pouring money down every Solyndra that comes along.

[RandomGuy]

That was written in 09

And the bit about Russian oil production was from 03.

Russia's oil production is on the decline, on par with most oil production. They are seriously under-investing in their infrastructure and it is catching up to them. Their fucking over of BP didn't help their FDI in that regard either.

Given this, and the likelihood that OPEC has been inflating its reserves for quite some time, there is a good chance that supply will decline a helluva lot faster than most scenarios predict.

We'll see, I guess.

[Yonivore]

And the bit about Russian oil production was from 03.

Russia's oil production is on the decline, on par with most oil production. They are seriously under-investing in their infrastructure and it is catching up to them. Their fucking over of BP didn't help their FDI in that regard either.

Given this, and the likelihood that OPEC has been inflating its reserves for quite some time, there is a good chance that supply will decline a helluva lot faster than most scenarios predict.

We'll see, I guess.
All the more reason to ramp it up here at home.

[RandomGuy]

According to the USGS, "technically recoverable" means recoverable with technology available and in use today.

Care to source that $1,000 per barrel nonsense?

And, I'd rather pay more for petroleum based fuel than to keep pouring money down every Solyndra that comes along.

I am done explaining anything to you for the day.

[Yonivore]

I am done explaining anything to you for the day.
Suit yourself. You've really not explained anything except you have a unusual affinity for Wikipedia that's not receiving the usual condemnation and ridicule this forum typically reserves for such dependence.

[RandomGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis



Wiki what?

[Yonivore]

Wiki what?
Wikipedia. Are you doubting the occurrence of the Iran hostage crisis?

Whereas I used the link to bookmark a timeline of when something occurred without relying on any of its content to make a point -- other that one I thought was universally accepted, you repeatedly used Wikipedia to pretend to validate points that are the very reasons Wikipedia is generally eschewed in this and other forums.

If you like, I can find another link that confirms Iranian revolutionaries attacked and occupied the U. S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.

Again, who is Mikael Höök, what makes him an authority, and precisely to which oil fields is he referring in your cut and paste from Wikipedia?

[CosmicCowboy]

RG's performance today is extremely sub-par...

[Yonivore]

RG's performance today is extremely sub-par...
I've never been impressed.

[RandomGuy]

Suit yourself. You've really not explained anything except you have a unusual affinity for Wikipedia that's not receiving the usual condemnation and ridicule this forum typically reserves for such dependence.

I don't depend on Wikipedia to teach me economics. You do.

The economics I needed to know I got in the three dozen college credit hours I have taken in the subject. Hell, I brush up on the stuff for fun with my old textbooks.

I don't depend on Wikipedia to teach me about oil topics. You do.

The links are not for my benefit. They are for yours.

Regardless, you won't read whatever link I do post, so why should I try very hard to give you information needed to fill in the holes in your knowledge base?

[RandomGuy]

RG's performance today is extremely sub-par...

What exactly do you want?

Your OP didn't make sense.

Again, if you like, I can message scott, and I am pretty sure he will back me up.

An oil pipeline from Canada will simply make us MORE vulnerable to foreign supply disruptions, such as the referenced Iranian threats, not less.

The only way to prevent this is to wall off the US oil producers and tell them that they can't sell oil in the world markets.


If you want to be less vulnerable to global oil supply shocks, then simply wean your economy off oil.

From a security standpoint it seems like a no-brainer. I hesitate to really monkey any more than is necessary with free markets, but when it comes to security, I think it is probably an acceptable cost.

The least intrusive way to reduce our vulnerability is a general tax that simply "sets the rules" for the market, then let's the market figure out the best solution/company.

I'm not sure I can put it in any simpler terms. The underlying issues are complicated, but that is a fair summary.

[RandomGuy]

RG, no one is arguing that oil [isn't] a finite resource or that alternative energy is bad.

I know.

There are some things though that one has to keep in mind.

"easy oil" is gone. Light sweet, easy to pump out of the ground, was some of the first to be used up. What is left will cost more in terms of time and money to get out of the ground. In the end, using it faster than we find it means that supply WILL get harder to come by.


Oil will not be extracted until it is economical to do so. Yoni's point was perfectly valid, if a bit optimisic, when one delves into what is involved in unlocking shale oil. Technology can, and does, bring down costs. It can even find new reserves, has found some large reserves, and will in the future.

"Technically recoverable" is not the same is "economically recoverable". If it costs more in water, energy, etc. than it takes to get out of the ground, it won't be pumped, nor should it.

The form of the reserves is important. One large formation, such as the one the Suadis pump from, doesn't require as much effort or as many drills as the same oil in two medium formations, or in five small ones. The same amount of oil in five small deposits generally requires five rigs to produce the same level of output as one massive gusher.

Renewable costs have been coming down, and the same technology curve that drives down the cost of oil extraction drives improvements in renewables.

Oil is a fairly mature technology. It is a lot harder to make the easy leaps in mature technologies. You can plug away in the iterative process, but your biggest gains are almost always at the beginning of the process.

The there are big jumps in terms of how much energy people proportionally use per capita when their incomes rise, and that includes oil energy.
Here is a fascinating talk by a Swedish economist on the subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html
(seriously, take the ten minutes to watch it, it is entertaining and informative)

All of these things factor into how we will use and view oil.

Renewable costs will come down, and even if the costs come down at a slower rate than they have in the past, will get cheaper than oil/coal.

Oil/coal due to the complex nature of their depletion, will get more expensive. Demand will be going up from the 3 billion people whose incomes are rising 3 times faster than ours, at the same time supply will be harder to get.

Meh. I think we would be better off getting farther down in this process as soon as possible.

It will happen, through simple market factors whether we do anything or not.

The countries that do get farther down the renewables curve sooner will have an edge over those who don't, as they will not be fighting over a difficult, limited supplies of fossil fuels.

It isn't the "envirowhackos" that will force us to be green. It will be the hard core capitalists.

I would like to get the capitalists cracking on it quicker.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know.

There are some things though that one has to keep in mind.

"easy oil" is gone. Light sweet, easy to pump out of the ground, was some of the first to be used up. What is left will cost more in terms of time and money to get out of the ground. In the end, using it faster than we find it means that supply WILL get harder to come by.


Oil will not be extracted until it is economical to do so. Yoni's point was perfectly valid, if a bit optimisic, when one delves into what is involved in unlocking shale oil. Technology can, and does, bring down costs. It can even find new reserves, has found some large reserves, and will in the future.

