RedBear is my motorcycle bear, who rides to adventure in the physical world. RedBear is also me, who rides on thoughts about motorcycling, sport shooting, sailing, and politics.
I suggest you Google "Milton Friedman" and then just start
watching as many of the short videos you find. There are many topics, all still relevant today.
Best Quote:“What do
you mean Give Back?” when talking about reducing taxes.
Too bad Milton misses it on the prediction for government size in 2009.
Four days ago, CNN polled Bernie Sanders' supporters in Iowa. They asked people to define Socialism. They had no real clue. Frankly, the responses are downright scary.
See the next post for Senator Ben Sasse's definition of "What is Conservatism?"
To be fair, here is an explanation of American democratic socialism from Peter Dreier, a professor of Politics at Occidental College. See: dreier-democratic-socialism/
To me, socialism is simply the step between heavily regulated capitalism (like we have now) and communism.
If you read between the lines in Dreier's description, you can see the the democracy part of his socialism is antithetical to our Constitutional Republic and its Constitution. The United Sates was founded on the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, strong property rights and that the person knows best how to run their own lives.
Unfortunately, many democracies eventually end as some sort of a tyrannical state, because even with the best of intentions, democracies give their power to bureaucracies that begin to function for their own well-being, not that of the people. That is happening currently in the US.
Further reading between the lines, one can see that the appeal of socialism is based on envy and greed. The futile quest for equality and equity is instigated by envy of the smarter, the better off, the harder worker. That leads to re-distributionist laws that destroy the freedom concept of the Founders. That is a key point for Bernie Sanders...for 40 years he has had the same speech, that the rich are the problem and he wants their stuff. Unfortunately, this road also leads to him wanting your stuff, via huge taxes, big government, and over-regulation.
Oh yeah, one last point: The Tax Foundation last week published their evaluation of Sanders' tax proposals, applied to the next ten years. It results in about 9.5% reduction in GDP and 6 million fewer FTE jobs. His tax increases would be 13.5%, but only produce 9.8% after considering the reduction in GDP. There would be a 10.5+% reduction in income for bottom 99% of earners, which turns into 12.8% after considering the reduction in GDP.
And too many of them have armed agents: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/bite-the-bullet-weve-got-too-many-agencies-with-armed-agents/ "There are now 73 federal agencies that have armed officers, often called
“special agents.” And all of these agencies now cordon off and enforce a
federal fiefdom of the more than 4,500 criminal laws at the federal
level and thousands of additional regulations that have sprung up in
recent decades." At least 25,000 officers.
And too many employees? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2466363/posts
For 2008: "Number of Full-Time Federal Employees - 2,518,101 Part-Time - 250,785
Full-Time State - 3,818,577 Part-Time - 1,451,002 Full-Time Local -
11,039,250 Part-Time - 3,383,976
TOTAL - 22,461,69"
Another fire is active within 20 miles of us today. It is the Courtney Fire in Oakhurst and 21 structures have burned since it started yesterday around noon. This comes on top of last week's Bridge Fire that almost destroyed 250 homes in Ponderosa Basin, near us. Two other fires are active near Coulterville.
We all know it is year three of drought and everything is extremely dry. But one of the real culprits here is the overabundance of fuels in the woods and a 100 years of fire repression without adequate management of fuel loads. The inability of the Forest Services to properly manage lands due to excessive meddling and lawsuits by environmental groups is adding greatly to the problem.
So what does it mean to say there is too much fuel in the forests. Well, over 100 years ago several naturalists made surveys of the forests from Arizona to Washington. They counted numbers of trees per acre. The general result was that the pine forests of then held about 30 to 40 mature trees per acre. Smaller tress were regularly kept in check by ground fires. Today, it is easy to see 300 to 400 trees per acre, many of which are small and midsize trees that constitute the majority of the fuel load, and the danger.
