ndert2
Follow us on Facebook

Latest Comments

ND Outdoors Sites

FishingBuddy
NoDakOutdoors

Featured Link

Meanwhile

Login Form



Support NorthDecoder

Search This Site

Loading

Feature Stories

Personal
The Low Road

Amazon Search

JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
Keystone XL Lies Du Jour PDF Print E-mail
Written by Chet   

oilspillI'm tired of the horrible, biased, fact-challenged Keystone XL reporting by the Associated Press (AP) and all the other fake-neutral media. Their reporting just gets worse and worse.  The AP used to have well-deserved credibility with readers, but has slowly stooped lower and lower so that now it is little more than a National Enquirer writer-esqe embarrassment for American journalism.  Here's a snippet from their most recent pathetic reporting on the Keystone XL pipeline:

WASHINGTON — It's a decision President Barack Obama put off during the 2012 campaign, but now that he's won a second term, his next move on a proposed oil pipeline between the U.S. and Canada may signal how he will deal with climate and energy issues in the four years ahead.

Obama is facing increasing pressure to determine the fate of the $7 billion Keystone XL project, with environmental activists and oil producers each holding out hope that the president, freed from the political constraints of re-election, will side with them on this and countless other related issues down the road.

Keystone XL is especially important in North Dakota because it will bring 100,000 barrels per day of Bakken oil to U.S. refineries, said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. While the pipeline does not run through North Dakota, feeder pipelines from within the state would connect to it.

Associated Press

Once again, I feel obligated to take a few of the bigger lies in this AP story and pick them apart. First, let's talk about this suggestion President Obama "put off" the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.  The truth is the application to construct the pipeline was incomplete.  Imagine you work at the counter at North Dakota's Game & Fish office and someone comes in to get a hunting license. They fill out the application but refuse (or decline) to provide their last name, their mailing address and their date of birth. You're the bureaucrat working behind the counter. You look at the application and see it is incomplete. Do you give the applicant a hunting license?  Of course not. You turn it back and tell the applicant it's incomplete and tell them to finish filling it out. That's just how it works. Everybody who has reviewed the situation who has half a brain understands the application was incomplete. It had to be rejected.  (More here on that.)

Second, let's talk about that 100,000 barrels per day of Bakken oil that is scheduled to be sent to U.S. refineries. This is a pure fiction. We've written about this before, with the help of Prairie Blogger Jim Fuglie. Here's what he and I wrote:

The Keystone XL Was Not Ever Going To "carry about 100,000 barrels of North Dakota crude" Per Day: It wasn't. You know what the commitment was from TransCanada?  They said they would carry some Bakken Crude. Not 100,000 barrels.  And not North Dakota Bakken crude. TransCanada said they'd carry 65,000 barrels from North Dakota, Montana and, possibly, Saskatchewan.  Jim Fuglie wrote about this before, after he and I got all the Governor's records on this issue:

There is an agreement between Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, negotiated in 2010, and announced jointly by Gov. Schweitzer and TransCanada officials on September 13, 2010, at a press conference in Billings, Montana, to “construct onramps and offramps for the receipt and delivery of oil from Montana producers at points on the Keystone pipeline that had been announced by TransCanada.”

That, of course, was the Montana Governor’s take on the agreement, or at least his public proclamation. Read: This is a big deal for Montana.

Except that it wasn’t.

TransCanada worded it a little differently. In a 2011 press release, TransCanada said “In the fall of 2010, TransCanada went to the market with a proposal to move Bakken crude oil production by constructing a receipt facility at Baker, Montana. The open season was successful allowing TransCanada to sign firm contracts for 65,000 bpd of crude oil from the Bakken to key U.S, refining markets. The open season for this project closed on November 19, 2010. The Bakken Marketlink project will provide receipt facilities to transport up to 100,000 bpd of crude oil from the Williston Basin producing region inNorth Dakota and Montana . . .”

If TransCanada says that’s the deal, then that’s the deal. They will let 100,000 barrels of crude oil, from somewhere in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana (and possibly Saskatchewan), into the pipeline. Not, as Governor Schweitzer says, 100,000 barrels of Montana crude. Not, as Governor Dalrymple says, 100,000 barrels of North Dakota crude. Nice try guys.

And note to Governor Dalrymple: TransCanada says there are contracts for only 65,000 barrels, not 100,000, and that those contracts are not all from North Dakota. Those numbers, Governor, come from documents provided to me and to a fellow blogger, who requested them, by your office.

The Prairie Blog (Jim Fuglie) as crossposted on NorthDecoder.com

Sorry, Tribune editors. No matter how many times you repeat a lie, or how hard you wish it to be true, the lie does not somehow magically become true.

