Should the US government be on the hook for $15 billion?

[nsdp + 449]

Well , I am a lawyer who has been involved in Presidential Permits between the US and Canada.  Mr. Mulroney PM raised the price of natural gas from $1.60 to $4.64/gigajoule unilaterally.  I was at Tenneco when that happened and the same arbitration body  that Keystone intends to use ruled against the US pipeline companies on the increase.

Also Article 6 permits is a big problem. Keystone still has  about 20 miles of gaps in ROW in Nebraska involving private land owners and no ROW across Tribal Treaty land as required by Justice Gorsuch in United States v. Cooley, "iimpact of the case will be to better protect residents of reservations,” writes Joseph William Singer, a professor at Harvard Law School, “and to restore the notion that Indian nations in the U.S. have the legitimate sovereign power to act to protect both their people and anyone within the reservation from harm.”   Any of you have proof that Keystone has complied with treaty rights in Montana, South Dakota or Nebraska?  Right now Keystone has gaps in their ROW which the Supreme court put there by the Cooley decision.  They also don't have permits for the Electric Coops to build an operate the powerlines and substations for the pump stations. 18 CFR 292 requires grid connection studies  that have not been done since the Supreme Court told the FERC to do them in 2012.

[nsdp + 449]

Vickers Speck304032018.pdf

[nsdp + 449]

http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/11/141117siouxmap.jpg

Keystone has a problem.

Edited July 8, 2021 by nsdp

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

We're exporting refined goods, about 5 million bbls a day worth. Refineries in this country do not belong to this country. Like Motiva, they import from abroad and ship their products abroad. If we're energy independent, why do we have less than a one month supply on hand? I've argued both sides of this, we carry the burden as the world's biggest polluter (even though it's obviously China and India) because of that 20 million bbls per day. When the Paris accord talks about CO2 per capita, they use the 20 million number, not 11.

Next look at balance of payments

Because inventory costs money. The only time we have more than 28 days of crude on hand is when there is an oil glut. Days on hand does not tell you anything about being oil independent. Look at the gasoline and diesel days on hand and note how they are running above average for this time of year. Refineries have been moving oil to the other side of the house faster than they are selling the finished product. Days on hand is very seasonal.

When it comes to oil independence the only number that matters is Net Imports. We either have more petroleum than we need and are independent or we don't and we are dependent. You can't be dependent  unless you are importing more than you are exporting. Currently we are importing 480K BPD more than we are exporting, average over past 6 weeks.

Over that same 6 weeks our Total Stock has dropped 4M bbl. so we have been consuming at a rate of 575K BPD more than we are producing.

I quite doubt that our oil consumption number was used to calculate our CO2 per capita. Some lame journalist might have referred to the number but that is very different than the official calculation.

How about you look at the balance of payments and let us know what you think is important?

btw- we are energy independent as energy includes all forms of energy coal, NG and renewables. We import none of those and they certainly outweigh the current oil import.

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

We're exporting refined goods, about 5 million bbls a day worth. Refineries in this country do not belong to this country. Like Motiva, they import from abroad and ship their products abroad. If we're energy independent, why do we have less than a one month supply on hand? I've argued both sides of this, we carry the burden as the world's biggest polluter (even though it's obviously China and India) because of that 20 million bbls per day. When the Paris accord talks about CO2 per capita, they use the 20 million number, not 11.

Next look at balance of payments

@Ward Smith you don't bother stocking a bunch of inventory unless you are forced to.  In any case, the stock level has no bearing or relationship with the production rate or capacity.  The only places which have to worry about stock levels of crude oil or of perishable products like gasoline are places without sufficient crude oil and refining capacity to make their own on demand.  The US is definitively not a place like that.  It produces all the oil it needs and it has the  largest export focused oil products sector in the world.  It's a massive economic and manufacturing success and has been for 20 years now.  We import cheap low quality crude from around the world, then sell back expensive diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.  The recent increase in US crude oil production merely cements that dominance by ensuring plenty of cheap crude to keep the refinery system running in a highly efficient way. 

