Keystone Pipeline & Presidential Election 2012

waldo · January 21, 2012

Too lazy to use google? The 2-to-1 ratio is well established. Here is one such study. There are many others.

too lazy to actually substantiate your claims?... why does it take repeated and ongoing citation requests, hey? Might it have anything to do with your sensitivity to having your sources squashed so many times in the past? But really, why the hesitancy in actually quoting from your linked study that you would finally put forward to substantiate your oft mentioned claim that, "studies looking at green jobs conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every green job created".

here, let me take the liberty... because, of course, your linked to study, itself, perpetuates the 2:1 ratio nonsense by drawing upon the same failed study that continually gets dredged up by the likes of you. Most certainly, I knew this reference would be your go-to:

from your linked to study:

In Spain, for example, each green job created led to the loss of two jobs in the rest of the Spanish economy - source: G. Calzada et al., Study of the Effects on Unemployment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Mar. 2009

of course, I dealt with this nonsense long ago in a previous MLW thread, as follows... obviously, it's why I continued to push/prod to get you to finally cite it:

... with reference to Spain... and an, 'internal leaked Spanish cabinet document'. Certainly, this one is being played up big time across the denialsphere and, not surprisingly, originates via Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - sourcewatch for CEI. What's missing here is perspective on the lead-up over the past year from the origination point... a 2009 Spanish study (from economics professor Gabriel Calzada of Spain’s King Juan Carlos University). Of course Solomon, and Horner, know of this study, of it's past complete and total debunking, but they don't care... this is simply another opportunity to throw out wild-ass claims while casting doubt and uncertainty - standard denier operation... standard Lawrence Solomon modus operandi!
this one is too easy, Simple... assorted debunking and refutations of that Spanish study - the study that forms the basis of Solomon's referenced 'leaked cabinet document':

- from José María Roig Aldasoro, Regional Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment Government of Navarre region in Spain

- from Teresa Ribera Rodriguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate - letter to U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee)

- from the Spanish technical and scientific organization - ISTAS (Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud) => translation of original Spanish document ... indepth analysis and focused content debunking

- from mediamatters.org - responding to, "Fox News pushing questionable Spanish study on green jobs"

- from Wall Street Journal - ... Simple, when even the WSJ doesn't buy into it... who ya gonna call?

- from Center for American Progress - Tall Tales from Spain

- the NRDC blog gives a summary account of key points from the above referenced Spanish government and ISTAS references; specifically:

Calzada's analysis is based on seriously flawed logic. As the Spanish Government letter says, "The conclusions are based on two static and simplistic ratios, from which it is difficult to draw valid conclusions as they compare non-comparable elements."

* The first ratio compares the economic support given to renewable energies in Spain per job with the average capital per job in Spain. A more valid comparison would have compared support to renewables with support to other energy sources - something other studies have done and shown very different conclusions from Calzada's.

* The second ratio compares annual support for renewable energy per job with the average productivity per job in Spain. As the letter from the Spanish Government says, "This comparison has no value."

Calzada blames renewables for job losses by assuming renewables are Spain's only electricity source. This conclusion is insupportable, however, as:

* Electricity prices are influenced by several factors. In Spain, as ISTAS points out, prices are affected

o The impact and evolution of crude oil prices

o The Spanish importation of coal, which accounted for more than 60% of the total coal used in 2008.

o The costs of nuclear waste treatment, calculated to be around 2,700 million euros.

* Renewable energy is one of Spain's cheaper electricity sources and has actually been lowering prices in Spain.

o According to ISTAS, the production of wind energy in Spain brought market prices down by 7.08 euros/MWh in 2005, 12.44 euros/MWh in 2006 and 12.44 euros/MWh between January 1st and May 31st, 2007.

o In relative terms, this contributed to a drop in the average market price of between 11.7%, 8.6% and 25.1%, respectively.

* Spain's electricity prices are below the EU average.

o According to ISTAS, in Spain the prices per 100 kWh of domestic energy amounted to 12.25 euros in 2007, which is less than the average of 15.28 euros found in the other 27 countries that make up the European Union (UE-27) and the average of 16.05 euros found in the Euro Area; also the price for industrial energy use in Spain amounts to 9.87 euros, which is less than the 10.70 euros of the UE-27 and the 11.23 euros found in the Euro Area.

