Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "The only reason US citizens may be forced to endure a risky, Canadian-owned oil pipeline called Keystone XL is so oil companies with billion-dollar profits can get the dirty oil from Canada's tar sands down to the Gulf of Mexico to export to Europe, Latin America or Asia."

Rail cars arrive in Milton, ND, loaded with pipe for TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline project, which will carry crude oil across Saskatchewan and Manitoba, through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois, 08/26/11. (photo: Eric Hylden/Grand Forks Herald)
Rail cars arrive in Milton, ND, loaded with pipe for TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline project, which will carry crude oil across Saskatchewan and Manitoba, through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois, 08/26/11. (photo: Eric Hylden/Grand Forks Herald)





Keystone XL Pipeline Oil Will Not Be Used in US

By Stephen Leahy, Inter Press Service

05 September 11

 

US awash in oil and lies, report charges.

ith four times as many oil rigs pumping domestic oil today than eight years ago and declining domestic demand, the United States is awash in oil.

The country's oil industry is primarily interested in who will pay the most on the global marketplace. They call that "energy security" when it suits, but in reality it is "oil company security" through maximising profits, say energy experts like Steve Kretzman of Oil Change International, an NGO that researches the links between oil, gas and coal companies and governments.

The only reason US citizens may be forced to endure a risky, Canadian-owned oil pipeline called Keystone XL is so oil companies with billion-dollar profits can get the dirty oil from Canada's tar sands down to the Gulf of Mexico to export to Europe, Latin America or Asia, according to a new report by Oil Change International released Wednesday.

"Keystone XL will not lessen US dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets," concludes the report, titled "Exporting Energy Security".

Little of the 700,000 to 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil pumped through the 2,400-kilometre, seven-billion-dollar Keystone XL will end up in US gas tanks because the refineries on the Gulf Coast are all about expanding export markets. One huge refinery operator called Valero has been touting the potential export revenues of tar sands oil to investors, the report found.

Because Keystone XL crosses national borders, President Barack Obama has to issue a permit declaring the pipeline serves the "national interest" in order to be approved.

"The only way Keystone XL could be considered in the national interest is if you equate that with profits for the oil industry," said Kretzman, who wrote the report.

Canada's huge tar sands deposits, located mainly in the far north of the province of Alberta, are the world's second largest oil reserves, but they are landlocked. It's the industry's biggest worry and also Alberta Energy Minister Ron Lieper's biggest concern.

Lieper recently said that without new pipelines "our greatest risk in Alberta is that by 2020 we will be landlocked in bitumen". Bitumen is thick tarry oil from the tar sands that needs lots of high-energy and chemical processing to be useable - one reason it's widely considered the world's dirtiest oil.

The shortest route to the big Asian markets is through the Rocky Mountains to Canada's west coast via the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. However, Canadian native people live on some of the land and are staunchly opposed, so the industry thought it would be easier to put an export pipeline right through the US heartland, said Kretzman.

"The oil industry would have done the Northern Gateway first but gambled that resistance to the pipeline would be far weaker in the mid-west," he told IPS.

They were wrong.

Thousands of people, including landowners and religious leaders, have gone to Washington DC in the past two weeks to tell President Obama to reject Keystone. Nearly 850 people have been arrested for standing on the sidewalk in front of the White House in what protesters call the largest civil disobedience in the history of the US climate movement.

"It's remarkable, a very dignified and moving protest much like the civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s," said Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, a large environmental NGO.

"This is about the rights of the environment and future generations. It is the blossoming of a new movement," Barlow told IPS from Washington.

Other massive pipelines are being planned, including ones bringing tar sands crude to New England and the Great Lakes, she said. "Keystone is just the beginning. Once these are built they will have to put something in them."

Infrastructure dictates policy, she stressed. Once pipelines, refineries or power plants are built, it is nearly impossible for governments to shut them down.

Last year, scientists writing in the journal Science concluded there is already enough fossil fuel burning capacity to raise global temperatures by 1.5 degrees C by 2060. Any additional power plants, vehicles, or other fossil fuel burning equipment built from 2011 onward puts humanity at ever greater risk of catastrophic climate change.

"We conclude that sources of the most threatening emissions have yet to built," the scientists wrote.

The Obama administration knows this but the powerful oil lobby can use its unlimited funds to attack Democratic officials during the next election cycle if they don't approve the pipeline, says Kretzman.

Changes to US law in 2010 allow corporations to spend as much as they want on elections, and there is no sector with more money than the oil industry.

"That scares the hell out of the Obama administration," he said.

It's never been clearer that corporations wield the real power in the United States and Canada, activists say.

"This is the beginning of a very big fight for the future," Barlow told IPS.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+26 # brianf 2011-09-05 09:56
It's too bad the Obama administration and most Democrats are so ruled by fear. The truth is that the fossil fuel corporations will use their almost unlimited wealth to back Republicans regardless of what the Obama administration does. They would lose nothing by doing the right thing, and they'd get back some of the lost respect of people who value life more than money.
 
 
+8 # TGMisanthrope 2011-09-05 18:58
"It's too bad the Obama administration and most Democrats are so ruled by fear. The truth is that the fossil fuel corporations will use their almost unlimited wealth to back Republicans regardless of what the Obama administration does."
_____________

I must respectfully disagree, brianf. The Obama administration and most Democrats aren't ruled by fear, they're ruled by the same thing that rules the Republicans, and hence the U.S. government: corporate money. Look at campaign donations and notice that the corporations hedge their bets by consistently backing both parties. No matter who wins, we the citizens lose.
 
 
+1 # karester 2011-09-05 22:01
You are absolutely right! It simply is a non-factor "what" the President does. The Conservative Right-Wing will make him look like an immoral, unpatriotic liar occupying the Oval Office illegally.
The "Obama for President" campaign told us to look fear in the eyes and cast a vote for Change! Well, Mr. Obama needs to look in the mirror and repeat to himself, "I am not afraid. I am not afraid..."

Mr. President,
Please grow a pair. Your kowtowing and compromising cannot buy you the next election. It can only be won through the hearts of the Nation. We the People...We each have one vote. As of 9/6/2011, a corporation, albeit having 1st Amendment Rights, cannot cast a ballot.
Why hast thou abandoned us?

Former Loyal Servant,
KHS
 
 
0 # 4yourinformation 2011-09-05 10:36
Part of the problem is this- wealthy Dems who sort of care about the environment can always fall back on their ability to escape the threats of environmental collapse. They can always move to a better place, afford filtering technology and they never have to get touched by the razor edge of Nature's force. It's the same formula with economics and justice, etc. Only when you can show them that the ramifications will touch them in a measurable way that they can't escape...will you get some action. It wasn't always this way. Richard Nixon created the EPA (with activists pushing).
 
 
+4 # in deo veritas 2011-09-05 10:46
Let the countriesd who would get this oil find it somewhere else! Let them deal with Libya, Syria, etc. Maybe that money woiuld help the countries who have had the guts to rise up and throw out their dictators and those who haven't done it yet. It's all about money as the oil companies would commit treason without hesitation by selling the oil to North Korea,Communist China etc. who are the enemy despite propaganda to the contrary. This is simply aiding and abetting companies in Canada that are just as greedy.
 
 
+8 # in deo veritas 2011-09-05 10:51
Ask yourself-are there any countries left on this planet that do NOT value money over and above lives, decency, humanity and other principles that their religions stand for but that they ignore and profane on a daily basis? Pretty obvious to the world that the USA and Canada do not put anything ahead of profit.
 
 
+3 # giraffee2012 2011-09-05 16:06
I don't think it's because the Dems/President Obama are afraid to say anything - Listen: The GOP are in bed with big$$ -- yes, including oil. Saying anything does no good. We have to VOTE out the creeps (GOP/RP) that want "small govt" when it comes to SS/Education/Medicare/ feeding poor children/ etc -- and "big govt" when it comes to abortion -- and the TP/GOP take their pledge to Norquist OVER their OATH of office.

Register early and get mail-in ballots if in GOP state. Or We'll have WORSE than Bush/Cheney/Rove. We cannot recover from the damage THEY did in my (or your) lifetime.

The Supremes are to have the least power of govt (W.H./ Congres /Supremes) but the Supremes' 2010 UNCONSTITUTIONA L decision to give person hood to big corporations to buy our elections (by a distortion of the first Amendment) while they did not give them the obligations of the rest of the Constitution / Bill of rights bc these Corps cannot be sued (even when the banks have/still raped us = 2008 etc And these big corps are multi-national -so foreigners can now buy our govt too. SCALIA attended (with free food/bed/transportation) the Koch brother's GOP meeting about how to legislate before that 2010 "decision" - THE RULE OF LAW states specifically a Supreme cannot let $$ or politics enter a Decision.

RESIGN SCALIA/THOMAS!!

Vote 2012- VOTE DEM
 
 
-2 # rhgreen 2011-09-06 05:26
Sorry, I like RSN but the blogs and the comments on this issue are way off base. Development of the Alberta tar sands is a Canadian decision, so no American hegemony please whether right-wing or left-wing. Imposing American morality on other countries is what RSN is supposed to object to, and that includes ecomorality. Sure Americans can object to the pipeline through the US but it is for supplying US refineries which tend to be on the Gulf coast. If you don't want that oil, OK, but as the US State Dept says the tar sands development will go ahead anyway. The Asian markets alone are more than sufficient, and an all-Canadian pipeline west to the BC coast can supply those. Some Americans think a secure long-term supply of oil from a friendly neighbor country is worth something, but if you don't then so be it. In closing, I am an eastern Canadian environmental scientist with half a century of experience. I don't like the current Canadian government and I'm not especially fond of Alberta or its govt either. But most of the attacks, which are more ideological than scientific, on the Alberta tar sands development are not credible or proportionate to the risks or the potential harm. Whether you agree with that or not, if you're not a Canadian please mind your own business.
 
 
+2 # punk 2011-09-06 13:51
i just came here to voice my despair. i cant take reading the news anymore. i think the jig is up. the next prez will probably be romney. just be glad he doesnt think that all the science u need is in the bible. he actually accepts global warming as something other than a loony libtard godless commie conspiracy. and he says he wd cut taxes for the middle class, which makes sense to me. but mostly, i'm just glad he's not 1 of those bizzaro evangelicals.
on the other hand, my predictions about every political event are dead wrong. just plz, no perry or bachmann!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.