I am about as flaming a liberal as anyone, but I, personally, want the Dems to break from Obama and approve the pipeline. Gas prices are a biotch.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/08/senate-keystone-vote-expected-to-be-close-obama-lobbying-democrats/?hpt=hp_t3

3/8/2012 3:08:24 PM

the Keystone Pipeline would actually raise gas prices

I posted this in another thread:

Even if we increased our production, it wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't belong to the country. It would belong to oil companies, who have no allegiance to the US. Gas prices are global, so increased domestic production wouldn't even lower prices.

Quote :

""We are coupled to a global oil market,” said Koonin, who resigned as the Energy Department’s undersecretary for science last year. “Oil is a fungible commodity. There is no such thing as ‘foreign oil.’ There’s just ‘oil.’”"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73210_Page2.html




By the way, republicans keep voting down an amendment to keep Keystone pipeline oil in the US. Now why would they do that? Could it be because they're all backed by oil companies?

Quote :

"Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the bill during the Feb. 15 vote, giving the House a chance to “ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans.” But the amendment failed 173-254."

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/?mobile=nc




and Keystone would actually RAISE gas prices in the US

Quote :

"As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in late January, when there’s trouble in places like the Straits of Hormuz, the price of oil goes up for everyone and Keystone will make no difference, since the oil market is “globally integrated’; it’s not like Exxon offers a home-country discount to American motorists. But in the case of the Keystone pipeline, it turns out there’s a special twist. At the moment, there’s an oversupply of tarsands crude in the Midwest, which has depressed gas prices there. If the pipeline gets built so that crude can easily be sent overseas, that excess will immediately disappear and gas prices for 15 states across the middle of the country will suddenly rise. Says who? Says the companies trying to build the thing. Transcanada Pipeline’s rationale for investors, and their testimony to Canadian officials, included precisely this point: removing the “oversupply’ and the resulting “price discount” would raise their returns by $2 to $4 billion a year."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/211733-bill-mckibben-founder-350org

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2012 3:09:10 PM

^exactly. everybody knows a surplus in product drives up the price.




Well it all depends on what kind of car you drive sir.

I hope you aren't a Chevy Tahoe driving hypocritical son of a bitch flaming piece of shit liberal

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ,]

3/8/2012 3:09:53 PM

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 3:17 PM. Reason : double post]

3/8/2012 3:11:14 PM

dude i'm agreeing with
everybody knows that if we pump more oil it will raise the price of oil
like. duh.


oh and yay or nay: nay. just because i'm an electric car fiend. i actually agree with obamas policy to drive up the price of gas as much as possible to force us off gas cars.

if this were 40k. i'd order one this week.


[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ,]

3/8/2012 3:13:24 PM

Nay to what was first proposed. I'm still waiting to see how this new proposal shapes up since it's supposed to have addressed the environmental concerns that plagued the first one.

As I stated in the other thread, if nothing else, approving the new route will disarm the howlers on the right other than the expected "He's only doing this to get elected." and "Had he only done this sooner..." Which is all bullshit. Plain and simple.

3/8/2012 4:03:57 PM

Nay.

It was uncovered that the oil is meant to be shipped to China; transporting it through the U.S. is the only way to get it there,
because Canadians are blocking the shipment of the tar sands oil from Alberta to the west coast..

Transporting oil from another country through our country for the consumption of yet another country reeks a little too much of third-world bullshit for my taste.

Plus, if we're having to resort to extracting oil from tar sands to satisfy global consumption, then it's about time we just suck it up
and accept that higher gas prices may be upon us.

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 5:08 PM. Reason : Tar sands are some dirty-ass shit.]

3/8/2012 5:05:54 PM

Quote :

"At the moment, there’s an oversupply of tarsands crude in the Midwest, which has depressed gas prices there."

You are skipping a necessary step. As there are few refineries in the Midwest, there is not much of a link between oil prices in the midwest and gasoline prices in the midwest. The price for gasoline in the midwest is set by the price for oil at the doorstep of the refineries actually supplying the midwest, most of which are located on the gulf coast where the oil wants to go via the Keystone Pipeline.

