• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

The hard data can be found here

I'll make this as simple as possible.........

You said:

Kushinator said:
U.S. oil consumption has decreased year-over-year, every year, (IIRC) since the 1990's.

You can prove your theory very easily. What was U.S. Oil consumption in the 1990s, let's say 1995 for arguments sake, and what is U.S. oil consumption today?

Which is higher ???
 
Even if your claims come to fruition, it will not mean that we have become anywhere even close to self-sufficient in crude oil, nor would it have any significant effect on oil prices -- both being the rallying cries of the right wing populist politicians trying to sell Drill Me Now to the public.

I don't know of anyone that claims we can become completely self sufficient. The goal is to reduce reliance on volatile middle eastern oil, which we've already done to a great extent. Production of oil from shale will further reduce our middle eastern dependence. So will the Keystone pipeline if Obama would just get off his ass and approve it.
 
I don't know of anyone that claims we can become completely self sufficient. The goal is to reduce reliance on volatile middle eastern oil, which we've already done to a great extent. Production of oil from shale will further reduce our middle eastern dependence. So will the Keystone pipeline if Obama would just get off his ass and approve it.

BHO won't approve it though because of national politics. He is not a leader.

This is the latest from the Canadian PM, which was central to the original topic.

Global BC | Harper says Canada won't be the United States' northern 'giant national park'
 
I don't know of anyone that claims we can become completely self sufficient.
That is generally the right wing inference... trillions of bbls, 1000 years, etc.

The goal is to reduce reliance on volatile middle eastern oil, which we've already done to a great extent. Production of oil from shale will further reduce our middle eastern dependence. So will the Keystone pipeline if Obama would just get off his ass and approve it.
The global location of the imported oil we are dependent upon is irrelevant (except for propaganda purposes), since any interruption in global supply will result in a global price and consumption shock. So -- it doesn't matter if the Keystone XL oil goes to us or China, as long as it goes somewhere and keeps the global supply chain in operation.
 
That is generally the right wing inference... trillions of bbls, 1000 years, etc.


The global location of the imported oil we are dependent upon is irrelevant (except for propaganda purposes), since any interruption in global supply will result in a global price and consumption shock. So -- it doesn't matter if the Keystone XL oil goes to us or China, as long as it goes somewhere and keeps the global supply chain in operation.

OK, I've had enough of your nonsense. You are getting further and further off the deep end.

The inference is in your head alone regarding energy independence.

No sane person would claim that Canadian oil is the same as middle eastern oil. I don't think Canada has a nutjob threatening to shut down the primary avenue for oil shipments throughout the world. I haven't seen any indication that some dictator has been killing his citizens in Canada. Haven't seen too many instances of internal terror attacks on pipelines and oil fields in Canada.

When you decide to post serious comments, let me know.
 
Am I wrong in thinking that the oil is already coming into the US via pipeline? Isn't the issue about where the pipeline ends in the US, versus whether or not it comes into the US? Isn't the argument that this will reduce dependence on ME fuel mostly bull****? I mean, first, we don't get much oil from the ME. Second, fuel was actually our No. 1 EXPORT last year. Isn't the real thrust of this pipeline to get the oil from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast so that it can be loaded on tankers and sold for export? Thank you.
 
Am I wrong in thinking that the oil is already coming into the US via pipeline? Isn't the issue about where the pipeline ends in the US, versus whether or not it comes into the US? Isn't the argument that this will reduce dependence on ME fuel mostly bull****? I mean, first, we don't get much oil from the ME. Second, fuel was actually our No. 1 EXPORT last year. Isn't the real thrust of this pipeline to get the oil from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast so that it can be loaded on tankers and sold for export? Thank you.

We get almost 18% of our oil from Persian Gulf countries or 60,000 barrels a month.

We get over 83,000 barrels a month from Canada.

Yes, there are existing Keystone pipelines that bring oil from Canada. They currently bring 435,000 barrels a day which will be increased to 590,000 bpd. Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will add an additional 510,000 bpd to refineries in the U.S.

The primary objection was that the original design carried the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer and through the Sand Hills in Nebraska. That was changed and a new route has been approved by Keystone and the state of Nebraska.
 
Last edited:
We get almost 18% of our oil from Persian Gulf countries or 60,000 barrels a month.

We get over 83,000 barrels a month from Canada.

Yes, there are existing Keystone pipelines that bring oil from Canada. They currently bring 435,000 barrels a day which will be increased to 590,000 bpd. Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will add an additional 510,000 bpd to refineries in the U.S.

