Sasquatch
RETIRED INTL MOD
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,344
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
In China, this is the "Year of the Dragon" and people in China celebrate with the exchange of small gifts.
President Obama recently decided to deny a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and, in so doing, gave China a big gift: Canadian oil. He gave American citizens and workers lumps of coal instead.
Canada's oil sands formations hold an estimated 174 billion barrels of oil, the world's second largest oil reserve next to Saudi Arabia. For years, China has coveted Canadian oil, and is now a major investor in oil sands. China would like nothing better than to replace the United States as the principal buyer of Canadian oil.
Critics of the oil and gas industry argue that the burning of fossil fuels is mainly responsible for global warming, and because it has higher carbon content than ordinary oil, they have targeted oil sands. But those environmentalists who disparage oil sand and seem eager to ban its use ignore that crude oil made from bitumen supplies the United States with nearly 1 million barrels a day. That is roughly equal to the combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Experts say that oil sands have the potential to supply 6 million barrels a day within 20 years.
Without Canada's oil, we would be relying even more on imports from less than friendly countries such as Venezuela and certain Middle East countries. Events of the past year in the Middle East and North Africa should make us aware of the fragile supply line for oil that exists throughout this region.
The decision against the Keystone XL pipeline is misguided and nonsensical. By using pipelines to transport crude oil for Canada's oil sands, the United States is able to obtain a secure supply of oil, while offsetting declining production from older U.S. wells. Obviously that simple fact hasn't made much of an impression on President Obama.
President Obama stated two years ago that his intention is to end "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." In pursuit of this political agenda, he seems willing to turn his back on a long-standing close ally, Canada, and jeopardize long-term U.S. energy interests in order to yield to environmental extremists.
Major environmental concerns, including those expressed by the Nebraska governor, have been resolved although seemly President Obama wishes to ignore these resolutions.
Recent events, such as the total collapse of "leading solar energy company," Solyndra, after millions in taxpayer money was contributed by the Obama administration, lend little hope that alternatives can be developed to supply adequate U.S. needs for years to come.
Economical alternative energy sources should be developed and will with time, but currently and for the foreseeable future the U.S. is based on fossil fuel energy supply.
Simply pushing oil sands away does not solve the global greenhouse problem, since Canada now has a back-up customer for its oil in China. There are already plans developed for a pipeline that would follow an alternate route from Alberta to Canada's west coast, where the oil would be loaded on tankers and sold to markets in Asia, principally China.
The United States cannot afford to turn its back on Canadian oil, since our economy and economics of our most important trade partners would be at risk if Iran were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. A sudden oil shortage would send prices skyrocketing.
In spite of that potential, Mr. Obama seems willing to gamble the country's economic welfare for political purposes.
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil from Alberta to Texas refineries at the Gulf of Mexico, where it would be turned into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and other petroleum products for use around the country. If we have learned anything so far from moving oil by pipeline is the fact that it's a lot safer and more secure that importing oil by ocean tanker.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration should be realistic about the importance of Canadian oil. Unless we are willing to shut down our energy-intensive industries and to stop driving our cars, heating our homes and producing products used daily by all citizens we will continue to need secure supplies of oil by pipeline from Canada.
President Obama recently decided to deny a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and, in so doing, gave China a big gift: Canadian oil. He gave American citizens and workers lumps of coal instead.
Canada's oil sands formations hold an estimated 174 billion barrels of oil, the world's second largest oil reserve next to Saudi Arabia. For years, China has coveted Canadian oil, and is now a major investor in oil sands. China would like nothing better than to replace the United States as the principal buyer of Canadian oil.
Critics of the oil and gas industry argue that the burning of fossil fuels is mainly responsible for global warming, and because it has higher carbon content than ordinary oil, they have targeted oil sands. But those environmentalists who disparage oil sand and seem eager to ban its use ignore that crude oil made from bitumen supplies the United States with nearly 1 million barrels a day. That is roughly equal to the combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Experts say that oil sands have the potential to supply 6 million barrels a day within 20 years.
Without Canada's oil, we would be relying even more on imports from less than friendly countries such as Venezuela and certain Middle East countries. Events of the past year in the Middle East and North Africa should make us aware of the fragile supply line for oil that exists throughout this region.
The decision against the Keystone XL pipeline is misguided and nonsensical. By using pipelines to transport crude oil for Canada's oil sands, the United States is able to obtain a secure supply of oil, while offsetting declining production from older U.S. wells. Obviously that simple fact hasn't made much of an impression on President Obama.
President Obama stated two years ago that his intention is to end "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." In pursuit of this political agenda, he seems willing to turn his back on a long-standing close ally, Canada, and jeopardize long-term U.S. energy interests in order to yield to environmental extremists.
Major environmental concerns, including those expressed by the Nebraska governor, have been resolved although seemly President Obama wishes to ignore these resolutions.
Recent events, such as the total collapse of "leading solar energy company," Solyndra, after millions in taxpayer money was contributed by the Obama administration, lend little hope that alternatives can be developed to supply adequate U.S. needs for years to come.
Economical alternative energy sources should be developed and will with time, but currently and for the foreseeable future the U.S. is based on fossil fuel energy supply.
Simply pushing oil sands away does not solve the global greenhouse problem, since Canada now has a back-up customer for its oil in China. There are already plans developed for a pipeline that would follow an alternate route from Alberta to Canada's west coast, where the oil would be loaded on tankers and sold to markets in Asia, principally China.
The United States cannot afford to turn its back on Canadian oil, since our economy and economics of our most important trade partners would be at risk if Iran were to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. A sudden oil shortage would send prices skyrocketing.
In spite of that potential, Mr. Obama seems willing to gamble the country's economic welfare for political purposes.
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil from Alberta to Texas refineries at the Gulf of Mexico, where it would be turned into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and other petroleum products for use around the country. If we have learned anything so far from moving oil by pipeline is the fact that it's a lot safer and more secure that importing oil by ocean tanker.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration should be realistic about the importance of Canadian oil. Unless we are willing to shut down our energy-intensive industries and to stop driving our cars, heating our homes and producing products used daily by all citizens we will continue to need secure supplies of oil by pipeline from Canada.