Now, in-so-far as the pipeline raises the price paid for crude in the Baken oil fields and engender greater oil production in the future, the pipeline will lower global oil prices and thus gasoline prices in the midwest.

3/8/2012 7:03:01 PM

Quote :

"but I, personally, want the Dems to break from Obama and approve the pipeline. Gas prices are a biotch."

O me too, I'm all for a cleaner environment just so long as itdoesn't affect my standard of living.

3/8/2012 10:35:32 PM

yay

it doesn't matter if the oil is going to China or Timbucktoo. The government has no business deciding to allow or disallow based on politics, which is exactly what we're talking about. To the extent that someone wants to invest in it - it benefits our economy.

I agree that this is opening up a technology track that presents a great danger to our environment through climate change. But if your party can't win that battle (a Carbon tax) then fighting a specific project like this is disingenuous, obstructionist, and takes the economy as a bystander.

3/8/2012 10:50:12 PM

^^^ your analysis disagrees with that of the people actually building this pipeline.

3/8/2012 10:56:51 PM

^^From a pure economical point of view, and not even thinking about climate change; it is CRAZY to continue to invest more deeply in oil and increase our infrastructural dependency on the energy of the 20th century. Every move we make should be a step away from using oil all together and moving away from oil starting yesterday.

Focusing on driving oil prices down temporarily is counter-intuitive and will only lead to a bigger crash later down the line when oil supplies really thin out.

3/8/2012 11:06:26 PM

Quote :

"The government has no business deciding to allow or disallow based on politics, which is exactly what we're talking about. To the extent that someone wants to invest in it - it benefits our economy."

If the gov. took no stance, it would be prohibitive for keystone to negotiate contracts with each individual land owner along the route they need to take.

The gov. rejecting this pipeline is the more "libertarian" position. It prevents the gov. from using its bludgeon to let a private company inevitably trample on others' land rights.

3/8/2012 11:19:47 PM

Quote :

"^^From a pure economical point of view, and not even thinking about climate change; it is CRAZY to continue to invest more deeply in oil and increase our infrastructural dependency on the energy of the 20th century."

Sorry, the AGW position supports a halt to petroleum development, but the peak oil position doesn't. Perhaps you have another economic argument, but this certainly doesn't cut it. If what The Oil Drum argues is all correct, then we need every goddam drop we can get.

Quote :

"Focusing on driving oil prices down temporarily is counter-intuitive and will only lead to a bigger crash later down the line when oil supplies really thin out."

...agreed. What is this, the Obama position?

To inject my opinion... we know oil is going to get more expensive in the future. The more expensive we make it, or allow it to be now, the less expensive it will be at the future date. This could have been said of 2 years ago about now. Only a complete tool would have argued oil wouldn't make a comeback in 5 years. And oh shit, it's not even 5 years!

If you think about the alternatives of taxing oil versus allowing the global economy to run its course, it's a complete no-brainier. Our politicians have the discount rate of a crack addict.

Quote :

"If the gov. took no stance, it would be prohibitive for keystone to negotiate contracts"

Well then fuck us all into next century.

This entire thing seems to be about the proposition that the govt. screwed up policy, which allows this monstrosity to be built. You're just adding one more fuckup to the big fucking pile of fuckups. But how on Earth can you advocate addressing the symptom? (admittedly, I don't know that you do, but presumably when we have a debate about the Keystone pipeline that's the proposed action)

3/9/2012 12:01:36 AM

^ wat?

3/9/2012 12:07:35 AM

Quote :

"The gov. rejecting this pipeline is the more "libertarian" position. It prevents the gov. from using its bludgeon to let a private company inevitably trample on others' land rights."

Two wrongs do not make a right. Whether the various states along the route uses eminent domain for oil pipelines is a state issue. It is no place for the federal government to block a project because a state government might do something unreasonable because of it. By your standard the Federal Government should just kill us all because it has no way to stop state and local governments from imposing zoning laws upon us.

Of course, the federal government could try to ban eminent domain in its entirety. It might be struck down in a few years, but it would stop state governments from seizing land and giving it to developers, including pipeline developers.

Quote :

"it is CRAZY to continue to invest more deeply in oil and increase our infrastructural dependency on the energy of the 20th century"

This is not your money being invested. If they want to throw their money down a pipeline, that is their business, mind your own. If the government stopped them from investing in this pipeline they would just go invest it in something even worse, such as American housing.