 NorthDecoder.com (April 15, 2012) and click here for more on this.

The facts have not changed since April 15th. There is still no commitment for 100,000 barrels of North Dakota bakken crude oil per day to go onto the Keystone XL. It continues to be pure fiction, and continues to be a fraud perpetrated on North Dakotans by corrupt government officials like Jack Dalrymple and incompetent and/or complicit corrupt "journalists" like those at the Bismarck Tribune and the Associated Press.

Third, here's another excerpt from today's AP story:

“It's just a no-brainer,” Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., told The Associated Press. “Canada is going to export this oil. It's either going to come to the U.S. or it's going to go to Russia or China. Even Democrats that aren't really excited about oil and gas development generally can figure that out.”

Associated Press

Hate to point the finger at Senator Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, but she's not telling the truth. She either doesn't know what she's talking about, or she's lying. Doesn't matter which it is, though. She's entitled to her opinion, of course, but she's not entitled to her own facts. The truth is that most of the Keystone XL oil from Canada will go to China. Don't take my word for it. Read "The Tar Sands Road to China" paper and explain why it's wrong. You can't. Your Fox News-driven fantasy world just isn't going to help you on this one. The bought-and-paid-for talking points from shills like John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer ain't gonna change the facts. Facts is facts.

We've gone through all this before. North Dakota oil wouldn't be transported on the KXL. If it would, it wouldn't be much. The KXL, if built, wouldn't lower American gas prices; it would raise them. The KXL wouldn't provide enough jobs to justify the harm it will cause. It will cause harm.

Again, I'm still ready for an intelligent conversation about the Keystone XL.  I'm just tired of uninformed hacks like Hoeven, Cramer and the Associated Press spewing oil company talking points.

We deserve better.


Comments (3)add comment

Jim said:

...
Let's not forget why the oil lords and their political lackeys want the Keystone: It is not about energy independence for the U.S.; it is about money into their pockets. Remember this from the Bismarck Tribune back in May? "He (Harold Hamm) said he’s bothered by the $15 per barrel differential between Bakken crude and other oil caused by transportation bottlenecks. 'What we need is pipeline to get oil to water so we can export it. People ask me which pipeline I support and I say I’m going to support all the pipelines to get rid of that differential,' Hamm said."

Hamm was talking about why he supported Keystone. It's going to make him a little bit richer. Chad's right. The oil is going to be exported. Mary Landrieu and John Hoeven both know that. In Landrieu's case, however, her state will benefit economically just from the handling of more oil at Louisiana ports, so she has a reason, even if it is a bad one, for supporting the pipeline. Hoeven's only reason is to line the pockets of Republican campaign contributors. If we don't build the pipeline, oil companies will continue to ship oil to U.S. refineries, helping to solve our energy dependence problem. But Harold Hamm will make just a few billion dollars less. Sigh.
 
December 03, 2012
Votes: +3

big jake said:

...
Intelligent coversation? What the hell is wrong with you? It is too close to Christmas to tell a fib. You could get a lump of that really bad coal or a few drops of Bakken oil in your stocking.

Lying has become fashionable. I am not sure why. Perhaps it is just the concentration of media into far too few hands or maybe it is the conversion of new to entertainment.

Please advise all of us as to whether or not the Nebraska legislature has ever given permission for the Keystone. If they did, cite when that occured and what were the terms and conditions. It was the permanently Repulican Nebraska Sandhills ranchers that stopped the pipeline, irrespective of the fact the ND Bakken crude was never an issue in this pipeline. The objections by these ranchers was legitimate. The Sandhills are a highly sensitive and fragile area and needs constant convervation efforts. The old ranchers there have done a damn good job of stewardship of this valuable and important resource.

The selling of North Dakota is a Republican function with a few weak Democrats that are just interested in looking Republican. They are responsible for unrestrained development without any consideration of erring on the side of real resource conservation. The greed and all of its components are one of the consequences of these awful policies. I am ashamed and angered---with little hope of fixing this mess.

I have never opposed the Keystone pipeline. Like all projects like this, it needs careful scrutiny. It should never be undertaken with only a profit motive. It must be profitable and that needs to take place after we have protected our state, its environment, its citizens--all of its citizens. We have not even come close to this mandatory set of rules.

I would be supportive of any contructive forum or dialogue regarding this extremely important issue of today. We should not accept any less.

Thanks to Chet and Jim for providing us what we have a right to expect a free press to do.
 
December 03, 2012
Votes: +2

What the Heck said:

speaking of corruption
Was this in the news and I missed it? Dated November 15. True? Not true? http://www.politicususa.com/po...aring.html
 
December 03, 2012
Votes: +0

Write comment

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy