Thanks to this decision: http://nationaljournal.com/congress/...id=subhplead_1


If liberals like Obama continue to refuse to allow us to source more oil from N. America, it will continue to be necessary to fight wars/battles in the Middle East.

 

I have a serious question regarding the issue.
The link states the the bone of contention is the Sand Hills region of Nebraska (gold area on the map).

Looking at the map it is actually shorter to head Due East at the South Dakota/Nebraska border to the existing pipeline(grey line) than it would be to proceed with new pipeline(red line) through the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills area.

Anybody know why TransCanada wants this longer route?

 

Either today or yesterday the Rep from NE was on CNBC and the route through that area has already been removed and a new route in the plan.

TransCanada is also in conversations with China, if the new pipeline does not take on the additional oil, TransCanada is going to sell it to China.

The article mentions the split between unions and the green voters for Obama. Well this decision is not overturned, both groups are going to be mad at Obama.

The jobs to build infrastructure to get to the oil to China will mostly stay in Canada, and the greens will have no say in the oil productions impact on the environment.

Not too sure what damage control Obama can do on this one, he just gave a hefty oil supply to China.

 

My personal opinion is he is just waiting until after the election to approve it (if he were to get reelected, of course, lord save us all)

Now if he really doesn't want this thing then he just did some serious damage to our nation by letting all that oil go to China. Go ahead and start learning mandarin guys....

 

The damage has always been about the loss of jobs building the new pipeline.
Our Canadian friends will not sell to the US for $1 if the Chinese are willing to pay $2, pipeline or no pipeline.

And as far as the middle east goes, we will never shake that connection as long as oil is in the picture.
The middle east is the drug dealer, the US is the junkie and the dealer has many tricks to keep'em hooked.

 

Obviously TransCanada is going to sell it at market value. Not too sure what that oil type is listed under.
The fact they would pump ever bit of it here was the good part.
Might not decrease the middle east oil flow to the US, but could cut down on Venezuelan oil flowing into the country.
Let China deal with Venezuela, they have good practice with dealing with Iran. The fact that US companies could send less money to the middle east or Venezuela is a good thing.

The jobs, the bulk of them were temporary with the construction, but it is better than nothing. The permanent job count was ~ 12% of the temp count.

The finished product could go anywhere, might be for US consumption might be shipped over sea to another country, all the same the money for refining was paid to a US company that sent the money for the crude to Canada.

---
I am not too sure how killing it off prior to the election ( and then approving it in 12 months ) is going to help him. Don't think TransCanada is going to stand around for 12 months waiting on the project to start.
They will write contracts to China, and the additional capacity that TX could take will be ear marked for someone else. China does not care where the oil comes from, they ( just like the US ) want to make sure it keeps flowing.

 

Not true. We buy approximately 25% of our oil from the M.E.

http://smartpeopleiknow.wordpress.co...north-america/

If we bought more from Canada, (and they stand ready to supply it), Mexico, Alaska (and other parts of the US), we can practically eliminate M.E. oil from the equation until an alternative energy source is developed.

 

Just as a drug dealer, the ME can adjust price to remain in the game which is what will happen.

For example, much has been made about our lack of infrastucture to refine the oil. No refineries built since the seventies...blah, blah.
A refinery not far from here closed last year. It had been operating at capacity. The reason it closed was finished product could be bought from India off a ship in New York cheaper than the Virginia refinery could produce it. That link references oil but doesn't include finished product.

 

Right. That's what we're talking about here (crude oil). The M.E. countries don't refine our oil.

Besides, India is a staunch ally of ours (not that I'm in favor of closing any of our refineries) and is a stable nation.

 

OPEC does not set the price for oil.
It is a commodity that is traded on the open market.

OPEC can increase or decrease oil production to have a supply and demand impact on the price, but the open market say what it is worth per barrel.

The OPEC committee has to approve production quotas as a group, to try to impact that oil price. Individual member countries can increase production, but as a price category, this is not going to move oil that much if at all ( and only if they publicly announce they are increasing production or keeping it the same when OPEC calls for a production quota decrease ).

Why would OPEC increase production to try to lower the price per OPEC barrel, when Europe and China still need oil ( and this is where the bulk of OPEC oil goes ) and are willing to pay the higher price ?
- The other question, with the current demand, could OPEC as a whole get supply high enough to drive down prices that much ?

OPEC is only in control of the supply for one of the many oil price categories.
There are at least two others including Brent and West TX intermediate (WTI).

 

Exactly.

Also, if we drilled our own oil here in the States, economists estimate oil would be priced about 1/5 of what we are paying now depending on the oil's location/ease of extraction.

Some food for thought: I read in "Foreign Affairs" that Russia and China signed a long-term agreement 2 years ago. China is paying $20/barrel of oil regardless of what the current market price is.

In summary, we are getting fleeced by our own internationalist politicians.

 

It might be this ill fitting tin foil hat of mine but I have a suspicion.

Something tells me that George Soros + Petrobras + political contributions + billions given to Brazil to develop oil all play into this somehow...

For as much as the media screamed about how the (R)s were giving money to bug oil they sure are quiet now. At least they gave the money to American companies.

 

If nothing else WTI quota increase would easy the supply demand curve and the price.
Also, could be enough to cut off the middle east and tell Europe good luck negotiating with China over Iran...

Got that right.
Why cut off OPEC members when the US has crappy 8% or nothing loans with them.
Why the heck the US is loaning money to Petrobras is beyond me, and something you will never hear the MSM ask the question of in their "hard line" reporting ala Cain & Newt.