"Technically recoverable" is not the same is "economically recoverable". If it costs more in water, energy, etc. than it takes to get out of the ground, it won't be pumped, nor should it.

The form of the reserves is important. One large formation, such as the one the Suadis pump from, doesn't require as much effort or as many drills as the same oil in two medium formations, or in five small ones. The same amount of oil in five small deposits generally requires five rigs to produce the same level of output as one massive gusher.

Renewable costs have been coming down, and the same technology curve that drives down the cost of oil extraction drives improvements in renewables.

Oil is a fairly mature technology. It is a lot harder to make the easy leaps in mature technologies. You can plug away in the iterative process, but your biggest gains are almost always at the beginning of the process.

The there are big jumps in terms of how much energy people proportionally use per capita when their incomes rise, and that includes oil energy.
Here is a fascinating talk by a Swedish economist on the subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html
(seriously, take the ten minutes to watch it, it is entertaining and informative)

All of these things factor into how we will use and view oil.

Renewable costs will come down, and even if the costs come down at a slower rate than they have in the past, will get cheaper than oil/coal.

Oil/coal due to the complex nature of their depletion, will get more expensive. Demand will be going up from the 3 billion people whose incomes are rising 3 times faster than ours, at the same time supply will be harder to get.

Meh. I think we would be better off getting farther down in this process as soon as possible.

It will happen, through simple market factors whether we do anything or not.

The countries that do get farther down the renewables curve sooner will have an edge over those who don't, as they will not be fighting over a difficult, limited supplies of fossil fuels.

It isn't the "envirowhackos" that will force us to be green. It will be the hard core capitalists.

I would like to get the capitalists cracking on it quicker.

All that will happen in due time...and I too am a firm believer in renewable energy and walk the walk...as an example I am currently installing a solar water heater at the ranch and have been using pv cells for various functions...

At the same time,technology has not come up with a viable replacement for oil/gas and I don't see one in the near future...it simply comes down to portability...

A unilateral carbon tax (done to manipulate markets and create another revenue stream for the federal government to piss off) would be a major job killer and put the final nail in the coffin of american manufacturing...

[boutons_deux]

Repugs lying about jobs, XL is really about enriching the oilcos, not about jobs


Just How Many Jobs Would The Keystone Pipeline Create?
by Tamara Keith

One of the major sticking points between the House and the Senate as they face off over end-of-year legislation is the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The bill the House passed Tuesday contains a provision forcing President Obama to decide on the pipeline within 60 days.

Republicans say this project should move ahead quickly because it will create thousands of jobs. But just how many jobs would be created is a matter of contention.

House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, described Keystone XL as being "as close to a shovel-ready project as you're ever going to see."

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said it would create "more than 100,000 American jobs."

And earlier Wednesday on the Senate floor, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas said the project "promises 20,000 immediate jobs and 118,000 spin-off jobs."

They all appear to be getting their numbers from the same source: TransCanada Corporation, the company behind the project.

Alex Pourbaix, an executive at TransCanada, told a House subcommittee earlier this month that the project would create 13,000 construction jobs.

"On top of that there are 7,000 manufacturing jobs associated with this project," said Pourbaix. "Twenty thousand jobs in all."

What he fails to mention is that the jobs numbers are based on "person years," meaning the number of people employed could be much lower.

"That may be in some cases one person working six months and another person working six months," says Ray Perryman, president of an economic research firm based in Texas. "Or it could be if one person works two years, that's two job years."

Perryman was hired by TransCanada to look at the broader economic impact of the project. And if you're wondering where Huntsman and Hutchison got the 100,000 jobs-created figure, look no further than Perryman. He adds up all the jobs at all the contractors and manufacturers and suppliers and restaurants and hotels along the way.

"That money gets spent and circulated through the economy so ... the 118,000 jobs is the cumulative total of all that during the construction phase," says Perryman.

And that's also measured in person years.

"It's unsubstantiated," says Sean Sweeney, who directs Cornell University's Global Labor Institute. He co-wrote a paper that found the numbers to be exaggerated.

"I'm not sure where 20,000 comes from," adds Sweeney. "We know the direct construction jobs are nowhere near 20,000. We know the steel, or a portion of it, is not produced in the United States; so where are the jobs?"

Perryman describes the Cornell paper as "advocacy."

A recent State Department study said the construction workforce would be 5,000 to 6,000 workers. And once the construction phase ends, almost all of these jobs, however many are created, would go away. [Copyright 2011 National Public Radio]


http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/14/143719155/just-how-many-jobs-would-the-keystone-pipeline-create?sc=17&f=1003

[Yonivore]

I don't depend on Wikipedia to teach me economics. You do.

The economics I needed to know I got in the three dozen college credit hours I have taken in the subject. Hell, I brush up on the stuff for fun with my old textbooks.

I don't depend on Wikipedia to teach me about oil topics. You do.

The links are not for my benefit. They are for yours.

Regardless, you won't read whatever link I do post, so why should I try very hard to give you information needed to fill in the holes in your knowledge base?
Are you a smarter economist than Milton Friedman or Walter Williams? Yet, I would bet you disagree with them on economics. I don't know about this specific point, but I'm certain you and they do not jibe on some pretty significant economic principles...and, I'd love to see you throw "three dozen college credit hours" in Dr. Williams face. God, that would be a beautiful thing.

The point being, economists also disagree on economics. Being an economy-phile, as you claim, doesn't make you right. And, linking to Wikipedia to make points on the economy doesn't help you.

And, I didn't link to Wikipedia, you did.

[Yonivore]

If you want to be less vulnerable to global oil supply shocks, then simply wean your economy off oil.
And onto what?


From a security standpoint it seems like a no-brainer. I hesitate to really monkey any more than is necessary with free markets, but when it comes to security, I think it is probably an acceptable cost.

The least intrusive way to reduce our vulnerability is a general tax that simply "sets the rules" for the market, then let's the market figure out the best solution/company.
What if the market decides to plow your carbon tax back into petroleum discovery, recovery, and refining? Because, as hard as you think it is to recover oil from the ground -- your carbon tax will go further in developing new ways to get it than it will to finding some holy grail of alternative fuel.


I'm not sure I can put it in any simpler terms. The underlying issues are complicated, but that is a fair summary.
Cosmic Cowboy makes a good point. Giving the government more money to squander on green energy is foolish.