Here is an article that appeared last year during the huge, 400 sq. mile Rim Fire in Mariposa County and Yosemite Park. Fire-in-Yosemite-offers-forest-management-lessons It discusses the results of an ongoing survey that started 100 years ago and shows clearly the high fuels load.
Here is a quote: "Big increase in tree density - A large part of the answer may be found in Stephens' interrupted
expedition. His four-person research team was in the process of
measuring tree diameters and densities on 15,000 acres that had been
studied by the U.S. Forest Service in 1911.
The group found as many as 400 trees per acre on the land. That's
compared with between 60 and 90 trees per acre in 1911. There was also
between 30 and 40 tons of woody debris per acre on the forest floor,
compared with 6 to 8 tons 102 years ago, Stephens said. Besides the
dramatic increase in tree density, the researchers found more
undergrowth species and, although there were still many old growth
trees, the average size of the trees was smaller than in 1911, he said.
"We
know the last fire in that area was in about 1905. That's 100 years
without fire," Stephens said. "If you don't clear trees and brush and do
some prescribed burning, you are eventually going to get a very closed
forest that is very dense."
There is a little good news in some places around the Sierra. I have been riding a lot of forestry roads and roads like Highway 4 Ebbett's Pass yesterday. I am seeing more instances of Forestry and other agencies doing fuel reduction alongside the roads to about 100 yards back from the road edges. They are trimming limbs, collecting dead-fall and trash, and cutting the medium size-infill trees for later burning.
I believe we need much more of this thinning, We we consider that the Rim Fire costs about $100 million, think of all the labor hours that could provide valuable jobs to forest workers. Think of all the homes that could be saved from out-of-control fires.
Unions have been used to having their own way for a long time. Finally, in cases across teh country, some balance is being re-instated. In Wisconsin, the right of speech once again trumps the desire of unions to force members to support their political campaigns by providing union dues.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin had quite a good day on July 31
when the state supreme court upheld not only Wisconsin’s voter ID law,
but also the 2011 budget legislation that severely curtailed the power
of public unions to control the lives and salaries of state and
municipal government employees.
In Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker,
a majority of the court overturned a lower court decision that had
enjoined various parts of the law and upheld it in its entirety. The
2011 law (Act 10)
prohibited public unions from bargaining on issues other than base
wages; prohibited municipalities from deducting union dues from the
paychecks of public employees; imposed annual recertification
requirements for unions; and prohibited any union agreement that would
require employees who are not members of a union from having to pay
union dues.
Various unions, including the AFL-CIO, challenged these provisions,
claiming they violated their associational rights under the First
Amendment and their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.
This ruling represents a huge victory for both Wisconsin taxpayers and the recipients of government services.
In tossing out these claims, the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out
that, as the U.S. Supreme Court itself has said, public employees have
no “constitutional right to negotiate with their municipal employer on
the lone issue of base wages, let alone on any other subject.”
Collective bargaining is “a creation of legislative grace and not
constitutional obligation.” According to the court, “the plaintiffs’
associational rights are in no way implicated” by the law’s change to the state’s collective bargaining framework.
Union member are not restricted in any way from exercising their
First Amendment right to associate together: they “remain free to
advance any position, on any topic, either
individually or in concert, through any channels that are open to the
public.” But the union has no constitutional right to force the
government to listen to what it has to say – or to require the
government to negotiate only with the union.
Furthermore, unions can’t force the government to subsidize them
through paycheck deductions for union dues from public employees who are
members of the union – “no constitutional right exists for the
deduction of dues from a paycheck to support membership in a voluntary
organization.”
Unions also have no constitutional right to force employees who do
not want to be members of a union to pay union dues. Because none of the
challenged provisions involves constitutional rights and public
employees are not a protected class, the unions’ equal protection
challenge also failed under the court’s rational basis review.
The court also threw out an additional challenge to another Wisconsin
law that prohibited the City of Milwaukee from paying the employee
share of contributions to the city’s retirement plan.
