Conservatives attack proposed U.S. border tax

Conservatives attack proposed U.S. border tax

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1v...08_reuters.jpg

By David Morgan
Reuters April 6, 2017
Comment

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/fM...47e295aee1.jpg
FILE - In this March 30, 2017, photo, House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. After their humiliating loss on health care, Republicans in Congress could use a quick victory on a big issue. It won’t be an overhaul of the tax code. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) More

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative activist groups that generally support Republicans but oppose a pro-export, anti-import Republican tax proposal, released a study on Thursday estimating its impact on individual U.S. states, underscoring the party's division over taxes.

With taxes at the top of Republican priorities, the two groups, backed by the wealthy Koch brothers, reported that seven states won by President Donald Trump in November's election would be among the 10 hardest hit by the proposal.

Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity, both based in the Washington area, said the "border adjustment tax," or BAT, would harm all 50 states, but that those heavily dependent on imports could suffer most.

The report predicted economic harm to Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas - all states Trump won in the 2016 presidential election.

The list of hard-hit states also includes California, New Jersey and Illinois, which were carried by Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The study was sharply criticized by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican who intends to include the BAT in tax reform legislation this spring.

"That so-called study will be easily discredited and probably fits the definition of fake news," Brady told reporters. "It takes one provision, pretends the economy freezes ... applies it in our current tax code and comes up with fantasy figures."

BAT, billed as a way to boost U.S. manufacturing, would exempt export revenues from federal tax, while ending the deductibility of import costs by corporations, making imports for production or resale costlier.

The plan is part of a tax reform blueprint supported by House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan.

Trump is also working on a tax plan.

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have funded both groups behind the study. The Kochs exert strong financial and ideological influence on the Republican Party.

Opposition to BAT from the Kochs and import-dependent industries suggests a rocky road ahead for Trump's stated priority of tax reform.

The proposal is also opposed by a number of Senate Republicans who could prevent its passage, should the House approve a tax reform bill that contains it.

Koch organizations, including the brothers' privately held conglomerate Koch Industries, have warned that BAT could devastate the U.S. economy by raising prices on consumer goods, including gasoline.

Refineries owned by Koch Industries rely on oil imports from Canada.

The Koch groups say they support tax reform but oppose BAT.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ten-u-sta...-business.html

So, some states may be hard hit, in one area. Maybe they will benefit in another area. Maybe if this helps to get the border under control - how much might that help these 'impacted' states.

Personally, I don't think you can put a price on retrieving your country and protecting it's people - that's the impact that is important.

I'm wondering about gasoline prices - how would it make the price of gasoline go up. I mean in a natural way. The price of anything can be manipulated by Wall Street anytime, anyway they see fit. We can be held hostage by them until we scream Uncle and give the lawmakers what the lawmakers wanted in the first place. Not that our voice makes much difference, but it makes it seem we agreed - even if it is by extortion.

LOL!!! Sorry JD2 and Koch Brothers, but it is free trade and the deficits it causes that has already destroyed the US economy,while tariffs and border adjustment taxes correct that inequity that would otherwise continue to cost us our manufacturers, our money supply and our good jobs. Koch Brothers can figure out how to buy some American-produced oil and save their border taxes if they choose. Trump is expanding energy development, has approved 2 new pipelines, includes the Dakota Access Pipeline. There are others in the works, so Koch Brothers should have plenty of American-oil resources for their refineries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nntrixie

. . . I'm wondering about gasoline prices - how would it make the price of gasoline go up. I mean in a natural way.

---

There would be a border tax on all of the oil we import from Canada, Mexico and any other country. We refine that oil into gas and the price of the oil tax is added on to the cost of the gas.

How much petroleum does the United States import and export? - FAQ ...

2 days ago - About 78% of gross petroleum imports were crude oil. ...imports in 2016 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

. . . Koch Brothers can figure out how to buy some American-produced oil and save their border taxes if they choose. Trump is expanding energy development, has approved 2 new pipelines, includes the Dakota Access Pipeline. There are others in the works, so Koch Brothers should have plenty of American-oil resources for their refineries.

---

The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline move Canadian oil which would have to pay the border tax.

Would the Dakota Access Pipeline Help Canadian Oil Producers ...

Jan 27, 2017 - Would the Dakota Access Pipeline Help Canadian Oil Producers? ... to move cheap, sludgy crude from the tar sands plants in Alberta, Canada, ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline move Canadian oil which would have to pay the border tax.

