Why Biden should allow the Keystone Pipeline to go forward

-
The Biden Administration must not understand the situation in the Ukraine if they don't believe building the Keystone Pipeline is important.  On multiple occasions the Biden Administration has said no to reversing position on the Keystone Pipeline as a way to help reduce reliance on Russian oil.  They don't recognize that approving the pipeline provides both short term and long term value to the situation in the Ukraine.  Joe Biden, and the people around him, are so wedded to the Green New Deal that they are yielding an important tool they can use against Vladimir Putin.

In response to a question about approving the Keystone Pipeline, Jen Psaki, President Biden's spokesperson, said "It would take years for that to have any impact."*   Pete Buttigieg, Biden's Secretary of Transportation, said the President does not want to implement "permanent solutions" to "short term problems," when asked if the Administration would approve the Keystone Pipeline in light of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.**  President Biden and his team just don't get it.

Approving the Keystone pipeline should have an immediate impact on oil prices.  Its true the pipeline isn't built yet, so oil won't flow immediately but oil prices aren't just based on supply.  Oil is sold on the Commodities market.  Companies are placing orders for oil to be delivered in the future and those prices can change not just based on actual supplies but on perceptions.  For example, Russian oil supplies have not yet been banned but oil prices have risen significantly in anticipation that there will be an interruption.  

Announcing a significant new source of oil or gas coming onto the market, whether it be new leases to drill or the Keystone Pipeline, would tell the market that a replacement for Russian oil is not a wish and not dependent upon OPEC stepping in, not dependent upon Iran or Venezuela.    Prices won't immediately drop to $40 per barrel, but people buying future oil will either bid less or buy less in anticipation of greater supplies when the American oil hits the market.  The immediate good news should cause prices to stabilize and then mitigate against further price increases.

The other immediate benefit is the message it sends to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Oligarchs.    Approving the Keystone Pipeline would tell Putin that if he stays in the Ukraine, the US is going to replace his biggest source of revenue and leverage over other countries.   Right now, it appears the US is negotiating with Iran and Venezuela for increased oil production and neither of those is a long term solution or a threat to Russia's leverage. 
     
Which leads to the bigger point - we're not facing a short term problem.  Worst case scenario, Russia conquers the Ukraine, as they will if they have the stomach for it.  Is the world going to just going to say "well we tried to stop them" and pull all the sanctions?  Not likely.  That means restrictions on Russia, impediments to purchasing Russian oil, will be in place for a long time.  

Even if the Russians don't succeed in the Ukraine, we still have a long term problem because we still have Putin in charge of Russia and Russian oil will give him a source of revenue to rebuild and re-arm while still having leverage over the European countries.  Do we want to leave that as the status quo? 

Weaning America and other countries off dependence on oil is a lofty idea.  But it's not a solution to the crisis we face both now and for the next few years.  We'll probably have people on Mars before we sufficiently reduce dependency on oil.  Drill baby drill is really the solution that best serves the American people and the world in both the short and long term.







* https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/03/03/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-march-3rd-2022/

** https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/03/galloping-permanent-solutions-buttigieg-biden-admin-keystone-pipeline/  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elon Musk - Unelected? So what!

-
Opponents are deriding Elon Musk as an unelected bureaucrat - for example Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said "no one elected Elon Musk."  Senator Schumer, Minority Leader and senior Senator from NY, was quoted saying "Its like letting a tiger into the petting zoo..." and "...the US was witnessing a hostile takeover of the federal government..."*1  Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it a "plutocratic coup."*2  Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) said "this is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like." *3   A University of North Carolina law professor, Michael J. Gerhardt, closed his comments by saying "There is no mechanism for keeping Elon Musk in check." *4  Many, if not all of these comments come after, and are complaining about, the shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  The first two comments, the one by Senator Warren and the first quote from Senator Schumer are corr...
Read more

The Biden Legacy

-
This week President Biden gave a speech reviewing his legacy in the White House.  Biden talked about the good he's done.  I have a different perspective, I see the deaths and damage that occurred in the last four years. Covid - more people died of Covid in 2021, when Biden was in office, than died in 2020, when Trump was in office.*  In 2020, the disease was new and testing was ramping up, treatment protocols were being developed, medical supplies like ventilators were in short supply, and multiple Democrat run States put in place nursing home rules that led to significant numbers of deaths.  In 2021, those nursing home rules were no longer in place, multiple vaccines were available, testing and supply issues had been overcome.  Despite those advantages, more people died of Covid in President Biden's first year in office. The Border - Laken Riley, Rebecca Morin, Jeremy Poou Caceres (a 2 year old boy), Rachel Morin, Melissa Powell and her son Riordan Powell, Ai...
Read more

H-1B Visas - theory versus reality

-
H-1B Visas are a good idea in theory.  People around the world want to come to the United States to work and live.  Why not invite the best and brightest.  Bring top talent to the US to help our businesses, industry and military remain the top in the world. Then there is that pesky thing called reality.  I've worked for small companies with less than 250 employees and companies with hundreds of thousands of employees, and companies in between.  I've seen the reality I'm describing. I'm sure there are some brilliant researchers and developers who have come to the US under this program.  But they are the exception.  The norm is that companies don't bring over the best and the brightest.  They bring over cheap labor.  Companies, seeking to get a leg up on opponents by offering customers lower prices, import labor who will work at a fraction of the cost of US residents doing the same jobs. If a person from Country X is doing the same job an Ameri...
Read more