• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: oil

Client state

16 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Iran, oil, Saudi Arabia, social media, The Kingdom, Twitter

That would be the United States.

Yesterday, from Donald Trump (r):

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!
5:50 PM · Sep 15, 2019

“…waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”

A few of the responses on Twitter:

Translation: I will use the American military to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia because Jared still needs that sweet, sweet Saudi oil money to bail out his family’s shitty real estate deals.

America First!!

You didn’t believe they killed Jamal Khashoggi. Why should we believe anything they say about the attack?

No one believes you

Saudi Arabia is waging a terrible war in Yemen, which we are supplying despite a clear rebuke by Congress, and Yemeni forces attacked them. If they want to stop attacks on themselves, they should try ending their war in Yemen, not dragging US into an insane war against Iran.

Resign.

Saudi Arabia spent billions in advanced air defenses to stop jet fighters when they should’ve been looking out for cheap ass drones from Radio Shack. They should take the L and learn to be better next time. Also, spend less time killing a guy about to get married with a bone saw.

So we r waiting for the Saudis to tell u what the next move is?! R u serious?!

You report to the American people, not some prince in Saudi Arabia, you orange dumbfuck

Omg… right! let’s wait for the Saudi prince MBS to see what he says. Because he was so truthful about Mr. Khashoggi…

Here’s a wild idea. Let other countries fight their own wars.

The President of the United States just tweeted that he’s waiting to get his orders from “The Kingdom.”
This kingdom murders journalist who disagree with them. This kingdom raised 15 men who flew airplanes into our buildings on 9/11.

So the Saudis tell us what to do now?

That’s right. You always believe what the Kingdom says. They own you. You are so weak.

Nice of you to admit you are waiting orders from one of your bosses. How much are you getting paid?

You don’t work for Saudi Arabia. You work for us…I mean Putin

“No blood for oil.”

Another one to check off on the wish list

06 Monday May 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Iran, John Bolton, oil

“Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.”
— Londo Mollari, “Ceremonies of Light and Dark”, Babylon 5

Who’s in charge?

Yesterday:

Statement from the National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton
National Security & Defense
Issued on: May 5, 2019

In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.

Like anyone is surprised?

In 2010:

[….]Question: …Why does the United Nations allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the U.N. Assembly and then recognize his government when he frequently denies the Holocaust and says it was an elaborate falsehood circulated by Jews and Jewish friendly nations such as the U.S.?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, this, that, that’s because that’s the U.N. is. I mean, this is a, uh, this, this is, it’s not, it’s not, I think most Americans look at Ahmadinejad and the fact he is a Holocaust denier, uh, and say we shouldn’t even let him into the country. But, uh, we have agreed, uh, as a member of the United Nations through what’s called the Headquarters Agreement, obviously it’s headquartered in New York, that, uh, heads of state, foreign ministers, diplomats from any U.N. member who come to the United States to come to New York to do U.N. business will be admitted to the country. We can restrict their other activities, uh, but that’s what it, that’s what it means to, uh, have the U.N. functioning. Uh, and it’s also part of one of the basic premises of the U.N. that I think, uh, it’s, it’s very hard for us to understand, and that’s the so called principle of sovereign equality. Is that every member of the U.N. in the General Assembly is equal to every other member of the U.N. So the United States has one vote in the General Assembly and so does Palau. Uh, and, and you can go on down the list of the hundred and ninety-two member states of the U.N. The way the U.N. functions, uh, is a, is the product of decades of cultural development. Uh, and it is the way that it is and it is extraordinarily difficult to change. What that means to me is that, uh, the U.N. has very limited, uh, functionality. It can do some limited number of things well. Some of the specialized agencies of the U.N. do important humanitarian work, uh, they do important scientific work, they do, uh, work in areas that nobody even thinks about the, like the Universal Postal Union that helps handle the transfer of mail between countries, uh, and which functions with, us, essentially no attention at all. Where the U.N. doesn’t work is in the political decision making area, the field of human rights, the field of international security which should have been, uh, one of its, uh, principal responsibilities, in large part because of this culture that has developed, uh, and that, uh, basically requires treating every country just like it’s every other country. So, Fidel Castro, when he was able, would come and speak at the U.N. During the cold war you’d have dictators from all over the world. Uh, today you have, uh, uh, countries like Iran and North Korea, uh, that use the U.N. and, and, and it’s, uh, and the opportunities that presents just like any other country. Uh, we, we may find this very difficult to accept. We do find it very difficult to accept, but that’s the way the U.N. is. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing it just means that’s the way the U.N. is and to me it indicates how limited, uh, are the benefits we’re gonna get from a system that is developed that holds those kinds of cultures. [applause]