Would the Dakota Access Pipeline Help Canadian Oil Producers ...

Jan 27, 2017 - Would the Dakota Access Pipeline Help Canadian Oil Producers? ... to move cheap, sludgy crude from the tar sands plants in Alberta, Canada, ...

---

The Keystone XL pipeline picks up American oil, too, that is its primary purpose:

Quote:

---

Phase 4
Keystone XL Pipeline
(Phase 4)[26]
Location
From Hardisty, Alberta
Passes through Baker, Montana
To Steele City, Nebraska
General information
Type Crude oil
Contractors WorleyParsons
Construction started Unknown
Expected Unknown
Technical information
Length 1,897 km (1,179 mi)
Diameter 36 in (914 mm)

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline starts from the same area in Alberta, Canada, as the Phase 1 pipeline.[18] The Canadian section would consist of 526 kilometres (327 mi) of new pipeline.[27] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana, and travel through Baker, Montana, where American-produced oil would be added to the pipeline; then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[1] This phase has generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the Sandhills in Nebraska.[28][29][30]

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Phase_4

The Dakota Access Pipeline is All American Oil:

Quote:

---

The Dakota Access Pipeline or Bakken pipeline is a 1,172-mile-long (1,886 km) underground oil pipeline project in the United States. The route begins in the Bakken shale oil fields in northwest North Dakota and travels in a more or less straight line south-east, through South Dakota and Iowa, terminating at the oil tank farm near Patoka, Illinois. The pipeline is currently under construction by Dakota Access, LLC, a Houston, Texas based company and subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. The minor partners involved in the project are Phillips 66, Enbridge, and Marathon Petroleum. The project was planned for delivery by January 1, 2017.[4] On November 26, 2016, the project was reported to be 87% completed.[5]

The $3.78 billion project was announced to the public on June 25, 2014, and informational hearings for landowners took place between August 2014 and January 2015.[6]

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline

The Dakota Access Pipeline has nothing to do with Canada, it's All American and the Keystone XL Pipeline was part of the deal to allow American Oil to enter the Keystone so American producers could benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

There would be a border tax on all of the oil we import from Canada, Mexico and any other country. We refine that oil into gas and the price of the oil tax is added on to the cost of the gas.

---

So, why are we importing oil? We are awash in oil in this country.

A bigger question - why are we exporting gasoline? It would seem to me if you have to export oil in order to make gasoline - then why sell that gasoline, making it necessary to import oil to make more gas -

I don't get that.

Actually, I'm not asking IF we are - I'm asking WHY we are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nntrixie

. . . A bigger question - why are we exporting gasoline? . . .

---

American companies export gasoline because they can make more profit.

U.S. refiners cash in on Mexico's record fuel imports

Let us move on to renewable energy sources even more than we have so far, the jobs are abundant and to hell with the dirty tar sands oil thru our country with all the spill risks, eminent domains involved.

This is the 21st century, stock holders progress your portfolios to renewable, clean sources. Cutie justin trudeau apparently has the brain of a hockey puck - to destroy the most unique forests on this entire planet, the Boreal forest, and its eco-system for corporate profits. He still allows for baby seals to be batted to the head till death to take their skins even though outlawed to buy almost everywhere.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Quote:

---

The Keystone XL pipeline picks up American oil, too, that is its primary purpose:

---

Wrong! The Keystone XL pipelines primary purpose is to create a conduit to market petroleum extracted from the Alberta oil sands.

WOULD THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE HELP CANADIAN OIL PRODUCERS?

The big winner from Trump's energy policy could be Canada's dirty oil industry.

http://sightline.wpengine.netdna-cdn...c.-772x279.jpg

The Dakota Access Pipeline (under construction) by Lars Plougmann used under CC BY-SA 2.0

Author: Clark Williams-Derry
(@ClarkWDerry) on January 27, 2017 at 6:30 am

This article is part of the series Northwest Coal & Oil Exports

As you may have heard, the Trump administration recently signed orders designed to pave the way for two controversial oil pipelines, Dakota Access (DAPL) and Keystone XL. Surprisingly, though, the main beneficiaries of this move may be Canadian, not American.

This seems clear enough the case for the Keystone XL pipeline, which was explicitly designed to move cheap, sludgy crude from the tar sands plants in Alberta, Canada, into the US market. It may seem surprising, though, that DAPL—which connects North Dakota oil fields to an oil distribution hub near Chicago—would benefit Canadian oil producers. Yet a close look at the numbers suggests that much of DAPL’s capacity could be used to move Canadian oil into the US market.

