*Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:**
* *1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency*The oil to be sent through Keystone XL pipeline was never destined for US markets. In its own presentation to investors about the proposed pipeline extension, TransCanada (the company behind Keystone XL) boasted that most if not all of the extracted and refined oil would be exported --- sold in oversees markets where oil fetches a higher price (and thus turns a higher profit for the company).
*2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices*Currently, Canadian oil reserves stored in the Midwest help suppress gas prices in the United States, particularly for farmers in our nation's heartland.
In its permit application for the pipeline, TransCanada noted that the Keystone XL pipeline would allow the company to drain these reserves and export that fuel as well. According to TransCanada's own statements, this would raise gas prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.
*3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created*In 2008, TransCanada's original permit application to the State Department said the Keystone XL pipeline would create "a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel" in temporary jobs building the pipeline.
By 2011, now facing growing opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada had inflated these numbers (using undisclosed formulas) to 20,000. Supporters of the proposal, backed by big oil, have since trumpeted these trumped up numbers.
*4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year*The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12 times in the last year.
While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as "minor" averaging "just five to 10 gallons of oil" each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.
*5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified*Nebraska's Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million Americans plus water that fuels the region's agriculture industry.
Building the pipeline might have created a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health and safety of millions.
Meanwhile, in Michigan where a similar tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, residents are still complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea while studies continue to look at the long-term effects of just being near such an oil spill when it happens.
*6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming*Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world's scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.
Mining these reserves would release all of that carbon into the atmosphere, to detrimental effect on our environment. Sure, Canada might go ahead and mine the tar sands anyway, but the United States doesn't have to help pollute the planet and our own states in the process.
No matter how you look at it, the Keystone XL proposal was a slimy, scam of a deal. America is better than that.
We can create good-paying jobs that build our families and our economy for the future without hurting our environment today.
We can invest in innovative energy technology that not only reduces our dependence on dirty fuel but also puts us in the lead in critical, emerging markets.
We can prioritize good jobs and a competitive economy of the future, with all the upsides of American energy production and innovation and far, far fewer of the downsides that Keystone carried.
Let's focus on more of those deals going forward.Sally Kohn is a Fox News Contributor and grassroots strategist. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com.
On 5/8/2014 1:23 PM, Ron Ristad wrote:
Kelly,The Keystone pipeline that Obama is blocking would transport oil from the Canadian Oil Sands to the U.S.. The reason why it is being blocked is because Warren Buffet, one of Obama's biggest contributors, owns the rail cars that are currently being used to transport this oil to the U.S. at a considerably higher cost thepipeline would be. The "environmentalists" that are supposedly blocking it claim that it could harm the environment when the fact is that there are already millions of miles of oil pipelines in the U.S. and none that have caused any environmental damage. At the same time there have been catastrophic rail car accidents that have caused considerable damage to both people and the environment.The part of the southern part of the Keystone pipeline that delivers oil to the Gulf was completed last year and began shipping oil on Jan 21st. Obama had no issues with that.-RR -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Sent: May 8, 2014 2:02 PM To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: How much does it cost to buy the U.S. Senate? I think it's funny how the pipeline issue is being cast as an environmental issue. This completely masks the real economic issue here. A massive source of cheap fossil fuel energy that could power a resurgence of the American economy has been discovered right here on our own continent. Refining and selling locally to Americans would result in dramatic price reductions in gasoline and other petroleum distillates. But there's more money in selling it overseas, so the big oil companies need to build a pipeline to get the oil to a seaport where it can be put on ships and sold for a higher profit. Oil companies will get their cake and eat it too. They'll sell local oil overseas wherever they can maximize profits, while at the same time, keeping a lid on local supplies and therefore price. If you support giving Keystone their pipeline you're supporting continued outrageous prices at the gas pump. Kelly A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 07:50:44 -0600 From: ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [sparkscoffee] How much does it cost to buy the U.S. Senate? To: Left wing billionaire pledges $100 million to buy the Senate. -RR One man has answered the question, "How much does it cost to buy the U.S. Senate?" The price tag and his name came to light as the only plausible explanation for an otherwise inexplicable event. Two months ago, an even more bizarre spectacle than usual took place on the Senate floor. From the evening of March 10th through to the next morning, about 30 Democratic senators held a 14-hour+ speechathon. The event was billed as an attempt to push America into addressing "climate change." Translation: It was meant to publicize measures that would rectify so-called 'global warming' and protect against environmental 'threats' such as the oil and gas industries.... Thomas Steyer...has been called the most influential man in America with whom next to no one is familiar... ... Steyer hosted a recent fundraiser at his San Francisco home that netted the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $400,000 and where Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and the six other Democratic senators in attendance openly discussed plans for ...[ the] talkathon, according to reports." In other words, the speechathon was planned at the billionaire's home in Reid's presence. The uber-influencial Reid is the same Democratic Senator who lambasted the billionaire Koch brothers for their donations to Republican causes and campaigns. On March 10, the /Business Insider/ reported Reid as stating, "I'm trying to find a Republican -- somebody, anybody -- who will raise an objection to two brothers trying to buy America." Apparently, Reid wants only the Senate to be up for sale, and only to a Democratic buyer. *How Much Did it Cost ... Steyer and the Democrats?* * * So what /was/ the Senate's price tag? Let's see ... the talk-a-thon reportedly lasted 15 hours. With the dangled pledge of $100 million to Democrats, Steyer was able to buy (or rent) the floor of the Senate at a rate of $6 million an hour. I agree with the twitterer who wrote, "Who says Congress is broken?" The fact that someone is willing to pay $6 million an hour for it is a clear free-market sign of its worth. Correction: This has nothing to do with the free market. *How Much Does the President Cost?** * Political commentary sites are openly speculating on whether Steyer can buy Obama's final decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would supply vast quantities of Canadian oil to the U.S. The project has strong bipartisan and public support; even two lengthy environmental analyses by the State Department couldn't point to any major environmental impact. Nevertheless, as the /Sunshine State News/ (Fla., April 25) reported: "Never mind the Kochs. After assessing who did what bad to America lately, I nominate Tom Steyer for the top of the list. Last week the billionaire hedge fund manager from San Francisco bought off the White House to the tune of $100 million in order to delay the Keystone XL pipeline decision." (Note: Steyer retired some while ago from the hedge fund business.) Predictably, Landrieu broke Democratic ranks to castigate the delay. She called Obama's decision "irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable" -- a move to satisfy extreme radicals while sacrificing 42,000 jobs and billions from the economy. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, joined her. The man who bought the Senate floor, the man who bought Obama ... Thomas Steyer may also become the man who thwarted Keystone and drove Canadian oil toward China. If he fractures the Democratic Party, however, he may cost them more than he can deliver. "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer" - Stevie Wonder "Superstition" ...