3/9/2012 12:35:15 AM

Quote :

"Two wrongs do not make a right. Whether the various states along the route uses eminent domain for oil pipelines is a state issue. It is no place for the federal government to block a project because a state government might do something unreasonable because of it. By your standard the Federal Government should just kill us all because it has no way to stop state and local governments from imposing zoning laws upon us. "

You're presuming TransCanada would even take the route of working this out state-by-state.

And if even 1 state along the route doesn't go for it, they're hosed.

In a libertarian dream land, this pipeline, and probably ANY pipeline, would never get built.

3/9/2012 12:38:45 AM

Quote :

"it benefits our economy. I agree that this is opening up a technology track that presents a great danger to our environment through climate change."

I'm not sure that the economic benefits outweigh the environmental danger.

3/9/2012 1:10:11 AM

Oil is the buggy whip of the 21st century.

3/9/2012 1:24:57 AM

yay, whip that buggy. Aint nothing else as cheap, easy or as efficient as oil. If it were we'd be using it.

3/9/2012 6:29:35 AM

Strong, emphatic "meh"

Seriously, though, delete all comments after JesusHChrist's and lock the thread. The pipeline's just another way for the oil industry to smooth out a kink their global distribution network. It'll raise prices in the US and lower them in Asia.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 9:19 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 9:18:18 AM

Annnnd denied! (At least for now)

Keystone oil pipeline bill fails in Senate

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican proposal to give a permit to the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline in a vote that will give Republicans more ammunition to criticize President Barack Obama's energy policies on the campaign trail. Republicans argue the pipeline, which would ship oil from Canada and northern states to Texas, would create jobs and improve energy security at a time of surging gasoline prices. Obama put TransCanada's $7 billion project on hold earlier this year pending further environmental review. He took the unusual step of calling some senators personally ahead of the vote, asking them to reject the proposal. "He understood that a majority of the American public, a majority at least in the Senate, are strongly in favor of this project," said Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who sponsored the bill to take control of the pipeline decision away from Obama. The Republicans tried to advance their plan as an amendment to a highway funding bill. It failed on a vote of 56-42, four short of the 60 needed to pass, although 11 Democratic senators voted with the Republicans. Republicans are using the proposal to highlight Obama's delay of the project ahead of November presidential and congressional elections, linking his decision to rising gasoline prices. "We're going to continue this fight," said Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, who championed the bill. He told reporters he hoped the measure might still be attached to the highway funding package when the Senate and House of Representatives work on a final version. "With gas prices going up every day, with what's going on in the Middle East, I'll tell you what: the pressure is just going to increase on the administration to get this project done," Hoeven said. Obama has supported construction of the southern leg of the pipeline, and his administration will assess a new route around an environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska once it has been identified, said White House spokesman Clark Stevens. "Once again, Republicans are trying to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed," Stevens said. The entire project will take more than two years to build once permits are granted. GREEN GROUP: 'TEMPORARY VICTORY' The Keystone amendment was among 30 measures - many of them energy-related - being voted on as the Senate pushes in coming days to renew funding for highways and other infrastructure projects, slated to run out at the end of March. Earlier, the Senate defeated proposals to expand the area available for offshore oil drilling and extend the time for manufacturers to phase in new pollution regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency for industrial boilers. But the Keystone amendment attracted the most attention. The pipeline would carry crude from Canadian oil sands to Texas refineries and would also pick up U.S. crude from North Dakota and Montana along the way. Environmental groups have fought the project, staging large protests last year that pressured the Obama administration to block approval. "Today's vote was a temporary victory and there's no guarantee that it holds for the long run," Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, said in a statement. "We're grateful to the administration for denying the permit and for Senate leadership for holding the line." With a 34-64 vote, senators also defeated a proposal from Democratic Senator Ron Wyden that would have blocked exports of oil from the pipeline, as well as refined products made from that oil. Wyden said lawmakers need to carefully think through projects that would increase exports of oil, fuel and natural gas, lest the exports end up boosting prices for Americans. "This is just a step in what is clearly going to be an extensive debate," Wyden told Reuters after the vote. Democratic senators who voted for the Republican Keystone plan included Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia. Two Republican senators were absent, and all the 45 who were present voted for the amendment."

http://news.yahoo.com/keystone-oil-pipeline-bill-fails-senate-000638747.html

3/9/2012 9:30:18 AM

The Keystone XL would help with our energy security concerns, create jobs and decrease our trade deficit. Environmental concerns are way overblown; the risks of a leak are miniscule on a pipeline like this.