 

FYI - China is now officially the #1 polluter according to all sources, and it has been since 2018 or 2019 depending on whose figures you cite.   

Edited July 8, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

@Ward Smith you don't bother stocking a bunch of inventory unless you are forced to.  In any case, the stock level has no bearing or relationship with the production rate or capacity.  The only places which have to worry about stock levels of crude oil or of perishable products like gasoline are places without sufficient crude oil and refining capacity to make their own on demand.  The US is definitively not a place like that.  It produces all the oil it needs and it has the  largest export focused oil products sector in the world.  It's a massive economic and manufacturing success and has been for 20 years now.  We import cheap low quality crude from around the world, then sell back expensive diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.  The recent increase in US crude oil production merely cements that dominance by ensuring plenty of cheap crude to keep the refinery system running in a highly efficient way. 

 

FYI - China is now officially the #1 polluter according to all sources, and it has been since 2018 or 2019 depending on whose figures you cite.   

Let's be crystal clear, the US produces all the oil it needs, now. Twasn't always so. If it weren't for fracking, and the bounty it has provided, we'd be deep in the midst of the wrong side of King Hubbert's Peak. The only reason fracking produced as well as it did was because much of it was on private land, so wasn't mired down in bureaucratic delay and red tape during the Obama administration (although he tried). Now in Obama's third term, Xiden gets to ratchet up the damage to the industry. 

I'll see if I can find some CO2 emissions numbers by sources. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Ward Smith
Added image

[Eric Gagen + 713]

34 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Let's be crystal clear, the US produces all the oil it needs, now. Twasn't always so. If it weren't for fracking, and the bounty it has provided, we'd be deep in the midst of the wrong side of King Hubbert's Peak. The only reason fracking produced as well as it did was because much of it was on private land, so wasn't mired down in bureaucratic delay and red tape during the Obama administration (although he tried). Now in Obama's third term, Xiden gets to ratchet up the damage to the industry. 

I'll see if I can find some CO2 emissions numbers by sources. 

All that matters is right now, and what can reasonably be expected in the next 2-4 years.  You can't expect industry to operate in a different way today based what used to be, or what might be but is too hard to predict. 

Hubbert was/is basically wrong.  He made too many  assumptions that turned out laughably wrong creating his mathematical model.  It was a reasonable short term prediction (short term being 10-15 years) for a limited area but an awful long term one (over 20 years) at any scale (local, state, national, etc.) for a host of reasons, many of which were inconceivable when he created his model.  He created a useful tool for a situation where reserves can be imagined as a static lump of stuff, and it actually works in the short term for all sorts of extractive industries ranging from fisheries, to forestry to tin mines to oil wells but it's awful over the long term.  What's worse is that people in positions to make policy imagined it was accurate, and a realistic construction of future resource availability and foolishly took action based on it.   Probably a subject for a different thread. 

At any rate the refining industry (which is the subject of this whole thread) has adapted all the while.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Let's be crystal clear, the US produces all the oil it needs, now. Twasn't always so. If it weren't for fracking, and the bounty it has provided, we'd be deep in the midst of the wrong side of King Hubbert's Peak. The only reason fracking produced as well as it did was because much of it was on private land, so wasn't mired down in bureaucratic delay and red tape during the Obama administration (although he tried). Now in Obama's third term, Xiden gets to ratchet up the damage to the industry. 

I'll see if I can find some CO2 emissions numbers by sources. 

Let's be crystal clear, the future of US oil independence is our shift to electric vehicles.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

29 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Let's be crystal clear, the future of US oil independence is our shift to electric vehicles.

Checks in the mail, next topic...

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Checks in the mail, next topic...

I don't like saying this, but petroleum will be used for quite a while (decades).

At least for tear gas.

I have no idea of what you imply about the "check is in the mail".

Can you be more succinct?

[nsdp + 449]

9 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

All that matters is right now, and what can reasonably be expected in the next 2-4 years.  You can't expect industry to operate in a different way today based what used to be, or what might be but is too hard to predict. 

