We’re Not Interested In Lowering Gas Prices

How much would Keystone pipeline help US consumers?
Canadian firms behind it say it will supply Gulf Coast export markets
By Mark Clayton Staff writer
Christian Science Monitor

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46689167/ns ... e_monitor/

Dang, those facts are stubborn things... But you guys keep regurgitating your empty talking points. And the "jobs" numbers are still phoney.

LadyJazzer wrote:
Dang, those facts are stubborn things... But you guys keep regurgitating your empty talking points. And the "jobs" numbers are still phoney.

Yes, the right has their heads stuck in the sand. I mean in what universe would a 7 billion 1400 mile private construction project produce jobs or do anything for the economy.

Yes, those 6,000 or so temporary jobs are just that--temporary...

Of course, the REAL longer term jobs come when the pipeline leaks, and then they get to clean up the spill ...like the Gulf of Mexico...Or like the similar tar-sands pipeline spill that's going on right now. (The oil company said it would "take a month to clean it up"...That was 20 months ago, and the signs are still up warning residents that coming in contact with the water is a punishable offense.)

Isn't it great how when talking point #1 fails: "It will lower gas prices, and put more oil into the US economy", (No, it won't.)--they instantly pivot to talking-point #2: "It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs." (No, it won't)

....(pause).....

Repeat Talking-Point #1.....

[youtube:2z0z6q7g][/youtube:2z0z6q7g]

[youtube:2z0z6q7g][/youtube:2z0z6q7g]

Well, here's the truth from an expert....

While I am tentatively "for" the pipeline, I read that they have not actually finalized it's path. So, why approve it when they don't know where it will go?

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, those 6,000 or so temporary jobs are just that--temporary...

Of course, the REAL longer term jobs come when the pipeline leaks, and then they get to clean up the spill ...like the Gulf of Mexico...Or like the similar tar-sands pipeline spill that's going on right now. (The oil company said it would "take a month to clean it up"...That was 20 months ago, and the signs are still up warning residents that coming in contact with the water is a punishable offense.)

Isn't it great how when talking point #1 fails: "It will lower gas prices, and put more oil into the US economy", (No, it won't.)--they instantly pivot to talking-point #2: "It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs." (No, it won't)

....(pause).....

Repeat Talking-Point #1.....

Sorry LJ, you talking points are don't contain any logic. Without the pipeline, we are more dependent on high priced, unstable foreign oil, and the unemployment rates stays higher.

What part of:

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.

...do you not get?

Your reading comprehension skills could use some work. But you keep regurgitating those disproven talking-points. I realize it's all you have left.

I love Obama claiming credit for "W"'s expansion of drilling. The libs last time said drilling won't help us now, five years ago, but we are getting the bounty now. 3% unemployment in North Dakota. Can you imaging what petrol prices would be without the larget increase in drilling in a decade, $8 a gallon? Just like Chu wants.

And "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."

Yep, two of your rants later, the facts still haven't changed... Isn't that interesting....