Calzada's renewable energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada claims 52,200 direct and indirect jobs (but as with other 'facts' provides no citation for this figure.) By comparison, Spain's Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade says the renewable energy sector in Spain employs 73,900 direct workers. Spain's Labor Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health estimates 89,000 direct jobs and 99,690 indirect jobs.

Calzada's wind energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada states there are 15,000 people employed in the wind energy sector in Spain. But the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade puts the figure at more than twice that, 37,730 people.

Calzada doesn't source his facts. As ISTAS details,

* No bibliographical reference is specified for much of the data. Under the "bibliography" at the end of the paper, there is only one word: "Pending."

* Calzada does not provide explanations of his calculations.

* The data has been obtained from secondary sources, without considering whether they are of a comparable nature or not.

The paper appears to be politically motivated. As ISTAS states: "We are not dealing with a study here but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts. It is a document that is full of errors, a result of the haste incurred in getting it published in order to take advantage of the effect, and it fails at times to honor truth. These errors go anywhere from simple typos or omissions, to the "deliberate" misuse and confusion of terminology."

The Spanish Government letter concludes with an unequivocal affirmation of the Government's recognition of the value of renewable energy and its commitment to it, noting that Spanish renewable energy policy is widely supported, and that it "has established the pillars of the transformation of our energy model to face the future challenges; that has generated important benefits in environmental terms; that has created net jobs; that has created and improved a powerful industrial fabric, helping the rise of leading companies, not only at a national level but also at an international one, with great export and innovation capacity."

Rodriguez concludes, "In the renewable energy field, Spain is an example to be followed."

- of course, Simple... we need to comment on Gabriel Calzada, the lead author of that totally debunked Spanish study. Calzada is an avowed denier, a founding member of the Prague Network, a Heritage Foundation member of it's Green Jobs Panel... and, of course, a go-to guy for the Heartland Institute.

TimG · January 21, 2012

studies looking at green jobs conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every green job created

The reason I generally don't waste time debating references with you is you are an buffoon who cannot understand basic logic and constantly obsesses about minutia while missing the big picture

The Spanish study you reference points out "green energy" results in the misapplication of capital within the economy. For each government dollar spent "green jobs" they could create 2 "non-green jobs" if the capital was left in the hands of the private sector. It really does not make a difference if taxes were simply re-allocated instead of raised. The fact is the opportunity cost is real and ignored by greenie fanatics like you.

Your various links that supposedly debunk this argument are mostly ad hom attacks but the few that actually try to make an argument simply demonstrate that the writers are ignorant of economics (i.e. opportunity cost matters).

Edited January 21, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 21, 2012

Yawn. And that differs from your studies how? Any study that includes "bus drivers and garbage men" as "green jobs" is not even suited to line the bottom of a bird cage.

your hyperbole notwithstanding, the Brookings study also includes the references to fossil-fuel job classifications... I'm particularly taken with the industry sponsored one that includes retailers like, ahhh... Apu/Kwik-E-Mart! :lol:

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Bastiat and the broken windows fallacy if you want to understand why "green jobs" initiatives always destroy more jobs than they create.

in any case, perhaps you've forgotten which board you're on and how many times you keep on, keeping on... you've flogged the fallacy of the "broken windows" fallacy several times previously on MLW. Anything new? Like I said last time you attempted to apply the "broken windows" parable to green jobs:

parable bunk! Green jobs aren't the window repairmen fixing broken windows... rather, green jobs are gardeners planting trees in the park across the street, working to improve the town's future economy and livability.

the rest of your nonsense presumes upon a disparity between sourced electricity costs... and, of course, as is always the way of BigOil pimps like you, referenced fossil-fuel related electricity costs do not reflect true costs, choosing to specifically exclude things like the added cost of subsidies... and 'externalities', like air pollution, like water pollution, like health related issues, like climate change, etc.

TimG · January 21, 2012

rather, green jobs are gardeners planting trees in the park across the street, working to improve the town's future economy and livability.