[….]Question: …Tonight during your discussion you were talking about Iran’s developing nuclear program. I was wondering what the U.N. or the U.S. would do, um, to intervene when the, um, the, Iran’s, um, threatening Israel, um, Israel’s sovereignty? And do you think it would make a difference if Mousavi got elected in the past Iranian, um, election because most of the power lies within the theocracy and, aya, Ayatollah Khamani?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I, I don’t, I don’t think the election fundamentally would have changed very much. But I think that the fraud that was, uh, so visible in last year’s election, uh, actually helped demonstrate to a lot of Iranians just how, uh, illegitimate, uh, the Islamic Revolution nineteen seventy-nine has become. I think it’s a very unpopular government in many respects. And I wish the United States, both during the Bush administration and the Obama administration, had done more to supply the opposition with support so that when that fraudulent election had occurred, if we had really given them the resources we might have had an opportunity to see the regime overthrown. Uh, that didn’t happen, we didn’t give them adequate support, either in two thousand nine or in the years preceding that. Uh, and so that opportunity has slipped away and I think it will be quite some time before it comes back. The fact is that, uh, because we have engaged in, uh, now nearly eight years of diplomacy with Iran they have used that time to overcome essentially all of the complex scientific and technological obstacles that stand in the way of a nuclear weapons program. They’re very close to having a weapons capability, it’s really a matter for them when they decide they’re gonna do it. Uh, the diplomacy has failed, the sanctions have failed, uh, so I think today, uh, there are really only, uh, two options facing us with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons. One is, and this is the most likely option, that indeed they do get nuclear weapons and we’ve got to deal with the consequences of a nuclear Iran. The only thing that will stop that is the second option, which is that some outside power uses preemptive force to strike against the nuclear weapons program, uh, and destroy as much of it as, uh, might be possible, thus setting Iran back, two, three, four, maybe more years. That that is in itself not a complete solution to the problem, but two to four years in, in this business is nearly infinity. I think there’s no chance that the Obama administration will use force. I once thought there was a chance that President Bush would use force. That obviously didn’t happen. I’m not even holding my breath on this administration. Which means that the choice, it’s a very [applause], it’s a very, it’s a very unpleasant choice for Israel, is between seeing Iran get nuclear weapons and taking preemptive action. Uh, military force here is a very unattractive, uh, outcome. It’s very risky, uh, there could be enormous, uh, potential consequences, uh, but in Israel’s case, uh, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, uh, could bring, uh, a second Holocaust, this time a, a nuclear holocaust. And, uh, I don’t think that’s something that they want to wait and find out about. When Israel has faced, uh, a potential nuclear threat in the past it has not hesitated to act, uh, preemptively. It destroyed, uh, Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor outside of Baghdad in nineteen eighty-one, as I mentioned a few moments ago it destroyed the North Korean reactor in Syria, uh, in September two thousand seven. Uh, so given, given the alternative of a nuclear Iran I think the military option is very much on the table for the Israelis. I don’t know what they’re gonna do but I don’t think they have much time. Both because, uh, that Iran is increasingly close to actually having a nuclear weapons capability and because, uh, at, at some point the Russians may yet deliver the, uh, what we call the S three hundred air defense system, a very sophisticated air defense system that Israel couldn’t penetrate, uh, which would effectively eliminate the Israeli military option.

So, I think we’re very close to a decision by Israel and, uh, and the consequences that will, that will, that will flow from that. [applause]

“No blood for oil.”

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1 (June 18, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2 (June 20, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 3 (June 20, 2010)

Blood for oil (November 22, 2018)

Who’s next

24 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Iran, Iraq, oil, social media, Twitter

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
“It’s a mean & nasty world out there, the Middle East in particular. This is a long and historic commitment, & one that is absolutely vital to America’s national security.” @SecPompeo I agree 100%. In addition, many Billions of Dollars of purchases made in U.S., big Jobs & Oil!
5:58 AM – 22 Nov 2018

They have a plan.