Yay

3/9/2012 10:16:06 AM

Quote :

"In a libertarian dream land, this pipeline, and probably ANY pipeline, would never get built."

I'm going to call bullshit. Early English canal builders had no government help, yet they managed to get their right of way. And various U.S. states throughout our history have experimented with all number of regimes regarding right of way for railways. The objection was not that railroads without eminent domain could not be built, just that they cost more.

Quote :

"You're presuming TransCanada would even take the route of working this out state-by-state. And if even 1 state along the route doesn't go for it, they're hosed."

What ignorance is this? Pipelines are built all the time. They are the purview of state regulators, making them by definition worked out state-by-state. All the federal government has is approval over crossing the national border. When this proposal was refused, transcanada split it up so they could go ahead and begin construction on the sections not crossing into Canada with state approval.

I think your problem is you don't know how the system works. It is in our collective interest for pipelines to be built. As such, at the state level all pipelines are automatically approved once they conform to the laws and regulations of the state. As such, state regulators are charged with making sure pipelines conform to existing statute, not deciding whether or not they are good for humanity. Only our Federal masters could be stupid enough to attempt to determine such a thing.

3/9/2012 10:16:17 AM

I don't want to pipeline built at the moment for the same reason Obama doesn't want to go into Iran with air strikes until Dec 2012

3/9/2012 10:40:59 AM

Quote :

"All the federal government has is approval over crossing the national border."

Yeah, it's not like they have any authority over interstate commerce or anything.

Quote :

"It is in our collective interest for pipelines to be built."

No, it's in the interests of multinational oil companies trying to streamline their distribution out of North America.

3/9/2012 11:07:38 AM

A lot of that oil will be used domestically, and in case of emergency such as war, all of it can be diverted to domestic use. It lowers our reliance on OPEC oil. It's estimated that we spend more than $100 billion per year in "energy security" costs, primarily in the form of direct military aid to our allies in the middle east and maintaining a constant presence in the Strait of Hormuz. If we can satisfy all of our energy needs without OPEC oil, we won't have to be as active in the region. Keystone XL goes a long way in this direction.

3/9/2012 11:26:32 AM

Quote :

"A lot of that oil will be used domestically,"

Yes, at world-market prices. To the person at the pump, there will be no distinguishable affect. Unless you live in the Midwest, then you'll actually see your prices go up because the pipeline will divert the surpluses they're having there to Asia.

Quote :

" and in case of emergency such as war, all of it can be diverted to domestic use. "

How about the government just seizes it now then, in case such an emergency arises? If we need oil in an emergency situation, why should we hand it to private transnational corporations so they deplete and sell it to our enemies?

Quote :

"It lowers our reliance on OPEC oil. It's estimated that we spend more than $100 billion per year in "energy security" costs, primarily in the form of direct military aid to our allies in the middle east and maintaining a constant presence in the Strait of Hormuz. "

No, it doesn't. The oil will go on the world market with the rest of it. You, as an American, have no extra right to the oil passed through the pipeline at all.

Quote :

"If we can satisfy all of our energy needs without OPEC oil, we won't have to be as active in the region. Keystone XL goes a long way in this direction."

We can't satisfy our energy needs without OPEC oil, that is 100% totally fucking impossible. America consumes almost 20 million barrels per day, almost 1/4 of world production.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 11:37:46 AM

Quote :

" We can't satisfy our energy needs without OPEC oil, that is 100% totally fucking impossible. "

Ah, another misinformed individual. How much oil do you think we get from the middle east? Hint: not much. Less than 15%. Saudi Arabia provides about 1 million barrels per day, Iraq provides about a half million, and it drops quickly from there. If we can supplant this 15% with increased domestic and Canadian oil production, suddenly the Pentagon won't view the Red Sea as such a vital part of our national security. OPEC won't have as much leverage to influence global prices. And hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created. And our trade deficit will shrink considerably.

