>if I need to explain in detail all the benefits of increased oil production on North American soil I have already lost It's not that I dispute there are benef

>if I need to explain in detail all the benefits of increased oil production on North American soil I have already lost It's not that I dispute there are benefits, it's that it's contrary to my sense of proportion. More maple syrup subsidies would have a lot of benefits too, but nobody's saying that's what we need immediately because of current geopolitics. Because the effect would be small, diluted, and will take an eternity relative to the invasion. At the beginning of WWII, it took on the order of a month for Germany and the USSR to subdue Poland. Nobody who had pledged to defend them even got there in time. Doesn't everybody know how Putin got to where he is? Grozny? Anything taking much longer than a month seems academic to me. How can you predict the next five years now? Is Moldova next? >I don't have the energy to discuss USA consumption of 700,000+ barrels per day of Russian oil "Discuss" is too much effort, agreed. I want to try to establish a sense of proportion here. You're talking about 3 or 4% of consumption, and you're also talking about roughly the same amount the US exports to China. So Russia can send the oil to China, and the US can keep the oil it isn't sending to China. Obviously we have temporary shortages, obviously I don't know how bad things will get or anything about exactly how it will be coped with. All I'm saying is that redirecting stuff doesn't change the overall supply in principle. It's a truism that isn't very relevant to gas prices skyrocketing right now, but I think it is relevant to any plans for the next few years. >Keystone XL was good for America. Full stop. "North" America. I mean, who am I to say it isn't. "What's good for General Motors is good for America". It's just a very large benefit for the businesses involved and a minute benefit for the general public.