This ruling, which removes the last legal challenge to Act 10,
represents a huge victory for both Wisconsin taxpayers and the
recipients of government services. Before Act 10, the Wisconsin state
and local governments could not manage their workforces without union
consent. Collective bargaining meant government unions had to agree with
any changes to how the government operates. Government unions often use
this power to hijack the government and make it serve their interests
ahead of the public good.
Unions in the private sector cannot ask for too much without their
companies prohibitively raising prices and losing customers to competing
firms. But the government has no competition—it has a monopoly.
Government unions do not have to worry
about holding costs down or operating efficiently because the public
has nowhere else to go. Without Act 10, Walker would have to either
raise taxes or cut programs to balance Wisconsin’s budget.
Unions
can’t force the government to subsidize them through paycheck
deductions for union dues from public employees who are members of the
union.
Government unions could live with either option, of course. What they
did not want was what actually happened – eliminating the deficit by
trimming their members’ benefits. Wisconsin government employees must
now contribute toward their pension benefits and pay a larger portion of
their healthcare premiums. They still make more than
comparable private sector workers, but that gap has narrowed. These
reforms allowed Walker to close a $3.6 billion budget hole and cut taxes by $2 billion.
Eliminating collective bargaining also allows governments to operate more efficiently. Local school districts saved tens of millions
of dollars by shopping for more competitive health plans. The Wisconsin
Education Association used to force districts to buy health benefits
from WEA Trust. This plan charged inflated premiums. School districts
can now spend those savings to better educate children.
Similarly union seniority systems meant Wisconsin schools had to lay
off the newest teachers first—no matter how well they taught. In 2010
Megan Sampson won statewide recognition for excellence as a first-year
English teacher. A week later Milwaukee Public Schools laid her off
because the union contract required her to be let go first. That system
benefited senior union members at the expense of new hires and children
who need the best education possible. Act 10 eliminated this
restriction. Wisconsin school districts can now hire and fire on the
basis of what works best for the children, not the union members. Act 10
means the government can serve the public instead of unions.
This is one of the most important articlesI have read in years. Matt Ridley is a UK Parliamentarian with an outspoken attitude and often right-on ideas.
Context: Since 1990, the number of the world's extreme poor has decreased by 50% because of globalization, free markets and the spread of easy to access energy and technology.
To continue this trend, Ridley asks what are the five most important things people can do to continue the improvement. He suggests the United Nations needs new goals that are discrete, quantitative and achievable. He suggests using a method from Bjorn Lomborg, who has brought together 60 economists and asked that very question.
Ridley picks his own list of five, which I can agree with. However, I would add number zero: A massive improvement in sanitation, especially in countries like India, where malnutrition caused by chronic diseases is endemic and cultural.
The entire article is at the WSJ for July 26-27, 2014. Smart Aid for the World's Poor, How can rich countries best help poor ones? See article here at WSJ: smart-aid-for-the-worlds-poor
Ridley proposes these five ideas:
"What would my own list of five 2030 goals look like, based on the work of the Copenhagen Consensus group?
1.
Reduce malnutrition. When children get better food, they develop their
brains, stay in school longer and end up becoming far more productive
members of society. Every dollar spent to alleviate malnutrition brings
$59 of benefits.
2.
Tackle malaria and tuberculosis. These two diseases debilitate huge
populations in poor countries, but they are largely preventable and
curable. In the most harshly affected countries, two people often do one
person's work because one of them is sick. Benefit to cost ratio: 35 to
1.
3. Boost preprimary education, which costs little and has lifelong benefits by getting children started on learning. 30 to 1.
4.
Provide universal access to sexual and reproductive health, which would
save the lives of mothers and infants while enabling women to be more
economically productive. It would also lower birthrates (when fewer
children die, people have fewer children). Benefits could be as high as
150.
5.