[spursncowboys]

And the bit about Russian oil production was from 03.

Russia's oil production is on the decline, on par with most oil production. They are seriously under-investing in their infrastructure and it is catching up to them. Their fucking over of BP didn't help their FDI in that regard either.

Given this, and the likelihood that OPEC has been inflating its reserves for quite some time, there is a good chance that supply will decline a helluva lot faster than most scenarios predict.

We'll see, I guess.

Russia isn't on the decline if they keep claiming the oil fields in the Arctic.

[RandomGuy]

Russia isn't on the decline if they keep claiming the oil fields in the Arctic.

Case in point about cost of remaining oil, and how it will be more expensive than what we have drilled so far.

They put a nice little flag and a marker saying 'here is our stuff' on the bottom of their Arctic, or what they regard as "theirs".

That little flag ain't gonna get the oil.

You will need special, massive drilling rigs that can deal with the weather, ships to suck it off the platforms, and ports to unload the ships.

None of that is present now, and will have to be built.

Sure there is a lot of oil.

But it won't come easily.

That is the other problem for Russia. They treat their oil industry like a piggy bank, for the kleptocrats and give aways to pensioners.

They have been under-investing in their oil infrastructure, and it is starting to cost them, as it is starting to cost Mexico, and Venezuala as well.

BP went in and got its investment seized on some trumped up bullshit contract dispute. The Western oil majors are leery as hell about going back in.

Sure there is a lot of oil out there and capacity to get it.

But look at the places where that oil is, and you will see these nationalized oil firms, all in similar situations.

Do you really think these creaky, state-owned piggy banks are going to be able to keep up with demand, as their technical capacity dwindles and their oil fields deplete?

[RandomGuy]

Cosmic Cowboy makes a good point. Giving the government more money to squander on green energy is foolish.

The carbon tax is still the least most intrusive way to do it.

You don't have to subsidize renewables, but I would be all for blanket R & D grants or something similar to any energy sector.

Maybe we will get your magic oil shale technology out of it.

I grew up in Wyoming, and heard all the claims about how much oil there is in the shale in the rockies. There was always some sucker who would invest in a "sure fire" technology promoted by some company.

The oily rock is still there. The companies are gone, and the investors...

Feel free to invest in oil shale. Please. You let me know how your ideology fares against the physics of oil shale.

Hell, use the tax to pay down the debt. I don't care, as long as we reduce our oil dependence, and get our economy further to where it is going anyway.

[CosmicCowboy]

RG, I'm NOT saying we should just hang our hat on oil...and as you know from PM conversations I like to explore conservation and living off the grid.

At the same time a carbon tax is a TERRIBLE solution. It ends up being a tax on manufacturing and production and makes US products and manufacturing even LESS competitive globally...and on a personal level, it is a terribly regressive tax...The people who can least afford the cool energy saving technology end up taking it right up the ass because they have to consume more energy because they can only afford the outdated technology.

[CosmicCowboy]

A carbon tax applied fairly would KILL plug in electric cars...Power plants are terribly inefficient as far as BTU in at the plant vs. BTU out at the plug. Electric rates would be off the charts.

[RandomGuy]

RG, I'm NOT saying we should just hang our hat on oil...and as you know from PM conversations I like to explore conservation and living off the grid.

At the same time a carbon tax is a TERRIBLE solution. It ends up being a tax on manufacturing and production and makes US products and manufacturing even LESS competitive globally...and on a personal level, it is a terribly regressive tax...The people who can least afford the cool energy saving technology end up taking it right up the ass because they have to consume more energy because they can only afford the outdated technology.

How is that going to be different when oil/coal gets more expensive?

It is a cost, to be sure, but in the end you will get industries that use less of the kinds of energy that are certain to get more expensive anyways.

You are citing the costs of the tax, but forgetting the alternative, letting the market raise the prices, does the same thing.

When comparing alternatives, you really only should consider things that are different between the alternatives.

The only thing that would change would be *when* oil/coal gets more expensive, and how much disruption that causes.

One other difference is that letting the market do that in the future means that the extra costs go to the people we import oil from as a trade deficit.

At least with a carbon tax, it hangs around.

[RandomGuy]

A carbon tax applied fairly would KILL plug in electric cars...Power plants are terribly inefficient as far as BTU in at the plant vs. BTU out at the plug. Electric rates would be off the charts.

Unless of course you built a distributed renewable power grid.

Then plug in electrics would make a lot of sense.

Add that to the fact that 25% of all electricity generated is lost in transmission, and those losses would be avoided.

Any renewable distributed scheme would have a built-in 25% efficiency gain.

[CosmicCowboy]

Unless of course you built a distributed renewable power grid.

Then plug in electrics would make a lot of sense.

Add that to the fact that 25% of all electricity generated is lost in transmission, and those losses would be avoided.

Any renewable distributed scheme would have a built-in 25% efficiency gain.

I'm all about a distributed grid, but that is totally counterintuitive to the current policies pushing renewable master grid energy. You know that and I know that. The solution can't come out of Washington.

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility


Wiki what?

[boutons_deux]

Whistleblowers: Software Monitoring Keystone XL Pipeline's Safety Contains Deliberate Errors

Whistleblowers have told Britain's "Dispatches" that the safety software on major US pipelines contains deliberate errors - and so pipelines can - and have - busted, leaked, exploded ... and killed.

Congressional Republicans are holding extended unemployment benefits hostage until President Obama agrees to speed up approval to build the XL Keystone pipeline. XL Keystone will slice down through the entire width of the USA, moving tar-sands oil from Canada to Houston.

The oil industry promises that the pipeline will be safe. But the pipe is only safe if the PIG inside it can squeal.

Federal law requires the industry to run a diagnostic robot PIG, a pipeline Inspection Gauge, that will squeal when something is wrong: a crack, dangerous corrosion, anything that might lead to a spill or explosion.

But PIGs are only as good as the software that tracks and analyzes their signals. And the software used by Big Oil has been compromised - deliberately.

Insiders told this reporter that the software was designed to fool the safety inspectors.

"The software feeds them incorrect information about the state of their pipeline."

http://www.truth-out.org/whistleblowers-software-monitoring-keystone-xl-pipelines-safety-contains-deliberate-errors

[CosmicCowboy]

What?

