Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Keystone Pipeline - 2 Dems Defect
To points of interest for me here. 1. The pipeline iteself (economical sense and national security re: getting our own crude oil). 2. That it's somewhat refreshing to see that some politicians choose to do what's best for their states/constituents rather than hold the "party line" at the national level (in this case it happens to be 2 Dems, but I'd feel the same way if it were Reps).
"Two red state Democratic senators signaled support Thursday for legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline opposed by President Barack Obama, Democratic Party leaders, and influential Democratic donors.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D- N.D., told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement that she will support legislation passed by the House on Wednesday to approve construction of the pipeline if it comes to the Senate floor.
"Yesterday's vote on H.R. 3 in the House is another clear indication the majority of those in Congress believe it is time to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline," Heitkamp said.
The legislation, authored by Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., would circumvent presidential approval of the project, which would carry crude oil from Canada through a 1,700-mile pipeline to refineries on the Gulf coast.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., also said she will support the bill, telling the Free Beacon, "our national and economic security will be bolstered with the construction of this pipeline." "
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/24/red-state-dems-defect-on-keystone-pipeline/?test=latestnews#ixzz2UE4as8tH
Re: Keystone Pipeline - 2 Dems Defect
We're not getting any of that oil, so this doesn't make a lot of sense. The pipeline simply carries the oil from Canada to the Gulf in order for it to be sold to other countries. It's not "our own oil."
Gotcha. But it would facilitate us buying that oil from a North American country instead of a nation in the Middle East, which with OPEC do crazy things to prices. Perhaps the prices would be lower - at least the cost to transport it would be lowered and that should be some savings at the pump???
The US already has been steadily reducing oil imports, and actually doesn't get that much oil from the Middle East in the first place:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/u-s-oil-imports-are-falling-to-their-lowest-level-since-1987/
But it's not even possible to ever become completely independent on foreign oil:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.html
And even if somehow it were possible, oil is still a global business and Americans would still be subject to the prices of the market.
The Keystone Pipeline benefits oil companies, period. And oil companies benefit when oil prices are high.
ETA:
But here?s the kicker: Even if the United States goes further and somehow manages to produce every last drop of the oil and gas it needs to run its economy, the country would still be vulnerable to events in the Middle East, tensions in Iran, strikes in Venezuela and other disruptions in the oil markets.To see why, here?s an interesting chart from a new report out of the Congressional Budget Office on energy security. It looks at how gasoline prices have moved in Japan, Canada and the United States in the past decade:That shouldn?t be surprising. As the CBO explains, oil prices are set by the global oil market. ?Disruptions in oil production in one country will cause the world oil market to readjust so that all countries and firms continue to receive oil at the new prevailing price.? Even if the United States produced 100 percent of its own oil, the price would still go up if rising demand from China outstripped the ability of supplies to keep up. The price would still go up if Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. And so on.
he only way the United States could completely shield itself from global swings in price, the CBO notes, is by cutting itself off from the world oil markets and preventing its domestic producers from ever selling crude abroad. Even then, CBO notes, this could only work if the United States kept discovering large new domestic fields and could somehow force multinational oil companies to keep investing in the United States even if they found it unprofitable to do so. In other words, it?s an unrealistic goal.Now, it?s true that more production in the United States could, potentially, increase the world?s overall supply of oil, lowering the absolute price of crude a bit. But even here, the CBO is doubtful that more U.S. production would have a large impact on global prices ? most likely, producers in other countries would cut back on production in response, ?diminishing or eliminating the effect.? (Saudi Arabia, for instance, recently announced that it would reduce a planned drilling expansion because of increased production in Brazil and Iraq.)This doesn?t mean that boosting U.S. oil production is pointless. Importing less oil from abroad would help shrink the U.S. trade deficit. Dollars spent on oil would stay within the country rather than flee overseas. That?s not nothing. But according to the CBO, even a massive surge in production wouldn?t likely do very much to buffer the United States from the sorts of wild and harmful swings in the oil market that are becoming increasingly common.The only real protection against oil volatility, the report concludes, is to become more fuel-efficient and ramp up alternatives to crude.