The Keystone XL Pipeline Scam

[gatlingun6]

I wonder if the thousands of lobbyists pushing for an early decision and approval of the Keystone XL (KXLP) Pipeline are surprised at how easy it is to fool the American public about the real purpose of KXLP. Officially they say that it will lead to 20,000 or more jobs, increased energy independence, and lower prices. The middle claim means it’s in the national interest.

For this piece let’s set aside environmental concerns, or global climate change issues to focus on the three industry claims. How did we get the 20K jobs claim? It came from the KXLP contractor. They hired a consulting firm out of Houston that has had a long association with the petroleum industry. That’s how we get 20K jobs. No independent source has ever verified that claim.

The State Department in their workup concluded that 6K was more like it, not all of which would be in the U.S. The jobs would also be temporary. Permanent jobs would be in the range of 50 to 100.
Jobs aside, it’s the energy independence claim, and lower energy costs that have the drill baby drill crowd all excited. I must admit it sounded logical. Nevertheless I decided to do my own due diligence, you know, that informed voter thing.

My first discovery was there is a pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands region that goes to refineries in the heartland, IL and OK. So why not use the existing pipeline. Could it be that refinery capacity could not be increased? Why did we need a new pipeline or an extension all the way to Gulf refineries? The answer must have been, because that’s where other refining capacity is located.

Second, last year oil and gas extraction, and exploration was at an all time high in the U.S. At the same time our demand decreased by the largest peace time percentage ever. To review, supply was up and demand was down. That should have meant prices decreased as supply increased. But that is not exactly what happened, why you asked?

Third, take a guess at the number one U.S. export last year. To my surprise it was refined fuel, mostly diesel fuel. Where did it go? Most went to Europe while the remainder went to South America. A little voice said uh oh!

Fourth, can you identify this corporation, CNOCC? It’s the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. They are investing heavily in; you guessed it, the Alberta Tar Sands region. In fact they have pledged $11 billion to the Canadian government. Now ostensibly their Tar Sands Oil (TSO) will flow westward through an as yet nonexistent Gateway Pipeline (GP) that may well turn out to be a pipe dream. As some have said, there is no way that 1st Nation tribes are going to allow that pipeline to traverse their territory.

Suddenly it was clear. The other asset on the Gulf is PORTS! It’s not the refining capacity per se they want. It’s access to ports. I always thought that it was not easy to export a barrel of oil, and indeed it isn’t there are restrictions. But to my surprise it’s very easy to export a refined product like diesel fuel, or gasoline. Which is exactly what went on last year without KXLP TSO.

That’s why prices did not decrease commensurate with the demand decrease. Excess supply was exported. So why do we continue to be taken in by this drill baby drill mentality that says it will make us energy independent. It’s because we continue to suffer under the illusion that WE own oil and gas, that it’s OURs. The fact is, the only barrel of oil we own is in the National Petroleum Reserve. Unlike other countries there is no United States National Oil Corporation. The funny thing is, as the third largest extractor of oil, we sell the rights to our precious commodity for less than any oil producing state on earth. It didn’t use to be that way, but that’s another story.

Now we see the real reason behind the push for KXLP. It’s to deliver the dirtiest petroleum on earth to the Gulf where it will be refined and exported to the highest bidder. So Europe and countries like Brazil get processed fuel without mucking up their environment, or paying for the well known health problems that affect people who live near refineries. What a deal.

Btw the corporations, excepting the Chinese Corporation, are multinationals. They are under no obligations to bring lower energy costs to the U.S. Their bottom line is maximizing profits, which is as it should be. Since KXLP will be completed long before GP. Will Chinese TSO be prohibited from KXLP? I don’t think so. I also don’t think that we will restrict the export of refined products either.
Once again the American people are treated like chumps instead of champs.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

I wonder if the thousands of lobbyists pushing for an early decision and approval of the Keystone XL (KXLP) Pipeline are surprised at how easy it is to fool the American public about the real purpose of KXLP. Officially they say that it will lead to 20,000 or more jobs, increased energy independence, and lower prices. The middle claim means it’s in the national interest.

