CNN Money Reporter Hits Keystone Pipeline from Far Left
When President Obama put off giving the go-ahead to build the Keystone Pipeline until after the 2012 election, it put the liberal media in a difficult position. Just about everyone from Big Labor to congressional Republicans to the states through which the Keystone would run agrees it would create thousands of jobs, strengthen ties with Canada and reduce dependency on oil from unstable and unfriendly nations.
Obama, who has yet to embrace a jobs scheme that actually produces jobs, bowed to the environmentalists and wealthy celebrity liberals who hate the Keystone Pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Journalists like CNN Money reporter Steve Hargreaves were left to defend the decision.
In a Dec 14 piece titled "Keystone Pipeline: How many jobs it would really create?" Hargreaves cited two sources to make the case that the job-creating impact of the Keystone pipeline would be minimal at best - without noting the liberal environmental leanings of those sources.
"The Keystone pipeline project is back in play as part of the payroll-tax cut debate," Hargreaves said, "and Congressional Republicans say it would create jobs. But there's a wide range of estimates, with one forecast that Keystone could actually cost jobs."
That "one forecast" was a study from Cornell University that blasted the potential job-creating impact of the pipeline. Other studies have forecast positive job impacts for the pipeline.
The libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute has previously documented that the Cornell study was authored by a board member of Greenpeace Canada and financed by the Goodman Group, which counts among its clients the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. This information did not appear in Hargreaves' report.
Hargreaves also quoted spokeswoman Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, of the National Resources Defense Council, who said "The Republicans have been acting like this is a national jobs package, and it's not."
Again, Hargreaves failed to explain that the National Resources Defense Council is an environmentalist group that is adamantly opposed to the pipeline. The group recently joined with three other environmental groups to file a lawsuit to block the pipeline. (Ironically, the National Resources Defense Council has previously come out against American dependence on unstable countries for foreign oil.)
In fairness to Hargreaves, those defending the indefensible are likely to pick up any tool at hand. Obama's decision was transparently political and deeply cynical, and no credible source would back it up.
- Paul Wilson's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Why another pipeline?
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:25pm.
I'm not an engineer, so I'm probably not aware of all the technical difficulties, but ever since this project rose to newsworthiness in the MSM, I've asked this question:
Rather than construct another pipeline to carry the crude to the refineries in Louisiana, why don't they build a new refinery in North Dakota or Montana, and ship the refined petroleum throughout the northern and plains states by rail, truck, and existing pipelines?
This would have the added effect of increasing production, and since our gasoline exports have increased in recent years, the new production would increase exports and bring the price down for us.
You make great sense
Submitted by ROSSMAN on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:30pm.
Cost for this may be prohibitive!!
What's cost prohibitive is building refineries
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:10pm.
Much of which is thanks to the EPA. Refineries are the most technically difficult constructions I know of. We have working refineries that are well below capacity in the Gulf states right now. They need to be fully utilized before engaging in the cost of building new ones.
Here some idea of the cost of building refineries. This is as of 2001, so figure higher costs now. Here is another answer as to the costs. Keep in mind this answer is to the cost of small refineries.
And here is a list of refineries already in production in the States, with capacities and production.
There are many refineries that need an upgrade, and we may need to expand some, especially those that would receive oil from the Keystone pipeline, but these costs are much less than starting from scratch.
That's a fair question, Galv
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:40pm.
I wish we had someone in the industry to get into some of the details to answer that question.
But I would imagine it would have to do with the availability of bulk transportation (shipping) resources in Louisiana as opposed to the piecemeal transportation of refined petroleum from a location like Montana. What infrastructure is there already (highways, rail) and how would that be impacted by so much more additional traffic. Also, is it significantly more dangerous to transport the finished product by a multitude of means? I don't know.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Because even after the cost to build it....
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:43pm.
...it is still cheaper to push stuff through a pipe than to spend enormous amounts of energy trucking or railing it around. Not to mention the manhours spent trucking and railing stuff around. And there is not enough rail to move it. We would have to build new rail lines. And there is not enough current pipelines to do the existing pipeline idea you want. We would have to build new pipeline to....oh we are already on top of that idea.
This is a private pipeline. They think they will make money with it. Not a dollar of our taxes will be spent. But we will get taxes in return. Win Win Win. I say go for it.*
*truthy time. I own stock in TransCanada.
Think about it this way Mr. Galvanic.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:17pm.
For every 1000 mile trip a truck or railcar has to make fully loaded with petroleum, it has to make another 1000 mile return trip empty just to fill up again. Pipelines are cheaper and safer.
That's called a dead-head
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:22pm.
...in the garbage industry, when you're hauling construction containers. The idea is to take an empty container to the customer, drop the empty, pick up his full, go the 'fill, then to the next customer. Cuts your fuel cost by half, rather than go to the customers bare, pick up the can, dump it, return it to the original customer (a dead-head haul).
Same idea.
That hadn't even occurred to me, Vet. Good catch.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Valid points, Vet
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:48pm.
There are existing pipelines to push the refined product from the refineries to the rest of the country. I don't know how much of that pipeline infrastructure exists in Montana and N. Dakota -- given their lesser population densities, perhaps not much.
But taking up on your point, if Canadian crude is piped down to the Gulf, and gasoline/diesel/heating oil is piped out to other parts of the US, I wonder how much it would take to re-route stuff through existing pipelines.
Like Blonde noted, it would be great to have an engineer and/or industry expert explain the technical aspects. Then we'd have to take in cost/benefit analysis.
one of my golfing buddies-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:27pm.
who graduated from carnegie mellon-worked for BP/has his degrees in Chemical& Mechanical engineering.
has enlightened many of us dummies.
as the population has grown-more demand for Oil and her bi-products has increased.
Newest Refinery built in 1973-he has assisted rebuilding a few of these refineries.
cant build a new one with greater capacity and technical improvements-so they rebuild the old.
Same with the pipelines-natural gas-the pipeline is full-cant get anymore volume into the lines.
There is enough natural gas in Ohio/PA/W Va to last us 240 years if we change every home along with cars and light trucks to natural gas.
Now the draw back on cars trucks and natural gas-the BTU's are not as high-so the engines will not respond like gasoline. They have done this with lift trucks years ago.works very well.
So we need more capacity for refineries and pipelines to feed those refineries.
He best line ever-if there is something out there other than Oil Natural gas and Coal that could be used
effectively and efficiency-it would be done in the private sector.
Big Oil-has stock holders-and pensions screaming to make profits. so they would.
my fingers are tired.
Put a Lease on the EPA.
Thanks for the great info, JIMMY
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 4:32pm.
It explains a lot.
Refineries
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:01pm.
We haven't built one in years, have we? Every time there's a fire or accident at one the price of gas shoots up because of the bottleneck created in production. Maybe thats why: if we increased production capacity, the price would drop. I doubt big oil wants that....
Don't be dense. "Big Oil"
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:11pm.
Don't be dense. "Big Oil" only makes a 5% profit on their operations. They should be applauded for offering their services for such a bargin rate.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Also Big Oil mostly got rid of refineries years ago.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:59am.
Margins are insanely tight on refining. So "Big Oil" is largely separated from "Big Refineries" and talking about what "Big Oil" wants only makes you look foolish.
There are reasons we have not built one
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:24pm.
They are too damned expensive to build. They are extremely difficult technically to build. Many years and dollars spent just designing them. Rigorous regulation and the fact that refineries are already spending upwards of $20 billion to lower sulfur content in the gases, (thanks EPA).
IIRC, only about sixty percent of our refineries on fully online at any given time, due to scheduled maintenance, accidents, lack of oil production, what have you.
If building new refineries were necessary, and profitable, believe me, oil companies would be fighting much harder than they are to build them.
There are already 25,000 miles of pipe that criss cross
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:17pm.
The aquifer....
Obama's new buddy makes sure that his rail line will monopolize the oil transport in that area for years and years.
Warren Buffett buys railroad giant Burlington for $26.3B
Voters have said yes to a zoning ordinance that would result in construction of the nation’s newest oil refinery in over 30 years.
Screw the voters.
Another much smaller refinery planned...yea sure.
Hundreds of diesel-fueled trucks are needed to accommodate such growth in a largely remote state, hauling crude to the nearest pipeline or rail head, hauling refined products to the drilling site or trucking in sand and water. These are key ingredients to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves injecting a mix of water, sand and chemicals into shale formations at high pressures to extract oil and gas.
That is on top of diesel used in the fracking process as well as the trains that transport Bakken crude to other states in the absence of sufficient pipeline capacity.
You Didn't Build That.