Obama is going to sign a bill that funds the tax cut by adding 10 basic points to Fannie/Freddie mortgage loans instead of taxing the 'rich" and agrees to tentatively approve the Keystone pipeline?

:lmao

*sound of cheap lawn chair folding*

[RandomGuy]

As I said before, the links to wiki were for your benefit not mine.

You seem to be missing a key concept when thinking about global oil supply and that is fungibility.

If you and I each pour a bucket of water in a bathtub, after they are poured in, you can't tell which gallon of water is which, as they have intermingled.

Global oil markets work the same way. Regardless of where it is produced, it is in the "global tub" and subject to global supply and demand. The only way to avoid this is to totally prohibit domestic production from being sold on the global market, AND to prohibit the importation of any oil.

The concept applies to domestic production in this manner:

We produce more oil. We have added to global supply. The producer of that oil can and will sell to the highest bidder, either here or export it, possibly a mixture of both, depending on the geographical position of that oil.

Prices drop a little, given that we supply only about 10% of the global market.

Say we triple our production instantly (physically impossible) and now produce 25% of the global total. (yes, that is the way it works out mathmatically). We now import NO oil, and export a little.

We have made ourselves energy secure from supply disruptions from Iran, right?

Nope. Not unless you completely wall off your economy and prohibit oil producers from exporting.

Say in this new scenario, Iran snips a good chunk of global supply. People who were buying from the Iranians, are now buying from whoever will get them oil, US domestic producers included.

Domestic producers then export to the highest bidder, reducing what they sell in the US until a new equilibrium price is reached. Prices in the US rise accordingly even though we don't import any oil at all.

This is why producing more oil will not protect us from global supply disruptions. We would still pay more in this scenario.

In fact, since we lowered the overall price of oil to begin with, more of our economic infrastructure gets built around this energy source. We depend on, demand, and consume more units.

That means when the price goes up, we are consuming/demanding MORE units of oil, at the new higher prices.

This is what OPEC talks about when they say high prices leads to "demand destruction" and why they don't like high prices. People make long term decisions, like living closer to work, driving smaller cars etc, when prices are high.

Economically, if you want to be more secure from oil prices and supply/demand for oil, you simply use LESS rather than more.

IF you view Iran as a security threat to our oil energy supply, the only rational response is to reduce your exposure to it.

Sure a carbon tax is inefficient, but then so is a military, in terms of economics. It doesn't produce much other than security. It is part of the "G" term (government) used to define GDP.

We think nothing of spending more than half a trillion on our military every year, but get all bent out of shape when it comes to a carbon tax that improves our security?

This is why I say your ideological blinders keep you from reaching rational conclusions.

"Drill here, drill now" does not make economic sense if your goal is to make us less vulnerable to a part of the world who has it in for us.

Do the Iranian threats to our oil supply concern you?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fungible

http://www.owen.org/blog/3224

One of the better links:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47019

Wiki was just the most convenient.

Read through the links, it is an important concept for many economic or energy issues.

[Wild Cobra]

As I said before, the links to wiki were for your benefit not mine.

You seem to be missing a key concept when thinking about global oil supply and that is fungibility.

If you and I each pour a bucket of water in a bathtub, after they are poured in, you can't tell which gallon of water is which, as they have intermingled.

Global oil markets work the same way. Regardless of where it is produced, it is in the "global tub" and subject to global supply and demand. The only way to avoid this is to totally prohibit domestic production from being sold on the global market, AND to prohibit the importation of any oil.

The concept applies to domestic production in this manner:

We produce more oil. We have added to global supply. The producer of that oil can and will sell to the highest bidder, either here or export it, possibly a mixture of both, depending on the geographical position of that oil.

Prices drop a little, given that we supply only about 10% of the global market.

Say we triple our production instantly (physically impossible) and now produce 25% of the global total. (yes, that is the way it works out mathmatically). We now import NO oil, and export a little.

We have made ourselves energy secure from supply disruptions from Iran, right?

Nope. Not unless you completely wall off your economy and prohibit oil producers from exporting.

Say in this new scenario, Iran snips a good chunk of global supply. People who were buying from the Iranians, are now buying from whoever will get them oil, US domestic producers included.

Domestic producers then export to the highest bidder, reducing what they sell in the US until a new equilibrium price is reached. Prices in the US rise accordingly even though we don't import any oil at all.

This is why producing more oil will not protect us from global supply disruptions. We would still pay more in this scenario.

In fact, since we lowered the overall price of oil to begin with, more of our economic infrastructure gets built around this energy source. We depend on, demand, and consume more units.

That means when the price goes up, we are consuming/demanding MORE units of oil, at the new higher prices.

This is what OPEC talks about when they say high prices leads to "demand destruction" and why they don't like high prices. People make long term decisions, like living closer to work, driving smaller cars etc, when prices are high.

Economically, if you want to be more secure from oil prices and supply/demand for oil, you simply use LESS rather than more.

IF you view Iran as a security threat to our oil energy supply, the only rational response is to reduce your exposure to it.

Sure a carbon tax is inefficient, but then so is a military, in terms of economics. It doesn't produce much other than security. It is part of the "G" term (government) used to define GDP.

We think nothing of spending more than half a trillion on our military every year, but get all bent out of shape when it comes to a carbon tax that improves our security?

This is why I say your ideological blinders keep you from reaching rational conclusions.

"Drill here, drill now" does not make economic sense if your goal is to make us less vulnerable to a part of the world who has it in for us.

Do the Iranian threats to our oil supply concern you?
I'm amazed that such a simple concept takes so many words to make it understandable to the average person.

Good job. I have a very hard time explaining the in between steps and reason. I always had a hard time showing my work in algebra, because the answer came so readily to me. I always felt like I was being dumbed down to make up the steps I didn't take.

[boutons_deux]

Fact Check: Keystone XL Would Ship Foreign Oil To Foreign Lands


The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL’s impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.

From Canada’s perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer – the United States. As Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, “we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that.” However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public’s concerns about water and safety.

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada’s President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL’s crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.

Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ExportingEnergySecurity.jpg


http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/20/393247/fact-check-keystone-xl-would-ship-foreign-oil-to-foreign-lands/

[CosmicCowboy]

thinkprogress rebarf ad nauseum...

[ChumpDumper]

thinkprogress rebarf ad nauseum...Is it factually untrue, CC?

The thing of it is, the US refineries are already exporting gasoline out of the country while running well below capacity.