Expand free trade. This isn't considered sexy in the development
industry, and it may seem remote from humanitarian issues, but free
trade often delivers phenomenal improvements to the welfare of the poor
in surprisingly quick time, as the example of China has demonstrated in
recent years. One of the discoveries of the Copenhagen Consensus process
is that incremental goals such as expanding free trade are often better
than supposedly "transformational" goals. A successful Doha Round of
the World Trade Organization could deliver annual benefits of $3
trillion for the developing world by 2020, rising to $100 trillion by
the end of the century."
In 2012, President Obama used an executive order (once again illegal) to grant effective amnesty to hundreds of thousands of "Dreamers," that is kids of illegal immigrants who have been raised in the US.
Subsequent to this, administrative actions have extended this to many who are not accompanied by parents or guardians. Since October 2013 to May 2014, about 47,000 have crossed the border. The scandal is that this fact was being kept quiet, all the while military barracks in Texas, Arizona and other locations have been converted into what are essentially refuge camps. Recently , the Administration has banned visitor to these camps. They have also forbidden Border Patrol officers from carrying personal electronic devices so that they cannot take pictures inside these centers. It is estimated that in the Nogales area almost 50% of CBP officers are working on the paperwork for these "kids." They are being promised lawyers and advocates so that they can be processed into green card holders.
Worse, word has been going around in South and Central America that this order effectively means the US will not turn away any children who end up crossing the southern border. So parents are making efforts to get them to the border. Incredibly, newspapers and US consulates in Central America are spreading the word that this opportunity exists, thereby encouraging the inrush.
As predicted by local law enforcement in Arizona, the "kids" are now showing signs of serious diseases like tuberculosis, whooping cough, flu, malaria, etc.
Why do I put "kids" in parentheses? because most of them are not really kids but teens and young adults. Many have criminal backgrounds or are gang members. This is why cameras have been taken away and access to the camps curtailed, so the truth of who they are can't be shown.
Soon after they arrive, many of the "kids" inquire about when they can get their Obama-phone.
Estimates are that in the next year, another 140,000 or more will show up and be accepted.
When the real (B6 BLS report) shows over 16% of working age people in the US are still unemployed, how can the government justify this invasion? I say it is not justifiable. The prognosis for more wasted money, disease propagation and social disruption is unparalleled. And all the far left-wingers can see is future voters.
UPDATE: Homeland Security announced yesterday that none of these "kids" will be going back! DOJ announced they will provide lawyers, which is patently illegal.
A friend sent me the posting below. It is a plain speaking expose of President Obama's agenda to tax and spend as furiously as he can for his entire eight years. We will never improve the economy at better than 2% until he leaves office.
Of course, it is Internet fantasy! But at the same time, there is more than a kernal of truth.
I have been looking for verification of this. I do not yet know the date of the post or the original location of the post. Snopes.com does not mention it. I have found a few references but I think the post is substantialy false.
However, the ideas are valid. Take for instance this mesage from Heritage Foundation that arrived today:
Not only is President
Obama’s proposed budget for 2015 a month late, but it’s also
unrealistic, Heritage Foundation experts report. It’s more of the same
tax-and-spend liberalism:
Spending would go from $3.5 trillion in 2013 to
nearly $6 trillion in 2024.
Debt borrowed in credit markets (public debt) would
grow from $12 trillion in 2013 to $19 trillion in 2024.
The national debt, including debt owed to government
agencies, would grow from $17.3 trillion today to $25 trillion in 2024.
The President’s budget includes about $1 trillion in
new spending, partly offset by other spending cuts, and about $1.2
trillion in tax increases.
Subject:
: A MUST READ: Don't Expect Anything Good For America Until Obama Is Gone.....