That’s because:

• After DAPL, the Bakken will have more pipeline than it has oil. The entire Bakken region currently produces a little less than 1 million barrels of oil per day, and that number could actually fall during 2017. The North Dakota Pipeline Authority estimates that the Bakken’s existing pipelines and refineries currently can handle 851,000 barrels per day (bpd) of that oil. If completed, DAPL would add 470,000 bpd of new pipeline capacity, leaving the region with a total of 1.321 million bpd of total “takeaway” capacity—meaning that Bakken pipelines and refineries could have more than 300,000 bpd of spare, unused capacity if DAPL is completed.

• Some oil-by-rail shippers probably won’t switch to DAPL. Barrel for barrel, shipping oil in railroad cars costs significantly more than shipping it by pipeline, so Bakken oil producers who currently ship their oil in rail cars may be particularly eager to switch over to DAPL. But oil-by-rail shipments have collapsed over the past two years: after peaking at more than 800,000 bpd at the end of 2014, Bakken oil-by-rail shipments fell to only about 330,000 bpd as of last November.
• And it looks likely that much of this remaining oil will stay on the rails. RBN Energy (subscription required) finds that Bakken producers have significant contractual commitments to ship oil by rail to Puget Sound oil refineries, and cannot easily back out of those obligations. A separate RBN Energy analysis (sorry, subscription again) finds that Puget Sound refiners make more money from refining Bakken oil than they do from refining Alaska oil—suggesting that they’ll continue to buy oil-by-rail shipments even if DAPL comes online. In the fourth quarter of 2016, Washington state refineries took in about 151,000 bpd from rail cars originating in the Bakken. If that holds up, Bakken producers would be able to shift only about 180,000 bpd from rail to DAPL—just 38 percent of the pipeline’s capacity.

• Existing pipeline shippers won’t switch to DAPL either. Oil producers in the portion of the Bakken that’s south of the Missouri River already have access to oil pipelines. Shifting from existing pipelines to DAPL doesn’t improve the economics much, if at all. Worse, switching pipelines could expose oil producers to some significant penalties under their existing pipeline contracts.

In short, if DAPL is built, the Bakken region will have a lot more pipeline capacity than it will have oil to fill it.

So who will wind up filling the pipeline with oil? As it turns out, the most likely customers are companies operating in the Alberta tar sands, which is some of the most polluting oil on the planet because of its high carbon intensity. This sludgy, hard-to-transport oil currently sells at a $15-per-barrel discount to lighter, “sweeter” crudes in major US distribution hubs—which could make it profitable to ship tar sands oil by rail to North Dakota, and then feed it into DAPL.
At this point, the potential for Canadian producers to ship oil via DAPL remains speculative. But if this thesis holds, it will be Canadian producers, not American oil companies, who win big from both DAPL and Keystone XL. And the resulting flood of Canadian crude in US markets could actually undermine the profitability of US oil producers—which would be a paradoxical result from an allegedly “America first” administration.

http://www.sightline.org/2017/01/27/...oil-producers/

U.S. Eases 40-Year Crude Export Ban by Allowing Mexico Swap

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Who Benefits?

By Rep. Alan Grayson, Reader Supported News
28 February 14

​The Keystone XL Pipeline: Who Benefits?

By Rep. Alan Grayson, Reader Supported News
28 February 14

http://readersupportednews.org/image...abet/rsn-F.jpgorty-one years ago, when I used to get up at 5 a.m. to get on gas station lines with my parents, I started hearing about "energy independence" -- a secure source of supply for our energy needs.

Today, energy independence soon will be a reality.

For China. Thanks to the Keystone XL pipeline.

Q. Cui bono? ("Who benefits?") A. China.

The Chinese economy consists of taking raw materials and energy, making that into stuff, and then selling that stuff -- a/k/a "manufacturing." Chinese leaders understand that in order for that model to work, China needs steady supplies of raw materials and energy. By how do you get a steady supply of energy, in a world where those supplies are dominated by a cartel, and are concentrated in a part of the world prone to war? In America, we've been trying to puzzle that out for four decades, without success.

Well, the Chinese have figured it out. They're going to get their energy from Canada, a stable country, and pass it through the United States, another stable country. They will pay the Canadians the world price for oil. They will pay us nothing, or next to nothing. So Uncle Sam is Uncle Sucker.

And not for the first time. For the past decade, China has pursued an utterly unscrupulous and incredibly successful strategy in "trade" with the United States. China has been importing from the United States roughly $50 billion in goods each year, much of it food, raw materials and energy. China has been exporting to the United States roughly $350 billion in goods each year, mostly manufactured goods. And China has been buying roughly $300 billion in U.S. assets each year, mostly U.S. Treasuries. So we buy their stuff, putting their people to work. And they buy our assets, driving us deeper and deeper into debt. America loses -- twice.

Now China has peeled off a tiny portion of that trade surplus, just $30 billion, and audaciously is trying to parlay that into permanent energy independence. China has put that money into Canadian tar sands.

Canadian tar sands are easily one of the dirtiest energy sources on Planet Earth. Does China care? No. As Deng Xiaoping used to say, "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." China's leaders are so indifferent to environmental concerns that they have no problem with 8-year-olds in Beijing contracting lung cancer from pollution -- but they get upset when the U.S. Embassy in Beijing puts an air quality monitor on the roof, and posts the readings on the internet. Canadian tar sands are a very, very black cat, but China's leaders care only about catching mice.

Chinese leaders have seized key elements of the world industrial supply chain, like rare earths. According to our government, they engage in pervasive industrial espionage. They have threatened American companies like Apple, Google and Walmart. In short, they know how to play the game.

All of the oil that passes through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has to be sold in the United States. Why not the same rule for the Keystone XL Pipeline? But instead, we allow a tax-free zone, to facilitate Chinese energy independence at the expense of our own. Why does Uncle Sam have to be Uncle Sucker?

There are plenty of reasons to be against the Keystone XL pipeline. Environmentalists recognize it as the ultimate "bonfire of the vanities" -- planet-wide carbon bonfires. The pipeline passes through an active earthquake zone. One bad spill could permanently poison the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water to millions of people, and 30 percent of our irrigation.

Here is another reason, perhaps the best reason of all: It doesn't do us any good. China, yes. The Koch Brothers (who own the refining capacity that would be used), yes. Us, no.

When are we finally going to have a government with the courage to ask that simple question: Does it do us any good? Cui bono?

Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/22313-focus-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-who-benefits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote (excerpt):



Wrong! The Keystone XL pipelines primary purpose is to create a conduit to market petroleum extracted from the Alberta oil sands.

---

That is the purpose of the main Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone XL is to pick up American Oil.

Most of Canadian petroleum production is exported, approximately 482,525 cubic metres per day (3 Mbbl/d) in 2015, with almost all of the exports going to the United States. Canada is by far the largest single source of oil imports to the United States, providing 43% of US crude oil imports in 2015.

Petroleum industry in Canada - Wikipedia

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia

The Keystone Pipeline System is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States, commissioned in 2010 and now owned solely by TransCanada Corporation.

‎TransCanada · ‎List of oil pipelines · ‎Bill McKibben · ‎Sandhills


Keystone Pipeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keystone Pipeline System (Operational and Proposed)[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...line-route.pngKeystone Pipeline Route
Location
Country	Canada United States
General information
Type	Crude oil
Owner	TransCanada

The Keystone Pipeline System is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States, commissioned in 2010 and now owned solely by TransCanada Corporation. It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Texas, and also to oil tank farms and an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.^[2] The pipeline came to a greater prominence of attention when a planned fourth phase, Keystone XL, attracting growing environmental protest, became a symbol of the battle over climate change and fossil fuels, and in 2015 was rejected by then President Barack Obama. On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion.
Three phases of the project are in operation. They are:

• The Keystone Pipeline (Phase I), delivering oil from Hardisty, Alberta, over 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) to the junction at Steele City, Nebraska, and on to Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois, and Patoka Oil Terminal Hub (tank farm) north of Patoka, Illinois, completed in June 2010.^[3]
• The Keystone-Cushing extension (Phase II), running 468 kilometres (291 mi) from Steele City to storage and distribution facilities (tank farm) at Cushing, Oklahoma,^[4] completed in February 2011.^[5]
• The Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III), running 784 kilometres (487 mi) from Cushing to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas was completed in January 2014,^[6][7] and a lateral pipeline to refineries at Houston, Texas and a terminal will be completed mid-2016, going online the following year.^[8]

The proposed Keystone XL (sometimes abbreviated KXL, with XL standing for "export limited"^[9]) Pipeline (Phase IV) would essentially duplicate (though along a shorter route and with a larger-diameter pipe) the Phase I pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska.^[10] It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added^[2] to the Keystone's throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada. After more than six years of review, President Barack Obama announced on November 6, 2015, his administration's rejection of the fourth phase. On January 24, 2017, President Trump, signed presidential memoranda to revive both Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. The memorandum is designed to expedite the environmental review process.^[11]
The first two phases have the capacity to deliver up to 590,000 barrels per day (94,000 m³/d) of oil into the Mid-West refineries.^[4] Phase III has capacity to deliver up to 700,000 barrels per day (110,000 m³/d) to the Texas refineries.^[12] By comparison, U.S. oil production averaged 9,400,000 barrels per day (1,490,000 m³/d) in first-half 2015, with gross exports of 500,000 barrels per day (79,000 m³/d) through July 2015.^[13]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Quote:

---

It (Keystone XL) would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added[2] to the Keystone's throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada

---

JD2, You forgot to bold and highlight the second sentence of your post about the Keystone XL that says the Keystone XL picks up American-produced light crude oil from the Wiliston Basin in Montana and North Dakota. So I did it for you.

You and MW know that both pipelines, the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline have been approved by President Trump, right? They're done deals, construction to finish the pipelines underway now. Should be coming on line very soon.

I still don't understand WHY we are importing oil?

The recent research shows there's more oil under the Permian Basin than we ever thought possible.

Unless everything has deteriorated, there should be pipelines, refinery facilities, etc., already in place.

Of course, Wall Street makes it's money the easiest way it can and if it is more profitable for them to purchase oil elsewhere, refine in America, that's what they will do.

If it is more profitable for them to sell the US out to China, that's what they will do.

That's what their politician lackeys will do.

Is Canadian Oil Bound for China Via Pipeline to Texas?

David LaGesse, For National Geographic News

PUBLISHED AUGUST 20, 2011


The proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would ship oil from Northwest Canada south through Mid-America to the Texas Gulf Coast has drawn sharp opposition from environmentalists worried about Canadian forests, greenhouse gases, and potential leaks.

But one line of attack is more about economics and geopolitics than land and water. And it strikes at pipeline proponents' central argument that Keystone XL would buttress U.S. energy security. Opponents contend instead that the pipeline's petroleum could largely bypass the American markets and be shipped to Asia.

"This is all about taking the oil that's coming into the Midwest and moving it down to the Gulf Coast, where they have access to China and other markets," the National Wildlife Federation's Jeremy Symons told Congress this summer.

Spurred by the provocative analysis of a prominent energy economist, Philip Verleger, the argument joins the already contentious debate over the Keystone XL pipeline. The 1,700-mile, $7 billion project has stalled awaiting approval of the U.S. State Department, which must approve any pipeline built across the U.S. border.

(Related: "The Keystone XL Pipeline: A Tar Sands Folly?" and "Yellowstone Spill Shadows Efforts on the Keystone XL")

The project would provide a much-needed outlet for booming oil production from the tar, or oil, sands of Alberta in Northwest Canada. Output from the sticky sands has jumped amid higher fuel prices and new technology. Now producers need new routes for getting the oil from their mines and wells to customers.

Moving Oil From Alberta

The path closest to opening is the Keystone XL. But environmentalists have come together to oppose its construction, and this Saturday plan a sit-in at the White House, saying it could be the "largest collective act of civil disobedience in the history of the climate movement." Already, the State Department has delayed issuing a permit several times. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a decision by year's end.

(Related: "A Quest To Clean Up Canada's Oil Sands Carbon")

Keystone backers argue the pipeline will help secure U.S. energy supplies by enabling another 700,000 barrels a day to come from Canada, and later as much as 830,000 barrels. That would amount to about 7 percent of U.S. imports from what's considered a friendlier and more dependable partner than sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Canada already is the single biggest source of U.S. petroleum, supplying more than 20 percent of U.S. imports in 2010.

And the United States is essentially Canada's only foreign customer.

But lurking in the background are eager buyers in Asia, particularly Chinese importers who want to use Canadian oil to feed their fast-growing market.

(Related: "China's Electric Car Drive: Impressive, But Not Enough, Says Report")

Chinese investors have helped to finance early work on an alternate route out of Alberta. That pipeline would take the oil west across the Canadian Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, where tankers could ship it to Asia. But the project so far appears a pipe dream because of steep opposition from Canadian environmentalists and native Indian nations that control parts of the route through British Columbia.

(Related Photos: "Canadian Rain Forest Edges Oil Pipeline Path")

Still, Keystone XL backers have warned that China could get Canada's oil if their pipeline to the United States were blocked.

So predicting the Chinese getting the oil anyway, even if the Keystone XL were built, is lobbing an explosive argument into the debate. But Verleger, an independent economist who in the past served as an energy policy adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers, is known for his sometimes contrarian views. He argued, for instance, that President George W. Bush was inflating oil prices with his aggressive policy to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and he wrote recently about the folly of four decades of U.S. political rhetoric on the need to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Once again, Verleger is arguing that the United States cannot escape the reality of living in a global oil market. Getting Canadian oil to the Texas Gulf Coast would put it onto ships bound for Asia, he predicted. He calls it a "Tar Sands Road to China," a play on the famous Silk Road that moved Asian goods to Western markets for 3,000 years. Although it's a long, tortuous route to ship oil through the Gulf of Mexico and around Africa's Cape of Good Hope or South America's Cape Horn, economics will favor this journey to the Far East, he contends. The bottom line for Verleger is that refineries on the Gulf Coast have long-term commitments to buy oil from current suppliers—including Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico. Those nations don't want to cede market share to Canada. All three have ownership in Texas refineries, and they can also match any discount that comes with the Canadian crude. "There will be too much oil, it's got to go somewhere, and it's going to China," Verleger says.

(Related: "Driving the Limit: Wealthy Nations Maxed Out on Travel?")

He also dismisses any notion that the U.S. would gain added security by importing more oil from its friendly neighbor to the north. Besides being a Colorado-based consultant to the oil industry, Verleger teaches at the University of Calgary in Alberta—but says that warm feelings toward Canada must be tempered by economics.

For one, he points to a study done for TransCanada, the builder of Keystone XL, which predicts the pipeline would enable Canadian producers to boost the price of their crude.

The oil would bypass refineries in the Midwest that are now getting their oil at a discount because of new sources in Canada and elsewhere. Shipping the oil sands crude to the Gulf Coast would reduce the oversupply in the Midwest and boost Canadian income by as much as $4 billion, TransCanada told Canadian regulators.

Verleger disagrees the scheme would work to raise prices. But he says it would provide evidence that Canadian producers act in their interests, not those of the United States. "As far as I'm concerned, Saudi Arabia is more of a friend than Canada."

At least, as he pointed out in a report to his clients on the Keystone XL plan, Saudi Arabia has compelling political reasons to maintain a strong relationship with the United States, and it does so by maintaining its status as a major oil supplier.

North American Ties

Other analysts value the broad U.S. ties with Canada, whose own fate is dependent on a healthy U.S. economy. U.S companies, as an example, are deeply involved in the oil sands production itself, accounting for nearly a third, says Jackie Forrester, a leading researcher on oil sands at IHS CERA, the former Cambridge Energy Research Associates still headed by economic researcher and Pulitzer Prize-winning oil historian Daniel Yergin.

Besides, when considering the surety of supply, putting oil into pipelines is safer than shipping it across the seas, Forrester says.

She co-wrote a recent IHS CERA report that argued the new Keystone pipeline could help cut gasoline prices in the United States, simply because more supply should lower oil prices. Canada's tar sands, as well, produce heavy crude that requires more sophisticated refineries, which makes it a good fit for recently upgraded facilities on the Gulf Coast. "That oil will be consumed in the United States—or at least enter the refining market there," she says.

Exports from Gulf Coast refineries are up in recent years as the plants take advantage of supply disruptions in Latin America and Europe. But they still account for only about 10 percent of the region's refined products, Forrester says, adding that Canadian oil won't change that dynamic.

But Verleger points out that only a few companies control the Gulf Coast refining capacity that might be available to the Canadian oil. The refiners are encouraging the pipeline, but the point is to bring more supply to the market to keep Gulf Coast crude prices low—significantly lower, in fact, than the global price of oil. It would give the refiners an unprecedented ability to buy low and sell high. The Keystone XL pipeline, Verleger argues, could transform the U.S. Gulf Coast into the most profitable refining center in the world.

To avoid being pushed out of the U.S. market, Verleger suggests that the Canadian producers should buy their own Gulf Coast refineries or otherwise lock up capacity for their crude—as foreign rivals Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico all have done.

"Failing that," Verleger writes, "they will need to brush up on their Chinese."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hinese-market/

Quote:

---

She co-wrote a recent IHS CERA report that argued the new Keystone pipeline could help cut gasoline prices in the United States, simply because more supply should lower oil prices. Canada's tar sands, as well, produce heavy crude that requires more sophisticated refineries, which makes it a good fit for recently upgraded facilities on the Gulf Coast. "That oil will be consumed in the United States—or at least enter the refining market there," she says.

Exports from Gulf Coast refineries are up in recent years as the plants take advantage of supply disruptions in Latin America and Europe. But they still account for only about 10 percent of the region's refined products, Forrester says, adding that Canadian oil won't change that dynamic.

But Verleger points out that only a few companies control the Gulf Coast refining capacity that might be available to the Canadian oil. The refiners are encouraging the pipeline, but the point is to bring more supply to the market to keep Gulf Coast crude prices low—significantly lower, in fact, than the global price of oil. It would give the refiners an unprecedented ability to buy low and sell high. The Keystone XL pipeline, Verleger argues, could transform the U.S. Gulf Coast into the most profitable refining center in the world.

To avoid being pushed out of the U.S. market, Verleger suggests that the Canadian producers should buy their own Gulf Coast refineries or otherwise lock up capacity for their crude—as foreign rivals Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico all have done.

---

The pipelines are a good thing all the way around. They get our crude to the refineries and to our US market as well as export markets. It's all good.

I heard that Texas environmentalists sue Houston-area refinery over pollution.
Two Texas environmental groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday under the U.S. Clean Air Act alleging repeated pollution violations.

JD2, why don't you post the whole article like everyone else and like you're supposed to do? All you do is force viewers interested in the article to have to load the article to read it and give free clicks to other organizations. You been told by moderators to stop posting just the link and instead post the whole article with the link, I sure wish you would abide the requests and follow the rules. Thank you.

The only large new U.S. oil refinery in 40 years will export fuel to MEXICO

China Firm Buys Texas Oilfields For $1.3 Billion

China Just Became The No.1 Buyer Of U.S. Crude Oil

This doesn't sound good.

It is mind boggling how much of the energy industry in this country already belongs to foreigners.

It makes one wonder the benefit to the American people of all the support for the oil industry.

Are WE benefiting from it, or is Wall Street and foreigners benefiting?

Colonialism -

That's because we're broke. Until Americans can understand that, we're in a real pickle of a situation. That's why we need to support Trump and let him try to fix this mess the best way he can even when we sometimes may not understand some of the steps he takes along the way in the long game he's trying to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

JD2, why don't you post the whole article like everyone else and like you're supposed to do? All you do is force viewers interested in the article to have to load the article to read it and give free clicks to other organizations. You been told by moderators to stop posting just the link and instead post the whole article with the link, I sure wish you would abide the requests and follow the rules. Thank you.

---

Actually, all the articles copied and pasted by JD2 here at ALIPAC are kind of a nuisance. They take a lot of bandwidth and storage at the BBS and I think it forces the admins to drop a lot of archival material that might be valuable later. Posting links is plenty and really, sometimes the heading of the news items is all we really need to see.

Many thanks to JD2 for your hard work.

Other posters who want to comment directly on the article are encouraged to copy and paste quotes from the original site. Also remember that the original site loses hits when people don't go to it and only have to read the article at this site.

If you feel the need to copy and paste the whole article from a site, paste the thing "as text" instead of including everything like images and formatted text. This reduces storage and bandwidth. Always include the link to the original article too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pkskyali

. . . sometimes the heading of the news items is all we really need to see . . .

---

I agree. :cool:

I think JD2's links are actually links to articles he's already posted on ALIPAC. I didn't realize that. Sorry, JD2. I clicked on one though somewhere and I waited and waited for the link to connect, got frustrated with that, assumed they were all the same, and that's why I wrote my post because it's always been my understanding here that we're supposed to copy and paste the entire article as part of ALIPAC's rules. I know when I just post the link, I get a PM to post the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

That's because we're broke. Until Americans can understand that, we're in a real pickle of a situation. That's why we need to support Trump and let him try to fix this mess the best way he can even when we sometimes may not understand some of the steps he takes along the way in the long game he's trying to win.

---

I understand we are broke, but I'm not sure selling off our resources and destroying our environment is the way to fix our 'broke'.

We are 'broke' in more ways than money in this country.

Also, I remember when we got involved in wars in the ME, sold war material to other countries and the reasons given were that we were being held hostage by the oil producing countries there and we simply had to keep the supply line open.

All the while, we had more oil under this country than was ever thought about in the ME.

How many Americans lost their lives to protect 'that supply line', and now we know it was just another of the many lies of our government?

Why they were talking 'peak' oil just a decade ago. Americans have short memories.

Quote:

---

I understand we are broke, but I'm not sure selling off our resources and destroying our environment is the way to fix our 'broke'.

---

That isn't why they sell. They sell for business reasons, because shareholders want the gain. Usually officers and Boards of Directors are helpless to stop it. Look at Anheuser-Busch. They couldn't stop the sale of their company to the Belgians.

Profit yes - the reason for any enterprise - legal or not.

In a book I read some years ago warned of the growing threat of corporations and their power. The idea was that only a relatively small group of corporations would essentially control the world's goods and the world's people. They would be their own fiefdoms and countries/borders didn't matter. People or workers would simply be commodities.

They would have their own mercenary armies - giving allegiance to the one willing to pay well - much like the dark ages.

The punch line was - "Don't be surprised when Coca-Cola demands a seat at the UN."

We are coming close now and while corporations may already have their mercenaries and I think they do where they are raping and pillaging poorer countries. In this country, their 'mercenaries' are our lawmakers - who give their allegiance to the ones who pay the most. I fear in many instances their 'mercenaries' are our very own American soldiers who are dying for their profits.

Yes, those are the Oligarchs behind Globalism. They want to control the entire World's Food and Water Supply, too. Think "feudal lords" and serfdom for the masses and that's what best describes these monsters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

American companies export gasoline because they can make more profit.

U.S. refiners cash in on Mexico's record fuel imports

---

Dumb question - wasn't it.

What I mean was why are we 'importing' oil simply to make gasoline, to import it, when we have lot so of oil of our own.

Now I realize many people think if we mention the sacred 'profit', anything goes - and apparently it does - but it should not.

This country should not have it's air, water and soil polluted by pipelines running all over it in order to import foreign dirty oil, refineries destroying the atmosphere to refine that foreign oil. That, in and of itself is bad enough. The real insult to injury is that Americans have had their land taken by force, so these pipelines, and facilities can be built. They must live with the constant threat of contamination.

Profit is not a bad word - but it depends on just how that profit is made and profit does not just mean dollars and cents. There are a lot of other things involved when you speak of profit. If the costs of polluting our country were factored into the profits, how much would they be? Well, we don't do that, because right now those making the profits aren't really affected by the pollution. Some don't care,some don't live here, some have their hidey-holes already bought for when this place becomes to nasty to sustain life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist

Let us move on to renewable energy sources even more than we have so far, the jobs are abundant and to hell with the dirty tar sands oil thru our country with all the spill risks, eminent domains involved.

This is the 21st century, stock holders progress your portfolios to renewable, clean sources. Cutie justin trudeau apparently has the brain of a hockey puck - to destroy the most unique forests on this entire planet, the Boreal forest, and its eco-system for corporate profits. He still allows for baby seals to be batted to the head till death to take their skins even though outlawed to buy almost everywhere.

---

Yes, well, but right now, there is too much money to be made from fossil fuels. I mean the traders can buy and sell them three times a day, making a profit each time. After all, Americans have to have their gas, the American government subsidizes enough families that helps, plus think of the gas the government buys. That leaves the working class people - well, they can just cut back on the grocery spending.

Besides we still have to pretend we have an interest in the ME. We need reasons to continue fighting those 'little wars',that bring so much profit to so many.

It would be feasiable in most parts of this country for individuals to have solar panels. In the Southwest, it's laughable we don't. The initial cost is prohibitive for many.

But think about it,if all those households were making their own power, all the 'profit' wouldn't be made. Also, do energy companies still have to 'buy back' the excess energy created by home systems? I believe they do. That would have to hurt if an appreciable amount of people generated their own and rather than paying every month, got money or a credit.

A while back, there was a story China was going to start exporting solar and alternative energy systems. While I'm not a fan of China, I'm not a fan of our corporations and politicians that behave more like mobsters.

Wonder what would happen if China tried to export these to the US and at a price people could afford? I wonder if they already have tried.