What does the pipeline really do for the US?

[Wild Cobra]

What does the pipeline really do for the US?
My take is that i don't have a solid position.

A pipeline is probably the safest way to transport oil to refineries. However, I don't know that for certain.

[boutons_deux]

"thinkprogress rebarf ad nauseum..."

excellent rebuttal

[RandomGuy]

Fact Check: Keystone XL Would Ship Foreign Oil To Foreign Lands


The fact that Canada has excess pipeline capacity is well known. In a Department of Energy report evaluating Keystone XL’s impacts on U.S. energy supply over the next twenty years, the agency found that it will take decades for Canada to produce enough oil to fill existing pipelines. On page 90, the report concludes that the United States will import the same amount of crude from Canada through 2030 whether or not Keystone XL is built.

From Canada’s perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer – the United States. As Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, “we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that.” However, the Canadian government has put the brakes on the two pipeline proposals to export tar sands through its provinces due to the need to take more time to listen to its own public’s concerns about water and safety.

Keystone XL would be Canada’s first step in diversifying its energy market. The pipeline would divert large volumes of Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where it would be available for the first time to buyers on the world market. To sweeten the deal, many of the refineries on the Gulf Coast happen to be located in foreign trade zones, where they can export Canadian oil to the world market without paying U.S. taxes. Oil Change International investigated this issue in a report that found the Keystone XL pipeline was part of a larger strategy to sell increasing volumes of Canadian crude on the international diesel market.

In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada’s President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL’s crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export.

Simply stated, Keystone XL is a way to get Canadian oil out of the United States, not into it.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ExportingEnergySecurity.jpg


http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/20/393247/fact-check-keystone-xl-would-ship-foreign-oil-to-foreign-lands/

Note:

Valero = refining company that specializes in refining "sour" crude, i.e. high sulfer content. Canadian tar sands = sourest of crude

Most Venezualan crude is of this variety, btw.

This is what I mean when I say the oil we are getting now is not the light sweet crude varieties of the past.

Those Texas gushers you always see in the movies would not be possible, with the heavy thick stuff we are getting out of the ground now.

Oddly enough, it is the cost of the natural gas used to heat the water and steam we have to inject to soften this heavy oil that adds to the cost of that oil. The recent US natgas boom has helped make this oil more viable.

[boutons_deux]

yep, end-to-end processing costs, if fully factored into the pump price, would make tar sands/shale oil very expensive, but much of the costs are externalized to the environment, and Human-Citizens, just like with other carbon crap extractions. (uranium, gold, silver, diamond extractions are also horribly destructive)

[RandomGuy]

Is it factually untrue, CC?

The thing of it is, the US refineries are already exporting gasoline out of the country while running well below capacity.

What does the pipeline really do for the US?

A few jobs here and there.

Hopefully it won't leak into a major aquifer. Of course that would create jobs too, I guess.

Rainwater capture anyone?

[scott]

My take is that i don't have a solid position.

A pipeline is probably the safest way to transport oil to refineries. However, I don't know that for certain.

In my experience, isn't any more or less "safe" but it is significantly cheaper, if you have the volume to justify the huge upfront capital costs.

I haven't really followed this debate over this pipeline, but my only concern with a pipeline of this size (like I said I haven't followed this and I don't even know how big it is proposed to be - my guess would be at least 36 to 42" diameter to be able to get the throughput required to justify the project) is that *if* it is underground, the heat of the crude can damage tundra ecosystems as it will literally thaw them out. To avoid this problem, the pipelines are built above ground, which presents its own set of challenges.

[scott]

It's been many years since my job was to follow the oil market, but my personal opinion is that investments in increased domestic production are not economically justifiable.

Since I'm not in this industry anymore I haven't looked at a Canadian Crude assay in years, but one interesting dynamic of oil sands production is that the front end processing required makes it possible to "modify*" the crude to the various specs. So, the upstream processor can arbitrage heavy and sour differentials (in layman's terms: ship the most profitable crude). Some processing must already be done simply to get it to flow through the pipeline - some of the crude produced up there can be as viscous (aka, "heavy") as pitch, which doesn't flow through a pipeline.

*This is done at a huge upfront capital cost, of which I'm not sure how much has actually be implemented. It's entirely possible the answer is none.

[scott]

And before anyone accuses me of not reading this thread... I readily admit to as much.

[CosmicCowboy]

Look guys...I'm not saying I like oil sands oil production...It's a nasty, ugly way to get oil. That being said, the Canadians are going to produce and ship it somewhere. I'd rather they ship it to Texas.

And Scott...this isn't the Alaskan pipeline...once it's in the US I really don't think we are gonna have to worry about permafrost...

[scott]

Look guys...I'm not saying I like oil sands oil production...It's a nasty, ugly way to get oil. That being said, the Canadians are going to produce and ship it somewhere. I'd rather they ship it to Texas.

And Scott...this isn't the Alaskan pipeline...once it's in the US I really don't think we are gonna have to worry about permafrost...

Probably not, was just pointing it out, it could effect a very small portion of the US, if any.

Why do you particularly care if they ship it to Texas? It's not like Texas refineries won't otherwise get their crude oil.

[CosmicCowboy]

You know, statistically I'll be dead in 30 years so it probably won't affect me directly...but IMHO oil by-products are going to be the most transportable BTU's available then too...and you guys are gonna want to have a reliable source to fill that niche...

[scott]

Fair answer. I actually disagree and I think we'll have been weened off oil significantly in 30 years (just one of my crazy guesses)... but, fair point.

[Wild Cobra]

In my experience, isn't any more or less "safe" but it is significantly cheaper, if you have the volume to justify the huge upfront capital costs.

I haven't really followed this debate over this pipeline, but my only concern with a pipeline of this size (like I said I haven't followed this and I don't even know how big it is proposed to be - my guess would be at least 36 to 42" diameter to be able to get the throughput required to justify the project) is that *if* it is underground, the heat of the crude can damage tundra ecosystems as it will literally thaw them out. To avoid this problem, the pipelines are built above ground, which presents its own set of challenges.
If your concern if the heat, I have to say you are too sensitive to that. It is a insignificantly small percentage of land, and it give mammals a warmer place to take refuge for a small bit of time. I would say it is beneficial rather than harmful in that regard.

The pollution aspect for me is just a WAG. Is it better or worse than other means of transport. I think that's the $64,000,000 question. One way or another, we are still dependent on oil.