For this piece let’s set aside environmental concerns, or global climate change issues to focus on the three industry claims. How did we get the 20K jobs claim? It came from the KXLP contractor. They hired a consulting firm out of Houston that has had a long association with the petroleum industry. That’s how we get 20K jobs. No independent source has ever verified that claim.

The State Department in their workup concluded that 6K was more like it, not all of which would be in the U.S. The jobs would also be temporary. Permanent jobs would be in the range of 50 to 100.
Jobs aside, it’s the energy independence claim, and lower energy costs that have the drill baby drill crowd all excited. I must admit it sounded logical. Nevertheless I decided to do my own due diligence, you know, that informed voter thing.

My first discovery was there is a pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands region that goes to refineries in the heartland, IL and OK. So why not use the existing pipeline. Could it be that refinery capacity could not be increased? Why did we need a new pipeline or an extension all the way to Gulf refineries? The answer must have been, because that’s where other refining capacity is located.

Second, last year oil and gas extraction, and exploration was at an all time high in the U.S. At the same time our demand decreased by the largest peace time percentage ever. To review, supply was up and demand was down. That should have meant prices decreased as supply increased. But that is not exactly what happened, why you asked?

Third, take a guess at the number one U.S. export last year. To my surprise it was refined fuel, mostly diesel fuel. Where did it go? Most went to Europe while the remainder went to South America. A little voice said uh oh!

Fourth, can you identify this corporation, CNOCC? It’s the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. They are investing heavily in; you guessed it, the Alberta Tar Sands region. In fact they have pledged $11 billion to the Canadian government. Now ostensibly their Tar Sands Oil (TSO) will flow westward through an as yet nonexistent Gateway Pipeline (GP) that may well turn out to be a pipe dream. As some have said, there is no way that 1st Nation tribes are going to allow that pipeline to traverse their territory.

Suddenly it was clear. The other asset on the Gulf is PORTS! It’s not the refining capacity per se they want. It’s access to ports. I always thought that it was not easy to export a barrel of oil, and indeed it isn’t there are restrictions. But to my surprise it’s very easy to export a refined product like diesel fuel, or gasoline. Which is exactly what went on last year without KXLP TSO.

That’s why prices did not decrease commensurate with the demand decrease. Excess supply was exported. So why do we continue to be taken in by this drill baby drill mentality that says it will make us energy independent. It’s because we continue to suffer under the illusion that WE own oil and gas, that it’s OURs. The fact is, the only barrel of oil we own is in the National Petroleum Reserve. Unlike other countries there is no United States National Oil Corporation. The funny thing is, as the third largest extractor of oil, we sell the rights to our precious commodity for less than any oil producing state on earth. It didn’t use to be that way, but that’s another story.

Now we see the real reason behind the push for KXLP. It’s to deliver the dirtiest petroleum on earth to the Gulf where it will be refined and exported to the highest bidder. So Europe and countries like Brazil get processed fuel without mucking up their environment, or paying for the well known health problems that affect people who live near refineries. What a deal.

Btw the corporations, excepting the Chinese Corporation, are multinationals. They are under no obligations to bring lower energy costs to the U.S. Their bottom line is maximizing profits, which is as it should be. Since KXLP will be completed long before GP. Will Chinese TSO be prohibited from KXLP? I don’t think so. I also don’t think that we will restrict the export of refined products either.
Once again the American people are treated like chumps instead of champs.

Gat6

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Here's an update to KXLP that explains why us ordinary Americans do not stand a chance against moneyed interests, and corporate America. It's also why the latest Pew Research Poll shows that 48% of Americans believe that Congress is corrupt. Only 28% believe otherwise with the remainder unsure.

After the KXLP vote someone looked at how lobbyist money from the oil industry coincided with the vote for quick approval, and these figures are from Oil Change International. The 234 Congressman who voted Yea received $42 million in campaign contributions, the 193 Nays received $8 million. For a $50 million investment the fossil fuel industry stands to reap billions in additional profits by exporting refined petroleum products to foreign countries.