The reality is that the US has more fossil fuel reserves than Saudi Arabia and China combined. Increasing production domestically will do wonders for employment, our trade imbalance and national security. "Progressives" are woefully misinformed and stuck in the past on this issue. How does it feel to be a conservative?

3/9/2012 11:59:06 AM

Im fine with it as long as there is unlimited liability for any damages caused by any accidents

3/9/2012 12:02:48 PM

I would get on board with that too, although, as we've seen with the BP disaster, these companies have armies of lawyers to attempt to deflect, negate, delay and reduce the impact of any such liability.

3/9/2012 3:18:59 PM

NAY

3/9/2012 4:36:56 PM

Quote :

"Environmental concerns are way overblown; the risks of a leak are miniscule on a pipeline like this."

Pollution to the aquifers, while disastrous, has a very low probability of occurring;

however, the release of carbon from the coupling of tar sands extraction and Chinese consumption
has an extremely high probability of occurring and would be catastrophic to ecosystems around the globe.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2012 5:43:20 PM

It's gonna happen regardless.

Might as well go to our refineries, and not China's.

3/9/2012 5:49:42 PM

Quote :

" Ah, another misinformed individual. How much oil do you think we get from the middle east? Hint: not much. Less than 15%. Saudi Arabia provides about 1 million barrels per day, Iraq provides about a half million, and it drops quickly from there. If we can supplant this 15% with increased domestic and Canadian oil production, suddenly the Pentagon won't view the Red Sea as such a vital part of our national security. OPEC won't have as much leverage to influence global prices. And hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created. And our trade deficit will shrink considerably."

Dude, that oil won't belong to us. It will belong to oil companies, and they are going to sell it to the world. If that oil was going to stay in the US and only be used for US consumption, then you might have a point. But Republicans keep voting down those amendments to the bill. Why? Because they get kickbacks from oil companies who's profits will rise if they get access to american oil.

Do you not get it yet? Increased production means increased profits for companies who have no obligation to Americans. They're going to sell that oil by putting it on the world market. It literally has no positive benefit for Americans (unless you're a shareholder of BP or Exxon).

Unless, of course, there is a spill, in which case, the US taxpayer will be forced to foot the bill for clean-up costs.

3/9/2012 6:25:54 PM

why would we export refined oil and incur additional shipping costs when there is already sufficient demand here?

3/9/2012 6:36:30 PM

because, even with the increased cost of shipping, they can make more money overseas than they can make selling it here. does this basic economic concept not make sense to you? the price here is lower than the price overseas. The oil companies have run the numbers, and they figure that they can make more money, even after shipping it, by selling it overseas.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2012 8:02:28 PM

Some of it will stay here, some will go overseas. It doesn't really matter though; both are good outcomes for the US. If it stays here, it reduces our dependence on overseas oil. If it's shipped, it reduces our trade imbalance. Either way, it adds jobs and generates tax revenues.

3/9/2012 8:20:37 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, it's not like they have any authority over interstate commerce or anything."

Congress does regulate interstate pipelines. But Congress has not given the president the right to object to pipelines he just doesn't like. They could. But such a law is not on the books, so he can't.

Not so with international pipelines, where Congress went stupid and gave just that right to the executive.

3/10/2012 2:40:16 AM

Quote :

"" We can't satisfy our energy needs without OPEC oil, that is 100% totally fucking impossible. ""

Quote :

"Ah, another misinformed individual. How much oil do you think we get from the middle east? Hint: not much. Less than 15%. Saudi Arabia provides about 1 million barrels per day, Iraq provides about a half million, and it drops quickly from there. If we can supplant this 15% with increased domestic and Canadian oil production, suddenly the Pentagon won't view the Red Sea as such a vital part of our national security. OPEC won't have as much leverage to influence global prices. And hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created. And our trade deficit will shrink considerably.""

Ah, another misinformed individual. OPEC is not just Middle East countries.