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1 (June 18, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2 (June 20, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 3 (June 20, 2010)

Blood for oil (November 22, 2018)

Blood for oil

22 Thursday Nov 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

blood for oil, Donald Trump, gas, Jamal Khashoggi, narcissist, oil, Saudi Arabia, social media, Twitter

Jamal Khashoggi. Say his name.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Donald Trump (r), yesterday morning:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Oil prices getting lower. Great! Like a big Tax Cut for America and the World. Enjoy! $54, was just $82. Thank you to Saudi Arabia, but let’s go lower!
6:49 AM – 21 Nov 2018

“No blood for oil.”

Donald Trump (r), yesterday evening:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
You just can’t win with the Fake News Media. A big story today is that because I have pushed so hard and gotten Gasoline Prices so low, more people are driving and I have caused traffic jams throughout our Great Nation. Sorry everyone!
6:36 PM – 21 Nov 2018

Narcissist.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): voting for tar sand

10 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

L, missouri, oil, pipeline, tar sand

A while back:

From: Representative Vicky Hartzler [….]

Date: Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Subject: View From the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of May 21-25, 2012

To: [xxxxxxxxxx]

[….]

Gas prices are impacting the family budget. They have doubled since President Obama moved into the White House. Most economists agree that the price we pay at the pump is tied directly to supply and demand, meaning greater supply of gasoline would bring about much lower prices. Yet, President Obama has consistently stood in the way of efforts to increase supply. He has discouraged the use of American energy, put a moratorium on off-shore drilling, and delayed the issuing of drilling permits. His rejection of the Keystone pipeline project that would bring much-needed oil from Canada is the latest in a series of poor decisions to appease environmental extremists while increasing our dependency on Middle Eastern oil.

[….]

That was then, this is now.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) today via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

I voted for #KeystoneXL to create American jobs and bolster our energy security. [….] 12:21 PM – 9 Jan 2015

A satirical reply:

Fake Vicky Hartzler ‏@VickiHartzler

.@RepHartzler I voted for a law written to benefit one foreign oil company at the expense of the dumb old environment. You’re welcome! 3:02 PM – 9 Jan 2015

Where will all that much needed oil derived from Canadian tar sand go? Just asking.  

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): Well, that went over like a lead pipeline…

20 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, facebook, gas, gasoline, Keystone XL, missouri, oil, pipeline, Senate

Ah, yes, the Keystone XL pipeline.

Previously:

Padding Mary Landrieu’s resume (November 18, 2015)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): shifting tar sands (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 3 (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 2 (November 14, 2014)

Charles P. Pierce is meaner (November 14, 2014)

And then all hell broke loose (November 13, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? (November 13, 2014)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [file photo].

Senator Claire McCaskill issued a statement on Facebook about her vote yesterday in support of the Keystone XL pipeline congressional construction permit and she received a lot of comments from her political base. A lot of comments:

[….] I DO NOT stand with you on your very wrong vote! You campaigned on the premise that you understood rural Missouri so you should remember we value our land and resources and wish to keep them clean and free from pollution.

[….] No, no, no. Sen McCaskill, these pipelines spill and there’s very little benefit for the communities in their path. And burning the tar sands will mess up our climate. Stop trying to win over Republicans. It won’t work.

[….] I respectfully disagree.

[….] You need to resign

[….] You will be primaried because of this.

[….] Claire, how in the world does this boost America’s energy security? The oil is produced in Canada, transported by pipeline through the United States and exported through Texas and put on the international market. What jobs are created by building the pipeline quickly evaporates and the American taxpayer are stuck with the bill of doing any cleanup that comes from any spills. Environmentally, this oil is the dirtiest and nastiest to take from the earth and process. It’s unbelievable that you’d support this pipeline and it’s quite sad that you choose to pander to those who would never support you in any election or in most any venture.

[….] I must say, I am disappointed.

[….] I have supported you for a long time, but not on this issue.

[….] At least 41 of your colleagues have some common sense and give a dam about the environment.

[….] I cannot support you on this Senator Claire

[….] I will take your stance into consideration when you are up for reelection. At the very least with the GOP we know where they stand. I am disappointed to say the least.