Is anyone foolish enough to believe that multinationals like EXXON Mobil, Shell Oil, or BP spent $50 million to bring lower energy prices to Americans or to assist in reducing our reliance on foreign oil?

Unless they are very, very wealthy, or are not worried about being a one term Congressman, they have not choice except to obey their corporate masters. Afterall from the day a Congressperson is sworn in in the House, they must raise $10,000 a week for their reelection bid!

Gat6

[ratherfish]

"A rising tide floats all boats"

I don't know about you but my retirement accounts invest heavily in these evil multinational corporations. I'd like to see them make a devistatingly large profit over the next 5 years to make up for them being raped by Obamas regulations .

Profit is good.

So we foul the Pacilic shipping oil to China and the Atlantic shipping oil from the middle east? While killing a project that uses the safest technology known to transport oil? ummmmmm can you say STUPID!

As Virginians we have been denied the ability to drill off our own shore by Obama... His energy secretary has stated he wants to push energy prices here to european levels.

Friend we were born at night, BUT NOT LAST NIGHT!!!!!!

[Kreutz]

As Virginians we have been denied the ability to drill off our own shore by Obama...

Once you go about 3 nautical miles from the coast you're in federal waters.

His energy secretary has stated he wants to push energy prices here to european levels.

Source?

[ratherfish]

As Virginians we have been denied the ability to drill off our own shore by Obama...

Once you go about 3 nautical miles from the coast you're in federal waters.

DUH!

His energy secretary has stated he wants to push energy prices here to european levels.

Source?

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/21/ene ... ces-again/

WALLACE: In that regard, in 2008 you supported ramping up gas prices to coax Americans into more green energy cars and other uses, being more fuel efficient. You said this — and let’s put it on the screen — “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Where it is now more than $10 a gallon. In that sense, is the gas spike an opportunity for more green energy?

CHU: Well, what I said — what I’m doing since I became secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.

We have been very focused in the Department of Energy on that. And, in fact, the entire administration has been very focused on that.

So, the increasing of the mileage standards is one way of doing this. A very concerted effort in electric vehicles, where we think within reach, within maybe four or five years, we could be testing batteries that can allow us to go 200, 300 miles on a single charge in a mass-marketed car.

WALLACE: I understand all that, and that is certainly part of your effort. But is the spike in gas prices — does that also help in making us more energy-efficient?

CHU: Well, the recent spike in gasoline prices following that huge spike in 2007, 2008 is a reminder to Americans that the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues. And so we see this in the buying habits of Americans as they make choices for the next car they buy.

It is increasingly clear that the Obama Energy Department is not overly concerned with near-term high gas prices. If they were, they would not be cutting off our domestic oil supply and imposing costly regulations on refiners during these difficult economic times.


Not to be pushy, but just wat time last night was your mother's blessed event?

[ratherfish]

Top 10 Examples Proving Obama Wants High Energy Prices
by Human Events
06/25/2011

You may have noticed that gas prices are sky-high as Recovery Summer II begins, and wondered why the cost for a fill-up has more than doubled since President Obama took office, even as the economy remains in the tank. It shouldn’t be a surprise, as Obama has made it clear all along that higher gas prices can help usher in his green utopia of windmills, solar panels and unicorns—all for the sake of his environmental backers. Here are the Top 10 Examples Proving Obama Wants High Energy Prices:

1. Energy dollars wasted on pricey green jobs: During his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama promised that if elected President, he would “invest $150 billion over the next decade in renewable energy—an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs.” Nearly a quarter of the way into that dream, Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers says that only 225,000 green energy jobs were created or “saved” after an $80 billion down payment from the stimulus package—an astounding $335,000 per job. The President has consistently called for funding his green job plans with measures that would increase the cost of using fossil-fuel energy for everyone.