[scott]

If your concern if the heat, I have to say you are too sensitive to that. It is a insignificantly small percentage of land, and it give mammals a warmer place to take refuge for a small bit of time. I would say it is beneficial rather than harmful in that regard.

You were doing so well... this is a terribly ridiculous statement.

[boutons_deux]

So no pipeline supporters can say if there's any benefit of the pipeline to Human-Americans to offset the risk, the certitude of oil spills due to the typical oilco/pipeline operator's lack of (expensive) pipepline maintenance.

Like with the financial sector getting handslapped, they all know "settlement" fines are vastly offset by profits from low maintenance.

Yellowstone River Oil Spill Will Cost Exxon $135 Million

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/yellowstone-river-cleanup-costs_n_1077106.html


How many $Ms profit does Exxon get out of that pipeline? We know that suck down $Bs in profit every quarter.

I'd like to see the penalty for oil/chemical spills upped to about $10K/barrel, instead of the less-than-market-price of $35/B. The penalty has to be dramatically dissuasive. and the penalty should be additional to the full costs of cleanup. At least maybe H-A's could claw back some of $10Bs in tax expenditure handed to the oilcos.

[boutons_deux]

Congress Moves Toward Tougher Stand on Pipeline Safety, But is it Enough?

The pipeline industry reports more than 100 significant hazardous liquid spills each year [4]. (See a map of those spills [5]). Every year, an average of 275 accidents kill 10 to 15 people and injure five to six times as many.

The “Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 [6]” would double potential fines for violations (up to a max of $2 million), require automated shutoff valves for new and replaced pipelines, and hire 10 new safety inspectors to join the current 124.

But as the Associated Press [8] noted, the bill doesn’t implement several recommendations from a National Transportation Safety Board investigation [9] of the natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California [10] that killed eight people last September (the San Francisco Chronicle has a recent series on the disaster [11]). One of those recommendations [12] is that automated shutoff valves be installed on already existing pipelines (particularly old ones in highly populated areas, which are prone to accidents).

Safety experts also say that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [13], the federal agency responsible for regulating the vast network of 2.5 million miles of pipelines, needs many more inspectors to do the job right. The pipeline agency simply doesn’t have enough inspectors [14], or money to hire them, a New York Times investigation recently found.

A recent Congressional Research Service report on pipeline safety [15] found a long-term pattern of understaffing. Which means that it’s often pipeline workers who notice and report problems – if they catch them in time.

In recent years, a series of major accidents have further raised the profile of dangerous pipelines. In addition to the San Bruno blast, 800,000 gallons of oil spurted into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River [16] last July after a 30-inch pipeline sprung a leak. Another 42,000 gallons spilled in July into the Yellowstone River in Montana [17] from a ruptured pipe.

Thousands of other pipelines could potentially share the same fate [10]. More than 60 percent of the country’s gas pipelines are at least 40 years old, and they often aren’t compatible with the latest in safety technology (the Philadelphia Inquirer has a recent series on aging pipelines [18]).

http://www.truth-out.org/print/10609

[Wild Cobra]

You were doing so well... this is a terribly ridiculous statement.
I take it you have never seen pictures of the caribou congregating around the warm pipes in Alaska.

[Wild Cobra]

More bouton's doom and gloom.

He would have us all return to the stone age.

[scott]

I take it you have never seen pictures of the caribou congregating around the warm pipes in Alaska.

Those would be above ground pipes, no?

They aren't congregating around areas of thawed permafrost.

[boutons_deux]

As Shell Gears Up For Arctic Drilling, It Has Another Massive Spill in Nigeria

An oil spill near the coast of Nigeria is likely the worst to hit those waters in a decade, a government official said Thursday, as slicks from the Royal Dutch Shell PLC spill approached the country’s southern shoreline.

The slick from Shell’s Bonga field has affected 115 miles (185 kilometers) of ocean near Nigeria’s coast, Peter Idabor, who leads the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency, told The Associated Press. Idabor said the slick continued to move toward the shore Thursday night, putting at risk birds, fish and other wildlife in the area.

Shell, the major oil producer in Nigeria, said late Thursday the spill came from a “flexible export line” connecting the offshore field to a waiting tanker. The company published photographs of the spill, showing a telltale rainbow sheen in the ocean, but said it believes that about 50 percent of the leaked oil has already evaporated.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/23/394815/shell-arctic-drilling-spill-nigeria/

These oilcos really have a wonderful mastery of their business.

[boutons_deux]

Keystone XL pipeline: Oil chief issues threat to Obama over decision

The head of the US's biggest oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups.

Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would definitely play a role in this year's national elections.

"This issue is very simple and straightforward, it's about jobs and national security," Gerard told reporters after giving a speech on the state of US energy.

"Anything less than approval or acquiescence in allowing the pipeline to go forward would be inconsistent with the vast majority of Americans," Gerard said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/05/keystone-xl-pipeline-oil-chief-obama/print

==========

it's about jobs and national security

HE LIES.

the jobs angle has been thoroughly debunked

national security covers a multitude of UCA-profiting boondoggles.

FUCKING LIARS

IT'S EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT OILCO (export) PROFITS and this mofo getting paid to LIE.

[boutons_deux]

Unequal Risks and Benefits for Citizens in Six States on Keystone XL Pipeline Route

If the Keystone XL oil pipeline were approved today, residents in the six states along its route would not receive equal treatment from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the project.

The differences are particularly striking when it comes to tax revenue and environmental protection. States with stronger regulations have won protections for their citizens, while other states sometimes focused more on meeting TransCanada's needs.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers gave TransCanada a 10-year tax exemption, which means the state won't receive any property tax revenue from the pipeline. Meanwhile, each of the other five states—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas—would earn between $14 million and $63 million a year, according to U.S. State Department estimates [4].

Click here for a chart [5] that compares how the six states are dealing with the Keystone XL pipeline.

When it comes to route changes and protection for landowners, residents of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas have fared the worst, because their states haven't created any regulations to safeguard their interests.

"All the power is in the hands of the pipeline companies," said Chris Wilson, an independent environmental consultant from Texas who opposes the Keystone XL. Landowners along the route "are really screwed…there's no one in the government they can call for help."