Of course gardeners planting trees are luxuries that only the rich can afford - a point I have made about green energy many times. It is nice to see you finally acknowledging that "green jobs" have no utilitarian purpose and are really nothing but an attempt to give rich urban voters "gardens" that make them feel good while the other 99% of the world is driven into energy poverty. Edited January 21, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 21, 2012

The reason I generally don't waste time debating references with you is you are an buffoon who cannot understand basic logic and constantly obsesses about minutia while missing the big picture

The Spanish study you reference points out "green energy" results in the misapplication of capital within the economy. For each government dollar spent "green jobs" they could create 2 "non-green jobs" if the capital was left in the hands of the private sector. It really does not make a difference if taxes were simply re-allocated instead of raised. The fact is the opportunity cost is real and ignored by greenie fanatics like you.

Your various links that supposedly debunk this argument are mostly ad hom attacks but the few that actually try to make an argument simply demonstrate that the writers are ignorant of economics (i.e. opportunity cost matters).

:lol: the reason I generally waste time dealing with your nonsense is because you're so predictable. Really, c'mon... if you're going to quickly leverage the WSJ link I provided to pretend you know what you're talking about, you should be ready for a like leveraging of the same WSJ link! Enjoy:

What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in “average capital per worker” in the rest of the economy.
So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It’s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: “The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to “green jobs”, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.”

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain’s support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues—there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it’s hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.

TimG · January 21, 2012

if you're going to quickly leverage the WSJ link I provided to pretend you know what you're talking about, you should be ready for a like leveraging of the same WSJ

Are really that stupid or do you just pretend to be? The Spanish government is facing a major debt crisis and 21% unemploment today because it spent too much and taxed too little and you seriously think some speculation by a journalist in *2009* can over turn the basic principals of economics? It is a hard fact that misallocating capital costs jobs and that was "green energy" subsidies do. The Spanish study attempted to quantify the relative cost of this misallocation by comparing the cost of "green jobs" to the cost of "non-green jobs". You have presented nothing to refute the underlying logic.

waldo · January 21, 2012

parable bunk! Green jobs aren't the window repairmen fixing broken windows... rather, green jobs are gardeners planting trees in the park across the street, working to improve the town's future economy and livability.

Of course gardeners planting trees are luxuries that only the rich can afford - a point I have made about green energy many times. It is nice to see you finally acknowledging that "green jobs" have no utilitarian purpose and are really nothing but an attempt to give rich urban voters "gardens" that make them feel good while the other 99% of the world is driven into energy poverty.

how droll of you... for as silly as you are in presuming to offer a TimG 'parable from the mount', I note you took pains in ignoring the resultant, "working to improve the town's future economy and livability". How convenient and self-serving of you.

please feel free to substitute, oh... say... EPA regulators clamping down on pollution belching coal plants - working to improve the town's future economy and livability! :lol:

waldo · January 21, 2012

Are really that stupid or do you just pretend to be? The Spanish government is facing a major debt crisis and 21% unemploment today because it spent too much and taxed too little and you seriously think some speculation by a journalist in *2009* can over turn the basic principals of economics? It is a hard fact that misallocating capital costs jobs and that was "green energy" subsidies do. The Spanish study attempted to quantify the relative cost of this misallocation by comparing the cost of "green jobs" to the cost of "non-green jobs". You have presented nothing to refute the underlying logic.

nonsense - and you have provided nothing to substantiate your claim that, as you stated, "studies looking at green jobs conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every green job created". Your reference has no credibility - none... that Spanish study has been repeatedly debunked - it's a sham, like your presence.

TimG · January 21, 2012

"working to improve the town's future economy and livability". How convenient and self-serving of you.

You have provided no rational connection between "planting trees" and the economy unless your economy depends on logging.

"EPA regulators clamping down on pollution belching coal plants - working to improve the town's future economy and livability!

But that is not what you said. You compared green jobs to luxeries like planting trees. I agreed that they are luxeries with no utilitarian purpose. I was very surprised to see you agree. Edited January 21, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 21, 2012

But that is not what you said. You compared green jobs to luxeries like planting trees. I agreed that they are luxeries with no utilitarian purpose. I was very surprised to see you agree.

buddy, if you need to twist words/intent to presume to recover from your pummeling, feel free... have a gimme, on me! :lol:

TimG · January 21, 2012

Your reference has no credibility - none... that Spanish study has been repeatedly debunked

This is why it is waste of time to provide references to you. When the references are provided and you can't refute them with logic you simply close your ears and stomp your feet while screaming "I'am not listening". Not one of your links actually refutes the arguments presented in the study which is that the misallocation of capital costs jobs at a rate of 2 jobs for every one job created.