OPEC Members:
Algeria
Angola
Ecuador
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Libya
Nigeria
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Venezuela

Top US oil imports
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Venezuela
Nigeria
Colombia
Iraq
Ecuador
Angola
Russia
Brazil
Kuwait
Algeria
Chad
Oman


In total, OPEC countries provide about 40% of US oil imports, not "less than 15".
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

And it doesn't matter whether the oil goes overseas or stays here, it will still be priced at world market prices.
An extra 500,000 barrels per day getting sucked out of tar sands, Alaska, shale, or the OCS will not impact world prices.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

We import about 10.5 million barrels per day. 500k (among the most optimistic predictions of what we could increase production by) would account for less than 5% of that.


[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2012 9:35:02 AM

^i'm waiting for you to somehow claim that increasing 500k in supply will ruin the global economy or something

with lots of unrelated charts and figures with no sources.

3/12/2012 11:31:09 AM

Quote :

"^i'm waiting for you to somehow claim that increasing 500k in supply will ruin the global economy or something with lots of unrelated charts and figures with no sources."

Quite the opposite, I've been arguing increasing 500k in supply will have little to no effect on the global economy.

3/12/2012 12:40:20 PM

This is probably your senator.

His vote is "yay". His vote is so yay that he introduced a bill to make it happen that probably takes away some of our constitutional freedom while it's at it.

Oh, 7th most conservative member of the senate. Congrats on being bottom of the class.

3/12/2012 5:17:24 PM

you might see short term relief at the pump due to a loss of speculator optimism.

3/12/2012 5:31:21 PM

Quote :

"In total, OPEC countries provide about 40% of US oil imports, not "less than 15". "

Domestic sources still acount for more of our oil consumption than from any other individual country. 15% is a realistic figure for how much of our consumed oil comes out of the middle east, since Venezuela constitutes a large portion of our OPEC imports. It's still a hefty portion, but it's not nearly the crippling addiction to middle eastern oil that people like to make it out to be.

[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2012 11:42:25 PM

Quote :

"OPEC won't have as much leverage to influence global prices."

OPEC doesn't have that much leverage as things are. It's a paper tiger. International, government-level cartels are notoriously flimsy. Cartelization really doesn't work that well, even -- perhaps especially -- as a means to drive up prices. As prices go up, non-cartel members look for substitutes, cartel members have extra incentive to cheat, competitors increase production, the cartel's market share shrinks. Several other commodity cartels have tried to emulate OPEC and subsequently collapsed. That's because the only reason OPEC looks successful in influential is that it keeps getting propped up by factors outside its control as an organization.

Look at 1973, when a newborn OPEC decided to raise oil prices dramatically. The prices did go up, but it was more likely due to the Yom Kippur War the same year. This event prompted the Arab Oil Embargo, which was not an OPEC affair. After the war, prices dipped. Then they shot back up -- again, not because OPEC did anything, but because Iran got a huge boner for Khomeni and investors panicked. This time, the cartel actually tried to reduce the price shock by increasing production. Then the Iran-Iraq War helped keep prices from sagging too badly until the Gulf War came along, simultaneously providing a short-term boost to prices and removing one of the major OPEC members from production. There are those who think (rightly, in my opinion) that OPEC might have collapsed in the 1990's if we hadn't forcibly removed Iraq from the game.

Then, as prices began to sag again, the damn Chinese and Indians had to go and start making money and buying cars.

Sorry for the words. I wrote about the topic once so it's unfairly easy to refer back to old material.
---

To reiterate what others have said, "foreign oil" is a crock. It's all just "oil." The world price for a barrel of crude is what concerns us here, and that price has little to do with American access to Canadian oil. Even if we didn't import one drop from the Middle East, troubles there would affect our prices here. That region is a major producer. Problems with a major producer affect world supply.

3/13/2012 2:27:02 AM

[Edited on March 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

3/16/2012 7:16:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM&feature=player_embedded

ignoring this dude's tears, still a lot to think about

3/16/2012 7:17:43 PM

A bunch of trees. After we mine the oil the trees will grow back.

I have great respect for the Canadian government, far more than my own, so if they are fine with it then my default position is to be fine with it.

3/17/2012 1:03:02 AM

This isn't going to matter. Gasoline is on its way out.

3/17/2012 3:50:36 AM