The Obama administration put the Keystone XL on hold [6] in November, saying it needed another year to reassess the environmental risks the project could pose. Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are trying to force [7] the president to make his decision by February 21. The pipeline would move oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Because the Keystone XL would cross state boundaries, both federal and state agencies are involved in its regulation. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA [8]) handles safety issues, such as pipeline thickness and operating pressure. Individual states are responsible for pipeline siting, the process that determines a pipeline's exact route within state borders.

But only the state of Montana has chosen to exercise that power, leaving citizens who object to the pipeline's path in other states no option but to shell out money for a court battle, or appeal to local officials who often lack the resources and experience to challenge a major corporation.

In Montana, however, the state's Department of Environmental Quality [9] used a decades-old siting act to minimize environmental damage along the route. TransCanada has rerouted more than 100 miles of the Keystone XL in response to agency and landowner concerns. If the pipeline is approved, the company also must post a bond so funds are available to repair construction-related damage.

DEQ staffer Greg Hallsten, who worked on Keystone XL siting, said that although TransCanada sometimes objected to the agency's reroutes, its complaints were overruled.

"We have [siting] authority in the state," he said. "Our authority's never been challenged along those lines."

TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said the vast differences in pipeline regulation reflect the political landscape of each state. "We appreciate that each state has their own guidelines," he said. "It's not up to us to modify or create legislation. We're working with the state governments to meet [their] guidelines and get this project approved."

Other states could follow Montana's lead by pressuring their legislators to create pipeline regulation, said Pat Parenteau, a Vermont Law School professor who studies land use and environmental policy. "If there's a popular enough demand," it can be done, he said.

That's what happened in Nebraska, where residents worked for years [10] to persuade their lawmakers to reroute the Keystone XL out of the ecologically sensitive Sandhills. Farmers and ranchers picketed the governor's mansion, traveled to Washington, D.C. and repeatedly called for a special session to draft siting regulations for interstate pipelines. As the momentum grew, TransCanada offered Nebraska a $100 million dollar spill bond [11] for the Sandhills region—a protection it didn't offer any of the other states.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman finally called a special session in November, where bills were passed [12] to move the pipeline out of the Sandhills and to give the Public Service Commission authority to site future oil pipelines (excluding Keystone XL). TransCanada is now working with state environmental officials to establish a new route for its pipeline.

What Nebraskans have done is very significant, said Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan watchdog group Common Cause [13]. Legislators won't act unless they feel outside pressure from constituents, she said, so getting those bills passed is "no small accomplishment…Nebraska citizens clearly proved this can be done."

Few Protections from Eminent Domain

Despite the new regulations in Nebraska, landowners there, like landowners in all the Keystone states, have felt helpless when TransCanada used eminent domain to take their land.

All six states have given the company the power of eminent domain. While the eminent domain laws vary from state to state, they generally allow projects built for a "public" good—including railroads, transmission lines and highways—to use private land after paying landowners a fair price that's determined by the courts. But the laws aren't specific about what "public" means, and pipeline opponents say Keystone XL shouldn't be allowed to use eminent domain because it's not serving the United States public.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/11185

[boutons_deux]

Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline is Not a Jobs Plan, But an Oil Export Plan

The Oil Goes to China, the Permanent Jobs Go to Canada, We Get the Spills, and the World Gets Warmer

You’ll hear the GOP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce make wild claims about the job creation potential of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Don’t be fooled. The pipeline company itself admits only “a few hundred permanent jobs” are created by Keystone XL.

The debate over whether Keystone XL creates jobs is a convenient diversion from something oil company backers don’t want you to know: this is an export pipeline to help them access foreign markets and bypass the United States. Oil companies will make bigger profits and oil prices for Americans will increase. That’s not a project that helps Americans. It’s a project that helps Big Oil.

The oil industry is pulling a bait and switch scam with Keystone XL – offering it as a path to economic and national security when the pipeline is mostly meant for export. According to the State Department, only 20 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. Even the pipeline company acknowledged that only “a few hundred permanent jobs’ will be created. Claims the pipeline will created 100,000 jobs are false. The U.S. State Department estimates no more than 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created over the two years. We need better from Republicans when it comes to a jobs plan than a single project with jobs that won’t last.

While the debate over job creation from Keystone XL has attracted a lot of attention, long-term real job creation on which Americans depend is occurring in the clean energy industry. In just a six week period in September and October 2011, Environmental Entreprenuers, a national community of over 850 individual business leaders, identified the creation of 32,000 clean energy jobs by 100 companies including manufacturing plants, power generation project, renewable energy, and energy-efficiency retrofits.

More than 2.7 million people are working in the U.S. clean energy economy right now – more than the entire fossil fuel industry put together. Every month new clean energy jobs are announced that are shovel-ready and lead to long-lasting permanent job growth in America. Clean car manufacturers have created over 151,000 quality long term jobs in the United States while saving consumers billions of dollars at the pump. Between 2003 and 2010, the clean energy sector grew nearly twice as fast as the overall economy.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/13/403443/keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-jobs-plan-oil-export/

[boutons_deux]

Oil Lobby Threatens Obama Over Keystone Pipeline: Here's Just How Much Financial Firepower the Industry Has in Washington

Only 10 of the 195 members of the House of Representatives who list the oil and gas industry among their top 20 contributors opposed the bill.


Here's a look at some of the oil and gas industry's favourite members of Congress as compiled by Maplight – all members of the $100,000 club, and all supporters of a bill to push Obama to pass the pipeline – along with some of their recent statements on the Keystone tar sands project.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/153759/oil_lobby_threatens_obama_over_keystone_pipeline:_ here%27s_just_how_much_financial_firepower_the_ind ustry_has_in_washington?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

==========

UCA buying the legislators and legislation that enrich itself.

[Winehole23]

Obama has til 2/21 to decide

[Th'Pusher]

Just got a breaking new alert from Politico: Breaking News: Obama administration to formally reject permit for Keystone XL pipeline

[boutons_deux]

he's offsetting/buying out the oilco opposition by opening huge vista of oceans for drilling.

[Winehole23]

opening soon: huge vista of oceans for drilling

[Winehole23]

slightly related: http://online.wsj.com/article/APa2451e7e31a14be2816f8ec202b26bc1.html

[Winehole23]

exporting our energy independence, are we now?

[boutons_deux]

our natural resources were never the property of Human-Americans.

UCA owns them all, and pays damn little royalties to extract them and sell to highest bidder.

XL Pipeline going to tax-free Gulf Coast to be close to central/south American markets. Public risk, private gain, as always.

