Harper: "The politics of ruthlessness"

[Tupac Shakur]

If you have to give hints so people can decipher your posts, you could probably stand to improve the clarity of your writing.

[notyoueither]

Or you could stand to broaden your horizens so that you have a valid opinion when you make definintive statements.

[Tupac Shakur]

Or you could stand to broaden your horizens so that you have a valid opinion when you make definintive statements.

1. "horizons"

2. "definitive"

3. What? The meaning of this also isn't clear.

[Dinner]

The US is basically telling Canada to stop even trying to deal with the USA for future oil deals. The fastest growing market -- and soon to be largest market -- is Asia.

With these delays, they're starting to look at building another massive pipeline to the BC coast for shipment to China.

Not at all. It's basically said that as ever NIMBYs hinder local projects, this project will have to put up with the delays and legal process issues all other large projects do, but we still want it. We'll just have to slog through the NIMBYs to get it. BTW if I was Alberta and I had the money I would be building two pipelines (one to BC and one to the US) just so you have more options on where to sell your oil. Yes, oil prices are set globally but limitations to delivery methods do limit practical options for delivering oil to customers in mass. Of course, if I was from Alberta (and thank god I'm not, a bunch of wanking hicks) I'd also consider limiting crude oil exports and trying to refine the crude in Alberta and then letting them decide if they want to buy my refined products instead. The reason being that provides a huge amount of value added, way more jobs, and you've still got a lock on production but now you've added a lock on refining as well. That's just me though.

[Dinner]

No it can't, of course. The point is that this is a substantial efficirncy upgrade on a substantial portion of US demand. Damage is being done to people in both countries by this delay.

Hey, I agree. The problem is how do you convince the local politicians and the NIMBYs in Nebraska not to gum things up with legalistic tactics? Really your only two options are to either change the law (which will result in NIMBYs crying crocodile tears on national TV) or let the legal system work (which will eventually result in the NIMBYs being told to shove it though some pipeline route changes or other minor changes might also be adopted). Personally, I'd let the legal system handle it especially if I was a craven local politician who actually wanted to get reelected.

[Tupac Shakur]

Congressional Republicans are trying to move the Keystone XL forward in the face of Democratic stalling tactics.

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans looking to speed up approval of the Keystone XL pipeline have announced plans for a hearing next week on Capitol Hill.

The Dec. 2 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on energy and power is titled, "Expediting the Keystone XL Pipeline: Energy Security and Jobs."

Word of the hearing comes on the heels of an agreement between Nebraska state officials and TransCanada Inc., the company building the 1,700-mile pipeline that will carry oil from Canada to refineries in Texas.

The State Department said earlier this month it would postpone a decision on the pipeline from the end of this year to 2013 so that alternate routes around Nebraska's ecologically sensitive Sand Hills could be studied. State Department officials said recently that the 2013 timeline has not been altered by TransCanada's agreement with Nebraska state officials to reroute the pipeline.

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, issued a statement Nov. 10 with full committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and the energy and power subcommittee chairman, Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., criticizing the Obama administration for putting off the decision.

"This is conveniently past Election Day, but far too long to make workers wait," they said.

Terry told The World-Herald recently he had discussed with Upton the idea of new legislation to force a decision on the pipeline. The House previously passed legislation, written by Terry, that would have required a decision by Nov. 1, but that bill has been ignored by the Senate.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111123/NEWS01/711239871

[Dinner]

Translation: Congressional Republicans are trying to fake an issue because they think it will became an election issue and avoid talking about how they've deliberately been trying to crash the economy. Sure, I understand why they're playing this game but that doesn't change the fact that it's all bull****.

[Fake Boris]

You clearly have no idea about the logistics of shipping oil and its inherent cost.

If you don't get the oil from Canada, you have to get it from overseas. That will raise the cost of oil because it raises the cost of transportation.

It's also much worse for the environment, so I'm amused by all of this anti-pipeline American hysteria.

Good point. I still wish we were doing more effort to reach oil independence.

[KrazyHorse]

Why doesn't it make sense? Excess Canadian oil that can't reach the global market because of pipeline constraints is sold to American consumers at below market rate. Canada and global consumers lose, American consumers win.

Because Canada has oceanic access abd can build its own pipeline to the coast.

[KrazyHorse]

Even without that possibility, the combination of circumstances which would make it true is extremely unlikely. In particular, it relies on overland non-pipeline expenses to the nearest coast from alberta being significantly higher than tanker plus overland to the pipeline destination. The price to consumers in the US will drop with a pipeline. Period.

[Asher]

Let's get as much cheap Canadian oil as we can while they build more pipelines to the Pacific.

“My sense is that it’s a really hollow threat,” Marx said. “That oil is not going anywhere, and in fact, the government is concerned that the tar sands are landlocked, which makes the Keystone the critical pipeline to get it to a coast where it can then be exported.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67874_Page2.html#ixzz1ehEMgeun

Right on. Call that bluff.

What the hell does Karl Marx know about Alberta oil?

The oil sands are landlocked, but it turns out the pacific ocean is just a quick jaunt through BC. And the lion's share of increased oil demand is in Asia, which means the pacific is far more desirable than the gulf.

[Tupac Shakur]

Yes, the Pacific is only a quick jaunt through the Rockies away.

Because Canada has oceanic access abd can build its own pipeline to the coast.

America's ability to purchase Canadian oil at below market rate is obviously a temporary phenomenon that will end once more pipeline capacity is built. I don't see why America should rush in building that pipeline capacity, though. Let's enjoy our advantage as long as we can.

[Asher]

Yes, the Pacific is only a quick jaunt through the Rockies away.

It's cheaper to build a pipeline to the BC coast than it is to Texas. Also significantly less politically troublesome.

[Tupac Shakur]

Go for it, then. It's not going to hurt America.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, the Pacific is only a quick jaunt through the Rockies away.



America's ability to purchase Canadian oil at below market rate is obviously a temporary phenomenon that will end once more pipeline capacity is built. I don't see why America should rush in building that pipeline capacity, though. Let's enjoy our advantage as long as we can.

I've also explained why, even without a pipeline, this seems like an unlikely combination of prices...