[….] Very poor decision. May impact my future voting.

[….] Puke. How about a sustainable infrastructure jobs bill including solar power? I know you have to appease the Missouri demo/republcan’ts, but a spine is more important.

[….] Perhaps you should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren who seems to get it about this issue. Very disappointed in you

[….] Fifty permanent jobs. Yippee.

[….] I’m a longtime supporter of yours and believe in your work but passionately and wholeheartedly disagree with you on this.

[….] Sorry I totally disagree with you on this. Our country needs to put it’s collective mind into developing renewable clean energies so that future generations actually have non toxic world to live in. Stop catering to fossil fuel industries.

[….] This lifelong Democrat is feeling the nausea of spin, Senator. This is Canada’s oil pipes thru the US with zero requirements for any of it to remain in the US. The about face on supporting the pipeline as a “job creator” like tax cuts for billionaires is pathetic. If you vote for this the pipeline I hope it runs behind the back yard of your house and you are willing to have MO Democrats hold you accountable if one drop of oil leaks on our land, rivers or water supply.

[….] I’m sure the Koch bros approve this message. I do NOT!

[….] Less than 50 jobs,Claire. Stop.Trying.To.Pander.To.People.Who.Will.Never.Vote.For.You! Democrats acting like republicans and running away from the President is what lost us the Senate.

[….] Sorry, Claire. It’s got less than nothing to do with America’s energy security.

[….] This pipeline creates 35 permanent jobs! On the other hand when the pipeline breaks, which everyone knows it will, there is no way to clean up the tar sands and you hurt our planet. No job is worth the environment!

[….] This is definitely going to impact my support for you. I’m disappointed to say the least.

[….] Sorry Claire you’re wrong on this

[….] I have been incredibly thankful for you supporting equal rights. I am highly disappointed and completely disagree with you on this issue.

We need to be good stewards of our environment and invest in clean energy solutions. Aside from environment impact, the jobs created will be temporary and how many of them will be outsourced to “undocumented workers”?

I hope you sincerely reconsider your position in event the new congress will bring this back up.

[….] I never saw a pipe that doesnt leak.

[….] Claire, you are wrong on this one. Ask your supporters. They vote NO!

[….] Is the purpose of this pipeline an avenue for Canada to ship oil to China? Won’t it create less than 50 permanent jobs. Would rebuilding America’s bridges be a great way to create lots of jobs?

[….] You’re wrong…Just a handful of jobs after construction is completed and the US gets nothing but a pipeline for BIG OIL to use to export Canadian dirty oil..You should be ashamed for your support..

[….] Then let Canada export to the west coast of their country since the oil is going to China anyway. Oh Snap! Their people are too smart for that.

[….] What’s your plan when our water supply is polluted beyond help? You sold out Claire…….I will remember when election time comes up……and I am a Die Hard Democrat……..You sold out.

[….] You’ve lost me on this one senator and I ask you to reconsider.

[….] Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[….] I would like for her to explain how the pipeline benefits the citizens of Missouri.

1. It will reduce State revenue

2. It will cut railroad jobs

3. It will increase gas prices

4. It gives neighboring states a no-tax revenue source for infrastructure

5. We are on the hook for clean up

6. Diverts funds that could be used to develop solar and biomas to oil companies

It doesn’t even benefit America.

1. Moves Canadian oil to foreign markets bypassing US markets.

2. Cuts into US owned railroad profits and US railroad jobs

3. Allows Transnational companies to evade US taxes

4. Gives more profit to political manipulators

Claire, along with the Blunt and the Republicans persons are not just wrong they are enemies of the state.

[….] I am VERY disappointed in your vote for this bill!! Just how do you justify your support?

[….] Disappointed in your choice Clair. Can’t support you on this.

[….] I’m disappointed in your vote. It sounds like you have been drinking the GOP kool-aid.

[….] losing interest in supporting you Ms. McCaskill….

[….] Sorry Senator, you are wrong on this one. We don’t need the minimum number of jobs that would be created (even for construction). The damage to America’s water supply and ecology in general is potentially catastrophic. Let the Canadians do this if they want it. It won’t help America’s energy security, this oil will go on the international market, probably to China. I am very disappointed by your vote.

[….] I’m also surprised and disappointed. Estimates of 40,000 jobs has been discredited, and the environmental risk is real.