This came from
Jim Abrahamson. Jim is not a conservative radical. He is a former Air Force
general with an incredible resume. Viet Nam fighter pilot, test pilot,
astronaut, head of the F-16 development program, head of Reagan's "Star
Wars"program, and head of NASA's shuttle program. After retirement, he was
President of Hughes Aerospace, and then Chairman of Oracle.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alan Simpson of
Simpson-Bowles fame lays out his experience in dealing with the President. As you have heard me say before that volunteering at the Bush
Center library is a "great gig". I could write about my great
experiences daily; but today was one of the highlights, so far…
Southern Methodist University
has a lecture series called the Tate Lecture Series which has a significant
speaker every month from September to May. Last month was Charles Krauthammer
and last night was Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Tickets to those events are
like "hens teeth" and they are passed down from father to son or
family to family and has a waiting list of 7 years for season tickets for the
general public. One of the benefits of these visits is that these folks
normally visit the library (after normal hours) while in town.
Today's experience was worth a
lot. Alan Simpson was the co-author of the Simpson - Bowles Commission appointed
by the current president to come up with a plan and path forward to help the
nation get back on a sound fiscal footing. It was to include spending limits
and controls that would address existing entitlements, a change in tax codes
and the abolishment of selected existing tax breaks for special interest
groups. Accordingly, It called for a sound fiscal plan that would get us into
reasonable balance in 10 years.
As everyone knows, Alan Simpson
(R) (82) is a retired senator from Wyoming and is known for his
"frank" opinions and statements and in some ways seen as eccentric in
some of his views. Erskine Bowles (D) (69), who was Chief of Staff in former
administrations, is a respected Democrat and was an equal partner in putting
this study and report together with supposedly high respect and influence in
the Democratic Party.
The intent was for the current
President to use their report as a road map to fiscal responsibility. This
report was issued in 2010 and as quickly dismissed by the president as a non-starter
prior to the election of 2012 based on its perceived political impact on his
re-election.
When I saw Simpson today in the
museum, I approached him to welcome him to the museum as a team leader since
that is my job for the general public. Normally, VIP's or "celebs"
have Foundation escorts during these visits, but in typical Simpson fashion, he
wanted to be just another visitor.
All volunteers wear the same
uniform and have a prominent name tag for the public to see. Little did I know
that when I approached him to welcome him, he would receive me as a long lost
friend and it was Howard this and Howard that in typical politician fashion.
After two or three minutes of asking about the library (which he loved) and how
often we work and what days do we work and other small talk, I asked him for
his assessment of our current national fiscal and spending problems and his
view on the future efforts needed to turn the nation around.
I spent the next 15 minutes
(just the two of us) listening to him expound on his view of our future. His
first answer was that with this president we will never make progress. He then
related a story that when Bowles and Simpson requested time with the president
to urge him to seriously consider their report, he was stunned by the response
(as was Bowles).
The president told them that he
would take no action on any of the Commission's recommendations and explained
his rationale in the following way - prior to his re-election and probably
after his re-election he would do nothing. Simply put it was a pure political
decision. He stated that to accept reductions in the growth of entitlements
would alienate his base and he would only look at the tax increase side of the
recommendations after the election. He further added that to accept the
recommendations would give the Republicans a victory as seen by the voters and
he was not ever going to do that now or ever. He was adamant that he wanted
more spending and more taxes and that he would pursue that course throughout
his administration until his last day in office.
Stunned by that answer, Bowles
asked him if he would do what's right for the country and exert some leadership
to save the nation's fiscal future.Obama's response was that he would let the
next president worry about the spending and debt, but he was going to spend and
tax and re-distribute wealth throughout his term.
Both men were furious and after
spending 1.5 hours with the president, they left in utter disbelief. Bowles,
thinking that he could have some credibility with the D's in the House and
Senate tried to gather some influence with that group andwas
quickly advised that the Obama agenda would go forward at all costs.
In one desperate attempt to get
some traction, Bowles thought that if he went to see the president without
Simpson being there, he could have a more meaningful result.That effort resulted in the same answer as they got
the first time and that meeting was closer to the election and was dismissed as
untimely and unnecessary by Obama.The
end result is what we are now seeing each and every day. Bowles and Simpson
believe that this president is not interested in anything except his political
agenda.
