Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted: Mon 16 Nov 2015, 21:07:43
Syn - You re correct to the degree that US oil exports to Canada are not granted on a case by case basis. The are allowed by a permit granted in 1985 that is still in effect:
"The Obama administration is allowing U.S. companies to sell some oil to Mexico, by approving several transactions that exploit the bounds of a longstanding crude export ban. The discrete, case-by-case approvals — already permitted under current law — do not signal a wholesale dismantling of the decades-old ban on most crude exports is imminent, either at the White House or on Capitol Hill. This is a win for Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have lobbied the administration to approve oil sales to Pemex, the Mexican oil company.
Under the deals approved by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, some light U.S. oil can be swapped for similar quantities of heavier, lower-quality Mexican crude that is a better fit for many Gulf Coast refineries. The action falls short of a broad affirmation that all oil exports to Mexico are in the national interest — similar to the declaration that has allowed licensed U.S. companies to sell crude to Canada without transaction-level approvals since 1985. Separately, the bureau denied applications to exchange U.S. oil for crude or petroleum products from several other countries, a senior administration official said. Existing trade law sets a lower bar for swaps with adjacent nations."
But note: the EIA shows no oil exports to Canada prior to the early 90's:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHa ... REXCA1&f=M
But in those early days the exports were less then 1 mm bbls/yr. Sometimes much less. Compare that to the current 120 mm/yr. And let's not forget President Obama could cancel that rule by executive order...a move he has used on issues less important the climate change. Also note above his move to swap our light oil for heavier and "dirtier" oil from Mexico.
But why should anyone expect him to do so given his long standing support of importing oil sands production. From over 3 years ago:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/southern-le ... bama-says/
"Mr. Obama's stop in Cushing was part of a four-state, two-day tour in which the president touted his energy policies. Standing next to the giant TransCanada pipes that will make up the Southern leg of the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Obama sought to remind voters that he's not opposed to domestic oil drilling. In fact, "we're drilling all over the place right now," the president said, citing his administration's directive to open up millions of acres for oil and gas exploration in 23 states. Under his watch, Mr. Obama said, the number of operating oil rigs has reached a record high, he said, and the U.S. has added enough new oil and gas pipeline to "circle the Earth and then some."
Obama: I'm cutting through red tape on Keystone pipeline
The Southern leg of the Keystone pipeline should be a priority, he said, to free up the "bottleneck" of oil heading to refineries. "If we could, it would help us increase our oil supplies at a time where we need as much as possible," he said. Cushing is a major trading hub for crude oil, but the industry says a bottleneck in pipeline there has backed up its use. TransCanada Corporation plans to lay pipe through Cushing as part of its Keystone project. The Keystone pipeline is ultimately planned to link the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to oil refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast."
But back to my main point: President Obama has done more then any other individual to support the production of the Canadian oil sands: he supported removing the choke point at Cushing and continues to allow exporting US condensate that enables Canada to ship 60% of their "dirtiest oil on the planet" to the US. And not just allowing but overseeing a 1,000% increase during his term. And most of that while he was promoting a stronger response to climate change.
Can you point to any greater hypocrisy by any other US politicians?
"The Obama administration is allowing U.S. companies to sell some oil to Mexico, by approving several transactions that exploit the bounds of a longstanding crude export ban. The discrete, case-by-case approvals — already permitted under current law — do not signal a wholesale dismantling of the decades-old ban on most crude exports is imminent, either at the White House or on Capitol Hill. This is a win for Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have lobbied the administration to approve oil sales to Pemex, the Mexican oil company.
Under the deals approved by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, some light U.S. oil can be swapped for similar quantities of heavier, lower-quality Mexican crude that is a better fit for many Gulf Coast refineries. The action falls short of a broad affirmation that all oil exports to Mexico are in the national interest — similar to the declaration that has allowed licensed U.S. companies to sell crude to Canada without transaction-level approvals since 1985. Separately, the bureau denied applications to exchange U.S. oil for crude or petroleum products from several other countries, a senior administration official said. Existing trade law sets a lower bar for swaps with adjacent nations."
But note: the EIA shows no oil exports to Canada prior to the early 90's:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHa ... REXCA1&f=M
But in those early days the exports were less then 1 mm bbls/yr. Sometimes much less. Compare that to the current 120 mm/yr. And let's not forget President Obama could cancel that rule by executive order...a move he has used on issues less important the climate change. Also note above his move to swap our light oil for heavier and "dirtier" oil from Mexico.
But why should anyone expect him to do so given his long standing support of importing oil sands production. From over 3 years ago:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/southern-le ... bama-says/
"Mr. Obama's stop in Cushing was part of a four-state, two-day tour in which the president touted his energy policies. Standing next to the giant TransCanada pipes that will make up the Southern leg of the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Obama sought to remind voters that he's not opposed to domestic oil drilling. In fact, "we're drilling all over the place right now," the president said, citing his administration's directive to open up millions of acres for oil and gas exploration in 23 states. Under his watch, Mr. Obama said, the number of operating oil rigs has reached a record high, he said, and the U.S. has added enough new oil and gas pipeline to "circle the Earth and then some."
Obama: I'm cutting through red tape on Keystone pipeline
The Southern leg of the Keystone pipeline should be a priority, he said, to free up the "bottleneck" of oil heading to refineries. "If we could, it would help us increase our oil supplies at a time where we need as much as possible," he said. Cushing is a major trading hub for crude oil, but the industry says a bottleneck in pipeline there has backed up its use. TransCanada Corporation plans to lay pipe through Cushing as part of its Keystone project. The Keystone pipeline is ultimately planned to link the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to oil refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast."
But back to my main point: President Obama has done more then any other individual to support the production of the Canadian oil sands: he supported removing the choke point at Cushing and continues to allow exporting US condensate that enables Canada to ship 60% of their "dirtiest oil on the planet" to the US. And not just allowing but overseeing a 1,000% increase during his term. And most of that while he was promoting a stronger response to climate change.
Can you point to any greater hypocrisy by any other US politicians?