[….] I’m very disappointed in your actions of late. Maybe next time think about those who vote for you rather than those who might (but probably won’t) vote for you.

[….] This is extremely disappointing. The market situation takes precedence over the continued existence of the species too often. I thought you were better than that.

[….] No Claire, you do not want to support this , it is too dangerous!!!

[….] As a long time supporter of you Senator, I have to say respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. Polluting the US environment to pad the pockets of oil companies is not a risk we are willing to take. I suggest you listen to those who sent you to represent. Democrat re-elections are always tough in a red state, and it’ll be even harder while driving your base away.

[….] I believe you need to have different analysts researching this subject so they can feed you more accurate information. You are right though this is only about how it gets to market. It comes from Canada and will do nothing more than travel through the U.S. before going to market. The U.S. will take the environmental and cultural hit and get no benefits. The money will be in the oil company pockets with very few permanent jobs created. This does nothing for American security – it is not our oil.

[….] Very disappointed. How about getting behind renewable energy? Working on our infrastructure?

[….] I have supported u till now, not on this one!

[….] Disappointed. We have Republicans to spout these talking points. We don’t need Democrats to start on it, too!

[….] So sorry Srnstor McCaskill but you are wrong on this one. I’m very disappointed.

[….] Claire McCaskill is WAY TOO SMART to buy this line. Dig deep enough and we’ll probably find all kinds of connections to the petrochemical industry. I thought she was a person of integrity. She can never be trusted again.

[….] I would hope that the overwhelmingly negative response from the people who have taken the time to support/follow your page would give you an idea of how unfortunate and disappointing your decision was for the people who elected you to represent them.

And about thousand more responses along the same vein.

Somehow I don’t think the number of Keystone XL pipeline workers willing to man phone banks and go door to door at the next election is going to offset the hemorrhaging in the base.

Padding Mary Landrieu’s resume

19 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Claire McCaskill, gas, gasoline, Keystone XL, Mary Landrieu, missouri, oil, pipeline

The retail price of gasoline in west central Missouri – still going down – November 18, 2014.

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? (November 13, 2014)

[….]

And the Democrats in the U.S. Senate want a vote to approve the Keystone pipeline so as to “save” the seat of Senator Mary Landrieu (which is beyond saving) in the upcoming runoff election? Right.

Give the store away to the opposition in the name of “moderation” by unlocking the door, pointing out the really valuable stock, loading the truck for them, and waving as they drive away. Yeah, that’ll motivate your base.

Via Twitter:

Murshed Zaheed ‏@murshedz

Mary Landreiu’s KXL play was more pathetic than LSU’s offense 5:28 PM – 18 Nov 2014

Michael Grunwald ‏@MikeGrunwald

Now Landrieu will lose with 42% of the vote and go lobby. Instead of losing with 44% of the vote and doing the same thing. 5:26 PM – 18 Nov 2014

David Dayen ‏@ddayen

“Well, Ms. Landrieu, it says here you did try your best to get the pipeline through. That’s the moxie we’ll need in our lobbying department” 5:37 PM – 18 Nov 2014

Ouch.

Fairfax: ….Man, that’s just mean. That’s mean, man.

Today’s U.S. Senate vote on issuing a construction permit:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 2nd Session

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.2280 )

Vote Number: 280 Vote Date: November 18, 2014, 05:55 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Bill Defeated

Measure Number: S. 2280

Measure Title: A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Vote Counts: YEAs 59

NAYs 41

Blunt (R-MO), Yea

Landrieu (D-LA), Yea

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis added]

In January of 2015 the republican majority will change the Senate rules about the 60 votes needed to pass a bill so that nothing like this ever happens again. At least as long as they’re in charge.

Previously:  

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): shifting tar sands (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 3 (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 2 (November 14, 2014)

Charles P. Pierce is meaner (November 14, 2014)

And then all hell broke loose (November 13, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? (November 13, 2014)

Darn that President Obama and his totally misguided national energy policy… (September 29, 2014)

Thinking outside the barrel

28 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bumper stickers, electric car, oil

Pass the gas station.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): we don't need no stinkin' objective reality

22 Sunday Jan 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, missouri, oil, Vicky Hartzler

Or maybe, it’s just making stuff up.

