Skip to main content

View Diary: Pres. Obama's Big Oil host has history of war profiteering, discrimination (Updated/Action) (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I appreciate your discussion of "demand" but (4+ / 0-)

    Tar Sands oil is not for US consumption anymore. There's a glut of the "dilbit" from Tar Sands in Oklahoma and it is bringing down the price of crude. (-$2.00 today). Also US consumption is the lowest in 4 years so it's not the intended market. The Tar Sands dirty oil is for refineries in Texas and then to the rest of the world. Europe's demand is the lowest in 12 years so it's probably not aimed at Europe.

    That said anything that brings down US consumption is good news for the climate. It's consuming 25% of the world's oil now.

    What to do about the demand in China, India, the Far East? The world's top oil companies have invested $200 billion in the Tar Sands. They want some return on their money so they are putting a lot of pressure on the US and Canada.

    To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 04:59:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand (0+ / 0-)

      You said:

      Tar Sands oil is not for US consumption anymore.
      I just just don't understand this statement at all.   Many/most of the refineries in the midwest have been converted for and are using tar sands crude.  The stated plans of the promoters of the Keystone XL Pipeline are to get tar sands synthetic crude throughout the south central refinery sector.

      Saying that tar sands synthetic crude is not for U.S. consumption isn't a correct description of how synthetic crude is presently being used and marketed.

      You're trying to say that somehow there is a kind of world market preference for tar sands crude delivered at Port Arthur, TX.  But there isn't any basis for pricing differences in the world market to put a premium on heavy sour synthetic crude compared to, for example, Venezuelan conventional heavy sour crude.
       

      •  The Keystone XL is going to go to Texas refineries (3+ / 0-)

        on the Gulf coast to be shipped by supertanker to other countries. I meant that the Tar Sands dirty oil that would flow in the Keystone XL pipeline is not for the US.

        Tar Sands crude is diluted bitumen or dilbit. Also those Texas refineries are powered by petcoke a byproduct of Tar Sands mining that is worse than coal.

        To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:24:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're interpretation of this is plain wrong (0+ / 0-)

          about the planned disposition of synthetic tar sands crude.   And petroleum refineries are not "powered by petcoke"

          Petroleum refineries generally do not use as a fuel or process material the petroleum coke they generate in coker process units.   I can't think of a single refinery I'm aware of in TX or LA that burns coker-derived petcoke at their sites.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site