Is Obama Losing the Energy War Before It’s Even Started?
By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist
3 Reasons Why Vetoing Keystone XL Spells Environmental and Economic Disaster
“If Obama vetoes the Keystone XL pipeline, he’s putting the American population at greater risk than ever before,” says Marin Katusa, best-selling author of The Colder War and chief investment strategist of the Casey Research energy team.
For years, the debate has been raging: should the US government allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built?
Watch this short documentary to see why not building the pipeline could endanger the environment and the lives (and livelihood) of the American people…
In his New York Times best-seller The Colder War, Marin explains why the economic battle about oil, gas, and other energy resources may well be the defining event of the 21st century. Will Russia emerge the winner, and what will that mean for the US and the rest of the world?
Get your FREE copy of Marin’s riveting real-life thriller when you try his monthly advisory, The Colder War Letter, risk-free for 90 days. If it’s not for you, cancel for a full refund and keep the book as our thank-you gift. Click here to learn more.
Here’s a question, I know that back in ’09 (or so), when it became apparent that O and the Dems were not going to ok the Keystone, Canada signed a couple epic deals with Russia and China over their oil rights based on the fact that the U.S. didn’t want the oil as badly.
So my question is, what oil is going to be sent along those pipelines? Russia’s? Really?
Follow up question, how badly would Keystone impact Buffett’s “profit” making abilities?
And real follow up, how close is Warren to O?
These are the questions I need answered before I can come down one way or the other.
Just kidding, the only questions I have are, “what do you movers & shakers wish for me to think about it?”
Then I can answer the question, and of course Obama isn’t losing. He, according to many, is the greatest President evah and has experienced no failures only Repuke led road blocks.
As long as uncle warren doesn’t want the Keystone pipeline, there will not be a pipeline. With taxpayer help warren built oil rail cars and now owns Burlington Northern railroad that ships the oil by train, rather by pipe.
Google how many accidents there have been, and how many people have died because of rail accidents that for some reason are never mentioned in the national news.
What is the funny side of the story is progressive environmentalist groups helped to elect the head fool based on his promises. And oh how they all laughed at republicans chant of drill baby drill.
Not only have they been drilling, but fracking their asses off all during the head liars term making the US a major oil producer, the Bakken oil is still moving through backyards, only in a more dangerous fashion.
People only want to believe what they are told to believe. Idiots.
If the oil was going to stay here and be used by people in the U.S. I would be all for it.
Either way it just makes a person not care. Obamas ideas on energy are not realistic.
The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to move Canadian tar sands through the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The refined product will then be loaded onto tanker ships for export. NONE of this benefits the U.S.
The burning question among the supporters is which transport method would you prefer, trains or the pipeline? I choose neither, let the Canuks refine their own product and ship it through their ports.
Russia Cuts Off Ukraine Gas Supply To 6 European Countries
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/14/2015 19:56 -0500
Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian state energy giant Gazprom to cut supplies to and through Ukraine amid accusations, according to The Daily Mail, that its neighbor has been siphoning off and stealing Russian gas. Due to these “transit risks for European consumers in the territory of Ukraine,” Gazprom cut gas exports to Europe by 60%, plunging the continent into an energy crisis “within hours.” Perhaps explaining the explosion higher in NatGas prices (and oil) today, gas companies in Ukraine confirmed that Russia had cut off supply; and six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas. The EU raged that the sudden cut-off to some of its member countries was “completely unacceptable,” but Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller later added that Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey; and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak stated unequivocally, “the decision has been made.”
As Bloomberg reports,
Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey, a surprise move that the European Union’s energy chief said would hurt its reputation as a supplier.
The decision makes no economic sense, Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission’s vice president for energy union, told reporters today after talks with Russian government officials and the head of gas exporter, OAO Gazprom, in Moscow.
Gazprom, the world’s biggest natural gas supplier, plans to send 63 billion cubic meters through a proposed link under the Black Sea to Turkey, fully replacing shipments via Ukraine, Chief Executive Officer Alexey Miller said during the discussions. About 40 percent of Russia’s gas exports to Europe and Turkey travel through Ukraine’s Soviet-era network.
…
Sefcovic said he was “very surprised” by Miller’s comment, adding that relying on a Turkish route, without Ukraine, won’t fit with the EU’s gas system.
Gazprom plans to deliver the fuel to Turkey’s border with Greece and “it’s up to the EU to decide what to do” with it further, according to Sefcovic.
Which, as The Daily Mail reports, has led to a major (and imminent) problem for Europe…
Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 60 per cent today, plunging the continent into an energy crisis ‘within hours’ as a dispute with Ukraine escalated.
This morning, gas companies in Ukraine said that Russia had completely cut off their supply.
Six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas shipped via Ukraine today, in a sharp escalation of a struggle over energy that threatens Europe as winter sets in.
Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments from Russia through Ukraine.
* * *
As Bloomberg goes on to note, Gazprom has reduced deliveries via Ukraine after price and debt disputes with the neighboring country that twice in the past decade disrupted supplies to the EU during freezing weather.
“Transit risks for European consumers on the territory of Ukraine remain,” Miller said in an e-mailed statement. “There are no other options” except for the planned Turkish Stream link, he said.
“We have informed our European partners, and now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border,” Miller said.
Russia won’t hurt its image with a shift to Turkey because it has always been a reliable gas supplier and never violated its obligations, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters today in Moscow after meeting Sefcovic.
“The decision has been made,” Novak said. “We are diversifying and eliminating the risks of unreliable countries that caused problems in past years, including for European consumers.”
* * *
That helps to explain today’s epic meltup in NatGas futures…
* * *
“They [the Russians] have reduced deliveries to 92million cubic metres per 24 hours compared to the promised 221million cubic metres without explanation,” said Valentin Zemlyansky of the Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz.
“We do not understand how we will deliver gas to Europe. This means that in a few hours problems with supplies to Europe will begin.”
* * *
Check to you Europe (i.e. Washington)… Because it’s getting might cold in Europe…
(and bear in mind the consequences of cold, pissed off Europeans in the past).
The 21st of Jan is statistical mid point of the heating season.
As I understand it, it is an eminent domain issue: the pipeline goes under private land which the owners won’t accept payment to have it run under. Thus, the gov. must intervene to force them to let the leaky pipe run through their land (all pipes leak).
As I understand it, the pipeline’s purpose is to feed one refinery (in Louisiana?) designed to handle that specific grade of crude. The refinery used to get the crude from Venezuela, but they raised the price substantially so the refinery looked north for the same grade and found it in the tar sands.
Now if you’ve noticed a strong Republican putsch for the project, that’s cause the refinery is owned by the Koch brothers and they expect results from the politicians they rent. (nothing against the Repubs, if the refinery were owned by a big Dem donor, it would the Dems pushing for it).
I should add that environmentalists are fantasizing to imagine that the pipeline won’t eventually get built or that lots of oil won’t be extracted from the Canadian tar sands. As long as the tar stands generate net energy (more energy out than energy used to extract) and the price is right, Canada will happily turn that land into an environmental nightmare with not much thought towards preventing toxins from contaminating the watershed. I’d be more worried about those toxins that any leakage from the pipeline.