The Keystone Pipeline………..What It Means And What It Doesn’t Mean

 

keystone_pipeline_jpg copy.jpg

Well, Keystone has raised it’s head again. 

GOP Rep. Lee Terry introduced a bill Monday that attempts an end-run around President Obama’s approval to pave the way for construction of the northern stretch of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.

“All I am saying with my legislation is: Mr. President, please treat the northern portion of the pipeline in the same manner as you treated the southern portion,” Terry, R-Neb., said on Capitol Hill. “You praised the construction for the southern route but keep changing the rules for the part that crosses the border.”

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans argue that building TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline would generate much-needed jobs and help the country become less dependent on foreign oil.

Read more: here.

Well, no, yes, no, and yes again.

Let me try to clarify.  First, let’s make it clear what the pipeline would be.  This would be a vehicle to move Canada’s oil to our ports and refineries in Texas.  This, in and of itself, would not make us less dependent upon foreign oil.  As much as we’d like to annex Canada, they’re still a foreign country.  Well, annex if they only promise Quebec doesn’t come with them, someone else has to take them.

Still, it would be pretty nice to buy oil from friends and not scumbags like Chavez or Ahmadinejad.  In this aspect, there is no downside. 

Now, all of the jobs…… yes, there will be thousands of jobs.  No, most of them will not be permanent.  And, no, the jobs potentially created, in and of the project itself would not move the unemployment numbers.  We’re talking millions of people who don’t have jobs and about 20,000 jobs for the pipeline.  Still, there’s no downside to this, just positives.  There are also the potential of more jobs once the oil reaches Texas…… from shipyards to boats to refining, we could potentially have thousands of more jobs! 

The Keystone pipeline would be largely symbolic for the U.S.  But, the symbolism would be very significant.  To understand the Keystone controversy, one must understand this. This is why the watermelons have drawn their line, here.  The watermelons know damn well there’s nothing wrong with the pipeline plan.  I’ve been to the Alaskan pipeline.  I’m here to testify, the flora and fauna don’t give two shakes about it. 

The pipeline means two things.  First and foremost it would signify that the U.S. is serious about stopping the flow of money to a bunch of tin-pot dictators.  Make no mistake, Arab spring or not, there are people over in the mid-East hell bent on destroying Western civilization, and, we are financing them through the purchases of oil. 

Secondly, while not directly addressing energy independence, it would make known that we are serious about such measures, that we are not going to let a bunch of Malthusian Marxist watermelons dictate our energy policies.  Once this gets allowed, and it will, then we would have sent this message.  There would be no rationale as to why we would facilitate Canada’s oil production but not ours.  In fact, it would be an impetus to do so. 

Here’s how it works best for the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world…… Canada’s frozen oil isn’t much different than our shale oil.  We construct the pipeline.  We have more jobs albeit not enough to turn our economy around.  The world takes notice and suddenly, the price of oil is dependent upon how cheap the Canadians can bring it in at.  Oh, did I mention we have oil very similar to the type Canada has?  We can utilize many of the technological advancements Canada will have, to develop our own shale oil production.  The last estimates I saw said the bottom line was $70/barrel, at the cheapest.  But, as our knowledge expands, it is expected to be economically recoverable at half that.  Oh, did I mention that the infrastructure necessary would have already been built?  The largest portion of it anyway.  The Keystone pipeline will run just east of all of our oil. 

Imagine a world where our fuel purchases don’t, in part, go toward funding terrorism.  Imagine a world where the sellers of oil don’t collaborate to screw the rest of the world.  Imagine a world where the major producers of oil play by the world trade rules.      Imagine a world where our oil is provided by two of the most environmentally conscience countries in the world. 

Yeh, you didn’t expect me to go there, did you?  But, it’s true.  I’d but our environmental laws against anyone.  Canada is even more nutty about the environment than we are, and we’re incredibly silly about them.  Look at what we’ve done with coal!

The fact is, the Keystone pipeline, in and of itself, is of little magnitude.  The Keystone pipeline can be the biggest springboard for human prosperity and peace than the world has seen. 

And this, my friends, is why it is so adamantly opposed.   

 

Another read about oil is here.

This entry was posted in Economics, Energy, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Keystone Pipeline………..What It Means And What It Doesn’t Mean

  1. Dale Hartz says:

    You missed another point that the Canadian heavy oil is similar to the Venezuelan crude oil imported into the USA. The Canadian crude oil would put great pressure on Chavez and his unfriendly administratian.

    • suyts says:

      Good point. And, yes. the Keystone is just the first step of a several step process which could stabilize and lower the cost of the worlds fuel supply and defund a bunch of lunatics all at the same time. There’s no reason no to take these first steps.

  2. philjourdan says:

    Yes, and no. The direct effect is the hiring of 20k workers. The indirect effect hires many more. Because unlike the government, those workers really will spend the money.

    But more than that, there are long term jobs. The jobs to refine the oil. The jobs to load it on ships. So without drilling for any of it, without pumping a drop, the US does get economic benefits from it. Oil is fungible. Oil in China is the same as oil in the US. So by bringing MORE to market, regardless of where it ends up, you increase the supply which lowers cost.

    And that is another benefit.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, thanks Phil, you’re input is always appreciated. Yeh, I should have noted the difference between a real worker and a government one. Especially in construction of any kind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s