Hubbert was/is basically wrong.  He made too many  assumptions that turned out laughably wrong creating his mathematical model.  It was a reasonable short term prediction (short term being 10-15 years) for a limited area but an awful long term one (over 20 years) at any scale (local, state, national, etc.) for a host of reasons, many of which were inconceivable when he created his model.  He created a useful tool for a situation where reserves can be imagined as a static lump of stuff, and it actually works in the short term for all sorts of extractive industries ranging from fisheries, to forestry to tin mines to oil wells but it's awful over the long term.  What's worse is that people in positions to make policy imagined it was accurate, and a realistic construction of future resource availability and foolishly took action based on it.   Probably a subject for a different thread. 

At any rate the refining industry (which is the subject of this whole thread) has adapted all the while.  

 

I think the subject is Keystone's $15 billion claim under NAFTA.  Given the US Supreme Court decision in US vs. Cooley,  Keystone does not have 1020 miles ROW  from the  sovereign Sioux tribes from the US Canada border , across SE Montana, South Dakota ,  and most of Nebraska. http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/11/141117siouxmap.jpg 

Look at the map, most of the rest of the comments are off topic.

Edited July 9, 2021 by nsdp
typos

[Eric Gagen + 713]

32 minutes ago, nsdp said:

 

I think the subject is Keystone's $15 billion claim under NAFTA.  Given the US Supreme Court decision in US vs. Cooley,  Keystone does not have 1020 miles ROW  from the  sovereign Sioux tribes from the US Canada border , across SE Montana, South Dakota ,  and most of Nebraska. http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/11/141117siouxmap.jpg 

Look at the map, most of the rest of the comments are off topic.

That is true.  I don’t think they can win their lawsuit. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

 

I think the subject is Keystone's $15 billion claim under NAFTA.  Given the US Supreme Court decision in US vs. Cooley,  Keystone does not have 1020 miles ROW  from the  sovereign Sioux tribes from the US Canada border , across SE Montana, South Dakota ,  and most of Nebraska. http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/11/141117siouxmap.jpg 

Look at the map, most of the rest of the comments are off topic.

https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/nid/249275.htm#:~:text=The construction of the TransCanada XL Pipeline does not cross,in Tripp County%2C South Dakota.

The construction of the TransCanada XL Pipeline does not cross any tribal or allotted trust lands, but the proposed route lies adjacent to tracts of tribally owned trust and allotted trust parcels of land in Tripp County, South Dakota. Rights-of-way, including the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline, are defined by federal statute as "Indian Country." 18U.S.C. § 1151 (a). The construction of the Pipeline, and a possible spill or release of tar sands sludge from the Pipeline, poses a direct threat to two of the most important assets of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, its lands and its water resources.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

23 hours ago, nsdp said:

Well , I am a lawyer who has been involved in Presidential Permits between the US and Canada.  Mr. Mulroney PM raised the price of natural gas from $1.60 to $4.64/gigajoule unilaterally.  I was at Tenneco when that happened and the same arbitration body  that Keystone intends to use ruled against the US pipeline companies on the increase.

Also Article 6 permits is a big problem. Keystone still has  about 20 miles of gaps in ROW in Nebraska involving private land owners and no ROW across Tribal Treaty land as required by Justice Gorsuch in United States v. Cooley, "iimpact of the case will be to better protect residents of reservations,” writes Joseph William Singer, a professor at Harvard Law School, “and to restore the notion that Indian nations in the U.S. have the legitimate sovereign power to act to protect both their people and anyone within the reservation from harm.”   Any of you have proof that Keystone has complied with treaty rights in Montana, South Dakota or Nebraska?  Right now Keystone has gaps in their ROW which the Supreme court put there by the Cooley decision.  They also don't have permits for the Electric Coops to build an operate the powerlines and substations for the pump stations. 18 CFR 292 requires grid connection studies  that have not been done since the Supreme Court told the FERC to do them in 2012.