The primary objection was that the original design carried the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer and through the Sand Hills in Nebraska. That was changed and a new route has been approved by Keystone and the state of Nebraska.


About 16%. And?
 
Try reading my post. All of it was answered.

I'll go back and read it now that you've edited it to address the other arguments. Wow. :lol:
 
We get almost 18% of our oil from Persian Gulf countries or 60,000 barrels a month.

We get over 83,000 barrels a month from Canada.

Yes, there are existing Keystone pipelines that bring oil from Canada. They currently bring 435,000 barrels a day which will be increased to 590,000 bpd. Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will add an additional 510,000 bpd to refineries in the U.S.

The primary objection was that the original design carried the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer and through the Sand Hills in Nebraska. That was changed and a new route has been approved by Keystone and the state of Nebraska.

And how much of that additional capacity will actually go to the export market, as opposed to reducing import demand?
 
[...] Isn't the real thrust of this pipeline to get the oil from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast so that it can be loaded on tankers and sold for export? Thank you.
I have heard that. Finding any proof would be pretty much impossible (the players would not want to let that cat out of the bag).

It is supposed to be really nasty stuff, regardless (high sulfur content IIRC, difficult to refine, as is all the tar sands/shale stuff)... we'd probably be better off selling it to China and using the money to buy cleaner crude from someone else.
 
[...] The global location of the imported oil we are dependent upon is irrelevant (except for propaganda purposes), since any interruption in global supply will result in a global price and consumption shock. So -- it doesn't matter if the Keystone XL oil goes to us or China, as long as it goes somewhere and keeps the global supply chain in operation.
[...] No sane person would claim that Canadian oil is the same as middle eastern oil. I don't think Canada has a nutjob threatening to shut down the primary avenue for oil shipments throughout the world. I haven't seen any indication that some dictator has been killing his citizens in Canada. Haven't seen too many instances of internal terror attacks on pipelines and oil fields in Canada.

When you decide to post serious comments, let me know.
Oil is fungible. Put that in your serious pipe and fire it up :mrgreen:
 
I'll go back and read it now that you've edited it to address the other arguments. Wow. :lol:

It was edited before you quoted it the first time. Don't you even read the posts you quote??
 
And how much of that additional capacity will actually go to the export market, as opposed to reducing import demand?

Who knows and who cares ???

American refineries and American workers will refine the oil into a thousand components for sale either here or to reduce our trade deficit.
 
Who knows and who cares ???

American refineries and American workers will refine the oil into a thousand components for sale either here or to reduce our trade deficit.

It's not going to reduce our trade deficit that much if the oil is imported and just refined here. But it will certainly be good for Canada's trade deficit.
 
It's not going to reduce our trade deficit that much if the oil is imported and just refined here. But it will certainly be good for Canada's trade deficit.

Ahhh, so our refineries don't add any profit to gas and other refined products before exporting them ????

Please tell me you wrote that while still half asleep.
 
[...] American refineries and American workers will refine the oil [...]
You have evidence of that?

I'll agree that it is a possibility, but is it not just as possible that the crude will be pumped directly into a tanker at the Gulf Coast and shipped overseas for refining and consumption elsewhere?
 
You have evidence of that?

I'll agree that it is a possibility, but is it not just as possible that the crude will be pumped directly into a tanker at the Gulf Coast and shipped overseas for refining and consumption elsewhere?

Yeah, they are going to pipe it for several thousand miles just so they can load it on a ship....

Common sense is a great tool..........try it sometimes.
 
Yeah, they are going to pipe it for several thousand miles just so they can load it on a ship....

Common sense is a great tool..........try it sometimes.

And the alternative is what, if they want to sell their oil to China? Build a canal to the middle of Canada?
 
Politico is reporting that Republicans will get what they wanted: the administration is set to formally anounce the rejection of the pipeline permit.
 
Yeah, they are going to pipe it for several thousand miles just so they can load it on a ship....

Common sense is a great tool..........try it sometimes.
Common sense used to tell people that the world was flat. You still buyin' that one?

Ask your common sense why they are piping it all the way to the Gulf Coast to be refined? Why not refine it much closer to the Canadian border? Do we not have any refineries other than on the Texas Gulf Coast?

Then ask your common sense how much supertanker traffic there is on Canada's west coast compared to the U.S. Gulf coast? Does Canada's west coast have offshore mooring points that allow supertankers -- ships that are much too large to enter a normal port -- to load/offload cargo?


KeystoneXL_Map_hd_6-0x600.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom