Blog

Image of the March 23, 2012 Lincoln Journal Star print edition. Headline, "Pipeline could raise gas prices"

From my article of November 2, 2011, “TransCanada Trojan Horse: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Increase Gas Prices“:

“The TransCanada Keystone Xl pipeline project will result in increased gas and diesel prices in 15 Midwestern States – to the detriment of those states’ citizens and economies.”

While I continue to ponder the question…

• How much more prayer will it take to ensure that I take the high road and NOT say, “Told ya so”?

…some catching up is in order.

Late last summer and through the fall, we focused our attention on the very divisive subject of the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline project. A lot of time was spent on research and we published a number of articles, which it turns out, rank towards the top of the list of our most popular articles of all time. A couple of these articles get read on a daily basis as a result of Google searches and incoming links from other websites of all sorts, including one law school library’s website’s overview of the issue.

What turned into an unexpected article series concluded with a tongue-in-cheek projection of what lay ahead:

“The New National Past Time: Pipeline Hot Potato”

(If you have not yet checked this out, I highly recommend it, especially if you need a laugh – Linda & I had fun putting it together.)

While I turned out to be generally correct in my analysis of what lay ahead following Nebraska’s special legislative session – that the issue of the Pipeline project would be launched out of Nebraska and onto the national political scene – I did not expect to see the all that has occurred.

And just what has that been, exactly?

• What was a divisive issue in Nebraska has become completely polarized on the national scene.
• Republicans, literally, across the board, exhibit a Pavlovian-type of response which makes me cringe.

Like Pavlov's Dog – Republicans "Will advocate for pipeline"

Just like Pavlov’s dogs drooled, right on cue, when the bell was rung, say “Keystone Pipeline” to a Republican — whether a member of the House or the Senate, a “strategist”, a pundit, or a Presidential candidate — and you will hear such statements as the following (this list is a sliver from the tip of the iceberg):

“When someone says we want to bring in a pipeline that’s going to create tens of thousands of jobs to bring oil in from Canada, how in the world could you say no?” – Mitt Romney, March 1, 2012

“The president is lobbying for sending North American energy to China, and he is lobbying against American jobs,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

“Yet the Obama administration’s ideological refusal to expand American energy production continues to block the development of resources which could lower prices dramatically. As we saw most recently with the administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, the president is more interested in playing favorites with environmental extremists rather than embracing the “all-of-the-above” strategy that could achieve energy independence and help all Americans now.” – Newt Gingrich, February 15, 2012

John Boehner and Newt Gingrich are just two of very many Republican politicians who seem “confused” about the existence of a border between the United States and Canada, or at least, rhetorically merge America and North America, as if they are one place. TransCanada, advocates and elected officials in positions of power have regularly engaged in such shape-shifting. Nebraska’s lead advocate for Keystone, District 2 Congressman Lee Terry, sponsored a bill with a title along those lines: “The North American-Made Energy Security Act“.

*Geography/ Civics 101*

North America = a continent containing more than one sovereign country

America = short for the United States of America, only one part of the larger continent; a sovereign nation with defined borders; a Republic with a Constitution

Properly identifying the ORIGIN of the oil that would run through a Keystone XL Pipeline seems like a basic concept. Also seems like a basic Constitutional responsibility ¹. Such confusion on the part of Republicans SHOULD provoke seriously thinking by Americans who give a good-gosh-darn about…

• Energy prices, especially oil and gasoline, now and into the future
• Sovereignty
• Property rights

Questions that, to date, have not been answered:

WHY are Republicans spending SO much time and energy advocating for a project that….

• Does NOT work to tap UNITED STATES oil?
• Does NOT expand U.S. refinery capacity?
• Does NOT promote the building of AMERICAN pipelines (where they are needed)?
• Benefits a Canadian pipeline company?
• Benefits all Canadian oil producers?
• Introduces a NEW, and therefore additional source of FOREIGN oil and constitutes COMPETITION with AMERICAN oil producers in the Gulf Coast region?

AND NOW – TO THE LINCOLN JOURNAL STAR ARTICLE PICTURED

Situated in the seat of state-government, with reporters assigned to the Capitol, and purporting to be a NEWS entity, Lincoln Journal Star had ample opportunity to FULLY report on all matters associated with the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline during the very long period from the time the project was first proposed all the way through the increasingly intense debate that heated up in the summer months, and continued through the Unicameral’s special session to contend with the issue, which occurred in November.

It’s not that the Journal Star didn’t cover the story – there are articles galore. To refresh my memory about the coverage, I did a search – click HERE to check it out for yourself. Pages, pages, and more pages of Keystone XL Pipeline articles.

It’s astonishing how so very many articles can be written that reveal little to nothing of importance, or only do so at times when important information is rendered irrelevant.

A November 10, 2011 article, “State Department: Explore a Keystone XL route away from Sandhills”, included a summary of the whole Pipeline issue that is oh-so-familiar:

“The announcement came from the State Department early Thursday afternoon and means final approval for the $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline won’t come until after the 2012 U.S. election.

The decision is a victory for environmentalists who feared the proposed route could endanger the massive Ogallala Aquifer, which is a source of irrigation and drinking water for a large swath of the central United States.

And it is a setback for TransCanada, which has been working on the project for some three years.“

—- STANDARD TALKING POINTS ON THE PIPELINE IN NEBRASKA AND NATIONALLY—-

Big Oil versus the environmentalists

Dirty Oil versus the Sandhills, the Aquifer

“energy independence” versus clean air, clean water

jobs, jobs, jobs versus the crazy greenies

{North} American “friendly” oil versus foreign oil versus “green” energy

Republicans versus Obama

—-END STANDARD TALKING POINTS—-

Thank you, Lincoln Journal Star, for helping to frame the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline in a way that assists with the political polarization, and, is, of course, above all, slanted decidedly in a Progressive direction. (Geez, I wonder why subscription rates are dropping?)

I think Journal Star editors and staff are too busy checking their agenda²on a regular basis and publishing event articles for every establishment entity and left-wing activist in the State to bother with things like…

• Remembering their own reportage
• Engaging in ongoing investigative reports
• Asking TOUGH questions of elected officials
• Citing source information
• Engaging in FULL disclosure

I did an extensive review of Journal Star articles on the pipeline – dating back to October, 2011. {Anyone have some spare ibuprofen?}.  I was attempting to confirm what I remembered. My question was: Did the Journal Star EVER followed up on IT’S OWN article of February, 16, 2011: “Some see Keystone XL as path to higher gas prices in Midwest“?

The answer is no.

Well, not until almost a year later.

In the interim, the Journal Star’s reporting created the impression that one of the benefits of the pipeline, if approved, would be to lower gas prices across the board.  The Journal Star failed to even question TransCanada and Nebraska officials about the price impact on citizens of Nebraska (You know, those people who live in the Journal Star’s circulation area?) as debate intensified and a special session of the Unicameral was called.  In addition…

• Not until the day AFTER President Obama announced he was denying the permit application for the project did the Journal Star actually warn it’s readers in an Editorial Board piece, “Paying at the pump”, that rising gas prices are here to stay. And: “Don’t expect the stateside supply of gasoline to necessarily increase even if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, according to some analysts. Currently, most crude oil from Canada — known as Canadian Sour because it is difficult to refine — is processed in Midwestern refineries. The limited market for Canadian crude keeps the price lower, according to DeHaan. The Keystone XL pipeline would open Canadian Sour to a global market.”

• The most explicit article, to date on this subject – front page, above the fold – was also published at a VERY interesting time. “Cushing Extension Could Hike Fuel Prices in Midwest” was published March 22, 2012, online at 6:00pm, following President Obama’s announcement that he was approving a permit for the lower section of the Keystone XL Pipeline that runs from Cushing, Oklahoma to Texas. The printed version, as pictured above, was printed in the March 23, 2012, edition as “Pipeline Could Raise Gas Prices”.

What can one say about Journal Star’s credibility — except that it has none?

While the most recent article on the subject of the project’s impact on pricing, both generally and  here in Nebraskan, did give more information than in any previously published, it was almost entirely based on quotes from “industry experts” and therefore, was lacking in a full exposition of WHY the Keystone XL Pipeline is projected to increase prices for midwesterners, including Nebraskans.

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH – anyone?

ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN QUOTES FROM NEBRASKA OFFICIALS — hellooooooo?