Never understood their XL pipeline idiocy over completely new ROW headaches which would cost them many many Millions-->Billions.... Why not just twin the existing pipeline with existing ROW and infrastructure in place?  Beyond stupid not doing so.  For this reason alone, they do not get $$$ for any compensation for just being STUPID short sighted idiots.  As for lawyers twiddle words... why on earth would this be up to the whims of the PRESIDENT?  And why in Gods Green earth would anyone sign off on this agreement instead of twinning the existing pipeline?(Never understood this logic at all)  Talk about doubly stupid on their part.  I have never understood how some company spending so much money to build a pipeline can put so much stupidity together.  It is no shock it fell through. 

As for your "lawyering".... Right of patroling a ROW is now ability to block ROW access in said court decision... As for relevance to the Pipeline... On land they have no powers over...  True lawyering genius.  If you wanted to actually be a lawyer here you should have posted the US v Sioux nations decision of 1980 IIRC, but even that does not cut it as this only addresses interest over the Black Hills $$$ paid a half century earlier for the unjust taking of the black hills.  Next proposal by subsequent commissions only said FEDERAL lands which would be handed over in said black hills in SD.  Only reason this is an issue is that the Sioux have not officially ceded the Black Hills though they have ceded the hunting grounds as any privately owned land would remain so under their own proposals so... If one wants to be lawyering here...   Does the XL mapped by idiots pipeline actually cross federal lands in the Black Hills?  Not that it matters at this point. 

The whole thing is beyond stupid from all 3 sides IMO.  The Canadians, the Sioux, and the US Congress who for some F'd up reason ceded authority to the damned President for domestic INFRASTRUCTURE... The last point alone should have halted the project as unconstitutional. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Let's be crystal clear, the future of US oil independence is our shift to electric vehicles.

Let me know how that electric jet aircraft works for you. As a pilot, I'll wait on the ground. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

I don't like saying this, but petroleum will be used for quite a while (decades).

At least for tear gas.

I have no idea of what you imply about the "check is in the mail".

Can you be more succinct?

I guess, this Green Deal is DOA, Bernie and his brotherhood have spent all there equity. The attempt to nationalize elections is DOA, that to has failed.

Without the necessary funds to finance the Green Deal it will die a slowly. The cabal of socialism has failed. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Let me know how that electric jet aircraft works for you. As a pilot, I'll wait on the ground. 

Surely you know that jet fuel only requires 1/6th of our current oil production. Even if we keep using it we will easily be oil independent. No drilling in ANWR or on other public lands or flaring needed. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

..

Edited July 9, 2021 by Jay McKinsey
double post

[Boat + 1,315]

Fun to see a real discussion on oil here at Peak Oil. I see we’re finally evolving into stat/chart based data. This is very encouraging. I like a diversity of opinion on maybe where we want to go over time and how fast. But I like agreement of a baseline of facts that get added to each month. We can debate who was the most correct over time. We can gripe about decisions of governments that affect markets. It’s all good.

[turbguy + 1,391]

6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I guess, this Green Deal is DOA, Bernie and his brotherhood have spent all there equity. The attempt to nationalize elections is DOA, that to has failed.

Without the necessary funds to finance the Green Deal it will die a slowly. The cabal of socialism has failed. 

Perhaps, yes.

There are still considerable efforts to reduce FF consumption , and that will not cease for the foreseeable future, either.

The Green New Deal will be retarded, but I very much doubt the idea will die.

 

[Boat + 1,315]

8 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I guess, this Green Deal is DOA, Bernie and his brotherhood have spent all there equity. The attempt to nationalize elections is DOA, that to has failed.

Without the necessary funds to finance the Green Deal it will die a slowly. The cabal of socialism has failed. 

We’ll see eh? When the ravages of the climate become more pronounced and take a bigger toll in death and treasure more of the public will demand change. We will someday even support politicians who support voluntary population reduction as a tool to help control consumption. The root cause of pollution, population and resource depletion is of course overpopulation/consumption. That’s my conspiracy theory.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

Sanders Takes Reins as Democrats Advance Biden Economic Agenda

By 

Laura Litvan

 

President Joe Biden’s plans for the biggest expansion in social spending in decades is in the hands of the Senate’s only professed democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, who must unite both fellow progressives and moderate Democrats in the face of a tricky path through a sharply divided Congress.