About this time Simpson's wife
joined us and we talked for few more minutes as she reminded him that they had
a plane to catch and they had to move along.
In summary, I should not have
asked my questions given my role of a neutral docent, but as an American I
wanted to know his thoughts. I was stunned that he would be that candid with a
perfect stranger, but knowing Simpson it has been typical of his behavior over
his career.
These are the reasons that
volunteering at the Bush Center make life in America bearable for me at this
time. I thought you might want to see this insight from an experienced
Washington insider. He was candid and as he left he said,"Don't expect anything good for America until this guy is gone."
President Obama wants to raise the federal minimum wage. This is a good discussion of why that is a bad idea and how it will destroy jobs, depress the economy and result in miniscule gain to employees.
This post starts a new list of offenses by the President and the Obama Administration, in which they ignore existing law, or bypass Congress by means of executive orders, or simply just proceed with their ideology by means of administrative fiat.
First up is Operation Choke Point, in which the Administration and DOJ attempt to choke off (read: destroy) third party payment processors, payday lenders, and online lenders. Also frightening, there is intimidation of banks to make it difficult for small vendors in businesses that the DOJ sees as "not socially acceptable" to use credit card services. Such businesses include firearms and ammunition sellers,
"The operation is headed by political operatives and career bureaucrats
at the Department of Justice, the FDIC, and the new Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ("CFPB"). It appears to be the latest example of the
Obama administration's successful efforts to weaponize the apparatus of
the federal government against people and industries it opposes
ideologically."
"As we see it, “Operation Choke Point” is part of Obama’s long term plan
to remake American society by killing-off any inclination to be
self-sufficient among America’s working poor, who are the primary users
and beneficiaries of short-term lending."
California is a huge state, with 39 million
diverse people. It has had so much good happen to it that many don’t
seem to realize that now is not its finest hour. One proposal to solve
some of the problems is to split the state into pieces.
This could make the resulting smaller states easier to govern, more
responsive to their citizens, more able to be competitive with other
states, etc. Think of how, once again, California could even shake up
the federal system for the better.
I like the idea – at least it deserves to be talked about. Maybe it should be a ballot initiative?
Here's some info from Forbes Magazine from 2010. www.forbes.com
Some friends were denigrating corporations again, so I chimed in with some facts as I know them:
Average taxes paid by most corporations is about 35%. It is not $83
billion per year that the FED is injecting into the economy, it is $83
billion per month. Food stamp program went from 27 million people
subsidized to 47 million in only 5 years and the cost doubled too.
If
you don't like that the FED keeps printing money each month, then call
the White House, where this plan originates. Get your budgets in order -
inflation is coming.
I googled "what companies paid in taxes" as suggested and got the following links.
For all the outcry over GE, a number of corporate titans are paying much higher rates than the average citizen. Top 20: Many pay more that 35%. ge-exxon-walmart-apple-corporate-taxes_slide
My
bet is that the majority of large and small US companies pay close to
30%. Also note how the top three (ExxonMobil, Conoco, Chevron) are the
supposedly evil oil companies. Also note how much these companies pay to
other countries. These top 20 form a significant part of the about $700
billion of total corporate income tax.
Elections have consequences. We hear that a lot. One consequence of electing Governor Ed Cuomo in New York State, plus of lot of liberal legislators, is the SAFE Act which imposes draconian limits on firearms. The cost is hundreds of jobs. From the blog Albany Watch: Firearms-maker-leaves-rochester
Firearms maker leaves Rochester to “a state that is friendly to the Second Amendment rights of the people”
American Tactical Imports is leaving Rochester for South
Carolina, blaming the move in part on the state’s gun-control law passed
in January.
“As one of the gun industry’s top importers and manufactures of
firearms and firearm related accessories, ATI’s decision to relocate is
two-fold,” the company said in a news release yesterday.
