pdxstogieman wrote:Why should anyone in the US want a pipeline extension built across US soil in order to transport Canadian diluted bitumen to refineries in Free Trade zones that will export that oil tax free to international destinations? Keystone XL has nothing to do with moving oil from Montana in order to make it available for refining and consumption within the US.
Do at least a little homework. One of the things that Keystone XL pipeline is planned to do is pick up domestic oil in Montana. Montana and North Dakota have a pipeline shortage. Even if every drop of that Canadian oil went to a refinery in a free trade zone and was then processed and exported to Latin America, we would still have the jobs at the refinery, pipeline operation, shipping, and all their associated support industries.
pdxstogieman wrote:"When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.
There is a glut of oil in the midwest. The refiners there are making good money by buying the glut oil cheaper than market. Some refineries have actually sued to stop the pipeline because they like their competitive advantage. Part of the pipeline is to solve this problem. (not the part everyone is complaining about!) Part of it is to increase capacity.
pdxstogieman wrote:In fact, TransCanada refused to support a requirement that oil on Keystone XL be used in the United States in a recent Congressional hearing. Earlier this month, Representative Edward Markey asked TransCanada’s President Alex Pourbaix to support a condition that would require the oil on Keystone XL to be used in the United States. Mr. Pourbaix refused, saying that a requirement to keep oil on Keystone XL in the United States would cause refineries to back out of their contracts. That very well may be the case as Valero, one of the largest prospective purchasers of Keystone XL’s crude, has already told its investors the its future business is in international export".
The pipeline company would be stupid to agree to this. Now the US could essentially control the price since this oil could not go on the open market. This would also be stupid for the refiners because the USA could pass legislation requiring 25% ethanol and there would now be a huge oil glut and they would be unable to sell the product. Now if the USA did pass a 25% ethanol law, this pipeline would likely not be necessary at all unless the USA wanted to replace all middle eastern oil with Canadian oil. (Hint, hint. Ethanol)
pdxstogieman wrote:Why authorize building a pipeline in the US to facilitate export of Canadian oil sands internationally when Canadians themselves have rejected building a pipeline for this purpose on their own soil?
Your (the blogger's) entire argument is based on the manufactured theory that all this oil is just passing through the US for export. Neither of you can know if this is true but it makes for nice scare tactics and it is the standard talking point. One of the other talking points is that this pipeline will kill more green jobs than it creates from the construction and operation of the pipeline. That doesn't pass the logic test if all the oil is for export out of the USA. Throw it on the wall and see what sticks.
Canada already has numerous pipelines. One actually crosses the Rockies and goes to Vancouver and the State of Washington. It is under consideration for expansion. There are plans under development and approval for a new Canadian pipeline to the west coast for Asian export. It has not been rejected nor approved. but faces the same "not in my backyard" resistance.
The USA and our refiners have been given first shot at this Canadian oil. If we respectfully decline, China and Japan will take it and long term we'll be just fine as long as we keep increasing the ethanol percentage requirements.