A few days ago, via Twitter:

@RepHartzler Rep. Vicky Hartzler

Outrageous! Pres. Obama has killed the 20,000 jobs Keystone Pipeline project increasing our dependence on foreign oil. 18 Jan

And this reply:

@racb33 Raymond cattaneo

@RepHartzler u do realize that the keystone was transporting FOREIGN oil, right? 20 Jan

Here’s something more about oil distribution:

December 25, 2011

U.S. net exports of petroleum products

One big story of 2011 was the United States switched from being a net importer to a net exporter of petroleum products. Here are the details behind that development.

The graph below plots the difference between U.S. exports and imports of petroleum products. On average in 2008, we had been importing about 1.8 million barrels per day more than we exported. So far in the second half of 2011, the difference has swung to an average positive net export balance of 0.4 million barrels per day. The exports are coming in the form of diesel and gasoline that is being sold all over the world, with the top 10 buyers in terms of growth of demand for U.S. products being Mexico, Netherlands, Chile, Canada, Spain, Brazil, Guatemala, Turkey, Argentina, and France….

….a key factor is that abundant new supplies of crude oil from Canada and North Dakota are now coming into the central United States….

That first part is petroleum products, not crude.

Then there’s transporting that Canadian tar sand:

….The proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project is an approximate 2,673-kilometre (1,661-mile), 36-inch crude oil pipeline that would begin at Hardisty, Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Pipeline (Phase II) through Nebraska and Kansas to serve markets at Cushing, Oklahoma before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.

What would happen in Port Arthur, Texas? Export:

….Keystone XL is an export pipeline. The Port Arthur, Texas, refiners at the end of its route are focused on expanding exports to Europe and Latin America. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach US drivers’ tanks….

So much for decreasing dependence on foreign oil. It wouldn’t have worked either way, now, would it?  

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): end giveaways for Big Oil

11 Wednesday May 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Deficit, missouri, oil

Today Senator Claire McCaskill (D) announced she was supporting legislation which would eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): …This really isn’t very complicated. This is very simple. There is more hot air around this building about deficit reduction than any other topic right now. And if we cannot end subsidies to the five biggest most profitable corporations in the history of the planet that come from the federal taxpayer then I don’t think anyone should take us seriously about deficit reduction.

Every dime that we will realize from this bill will go towards reducing the deficit. the fiscal commission has spent a lot of time talking about it, the gang of six is negotiating about it, uh, the Republican Party gives out con, conflicting statements every day about it.

Uh, the bottom line is this, if we can’t do this, if we can’t remove subsidies from these profitable big oil companies then I don’t know if we can ever get to the really difficult work that lies ahead. This ought to be the essence of low hanging fruit. And we ought to get busy, in fact, this ought to be hot lined. Uh, this ought to be a bill that goes to the floor, uh, very quickly and receives unanimous support. Uh, removing these special deductions that have allowed this, these profits to soar even above where they’re gonna soar anyway…

…I will say that the CEO of, of Conoco Phillips actually said in a hearing, and I’ll quote him, “With respect to oil and gas exploration and production we do not need incentives.” Um, and so, there is nothing about our bill that removes the incentives of the oil and gas industry to explore and to drill and to produce more oil. In fact, oil production domestically is much higher today than it was in the Bush administration. We have more, uh, rigs operating now since the point in time they began kep, keeping records, nine, down in nineteen eighty-seven. Oil production has been up in two thousand nine and two thousand ten, so, uh, in, in terms of our domestic capability.

So all of these are, are frankly false arguments and what we’re really talking about today has less to do with, with the pain that my constituents are feeling at the pump and more to do with what our country can afford…

…The legislation mandates that it goes towards deficit reduction. I support the bill because it goes towards deficit reduction. I will not support the bill if it goes for any other purpose…

It’s not going over well with the usual suspects:

McCaskill aims to strip tax breaks from Big Five oil companies

….The oil industry is preparing for the fight. Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, labeled the Democrats’ bill a “vindictive money grab.”

Replied McCaskill: “I would have been surprised if he said this is a great idea…They can hire 14 different associations to say this is evil….”

Vindictive? No, vindictive would be a clause in the bill requiring testing for illegal drug use by all employees of recipients of public aid, you know, like corporate welfare.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 394,348 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.