I have long been opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline on the basis that it provides more risk than benefit, but especially because that benefit appears limited to the Canadians and to a few already obscenely wealthy special interests like the Koch Brothers. Their Republican puppets are lying to people about the jobs that would result, and about the lower oil and gas prices that would result. Right wing talking heads that denied a president could control oil and gas prices, as well as right wing candidates, talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is only the President's fault if he is a democrat; in those instances there is nothing he can do that will be accepted for bi-partisan effort, there is no morality or fairness in their claims and accusations.
Somebody wants to screw us over, true. It's not the President, and it's not the Democrats. It is the Republicans who receive a controlling amount of money from big oil, and individuals like the Koch Brothers through a variety of funnels. It is ALEC written legislation, it is a matter of following the money, to see who has sold out the American people to special interests - Republicans. The right wing talking heads just play games with smoke and mirrors to give them cover, and no entity more so than Murdoch media, especially Fox Not-really-News.
One example, Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, defending George W. Bush re high gas prices in the summer of 2008:
“The next time you hear a politician say that he or she will bring down
oil prices, understand it’s complete BS…We need a strong leader who’s
honest, smart, courageous, and willing to explain dubious associations.”
and -
per the 2008 clips from Current TV March 7, 2012:
"(Excerpt from video clip) BILL O'REILLY: And the
facts are as you suggested — no president has the power to increase or
to lower gas prices. Those are market forces. Yesterday, oil hit a
record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
and from Fox Business News in the same period (same source):
"(Excerpt from video clip) CHERYL CASONE: It really
is tough for this president, I have to be honest with you, because he
really does not have any control what's going to happen with the markets
and with the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and
gasoline. It really is out of this president's hands."
Now, in 2012? It is the president's fault, and he could bring down oil prices, IF HE WANTED TO DO SO. O'Reilly and the rest contend he's just trying to screw you over for a secret agenda. More hypocrisy, more applying a double standard, more unfairness, just more lack of morality and integrity on the right.
Right wing hypocrisy about the price of gas and oil:
Approximately half of our current oil and gas price increase is the result of speculation, not supply and demand or other more legitimate costs. The other half is largely the result of market pressure over Middle East geo-political instability. Why would that be? It is not a coincidence that we have the three top contenders for the GOP Presidential candidate sabre rattling against Iran. That is a large part of the market fears. And it is no coincidence that with the economy doing better, running up gas prices gives the right something else to point to as an Obama issue. It isn't; even the right has noted that the price of gas isn't something a president can control.
The following confirms my separate fact checking research (emphasis in bold / enlarged type is mine - DG):
From the
Christian Science Monitor by way of MSNBC.com:
How much would Keystone pipeline help US consumers?
Canadian firms behind it say it will supply Gulf Coast export markets
updated
3/9/2012 11:08:14 PM ET
Often lost in the political wrangling over the controversial
Keystone XL pipeline – on hold after President Obama rejected
TransCanada’s initial construction proposal – are some key findings that
run counter to the rosy picture of abundant supply and lower prices so
often painted by US politicians.
Canadian companies backing the Keystone XL – touted as enhancing US
energy security with a big new surge of imported Canadian oil – actually
expect it to supply more lucrative Gulf Coast export markets as well as
raise Midwest oil prices by reducing “oversupply” in that region.
These little-publicized findings are contained in the studies and
testimony of experts working for TransCanada, the company that wants to
build the pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands across America’s heartland
to Gulf Coast refineries.
Some of these concerns popped up, albeit briefly, in US congressional
testimony last year on the pipeline project, and have given rise to a
recent proposal to bar the sale of Keystone oil overseas.
What the Keystone XL pipeline promises the U.S.
In the latest round of Capitol Hill fighting over the pipeline,
Senate Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican amendment to the
transportation bill that would have fast-tracked the project by
stripping the State Department of its approval authority and giving it
to Congress.
In February, legislation to force US approval of the pipeline passed
the House 237-187. That bill would strip the president of authority to
block the project and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30
days to approve the pipeline.
But most of the heated partisan rhetoric over job creation and
gasoline prices glosses over what Keystone would or wouldn’t do for the
US.
TransCanada’s case
“Keystone will bring many benefits to the United States,
but I believe the most important role that Keystone will play is to
bring energy security to the United States during what has been recently
some very unsettling times overseas,” Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s
president for energy and oil pipelines, said in a congressional hearing
in December.
So, would TransCanada support US legislation requiring Canadian oil
and products refined from it, such as diesel, to be sold only in the
United States, asked Rep. Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts, “so that this
country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company and
others have promised?”
“No, I can't do that,” Mr. Pourbaix said.
In an e-mailed statement, TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha writes
that Keystone XL could help cut US reliance on Mideast and Venezuelan
imports “by up to 40 percent.” He cites a 2010 US Department of Energy
study that he contends says more Canadian oil would “help reduce US
imports of foreign oil from sources outside of North America.”