In any case, it is a waste of time trying to explain to you that 2+2 does not equal 5 because believing that 2+2=5 is a fundemental tenet of your eco-religion.

waldo · January 21, 2012

It is a hard fact that misallocating capital costs jobs and that was "green energy" subsidies do.

let's not lose this gem, particularly in regards to the many times stated fact in various MLW threads that the overwhelming amount of subsidies are allocated to fossil-fuels versus renewables. Feel free to extend upon your ongoing baseless, unsubstantiated claims... how about those fossil-fuel subsidies, hey?

waldo · January 21, 2012

This is why it is waste of time to provide references to you. When the references are provided and you can't refute them with logic you simply close your ears and stomp your feet while screaming "I'am not listening". Not one of your links actually refutes the arguments presented in the study which is that the misallocation of capital costs jobs at a rate of 2 jobs for every one job created.

In any case, it is a waste of time trying to explain to you that 2+2 does not equal 5 because believing that 2+2=5 is a fundemental tenet of your eco-religion.

nice! You didn't directly offer the Spanish study... you went out of your way to quote something else in your referenced link. I had to actually read your link to find an internal reference to anything to do with 2:1... and then I had to confirm it was, in fact, the same Spanish study I was familiar with by looking at the related endnote. I seriously doubt you've actually read it - ever. Your dimwitted move in attempting to quickly leverage my referenced Wall Street Journal (WSJ) link shows exactly where you're coming from, shows exactly the measure of your nonsense - not that there was ever any doubt. You presume to pick nuggets from the WSJ article and have the balls to chastise me for leveraging the same author/article to dispute your nugget mining. You seem to like the WSJ author's take when it suits your self-serving purpose... not so much when I quote from the same author as he proceeds to argue against his own/your premise. Beauty!

sharkman · January 21, 2012

Maybe you two should get some sleep now.

Topaz · January 23, 2012

Heres's a reporter who says he has proof that the Keystone pipeline is NOT safe and that he oil companies knows its not, you read and then decided. http://www.gregpalast.com/the-pig-in-the-xl-pipelineinsider-reveals-concealed-%e2%80%9cerror%e2%80%9din-pipeline-safety-equipment-that-could-blow-away-the-gop%e2%80%99s-xl-pipe-dream/#more-5675

waldo · January 23, 2012

Nonsense. The best interest of the US is getting these infrastructure projects built as expidiciously as possible.
No. That would be in the best interest of some, but not "the US."

further to those perceived 'best interests' of the U.S.:

- the Gulf Coast target is principally aimed to send tarsands product to new global markets... not for U.S. domestic consumption

- per TransCanada's own commissioned report for it's Canadian NEB hearing where it sought approval for the Canadian leg of the Keystone XL pipeline... an effective consortium working to manipulate U.S. Midwest consumer gas prices - to increase them!

... We touched on the issue of "manipulating" midwest gas prices in an earlier MLW Keystone related thread:

...TransCanada's Keystone application (section 3.4.3), reflecting upon pricing impacts to the U.S. Midwest (PADD II)...

- as pertains to the U.S. Midwest (PADD II) market, from that TransCanada Canadian NEB application: Keystone XL Pipeline Section 52 Application; Section 3: Supply and Markets

3.4.3 Crude Pricing Impact

Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.

Access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. Similarly, if a surplus of light synthetic crude develops in PADD II, the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide an alternate market and therefore help to mitigate a price discount.

end result: the Keystone XL pipeline will be eliminating the glut of U.S. Midwest oil that, from an industry perspective, is keeping prices depressed in the United States. Now, following the oft mentioned (self-serving) TimG principle of, "higher costs equals a net employment loss"... the Keystone XL pipeline, per TimG, must result in lost American jobs!!!

TimG · January 23, 2012

Heres's a reporter who says he has proof that the Keystone pipeline is NOT safe and that he oil companies knows its not, you read and then decided.