One Senator the Journal Star could’ve contacted? How about Senator “We were lobbied to become uncertain about our rights” Annette Dubas³?Her special session pipeline bill, LB1, according to a Journal Star’s story about it, and the final bill language itself, listed the criteria necessary for Nebraska Public Service Commission approval of such a project, which, in part was stated as…

“Major oil pipeline applicants must be approved under the public interest test…” including – “economic benefits and social impacts;”

I dunno…is it just me…or is increased price at the pump not an “economic” detriment, instead of a benefit? Is that in Nebraska’s “public interest”? hmmmmm…

Since Journal Star just can’t be bothered to do any research of its own, here is solid information on the subject, taken from PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS (journalists – a simple definition of this term for you: My mother used to call such sources “the horse’s mouth”). The bullets, below, which I copied from the “TransCanada Trojan Horse…” article, were based on the official permit application documents filed by TransCanada with the Canadian National Energy Board (for very many additional links, see that “Trojan Horse…” article):

• Bitumen projects (tar sands oil) are cheaper to develop than synthetic crude

• New export markets are needed to handle increased heavy crude output

• Keystone XL Pipeline provides a line for getting heavy crude to new markets now – option to move synthetic crude in future

• PADD III (Gulf Coast) is the largest untapped market for western Canadian crude oil producers

• The U.S. Gulf Coast (USGC), within the PADD III region is the stated target market for the Keystone XL Pipeline

• TransCanada has binding long term contracts with shippers in the USGC which are not fully available for public viewing

• The fifteen state Midwest region, PADD II, is oversupplied with Canadian heavy crude and currently receiving “a discount” (translation: selling for a lower price)

• Keystone XL will “strengthen” (translation: increase) prices for Canadian producers by removing oversupply

• Keystone XL provides additional benefit for transport out of any synthetic crude oversupply in Midwest (PADD II) “to mitigate a price discount” (translation: avoid price reductions)

• All Canadian producers should benefit from resulting price increases (estimated at $2 – $3.9 billion)

I recommend a re-read of that selection of Republican comments I included, above. And I will add another, this one from Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (also a former GOP Presidential candidate) at the December 15, 2011, Fox News GOP Primary Debate in Sioux City, Iowa. Bachmann was asked a question about the BP spill in the Gulf Coast. Following a brief response about BP, she said:

“But I wanted to add something on Keystone. Keystone is extremely important, the pipeline.

This pipeline is one that would have brought at least 20,000 jobs, at least $6.5 billion worth of economic activity. And if I was president of the United States, I wouldn’t have taken the decision that President Obama did.”

Minnesota is in PADD II, the 15 Midwest state district where prices are projected to increase $.10 – $.20 per gallon as a result of the ability to divert oil from midwestern refineries (including one in Minnesota), which a completed Keystone XL Pipeline would provide. Her voluntary advocacy (she was not asked directly asked about Keystone, note) for the project troubles me the most.

Whether it be the politicians, the elected officials, or a daily newspaper, I cannot find a way to rationally explain – in a way that is remotely positive – the utter lack of diligence. It truly bothers me. And THAT is where the rubber meets the road for me. This disturbing and unavoidable truth, along with the facts I point out, below, is the reason why I am spending any time at all on how the agenda driven Journal Star has reported. But the lack of diligence by elected officials and politicos must be pointed out regardless.

Please note for the record:

• I and the others here at GiN do not get paid for our time.
• We are not receiving donations (the small Amazon ad is to generate a little commission to pay site expenses).
• We do not have some deep-pocketed benefactor who funds our work.
• We do not have the staff that elected officials, Presidential candidates, think tanks, or newspapers have.

Despite that –

• We found primary source documents, including the filings by TransCanada with the Canadian and U.S. governments.
• We did extensive searches for verifiable information and vetted those sources, tracking down THEIR citations to confirm.
• We made phone calls and we sent emails to obtain additional information.
• We walked through the facts, waded out the rumors.
• We waited to publish articles – especially on such an explosive subject – until we knew what we were publishing was accurate.

THREE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS –

If I and others here at GiN can discover this information – WHY can’t the rest of these people?

What ELSE are we not being told all the facts about by our local newspaper (or any other “news outlets”)?

Is there any justification for the positions taken by our elected officials and candidates for office?

ADDENDUM BY LINDA:

If Shelli isn’t going to say “I told you so,” I can’t either.  But if she won’t “Rub it In” . . . and I can’t . . . I think I’ll leave the job to Billy.

Important Article Note

We have collected our list of articles on this subject at the link, below.

Click here >>> TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline

The Lincoln Journal Star newspaper image from the March 22, 2012 print edition is an actual scan of that day’s newspaper

Pavlov’s dog cartoon found on Ivan Pavlov Group 3 formerly http://theeyeballerz.edu.glogster.com/learning-theory-glog/ – a page about the conditioning method behaviorism