Senate rejects GOP environment, energy proposals
Most analysts agree that more Canadian oil flowing south would help
reduce imports from other regions. Less obvious, however, is the fact
that the Keystone XL pipeline is not actually needed to bring all that
new Canadian oil to the US – a flow now projected to rise to 1.7 million
barrels per day by 2030, according to the same DOE study. Often
characterized by proponents as validating the need for the pipeline,
that study actually found that Canadian oil import growth will go on at
“almost identical” levels through 2030 using existing and new pipeline
capacity as well as rail shipments – whether or not Keystone XL is
built.
Political backlash
Even so, supporters in Congress continue to call Keystone
XL “a no-brainer" from a US energy-security standpoint, also arguing it
would benefit consumers by lowering gas prices, too. Keystone XL's
“supplies from reliable sources leads to lower costs, thereby putting
downward pressure on prices,” one study on TransCanada's website says.
According to this premise, Keystone XL would move up to 830,000
barrels of Canadian crude south each day, boosting economic activity by
billions of dollars and creating thousands of new jobs – though their
precise number is hotly disputed.
Yet in January, Mr. Obama, under pressure by Republicans, reiterated
his previous decision to deny permission to build the Keystone XL– at
least for now. The pipeline “would not serve the national interest at
this time,” Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones, an assistant secretary of State,
subsequently told the House subcommittee on Energy and Power, citing
“unresolved concerns” including energy security, economic effects and
environmental impacts.
TransCanada replied to the denial by saying it would resubmit its
construction proposal to address the environmental concerns, and on
Tuesday a company executive reportedly said new plans that rerouted the
pipeline away from the sensitive Nebraska Sandhills region would be
ready in weeks.
But the president's denial unleashed a furor as GOP presidential
candidates and oil industry backers lambasted the White House for
denying the US economy oil and jobs.
“The president demonstrates a lack of seriousness about bringing down
unemployment, restoring economic growth, and achieving energy
independence,” GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said in a statement.
Newt Gingrich said the decision “weakens America's national security
and kills thousands of well-paying American jobs,” while oil industry
advocate Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum
Institute, called the project “essential,” and said, “It must be
approved and built.”
Higher oil prices in the Midwest?
But others, including environmentalists who oppose the
pipeline mainly because extracting oil from tar sands releases more
greenhouse gases than other methods of harvesting oil, also argue the
pipeline will do little or nothing to boost US energy security and will
actually lead to higher oil prices in the Midwest.
“Rather than providing the US with more Canadian oil, Keystone XL
will simply shift oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where much of
it can be exported to international buyers – decreasing US energy supply
and increasing the cost of oil in the American Midwest,” concludes a
new study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based
environmental advocacy non-profit group, citing numerous TransCanada
studies and the transcripts of Canadian federal hearings.
But it’s not just environmentalists who are howling in the wilderness.
“The firms involved have asked the US State Department to approve
this project, even as they’ve told Canadian government officials how the
pipeline can be used to add at least $4 billion to the US fuel bill,”
Philip K. Verleger, president of PKVerleger LLC, a Colorado consulting
firm that specializes in research on oil market economics, wrote in a
Minneapolis Star-Tribune commentary last March.
US farmers who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see those
costs rise to $15 billion or higher if the pipeline goes through, he
projects. At least $500 million of the added cost “would come from the
Canadian market manipulation,” he wrote.
“Millions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for
gasoline and diesel fuel as tribute to our ‘friendly’ neighbors to the
north,” the highly respected Dr. Verleger wrote. “The Keystone XL
pipeline will move production from Canadian oil sands to a deepwater
port from where it can be exported.”
But that is not merely Verleger’s opinion. It’s based on findings of
the economic consultants hired by TransCanada – contained in their
analyses of the pipeline’s impact on Canadian oil producers and in
official testimony before Canada's National Energy Board.
“Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US
Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for
Canadian heavy crude oil,” concludes a 2009 analysis on behalf of
TransCanada by Purvin & Gertz, Inc., an oil economics firm based in
Houston. “Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is
expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest
market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the
price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”
Gulf link to global markets
As a result of those increases in the price of heavy crude
in the Midwest and sales of higher-margin refined products shipped out
from Gulf Coast refineries to other markets, Canadian oil producers
could be expected to reap $2 billion to $3.9 billion more each year, the
analysis says.
“Shippers on the Keystone XL Pipeline have contracted for access to
the [US Gulf Coast] market for their oil sands production and refining
needs,” the Purvin & Gertz study concludes. “Not only will this
directly benefit these shippers, it will also provide a benefit to all
[Western Canadian] heavy crude producers by increasing the price they
receive for their crude, as well as providing significant pipeline
capacity to an alternative market” on the US Gulf coast.
Video: TransCanada President on Keystone XL Pipeline
Why Canadian crude oil producers would choose Keystone XL when other
pipelines to the US are running well below capacity has much to do with
diversifying away from the US market to more lucrative markets in
Europe, China, and other Asian countries, Verleger and others argue.
Trends seem to support this thesis.
Over the past five years, exports from the US Gulf Coast have soared
as refiners sitting in tax-free zones near Port Arthur, Texas, have
shifted production away from gasoline and toward higher-margin diesel.
Since 2007, overall US exports of diesel and other products have jumped
134 percent, the US Energy Information Administration reports. Of US
exports, two-thirds is shipped abroad from Gulf Coast refineries – now
more than 2 million barrels a day and up from just a quarter of today's
level a decade ago.
That trend was captured in testimony Sept. 17, 2009, before Canada’s
National Energy Board. Seven Canadian companies were willing to pay
higher pipeline tariff costs for using the Keystone XL pipeline, the
testimony showed, in order to bypass Midwest refineries by sending
500,000 barrels per day, the lion’s share of the pipeline’s capacity, to
Gulf refineries.
Valve to relieve Midwest oil "oversupply"
In addition to winning higher prices for Canadian oil in
the Gulf, the pipeline would boost revenues by shuttling existing oil
supplies out of the Midwest – boosting prices, the Canadian study and
testimony also show.
“So seven shippers or seven producers are, in your view, pursuing
this strategy in order to increase the [Midwest oil market] and Ontario
prices. Do I have it right?” D. Davies, a Canadian energy board examiner
asked Thomas Wise, the Purvin & Gertz expert who authored the
economic analysis for TransCanada.
“If a minority of the barrels were sold at the Gulf Coast at a Gulf
Coast price, that would have the effect of raising the price not only in
the Midwest and Ontario but in Western Canada,” Mr. Wise responded.
In hearings last May and December, TransCanada officials admitted to
US legislators that the pipeline will indeed increase the price paid for
Canadian oil in the Midwest – but suggested those higher crude oil
prices would not necessarily mean higher gasoline prices in that region.
The pipeline would reduce the “discount on Canadian oil” currently
paid by US refiners – an oil price increase for US refineries, Pourbaix
said in a congressional hearing last May. Even so, “that crude will
still remain the cheapest source of crude by a long shot that U.S.
refineries have access to,” he testified.
“If you add significant new supply to a static demand for a product
in a market, you should see the price go down,” Pourbaix explained. “So
it is my absolute expectation, that over time, with incremental supplies
of Canadian crude oil coming into the US market, you will see downward
pressure on refined products prices, throughout US markets.”
In his e-mailed response, TransCanada's Mr. Cunha cites a June 2011
report by IHS CERA, an energy economics firm that reached similar
conclusions. “Prices at the pump will drop when America’s largest
refining region (the Gulf Coast) becomes less dependent on the world’s
highest priced crude (OPEC),” he wrote. “Foreign importers will have to
cut their prices if they want to compete with the cheaper Canadian
crude.... We would argue the overall US price per barrel will drop as
refiners pay less for foreign and domestic oil competing with a higher
volume of cheap Canadian oil.”
Testimony and supporting documents north of the border stating that
Keystone XL would raise Canadian crude prices has set off alarm bells
with several US legislators – while leaving others unmoved.
Legislators react to findings
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R) of Kentucky, who chaired two hearings
into the Keystone XL, heard positive testimony about the pipeline – as
well as contradicting testimony that it would do little or nothing for
energy security while raising Midwest oil prices. He still likes the
project, however.
“If our president decides that sending aircraft carrier strike groups
to the Strait of Hormuz to defend oil flow is in the national interest,
then one would also think a pipeline from Canada that would help
eliminate our Middle East oil imports also serves the national
interest,” Mr. Whitfield said in a prepared opening statement for the
hearing he chaired.
In an e-mailed statement, Whitfield's press secretary adds that the
pipeline “will help lower the price of gasoline by bringing more oil
supply to the market” and says the Department of Energy “specifically
states that gasoline prices in all connected markets would go down.”
But Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, was alarmed enough to call
last year for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the
matter based in part on the Canadian National Energy Board testimony.
“While the full nature of the arrangements agreed upon by the
Canadian shippers is unclear, there is clear indication that there is a
coordinated ‘strategy’ among Canadian suppliers to gain higher prices,”
Senator Wyden wrote Jonathan Liebowitz, chairman of the FTC in an April
6, 2011, letter. “This will have the effect of manipulating supply
levels allowing prices of oil refined in [the Midwest oil market] to
rise and ultimately benefitting the Canadian companies with higher
prices.”
On Thursday, it was Wyden who put forward an amendment to the
transportation bill that would have prohibited the sale of the Keystone
oil overseas and imposed other regulatory requirements. His amendment
was defeated 64 to 34.
Reacting to Obama’s previous decision to bar approval for Keystone
XL, TransCanada made it clear it considered the project too vital to
delay for long.
“Until this pipeline is constructed, the US will continue to import
millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela
and other foreign countries who do not share democratic values Canadians
and Americans are privileged to have,” Russ Girling, TransCanada's
president and chief executive officer said in a statement.
Dead
Alive....for the moment
Dead
Alive and making their own choices