Of course you are assuming that the software engineer is also a legal expert and fully aware of what is required and not required to meet regulatory requirements. My experience is these things are often subject to interpretation and the only issue is his interpretation of the requirements. You also are assuming that this 'whistle blower' is acting in good faith and not some environmental activist looking to promote his pet cause. Given the dishonest tactics that we have seen from enviromental groups over the years the latter is quite likely.

TimG · January 23, 2012

the Keystone XL pipeline will be eliminating the glut of U.S. Midwest oil that, from an industry perspective, is keeping prices depressed in the United States.

Of course you forget that the glut in cushing will be resolved without requiring any federal approval. There are at least two proposals to build or recommission pipelines that go from Cushing to Houston. IOW - the price glut is a red herring and ironic one at that because you are so opposed to indirect fossil fuel "subsidies" yet you are now advocating that the US government create market distortions in order subsidize the price oil in the US midwest.

You also forget that the price glut depresses prices for Americans in North Dakota exploiting the Bakken formation. So the price glut hurts Americans too and that has to be traded off against the modest benefit of lower oil prices.

Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 23, 2012

Of course you are assuming that the software engineer is also a legal expert and fully aware of what is required and not required to meet regulatory requirements. My experience is these things are often subject to interpretation and the only issue is his interpretation of the requirements. You also are assuming that this 'whistle blower' is acting in good faith and not some environmental activist looking to promote his pet cause. Given the dishonest tactics that we have seen from enviromental groups over the years the latter is quite likely.

whether there is any substance to that story, or not... you've just rattled off a list of self-serving unknowns. Again, assuming there's actual substance to the article, you've taken the grandiose leap from presumed technical malfeasance to "legal interpretations" of same... and you haven't any foundation for either. Your experience??? :lol: And, of course, in your world, automatically, out of the gate, the "whistleblower" is a dishonest... what was your word... oh, right... dishonest, "enviro-loon". And, of course, you have no foundation for this, as well. In fact you have no foundation for anything you've just stated - other than your fevered, ideological, biased driven self.

waldo · January 23, 2012

Of course you forget that the glut in cushing will be resolved without requiring any federal approval. There are at least two proposals to build or recommission pipelines that go from Cushing to Houston. IOW - the price glut is a red herring and ironic one at that because you are so opposed to indirect fossil fuel "subsidies" yet you are now advocating that the US government create market distortions in order subsidize the price oil in the US midwest.
You also forget that the price glut depresses prices for Americans in North Dakota exploiting the Bakken formation. So the price glut hurts Americans too and that has to be traded off against the modest benefit of lower oil prices.

WTF! A red herring price glut???... so much of a red herring, TransCanada felt it appropriate to include it in it's Canadian submission - intended to help substantiate the business case behind it's proposal... again, from a Canadian perspective. Of course, within that same TransCanada NEB submission, the stated result of eliminating the U.S. Midwest glut (your "red herring") is a tidy sum in TransCanada's pocket, hey?

The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in 15 annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.

you referencing the Bakken formation is the real red herring here... care to speak to the economics of shale fracking versus the tarsands - notwithstanding the real and growing concerns over fracking? Are you truly saying that the Midwest U.S. glut was the driver behind the lack of Bakken development? Cause the glut is still there and over the last 3 years some significant exploration and development has begun... doesn't quite fit your red herring narrative, does it?

TimG · January 23, 2012

TransCanada felt it appropriate to include it in it's Canadian submission - intended to help substantiate the business case behind it's proposal

What is your point? The price glut would be eliminated by the TransCanada pipeline but it is not the only way to eliminate the price glut. There is an existing pipeline that goes from Houston to Cushing that will be reversed and this eliminate it. If volume increase then another pipeline will be built.

Oil is oil whether it comes from Alberta or the Bakken formation. The extraction techniques are irrelevant. My point was the oil glut in the midwest hurts states with the Bakken formation which undermines your claim that subsidizing midwest oil consumers is actually a net benefit to Americans.

Lastly, you did not explain why you are suddenly in favour of subsidizing fossil fuels with market distortions. If anything, it just shows how you are a hypocritical fanatic who decides what outcome he wants and dreams up excuses to justify that outcome after the fact.

Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 23, 2012

What is your point? The price glut would be eliminated by the TransCanada pipeline but it is not the only way to eliminate the price glut. There is an existing pipeline that goes from Houston to Cushing that will be reversed and this eliminate it. If volume increase then another pipeline will be built.

gee, go figure... I thought this thread was about TransCanada and the KXL pipeline... more pointedly, the comment was in direct response to you hyping the "U.S. benefits". Pointing out of those "benefits", per TransCanada's own NEB submission, was/is to be increased U.S. Midwest consumer gas prices, kind of questions aspects of those perceived benefits. Notwithstanding, of course, the principle market for tarsands product is not the domestic U.S. - right? Of course, another related point associates to the call for a FTC anti-trust investigation into this very point of TransCanada (and consortium) looking to manipulate discounts and overall pricing.

Oil is oil whether it comes from Alberta or the Bakken formation. The extraction techniques are irrelevant. My point was the oil glut in the midwest hurts states with the Bakken formation which undermines your claim that subsidizing midwest oil consumers is actually a net benefit to Americans.

duh! The extraction process is very relevant... in the face of ongoing high prices, technological advancement is the reason tarsands development exists... is the only reason, fracking has 'taken off' in recent years. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with development costs, vis-a-vis, tarsands versus shale, hey? That should help you realize the nature of Midwest "glut removal".

Lastly, you did not explain why you are suddenly in favour of subsidizing fossil fuels with market distortions. If anything, it just exposes you as a fanatic who decides what outcome he wants and dreams up excuses to justify that outcome after the fact.

dream on - pointing out the distortions doesn't speak to favour.

TimG · January 23, 2012

Oil is oil whether it comes from Alberta or the Bakken formation. The extraction techniques are irrelevant. My point was the oil glut in the midwest hurts states with the Bakken formation which undermines your claim that subsidizing midwest oil consumers is actually a net benefit to Americans.
duh! The extraction process is very relevant... in the face of ongoing high prices...

Whenever you have been thrashed you try to change the topic and start to argue irrelevancies. Nothing you said changes the fact that the Bakken formation oil goes to the same refineries in the mid west as Keystone XL and they are are hurt by depressed prices too. So much for your 'net benefit' argument.

waldo · January 23, 2012

Whenever you have been thrashed you try to change the topic and start to argue irrelevancies. Nothing you said changes the fact that the Bakken formation oil goes to the same refineries in the mid west as Keystone XL and they are are hurt by depressed prices too. So much for your 'net benefit' argument.

how obtuse are you? Truly! Topic changing and irrelevancy is yours in the first place for bringing up the Bakken formation. You are trying so hard and so concertedly, to miscast and downplay TransCanada's own Canadian NEB submission reference that presumed to help qualify the legitimacy of it's business case/intent, by claiming increased profits... at the expense of, effectively, manipulating supply and pricing (most particularly as relates to the U.S. Midwest market). Quite clearly, except to you... this is not one of the U.S. benefits you presumed to hype. Any suggestion of a 'net benefit' argument results from your disjointed and fabricated imagination. Equally, of course, another counter to your overall hyping of perceived U.S. benefits, one you fail to acknowledge any mention of, is the true principal target for the KXL pipeline; i.e., new global (read Asian) markets... not the domestic U.S. market. Just what are those U.S. benefits you keep hyping, without actually stating what they are, hey?

August1991 · January 23, 2012

You can't make this stuff up! Now, the American Left has decided to attack Canada!

It’s well known that America’s dependence on foreign oil forces us to partner with some pretty unsavory regimes. Take, for instance, the country that provides by far the largest share of our petroleum imports. Its regime, in thrall to big oil interests, has grown increasingly bellicose, labeling environmental activists “radicals” and “terrorists” and is considering a crackdown on nonprofits that oppose its policies. It blames political dissent on the influence of “foreigners,” while steamrolling domestic opposition to oil projects bankrolled entirely by overseas investors. Meanwhile, its skyrocketing oil exports have sent the value of its currency soaring, enriching energy industry barons but crippling other sectors of its economy.
Yes, Canada is becoming a jingoistic petro-state.

Slate