2. Energy secretary favors higher gas prices: Perhaps the strongest indication that Obama wants higher gas prices is the fact that he appointed Steven Chu as energy secretary. Before his nomination, Chu told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which are considerably higher than the U.S. due to steep levels of taxation. The administration’s obsessive push for alternative fuels prompted the recent release of a report from California Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Government Oversight Committee titled “Rising Energy Cost: An Intentional Result of Government Action.”

3. Pushed cap and tax: In remarks made in January 2008, Obama said that under his cap-and-trade proposal, "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket." Despite that stark admission, he went ahead and made passage of the massive energy bill a cornerstone of his domestic agenda. While the bill passed the House, it died in a Democratic-controlled Senate as Rust Belt liberals bailed due to the economic damage it would have caused their states and higher energy costs everywhere.

4. EPA’s carbon-dioxide regulatory grab: After Republican gains in Congress during the 2010 midterm elections, hopes were dashed for a legislative revival of Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal (see No. 4). Never mind. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has decided to take matters into its own hands and implement similar measures administratively, mainly by regulating carbon-dioxide emissions as a pollutant.

5. Gov’t Motors seeks gas tax for slumping Volt sales: Whoa, ho! Here’s a surprise. General Motors Chief Executive Officer Dan Akerson wants a $1 per gallon gas tax on consumers in order to help boost sales of its Chevy Volt, an electric car that nobody is buying. After taking a government bailout, the automaker needs more taxpayer money for its ridiculous venture. Don’t even ask about the Volt’s limited mileage range or its miles-per-gallon in cold weather.

6. Bankrupting the coal industry: During his presidential campaign, Obama made clear his vision: Energy companies must pay. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama said: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.” Better get those windmills up and running.

7. Oil company tax to fund clean energy: In President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, he called for an Apollo project for clean energy, and wanted to “eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies” and use the money to subsidize costly and sometimes unproven clean-energy technology. That’s a formula for higher gas prices because the money he claims that taxpayers “give” to the oil companies is mostly tax breaks to enable companies to find new areas for future drilling.

8. Stifles U.S. oil drilling, while subsidizing Brazil’s: The BP oil spill prompted the President to impose a drilling moratorium in the Gulf making deepwater drilling permits impossible to obtain. So when oil companies moved their rigs to areas off the coast of Brazil where they were welcomed, Obama offered billions in U.S. taxpayer money to aid the venture, creating new jobs in South America. By refusing to allow U.S. energy sources to be developed, the President is ensuring increased reliance on expensive and volatile foreign oil.

9. Blocking Canadian pipeline: Canada is trying to run a pipeline from its energy-rich tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. Leave it to Obama’s State Department to throw a monkey wrench into the project, stalling approval for the jobs- and energy-producing venture with the support of environmentalists opposed to the methods used to extract the tar.

10. Energy hypocrisy: Like Al Gore, who preaches about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while consuming enormous amounts of energy for his personal use, President Obama is using up all the energy he can. His frequent global excursions and vacations with his large entourage gobble up enough energy to power a small town, or even John Edwards’ house. All the more galling as he recently lectured Georgetown University students to cut back on their gasoline consumption. The double standard only highlights his lack of a real energy policy other than to inflate tires and change lightbulbs.

[dorminWS]

Not building that pipline will not pevent the Chinese from bidding up the price of petroleum/gas. But it will decrease the available supply. Can you guess what that will do to the price? Not building it will also eneable the Chinese to deal completely around us. Maybe that will gratify folks like you who want to chastize all corporations and profit-takers, but the US ecomony will be worse off.

Get you head out of your Obama, Gat6.

[Kreutz]

[quote="ratherfish"DUH![/quote]

Er, if its as easy as "duh" why are you talking about Virginia coastal waters when the proposed rigs were all well past 3 miles out and always under federal jurisdiction? I.E. it was never "Virginias" waters to begin with?

His energy secretary has stated he wants to push energy prices here to european levels.

Source?[/quote]


http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/21/ene ... ces-again/

WALLACE: In that regard, in 2008 you supported ramping up gas prices to coax Americans into more green energy cars and other uses, being more fuel efficient. You said this — and let’s put it on the screen — “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Where it is now more than $10 a gallon. In that sense, is the gas spike an opportunity for more green energy?

CHU: Well, what I said — what I’m doing since I became secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.

We have been very focused in the Department of Energy on that. And, in fact, the entire administration has been very focused on that.

So, the increasing of the mileage standards is one way of doing this. A very concerted effort in electric vehicles, where we think within reach, within maybe four or five years, we could be testing batteries that can allow us to go 200, 300 miles on a single charge in a mass-marketed car.

WALLACE: I understand all that, and that is certainly part of your effort. But is the spike in gas prices — does that also help in making us more energy-efficient?

CHU: Well, the recent spike in gasoline prices following that huge spike in 2007, 2008 is a reminder to Americans that the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues. And so we see this in the buying habits of Americans as they make choices for the next car they buy.[/quote]

It is increasingly clear that the Obama Energy Department is not overly concerned with near-term high gas prices. If they were, they would not be cutting off our domestic oil supply and imposing costly regulations on refiners during these difficult economic times.

What can an any administration do about near term gas prices? The infrastructure takes many years to build. And theres also the little (major) fact that most oil produced is done so by OPEC....the "C"
is important, it means cartel. Meaning they fix prices. meaning its out of the hands of the US government.


And I don't see where you got a conspiracy from that interview, the guy clearly laid out a supply side reason-a correct reason-for high gas prices and how its impacting current research into alternatives. Nowhere did he say he wants higher prices, just thats the reality. Its good to be honest.

Not to be pushy, but just wat time last night was your mother's blessed event?

Me grammur adult level hav, unerstant this kant I.

[CCFan]

His energy secretary has stated he wants to push energy prices here to european levels.

Source?

But you took the first two posts in stride without question....?

[ratherfish]

Is kreutz the token dumbocrat apologist and local grammar bee winner?

Facts seem to really get his goat!

[Kreutz]

Is kreutz the token dumbocrat apologist and local grammar bee winner?

Facts seem to really get his goat!

Not a "dumbocrat" (which I assume to be one who favors Disney and elephant friendly legislation) nor a grammar bee winner, just someone irked by seeing my beloved language violently raped.

incidentally, facts? Get my goat?

You say:

His energy secretary has stated he wants to push energy prices here to european levels.

And to support this...you post an interview that actually contradicts that.

CHU: Well, what I said — what I’m doing since I became secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.

We have been very focused in the Department of Energy on that. And, in fact, the entire administration has been very focused on that.

There was a guy here called dems4guns....I maintain he was a parody, someone here having fun. You see, he so stereotypically exemplified the average conservative stereotypes about liberals, he couldn't have been real.

Now, if I were to create a sock puppet account to make fun of the absolute bottom of the right?

It'd be you. I'm not sure if you are for real yet, but man I hope so, we're gonna be great friends.

[ratherfish]

Ah I see insults seem to be the mode of the day when facts and details escape the dim wited.

I said off "our own shore" and not in our waters as your straw man would dictate!

The source I gave quotes Chu's words earlier, that he never denies, about raising the price of gas to european levels. Is a course in basic reading comprehension in order for the grammar bee winner???????


(and let’s put it on the screen — “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”)


How is it you buy the democrat swill ladled out in the first two posts but fail to comprehend the facts I present to back my opinion? You set up a straw man argument ( Virginia waters verses off the Virginia coast) and resort to grammar challenge in a forum that is conversational?????

I'll give you a hint. I don't do conspiracy. I believe what these liberal idiots SAY!

It seems you're more interested in defending this administration than facts. That may be a foolish position!

[OakRidgeStars]

This thread is turning out to be as useful as turd on a see-saw. Time to lock 'em up.

Hey 'fish, I realize you're new here but you need to work on bringing some useful discussion for a change. Don't push my patience too far...

m'kay?