Too Oily for National Security

As freezing temperatures have wracked the United States – the result of overly warm (climate-change directed) Arctic air pushing the cold stuff down to us – the debate over the production and use of greenhouse-gas-generating fossil fuels continues. We don’t seem to be able to figure out how to stop what has become profound climate-related dysfunction and pain, choosing instead to find better ways to “harvest” and transport even more fossil fuels into our ecosystem.

Should we build the Keystone Pipeline because it causes no worse pollution than strings of tanker cars heading south from Canada bearing the black gold? Should we celebrate the “oil” independence we have achieved of late through the injection of chemically-laced pressurized water (with an occasional fouling of underground drinking water plus an unexpected quake or two) to force the extraction of oil and gas from uncomfortable cracks, fissures and pockets deep within the earth? The United States is becoming the largest producer of fossil fuel in the world.

And should we lift the national security-motivated ban on selling oil overseas to allow producers of crude to make more money in the export market? Oil drillers say yes. Oil refiners say no. The latter want lots of accessible (less transportation required) oil to fill their expensive systems, producing lucrative gasoline and other consumables for the American marketplace.

“It is a rare clash in a deeply guarded industry that involves arguments over national security, pricing at the pump and, after all is said and done, who will get a bigger share of earnings from the current drilling rush.

“‘What we have here is a food fight for the profits that will come either from exports of crude oil or exports of refined products,’ said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director of energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, who testified before Congress recently in favor of lifting the ban. ‘It’s like an argument inside a family business but one that could result in huge market distortions that can either hurt the consumer or our national security.’

“Producers like [Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources and one of Texas’ top oil executives] warn that a mounting glut of certain grades of oil in some regions of the country will eventually force a halt to unprofitable drilling if exports are not allowed… ‘Nobody wants the collapse of the oil industry,’ Mr. Sheffield said in an interview. ‘You would be importing crude oil from the Middle East all over again.’

“On the other side of the debate are some of the nation’s biggest refiners, who argue against unlimited exports of crude oil even as they export increasing amounts of refined products like diesel and gasoline. To their way of thinking, the oil producers are merely trying to increase their profits at the expense of American consumers.

“‘They are seeking the highest price available,’ Bill Day, a vice president at the Valero Energy Corporation, a large independent refiner, said of the producers. ‘If anything, unlimited exports would raise the price of American crude to the international level, which is why the producers want this step to begin with.’…

“Only seven years ago the country’s domestic oil production appeared to be in a downward spiral. But with the advent of new extraction techniques, entire new fields were opened, replacing oil imports from unfriendly or unruly places like Venezuela and Nigeria… Suddenly parts of the Midwest and Gulf of Mexico regions are overflowing with superior grades of crude, leading to a slump in prices and a gap of as much as $10 between American oil benchmark prices and the dominant world Brent price.

“Even under current restrictions, crude exports are growing quickly. Shipments to Canada have already roughly tripled since 2012 to around 200,000 barrels a day. Some analysts say they think that figure will double by the end of the year.” New York Times, February 12th.

The Obama Administration – particularly the Departments of Energy and Commerce – are trying to find a balance a compromise policy that might alleviate some of these economic anomalies. “Some executives have suggested that Commerce Department officials could approve swaps of lighter American crudes to Mexico for their heavier sour crudes without violating current oil export regulations. That would give the producers another market and give refiners more oil to process.

“There appears to be growing support for recharacterizing condensates, the hydrocarbon liquids used for petrochemical production, from crude to natural gas liquids, so they might be exported under current regulations. That would ease gluts in Rocky Mountain and South Texas fields where drilling has already slowed… And perhaps more oil could be sent to countries with free trade agreements with the United States.” NY Times.

All these debates are raging, as drought-plagued sections of oil-rich Texas appear to have achieved long-term status as the new-next dust bowl, as Atlanta has a new snow and ice record that has toppled power poles, shut down streets and highways, and as thousands of flights have shut down access to major airports from the Midwest to the East Coast. Beijing air is so polluted that the meters measuring toxicity all-too-frequently cannot accurately report particulate emissions, because the level of pollution exceeds their maximum scale. At what point do we begin to move away from fossil fuels and actually save our own lives, our own environment, our own planet?

 

I’m Peter Dekom, and at what point is denial the ultimate proof of mass self-destructive psychosis?