 

I stand corrected Turbguy, Socialism is about to end quite abruptly, the dream's of the old hippies no longer hiden in the shadow's...all that is "left"is about to flame out in obscurity...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/sanders-takes-reins-as-democrats-advance-biden-economic-agenda

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Boat + 1,315]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Sanders Takes Reins as Democrats Advance Biden Economic Agenda

By 

Laura Litvan

 

President Joe Biden’s plans for the biggest expansion in social spending in decades is in the hands of the Senate’s only professed democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, who must unite both fellow progressives and moderate Democrats in the face of a tricky path through a sharply divided Congress.

 

I stand corrected Turbguy, Socialism is about to end quite abruptly, the dream's of the old hippies no longer hiden in the shadow's...all that is "left"is about to flame out in obscurity...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/sanders-takes-reins-as-democrats-advance-biden-economic-agenda

 

Is socialism illegals using schools, roads and government infrastructure along with other benefits? Who benefits from this cheap labor? Who benefits from not paying for their healthcare or a living wage. We’ll it isn’t the 50% of Americans who make less than $30,000 per year. You can argue immigration drives down wages for Americans. So who pays for the healthcare of illegal immigrants. All of us do, including business that does not hire the illegal and pays a living wage to their employees. The reward for following the law is to compete with those who do not follow the law. You want to end the magnet that draws mass problems at the border? Jail a few of these employers of illegals. With no income the US would not look so attractive, eh? 
Just for fun what if we jailed only Republican employers who hire illegals. And fined them enough to make up for decades of healthcare costs. Would we still need a wall? Could an illegal still find a job? Would Republicans want the same rules for the Dems? 😉

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

Is socialism illegals using schools, roads and government infrastructure along with other benefits? Who benefits from this cheap labor? Who benefits from not paying for their healthcare or a living wage. We’ll it isn’t the 50% of Americans who make less than $30,000 per year. You can argue immigration drives down wages for Americans. So who pays for the healthcare of illegal immigrants. All of us do, including business that does not hire the illegal and pays a living wage to their employees. The reward for following the law is to compete with those who do not follow the law. You want to end the magnet that draws mass problems at the border? Jail a few of these employers of illegals. With no income the US would not look so attractive, eh? 
Just for fun what if we jailed only Republican employers who hire illegals. And fined them enough to make up for decades of healthcare costs. Would we still need a wall? Could an illegal still find a job? Would Republicans want the same rules for the Dems? 😉

You are to far gone boat, for some that is just part of life. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/8/2021 at 10:53 AM, Eric Gagen said:

All that matters is right now, and what can reasonably be expected in the next 2-4 years.  You can't expect industry to operate in a different way today based what used to be, or what might be but is too hard to predict. 

Hubbert was/is basically wrong.  He made too many  assumptions that turned out laughably wrong creating his mathematical model.  It was a reasonable short term prediction (short term being 10-15 years) for a limited area but an awful long term one (over 20 years) at any scale (local, state, national, etc.) for a host of reasons, many of which were inconceivable when he created his model.  He created a useful tool for a situation where reserves can be imagined as a static lump of stuff, and it actually works in the short term for all sorts of extractive industries ranging from fisheries, to forestry to tin mines to oil wells but it's awful over the long term.  What's worse is that people in positions to make policy imagined it was accurate, and a realistic construction of future resource availability and foolishly took action based on it.   Probably a subject for a different thread. 

At any rate the refining industry (which is the subject of this whole thread) has adapted all the while.  

Hubberts assumed that only oil could fuel ICE vehicles. He did not alow for natural gas or ethanol etc. so his whole proposition was faulty in concept and far less meaningful than his assumption. It makes me wonder what his motivation was.