You mentioned the Keystone XL Pipeline.
There is FAR more to that story than you know.
A few simple facts:
100% of the oil that can be extracted from the Alberta Oil Sands is already flowing to the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast refineries now. If it's economically feasible to ship, then it is flowing. I know that for a fact.
If the Keystone Pipeline were miracled into being tomorrow... still only 100% of the oil extraction capability from the Alberta Oil Sands would flow, which is the same amount already flowing through alternative pipelines and rail. You wouldn't see one drop more reach the Gulf refineries than is already flowing.
Look at who owns the Keystone XL Northern leg... and through which states that oil will flow (who gets the tax revenue). Then look at the alternative pipelines now being used... and see who gets the revenue. Approving the Northern Keystone would remove well over $2 Billion in tax revenue yearly from just Illinois alone. The Chicago politicians desperately need that money and will fight for it. Also, the owners of the existing pipelines... have political favors owed. :>)
Don't look at what you are being shown. It's NOT an "environmental issue". The oil flowing now is moving through 65-year-old pipelines that originally had a 50-year rated lifespan. It's flowing under the Mississippi river and other major waterways. The Keystone Northern Leg is the safest, most studied and inspected pipeline ever installed... and it's brand new. This in not about environmentalism. This is purely business protectionism and maintaining tax revenues for certain U.S. states that would lose big-time if things changed.
You mentioned the Keystone XL Pipeline. There is FAR more to that story than you know.
A few simple facts:
100% of the oil that can be extracted from the Alberta Oil Sands is already flowing to the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast refineries now. If it's economically feasible to ship, then it is flowing. I know that for a fact.
If the Keystone Pipeline were miracled into being tomorrow... still only 100% of the oil extraction capability from the Alberta Oil Sands would flow, which is the same amount already flowing through alternative pipelines and rail. You wouldn't see one drop more reach the Gulf refineries than is already flowing.
Look at who owns the Keystone XL Northern leg... and through which states that oil will flow (who gets the tax revenue). Then look at the alternative pipelines now being used... and see who gets the revenue. Approving the Northern Keystone would remove well over $2 Billion in tax revenue yearly from just Illinois alone. The Chicago politicians desperately need that money and will fight for it. Also, the owners of the existing pipelines... have political favors owed. :>)
Don't look at what you are being shown. It's NOT an "environmental issue". The oil flowing now is moving through 65-year-old pipelines that originally had a 50-year rated lifespan. It's flowing under the Mississippi river and other major waterways. The Keystone Northern Leg is the safest, most studied and inspected pipeline ever installed... and it's brand new. This in not about environmentalism. This is purely business protectionism and maintaining tax revenues for certain U.S. states that would lose big-time if things changed.
Pardon my ignorance, but why do states get tax revenue from a pipeline?
How about all the bakken shale oil?
Im far more concerned with that oil than the Canadian stuff.