Fox Business' Claman: "Even The Transcanada People Say [Keystone XL] Would Only Shave 3 Or 4 Pennies Off The Price" Of Gas
February 27, 2012 9:43 am ET
From the February 27 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.


















Doocy looks like his world has come down around him. And Kiljoy looks as clueless as ever.
Well, it is west of New York.
It is some stinkin furen country.
WTF does that mean, Brian?
Dooce indeed has the look of, "OMG, she shot all the hostages!! Are we supposed to say anything? Brian, Mommy, anyone?"
In Dimock PA, because of fracking, the tap water actually will light on fire. Of course, our governor, Tom Corbet (R-Drillers) doesn't see a problem, and stopped the EPA from trucking in drinking water.
OTOH... reign in all the stupid speculation, address some of teh currency fulcation issues and attenuate demand by investing in electric car infrastructure and solar energy? And you just might keep it ~$3 indefinitely, with most of us not needing to buy much of it anyway!
------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
Thanks
Of the course, the question is:
(a) Where will the savings will happen? Whatever is produced in the Gulf Coast refineries from the TransCanada tar sludge oil will be subject to the open market.
(b) When will it happen? TransCanada's estimate is that it will take 2 years to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Add to that the time required to first refine the tar oil in Canada so that it can flow through the pipleine and the time to further refine it into distillates in the U.S. plants in La. and Texas.
Plus consider this. Even if the Alberta sand gunk is available for gasoline production in two years, President Willard will have already declared war on, defeated, and occupied Iranistan. Ergo we will then have all the gasoline we need without having to resort to whatever eventually glug-glug-glugs out of the XL. So let's not jump the gun, so to speak.
Notice after she said that, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum couldn't wait to end the interview
Not only do we have record highs in oil inventory, we have record high in the exportation of refined oil (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel)
Prices aren't high because of lack of supply or cost of oil (it's $40/barrel less than the highs in 2008)
-President Barack Obama, Feb. 23, 2012, University of Miami
You're an absolute idiot, boxy. You really are.
Please note the steady rise of gasoline prices beginning in 2002 which peaked in the summer of 2008. There was a huge drop following the near collapse of the global economy in October 2008 which drastically lowered gas prices. As the economy recovered, the speculators started jacking up the prices again. They still haven't risen to the level of July 2008.
And, apparently, ours do as well.
I know its that darned sarcasm again I just can't can't seem to grasp!!
As a kid I can remember my dad paying $0.30 a gallon and picking your gas station based on the premiums they were giving away. (dishes, towels, etc)
OK, I'll go back to my rocking chair now.
Averages are taken from highs and lows. Georgia has always been relatively lower than the national average. Right now the national average is $3.70 according to what I read at lunch. I can go get gas for 3.56 at a local gas station, but the Georgia Average is $3.61.
I'll repeat, the cost of unleaded gasoline was not 79 cents per gallong in
I am glad to see that you are proud of Bushco for tanking the entire planet's economy so that gas could drop back down to only 30 cents more than when they TOOK the office of president.
"Oscar, what kind of sandwiches do you have?"
"I got brown sandwiches and green sandwiches."
"What are the green sandwiches?"
"They're either very new cheese or very old meat."
"I'll have a brown sandwich."
and please fox, never mention that using cng and other green fuels that the military is developing now to run the war machine. the #1 user of oil and fuel is the military....
and fox, never ever mention that your oil gods, are shipping out huge amounts of refined gas to red china, there is a glut of gas, but shipping it out is keeping the prices high, along with wall st. speculators....
the largest export is refined gas. the prez can stop this, under an national emergency, but he needs the superpac cash to be re elected... so they will continue to play games, and everyone's profit margins are toast as gas hits $5.
oh, and i have seen $5 in inner city LA....
Wow funny how you used the word "stoopid"... Why would anyone in the Oil Industry including speculators truly want President Obama out off office right now? President Obama cleared the speculators of any wrong doing in regards to price gauging (now that is STOOPID) and the oil industry is on pace to have their most profitable year ever... They are about to make more money over a 4 year span than ever before under this admininistration. They would be "Stoopid" to try not and get 4 more years of this administration. Forget Rep or Dem... This is money, and the Oil Inudustry is about to have their greatest year ever with President Obama at the helm.
By the way, President Obama and his administration has nothing directly to do with the price of gas, just like that Knuckle-Head Bush... But politics will be politics and whoever is sitting in the BIG CHAIR will get the blame!
Well that's for sure. Hell it doesn't even have to be an issue like energy. If it rains during election day, people are more likely to vote against the incumbent simply for the fact that its raining.
Oil and Gas industry contributions to 2012 candidates for Jan-Sept 2011
Your not getting it... It doesn't matter who is in power, the OIL Industry is going to make their money. This was set up long before W or Obama and both sides of the isle have made sure it never changes... If Oil and Gas wasn't ok with OBama he wouldn't get a penny and the 1mil given to the REPUBLICANS would be more like 10-20mil and would make the Superpacs look like a bake sale.
Do you think the Unions are ever going to vote for a Republican? No of course not, but before President Obama, the Unions had their most profitable years when President Knuckle-Head was in office...
Now THAT is "stoopid".
You'd think everyone would be on board with this? WRONG!! 230 republican reps voted NO. And everyone of them got a check for 160+K from the oil companies.
So, it's not OUR oil, it's Exxon mobile and the Koch brothers oil.
It's unbelievable, how many otherwise sane-seeming adults I've met who seem to believe that more drilling here means friendly, All-American oil companies bringing cut-rate gas to their fellow Americans.
Even so, if he is going to be hyperbolic in appealing to everyone's interest, why not say he'll make gas free?
The Department of Defense consumes 360,000 barrels of oil each (that was in 2007). Can you imagine what that amount of demand is doing to the supply for the rest of us?...and this us just the U.S. military!! Oil companies and oil rich nations love military conflict.
Someone mentioned electric cars being the solution...was that a joke? Are you talking about all 40 miles you can drive on electric...after it is recharged from fossil fuels? How would one propose we freight all of the consumer goods necessary for our economy to function? Freight carriers drive hundreds or even thousands of miles to deliver those goods. What kind of electric network would we need for that?
We need to get real about this. I would think that a network of nuclear power plants would be a good start. We are building the first plants in the U.S. (in Georgia) in around 30 years!! Nuclear power is a great source for homes and offices. We could reduce coal and oil and gas consumption considerably by expanding our nuclear network.
Either way, neither party wants to offer real solutions because they are bought and sold by the same people. Good luck...
Barack Obama, SOTU 2012
There is no universal agreement among progressives on nuclear energy (like most things...we tend to think independently). I personally have no problem with nuclear energy in principal. I have no problem with nuclear energy if it is properly regulated and the waste is disposed of in the safest manner possible. I suspect that the military does a pretty good job of ensuring that their ship board reactors are operating safely. I am also not terribly concerned about the security of a nuclear Naval ship. However, the private sector is all about profit. They will cut corners wherever they can get away with it.
Furthermore, we should be pursuing Solar Power like our lives depended on it. There's great potential there, but as long as the Oil Companies are raking in Billions, they'll do whatever they can to squash any development in that area.
Nuclear may have a place in all this, but it comes with its own set of problems.
The bottom line is, no solution will happen overnight, and nothing will happen in our current political climate.
The original Bowmar Brain (first LED pocket calculator which added, subtracted, divided and multiplied cost about $300.
Now they practically give them away! Does anyone know what 20 dollars in 1975 equals in today's dollars?
Good post.
Finally, as renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal have advanced considerably in efficiency and in marketability, it's ENTIRELY conceivable that an EV could be consistently and perpetually charged from non-fossil fuel generated electricity.
All around, a pretty poor showing. As a troll post, I guess it did what you intended, but as an argument, this one falls quite short.
You said that no Democrat is talking about the military's huge impact on energy consumption.
You said someone put forth EVs as THE solution.
All BS.
Addressing the Navy producing nuclear energy is nothing new...they have been for decades. It won't reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used by the military and our DoD. So no, I won't agree that President Obama or other Democrats "addressed" the point.
Read up above, someone acted as though EVs could be a major part of the solution. It was wrong for me to say THE solution.
The DoD is spending HUGE amounts of money to make military bases sustainable and self-sufficient. They're trying hard to develop renewable jet fuels and solar-powered field command and control units. The Pentagon is "addressing" the problem. But neither you nor I even used the term "addressed," goalpost mover. You said, "You won't hear Obama or other Democrats talking about this." When confronted with an RECENT EXAMPLE OF OBAMA TALKING ABOUT IT, you dissembled and failed to acknowledge that you were wrong. That was BS.
Right. Nobody said EVs were THE solution but you, which is why that was BS.
Show me one graph or source that shows military and DoD oil, fuel, gas, etc. consumption has been reduces. I'm sure they are "trying hard", but show me one resource that gives credence or evidence to the fact that they are reducing their DEMAND for fossil fuels (which was my overriding point that somehow got lost in everything else). The DoD is the single largest consumer of energy on the planet. Show me some proof that they are reducing their consumption (i.e. demand). I don't want some talk of them "trying hard". I want some graphical numbers showing their reduction.
You said that you wouldn't hear democrats talking about the military's consumption ( already de-bunked by DisputedZone)
You made up mileage range for electric cars, and implied in the same sentence that the fossil-fuel consumption for producing the energy to charge them cancels out any advantage.
Then you went off into some incoherence about freighting goods that didn't really seem to have a point.
Oops, sorry, you only asked for one thing.
I didn't make up any mileage rates. The Chevy Volt is the most talked about EV. It can only go 25-40 miles on a single charge without gasoline assistance. Chevy Volt. How is the majority of energy in this country supplied? Through fossil fuels. Therefore, charging the battery in most cases would require fossil fuels to be used therefore cancelling out some of the advantage.
EVs can't freight goods across the country, and that is where a large portion of our fuel demand comes from is through freight. I was looking at the bigger picture of DEMAND.
That is pretty close to explicitly stating that electric cars (not some, not most, but ALL) only get 40 miles to a charge. Just a little dishonest, don't you think?
Oh, my bad. You may have to actually google the word "dishonest". If, that is, you can figure out how to actually use teh google.
Link to image
I really haven't bothered spending much time arguing with Denial Cultists for the past couple of years, but I used to find myself dragged into their long-winded propaganda.
At a certain point, I just started questioning them along the lines of that graphic. Notably, one of the most prolific ( in word quantity, if not quality) of the Cultists here, Galeonardo. The most basic cop TV show questions, "Suspect?" and "Motive?"
Until I get some rational answers to those, I can't see spending much time with them.
Your posts above show that you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
I don't see anything trollish in B's comment. She addressed your post directly.
As for efficiency and marketability, I would assume part of what you are talking about is cost?? These forms of energy are not priced at a market friendly point yet. That is why they have to be so heavily subsidized. If the government would end all energy subsidies (especially oil and gas), we might actually see some competitive sources become more mainstream. As it is now, subsidies are not allowing alternate sources to be brought to market, and instead of demanding an end to corporate welfare, both parties want more of it.
Why is everything that is different from what is posted in the bubble here a troll post??? I'm so tired of that being the standard one liner on this site...
I replied to you with sources. By your reply, you FAILED TO READ THEM. Which is also the behavior most commonly attributed to a troll. You're a troll. You posted a badly concealed off-topic strawman argument with misleading and untruthful assertions. Troll. If you don't want to be called a troll, don't lie and don't derail threads with your lies.
I doubt we'd see any easing of price due to the KL pipeline.
The main reason Obama denied it's application was he was forced by Congress to 'decide' what to do. Since they wouldn't wait, he nixed it.
No Boxy, we don't need to concentrate on increasing our CONSUMPTION. We need to reduce our consumption.
Silly troll doesn't know the difference between consumption and production.
Three or four cents off a gallon would help me a lot, because I'm not made of money like these whacko anti-American wind and sun worshippers are. But the elites don't care, because they all own Volts anyway.
All that aside, I think the point is, three or four cents gained can be more than offset by any number of factors, like speculators, war, OPEC manipulation. It's the least compelling reason to approve the pipeline.
Nobody cares, but there it is.
I should have been paying more attention.
Meanwhile demand is expect to double in the next decade or two.
Question: How many units of energy does it take to create one unit of oil from a unit of tar sands?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Whatever, it leads to my comment: The nature of the tar sands crud, er..rr, crude, means that IF it doesn't take MORE energy to produce that it yields, then, at best, it is the oil source that comes closest to this UNeconomical level.
AND, IF, the energy were spent to restore the forests destroyed and the water contaminated in the process, THEN, for sure it would be MORE energy consumed to produce than available in the product.
It's perhaps the most egregious example of capitalist "externalities," by which is meant, "we're betting we'll be dead before our system forces us to eat money ... so what do we care? (We FAMILY VALUES types.)"
And your take on it?
How much energy is used to turn the tar sands from bitumite to oil? In other words, is using tar sands actually costing energy?
Actually we're betting on the second coming of Jesus: It doesn't matter if we run out of oil in thirty years, we won't be here.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839
This is the range I've seen from a several difference articles.
The above-cited article essentially disregards as insignificant the obvious environmental costs, mainly water pollution and forest destruction. These issues are graphically, if not quantitatively, presented here:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/TarSandsInvasion-full.pdf
A broader analysis of "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI), over a many energy sources, is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Answer: "No" "It is really unrfealistic"
OMG! Did she forget where she was? We wont see this woman on faux again.