“ATI believes it is imperative that a firearms importer and
manufacturer do business within a state that is friendly to the Second
Amendment rights of the people. “It
is also important that ATI be close to the port-of-entry into the
country for several of their imported products. The relocation to South
Carolina ensures that both of these factors are met.”
It was unclear how many jobs will be lost in Rochester because of
the move, but the company said the relocation will have a $2.7 million
impact on the Summerville, S.C., community and create an estimated 117
new jobs in the area. Summerville is near Charleston, thus providing
port access.
The move is slated for next month. The company is receiving tax incentives to leave, as well.
“This move to South Carolina will help ensure a solid foundation for
our company,” said Tony DiChario, the company’s president, in a
statement. “The relocation process will be smooth and we have ensured
that the process will not affect customer service, product distribution
or any other segment of our business. The people of South Carolina have
welcomed ATI with open arms and we are excited about making our new
corporate home there.”
Rockland County-based Kahr Arms announced in July it was leaving New
York for Pennsylvania, blaming the move on New York’s gun-control law.
Remington Arms, based in the Mohawk Valley, has also dealt with
questions about whether it would move out of the state and has been
wooed by other states. But the company hasn’t said it would leave.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is quoted in the press release touting the ATI move.
“Today’s announcement is another testament that South Carolina is a
destination for job-creating investments,” Haley said in a statement.
“We celebrate American Tactical’s decision to invest in Dorchester
County.”
ATI says it is one of the nation’s top importers and manufactures of firearm-related products.
The comedy here is that pointed out by Professor Curry at Georgia Institute of Technology, wherein the IPCC says that they have been wrong, but they now have more confidence in their results.
And the further black comedy, as speculated on by Freedom Outpost, is that The Obama Administration will likely just ignore the whole issue, so they can continue their economy straggling ways.
Completing the proposed Keystone XL crude oil
pipeline would not have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions
because other transportation routes used in its absence would not
significantly change Alberta oil sands production growth, a recent IHS CERA study concluded.
Venezuelan heavy crude imports most likely would replace any Canadian bitumen that did not reach the US Gulf Coast, it added.
The Aug. 8 IHS CERA Canadian Oil Sands Dialogue study reached conclusions similar to the US Department of State’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL’s latest cross-border permit application.
Both found that preventing the project’s construction would have
little effect on oil sands production in Alberta. IHS said it expects
production to rise to 4.3 million b/d in 2030 from 1.9 million b/d in
2013 and does not expect the Keystone XL decision to have a material
impact.
It noted that another 3 million b/d of oil sands pipeline capacity
has been proposed, 80% of which traverses exclusively through Canada and
consequently does not require US government approval.
With sufficient scale and investment, the cost of transporting
bitumen from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries by rail could fall to
within $6/bbl of pipeline transportation costs, the study indicated.
“This would place rail well within the break-even range for most oil
sands production,” it said.
Gulf Coast GHGs
The study also concluded that there would be little change in the
Gulf Coast’s overall GHG emissions if bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands
was not shipped there. The region, which contains 50% of the nation’s
refining capacity, could process similarly heavy crudes from elsewhere,
it said.
Venezuela, which now is the biggest heavy crude supplier for Gulf
Coast refineries, would most likely continue in that role, it continued.
IHS said its research has found Venezuelan heavy crude to have a
range of life-cycle GHG emissions similar to oil sands imported into the
US. “Venezuelan heavy oil—and Venezuela—would be the number one
beneficiary of a negative decision on Keystone,” the study said.
The conclusions show building Keystone XL “would leave the climate in
neutral, but place the economy in drive,” Consumer Energy Alliance
Executive Vice-Pres. Michael Whatley responded.
“Five billion dollars in new investment and over 40,000 jobs is
nothing to shake a stick at,” he said. “Combine that with American
energy consumers being able to access both Bakken and Alberta-sourced
oil, and you move the US away from being beholden to [Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries] suppliers.” Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.
