Canada's Oil Minister Unmuzzled

New York Times ^ | April 24, 2013 | By JOE NOCERA

[Brad from Tennessee]

---------------SIP---------------------------------------

. . .Perhaps a quick refresher on the benefits of Keystone are in order. First, notwithstanding the development of alternative energy sources, the world is going to continue to need oil; Oliver, quoting the International Energy Agency, says that global energy demand is expected to grow by at least 35 percent over the next 20 years. The notion, pushed by environmentalists, that blocking the oil sands will spur green energy is delusion.

Second, energy independence is a long-sought national goal. We would no longer need OPEC, a cartel of countries with values, in many cases, antithetical to ours. Third, that oil is coming here anyway — by rail and boat, where spills are common, and via pipelines that are older, and hence less safe, than Keystone would be.

And one other thing: Oil mined from the sands is simply not as environmentally disastrous as opponents like to claim. Extraction technology has improved to the point where there is almost no difference, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, between sands oil and old-fashioned oil drilling. The government has insisted that the companies extracting the oil return the land to its original state when the mining is completed. Indeed, for all the hysteria over the environmental consequences of the oil sands, there is oil in California that is actually dirtier than the oil from the sands. . .

[Alaska Wolf]

Let’s build the pipelines and refineries, extract the oil, put people to work, grow the economy and to hell with the muslim robber oil barons.

[Springman]

Ping.

[Ronin]

That would make too much sense.

[DaveA37]

Keystone pipeline finally approved????? Crickets..........

[Elsie]

The notion, pushed by environmentalists, that blocking the oil sands will spur green energy is delusion.

More than that; it's a LIE!

[thackney]

Let’s build the pipelines and refineries

We have multiple pipeline bottlenecks. However, we have more refinery capacity that we can use ourselves. Building additional refineries means exporting more refined products or shutting down refineries that are running today.

[Squawk 8888]

Thanks Springman.

To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.

Canada Ping!

[Brad from Tennessee]

The American environmental movement is partly financed by OPEC.

http://freebeacon.com/environmentalist-movie-funded-by-oil-rich-royalty/

[Alaska Wolf]

Building additional refineries means exporting more refined products

Isn't it about time we start taking in money? The United States has been running consistent trade deficits since 1980 due to high imports of oil and consumer products. In recent years, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

[thackney]

The fuel exports help. But we still import more crude oil than we produce ourselves.

Today we import a more crude oil than we need, refine it to higher value fuel products and export the surplus. It helps narrow the trade deficits but is a long, long way from overcoming them.

We import import near 8 million barrels a day of crude oil. We export about 3 million barrels a day of petroleum products. Some of that export is low grade refinery leftovers like residual oil. Some of it is Natural Gas liquids.

U.S. Crude Oil Imports by Country of Origin
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_m.htm

Petroleum Products Exports by Destination
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EPP0_EEX_mbblpd_m.htm

Petroleum Products Exports (broken down by product)
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm