Energy chief: Industry arguments for exporting US oil are unconvincing
Source: Fuel Fix
The oil industry hasnt made a convincing argument that the U.S. should lift its 39-year-old ban on exporting American crude, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Wednesday.
I dont think the industry has done a very good job of clearly and concisely stating the case for exports, Moniz said.
Speaking directly to oil industry leaders at the IHS CERAWeek conference in Houston, Moniz challenged them to do a much better job talking about the drivers for exports and the potential implications of selling more American crude overseas.
Thats especially important given that the clamor to export U.S. crude is coming even as the nation continues importing about 5 million barrels of oil daily, Moniz said.
<snip>
Read more: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/03/05/us-energy-chief-not-convinced-on-oil-exports/
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It's disappointing to listen to Ed Schultz and Schweitzer pushing this short sighted scheme for jobs that will only be temporary and damage that may be permanent.
They are doing everything they can to wreck the economy and corrupt state governments so that the Koches can double their net worth.
The Koches have spent too much money to hurt people and destroy the government, they don't need any more.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)"Mr. President, say no to this project," Schultz said. "I turn this night on this program, I was wrong, but after researching both sides and listening to all the experts, I dont think America needs to take this risk."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024613923
freshwest
(53,661 posts)brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Last I checked it was closer to 8M barrels, and that wasn't long ago, cause I watch this stuff pretty closely. We only very recently dipped under importing < 1/2 of the oil we consume here daily in the USA, and I know we aren't down to 10M b/d total consumption. So I've no idea where this 5M b/d number comes from & I think it's way off.
As a sidenote, Ed's argument seems to be that this oil is coming out of the ground regardless (probably true) and that as it stands now, the carbon footprint from this oil is larger than it would be w/a pipeline since it's now being carried by rail and truck (almost certainly true if the first assertion is true).
Personally I oppose the pipeline mostly (not entirely, but mostly) on the grounds that it DECREASES the US energy security situation, and will only RAISE US oil prices if allowed to proceed. This oil is basically land-locked now, and we are only ones who can buy it at a reasonable price due to transit costs. Building the KXL will only benefit Transworld, by allowing their N. American oil to be sold on the world market, and hence this pipeline would in NO WAY benefit the USA.
Personally, I think that particular reality is Obama's 'best argument' for saying 'no' in terms of 'selling it' to the largest % of the American People. But of course he can't, because it'll piss off Canada (esp. their RW Prime Minister). So he has no other choice but to hide behind the US Environmentalists, if he's going to reject it.
But I doubt he will, sadly.
And what's going to be REALLY pathetic is that as SOON as he approves it, the Right Wing (that he seems so desperate to please) will turn around, and proclaim that the reality is EVERYTHING I JUST SAID ABOVE.
IOW, after years and years of acting like they want the pipeline, as soon as Obama says 'OK', they'll completely change their story and start talking about how it's actually bad for America for the reasons I just mentioned. Don't believe me? YOU WATCH IT F*CKING HAPPEN.
Obama is about to walk into one of the most obvious traps ever laid down. And the only way I'll buy that he's playing the 3-D Chess he's so famous for in this case ... is if TW is going to be contributing MASSIVELY to Democrats come November.