[Winehole23]

President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/)’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China (http://topics.bloomberg.com/china/) for oil exports.



Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://topics.bloomberg.com/stephen-harper/), in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”



The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/canada-pledges-to-sell-oil-to-asia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html

[Winehole23]

Currently, 99 percent of Canada’s crude exports go to the U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a “superpower” in global energy markets.



Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Most of Canada’s crude is produced from oil-sands (http://topics.bloomberg.com/oil-sands/) deposits in the landlocked province of Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.



Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply.
same

[EVAY]

But from what I understand, it would take years to re-apply, and thus it won't happen.

To me, this is a dramatically dangerous decision.

I don't mean to imply that the ecological concerns are not enormous, but it would seem to me that the challenge would be to manage the ecological risks, rather than allowing all of that oil to go elsewhere.

I realize that this will be a profoundly unpopular position.

[ChumpDumper]

Is the oil even for US consumption? Or is it so we can export gasoline and other refined products?

[EVAY]

Is the oil even for US consumption? Or is it so we can export gasoline and other refined products?

If you are correct, it would make my position somewhat different, I think.

If it is not for us, what is the point, then, except jobs (which admittedly is nothing to sniff at, but still...)?

[ChumpDumper]

If you are correct, it would make my position somewhat different, I think.

If it is not for us, what is the point, then, except jobs (which admittedly is nothing to sniff at, but still...)?As I understand it, US refineries are working below capacity but providing all the product the US needs. I don't know what this pipeline would do for the price of US gas or oil in general, since the oil is still coming onto the market no matter where it goes. I'm trying to figure out where the boon is after its construction.

[EVAY]

As I understand it, US refineries are working below capacity but providing all the product the US needs. I don't know what this pipeline would do for the price of US gas or oil in general, since the oil is still coming onto the market no matter where it goes. I'm trying to figure out where the boon is after its construction.

Thank you. I didn't know that. And it does then, seem less compelling, doesn't it? Why is Canada so upset then? Why do they care where their oil goes? Is it the jobs issue for them as well?

[ChumpDumper]

Thank you. I didn't know that. And it does then, seem less compelling, doesn't it? Why is Canada so upset then? Why do they care where their oil goes? Is it the jobs issue for them as well?I imagine the money would be coming in quicker and there might be a possibility of the pipeline's facilitating more flexible delivery in response to the market.

I don't get the "pipeline = lower oil and gas prices" argument on its face unless we plan on keeping all the gas refined from it and flooding the market. And that doesn't make sense because that could be done now.

From the US POV it just looks like an opportunity to use excess refining capacity. From the Canadian POV, I can only guess it's a reliable and flexible (timing-wise) delivery system.

[JoeChalupa]

This needs to and will be passed.

[Th'Pusher]

I imagine the money would be coming in quicker and there might be a possibility of the pipeline's facilitating more flexible delivery in response to the market.

I don't get the "pipeline = lower oil and gas prices" argument on its face unless we plan on keeping all the gas refined from it and flooding the market. And that doesn't make sense because that could be done now.

From the US POV it just looks like an opportunity to use excess refining capacity. From the Canadian POV, I can only guess it's a reliable and flexible (timing-wise) delivery system.

Also, Valero's Port Arthur refinery is in a Foreign Trade Zone, so import and export taxes won't be imposed.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, Valero's Port Arthur refinery is in a Foreign Trade Zone, so import and export taxes won't be imposed.Right.

How convenient.

[boutons_deux]

"excess refining capacity"

in 2008, people here were saying gas prices were high due to restricted supply due to evil environmentalists blocking new refineries (aka "cancer clusters").

So which is it? under or over capacity?

XL pipeline is no benefit to Human-Amercians, only to oilcos and their investors.

[Homeland Security]

It's going to be so nice when we can line you fucking communists in a row and blow off the backs of your skulls.

It was always Canada's oil and they are going to export it however they can. Stopping the pipeline through the U.S. doesn't keep Canada from building a pipeline to export to China. The only thing is stops is Gulf Coast refineries from getting more Canadian oil, so instead they'll keep using Venezuelan oil, which keeps the money going to your comrade Hugo, which is all this is really about.

Those who claim to oppose it for "environmental" reasons are either lying or stupid. If you are lying, and really are just interested in sustaining a Marxist enemy state, you are a traitor and deserve death. If your goal is to keep oil prices high and working Americans suffering in order to stave off some indeterminate future global warming disaster, you are equal parts traitor and idiot and deserve death.

I take delight in your future suffering and demise. Vermin.

[Drachen]

It's going to be so nice when we can line you fucking communists in a row and blow off the backs of your skulls.

It was always Canada's oil and they are going to export it however they can. Stopping the pipeline through the U.S. doesn't keep Canada from building a pipeline to export to China. The only thing is stops is Gulf Coast refineries from getting more Canadian oil, so instead they'll keep using Venezuelan oil, which keeps the money going to your comrade Hugo, which is all this is really about.

Those who claim to oppose it for "environmental" reasons are either lying or stupid. If you are lying, and really are just interested in sustaining a Marxist enemy state, you are a traitor and deserve death. If your goal is to keep oil prices high and working Americans suffering in order to stave off some indeterminate future global warming disaster, you are equal parts traitor and idiot and deserve death.

I take delight in your future suffering and demise. Vermin.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/18/70384439_ba1fd5b9de_z.jpg?zz=1

[ChumpDumper]

Missed that guy. I can see how this pipeline can work and benefit some Americans. I just don't see the need to rush anything.

[Winehole23]

lol Bullets fan

[boutons_deux]

Missed that guy. I can see how this pipeline can work and benefit some Americans. I just don't see the need to rush anything.

it's more probable to assume that the oilcos intend to export the oil products to central/south america.

[boutons_deux]

Democrats Propose Gas Price Protection Export Ban For Keystone XL

On Friday, House Democrats led by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced legislation that would ban exports of the output of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, including refinery output, ensuring that its crude oil and gasoline would benefit American consumers. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have all indicated that they are likely to support the initiative to ensure Americans aren’t assuming the risk of a foreign oil pipeline entirely for foreign benefit.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/06/419486/democrats-propose-gas-price-protection-export-ban-for-keystone-xl/

Also, penalty for spills need to be increased to $1000/barrel, AFTER the actual cleanup costs are paid for by the pipeline/oil owners.