Could This Make The Keystone XL Irrelevant? -- Motley Fool

You have no idea how much I hate video links. It take ten minutes to listen to fluff; one can speed-read the same transcript in 30 seconds. As a rule, I don't view video links -- I guess one could play them in the background while reading something else. Whatever.

But this title of the link is interesting. The interview has to do with Mexico opening E&P to non-Mexican companies.

Two years ago (or so) it was the general consensus that the US could not live without the Keystone. My, how times have changed. Now, the question is: why do we even need the Keystone? All it does is risk lowering the price of Bakken/WTI crude oil and lowering the price of gasoline at the pump, both non-starters for long-term investors in the fossil fuel industry. And, of course, undermining the power that OPEC has.

So, we'll hear from President O'Bama that the Keystone XL will harm the environment through increased CO2 emissions (though, of course, that makes no sense: a) the alternative to oil for China is coal; and, b) Venezuelan oil is the same as Canadian oil. But we have long left the arena of science when talking about the Keystone.

And, now, instead of minor spills easily contained onshore in Canada and fly-over country in the US, we can look forward to more oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico as Mexico turns to China to develop its fields, and China learns to drill deepwater wells in the Gulf. I can't make this stuff up. When the next oil spill in the Gulf occurs, Floridians can blame Nebraskans for starting this whole mess. Of course, it was just a matter of time, regardless.

I suppose there is one silver lining: the US Coast Guard will have real-world oil spills on which to practice command and control.