keystone XL- bak

520 capt

keystone520

===

politico 5/14

keystone-xl-pipeline-transcanada-barack-obama-106473

keystone XL isn’t pumping oil yet — and may never be — but in the Washington, D.C., political industry it’s already a gusher.

The TransCanada pipeline has been stuck in limbo for over half a decade now; last month, President Barack Obama again postponed a decision on the project, likely until after the 2014 elections.

Yet in just a few years, the political debate over Keystone has exploded into an entire sector of the Washington influence economy. Funded by multibillion-dollar oil companies, labor unions and ultrarich environmentalists, the fight has filtered into every crack and crevice of the nation’s capital — all for a project some advocates on both sides privately concede wouldn’t be an environmental or economic game-changer.

( Also on POLITICO: Harry Reid: Kochs ‘main causes’ of climate change)

From advertisements blanketing Metro stops near Capitol Hill and the State Department to TV commercials saturating the Sunday morning talk shows, to print and digital promos in this publication and others, Keystone has been virtually omnipresent. Well over 100 lobbyists have registered to lobby the issue. Top consultants from Obama’s campaigns have signed up on both sides. The pro-pipeline American Petroleum Institute holds regular war councils to plot strategy and has shelled out millions promoting the project; just this week, API spent more than $50,000 on radio ads promoting Keystone in states with competitive 2014 Senate races.

Longtime Beltway operators say the scope of the Keystone battle has grown to an astonishing scale — perhaps the largest ever for a standoff over energy and the environment, and at the very least one that rivals the years-long and decades-old fights over acid rain and Arctic drilling.

The largely symbolic nature of the Keystone issue makes the titanic spending involved all the more striking. Political observers and even some industry officials and activists question all the activity surrounding a project that — according to many estimates — wouldn’t create more than a few dozen permanent jobs or exacerbate climate change in a significant way.

That means this whole advocacy campaign is probably just a small down payment on what the country will see when the harder-edged energy issues — strict new power plant regulations expected from the administration this summer, or a renewed legislative debate on climate change — come into focus in the months and years ahead.

( Also on POLITICO: Little hope for Keystone vote)

“All of this stuff has been through an arms race,” said Carl Pope, the former Sierra Club chief who has had a front-row seat for decades of environmental fights. “The biggest battles we fought used a fraction of the resources.”

For all the money flowing into the Keystone issue, said David Tamasi, a senior vice president at Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, there is “little space for new information or arguments” in the debate at this point.

“It’s become almost easier for the president and project proponents to fall into a comfortable partisan crouch, because the issue has been so defined along political fault lines,” said Tamasi, whose firm worked for a time on Keystone for the government of Alberta.

It’s difficult to pin down the exact cost of the Keystone saga, since nonprofit and private-sector advocacy groups don’t have to disclose their revenue and spending like conventional political campaigns. But the sum is clearly well into the tens of millions of dollars — and because the pipeline project remains frozen in place, that makes almost everyone involved in the political debate a winner.

( PHOTOS: ‘Cowboys and Indians’ Keystone XL protest)

Meet the ‘grass roots’

Besides bankrolling TV ads and hiring an army of lobbyists, advocates on both sides of the Keystone fight have spent millions mobilizing the public — or at least creating the illusion of mass mobilization.

On the pro-pipeline side, that has meant setting up an array of self-described “grass-roots” groups with generic-sounding names — the API-funded entities Energy Nation and Energy Citizens, for example — to build public support through social media, advertising and petitions.

Nebraskans for Jobs & Energy Independence is another such entity. It was set up ostensibly as a vehicle for native Nebraskans to channel their support for building the pipeline. But the group’s ties to national organizations lobbying for the pipeline’s approval are extensive.

It was founded by a local labor official with LIUNA, the national builders union that supports Keystone; Michael Whatley, a lobbyist and executive for the Texas-based Consumer Energy Alliance, sits on the organizing group’s board. NJEI once listed a TransCanada official as an officer in its tax documents (that official is no longer affiliated with the group).

( Also on POLITICO: The green case against Keystone)

Barry Rubin, a former head of the Nebraska Democratic Party and the pro-pipeline group’s vice chairman, was candid about its role.

“Are we a front group for building the pipeline? Sure, proud to be,” he said in an interview.

Not all the front groups, shell entities and opulently funded “grass-roots” organizations are quite so blunt about their advocacy. API, the industry group with virtually unlimited resources, has established a slew of organizations aimed at drumming up Keystone support; API’s president, Jack Gerard, was inspired by the Obama campaign’s savvy Web and voter-mobilization operations, according to an aide.

API boasts a more than 23 million-person “grass-roots network” made up of individuals who have spoken or written on behalf of the industry, though it’s unclear how API arrived at that number. Groups such as Energy Citizens promote API talking points on their websites and tout testimonials that support the industry’s views on oil and gas. (Obama “needs to get off his hands on this issue,” wrote Joe B. from Colorado.)

Among the groups funded by API is Vets4Energy, which API says has 1,400 members (citing privacy concerns, the group declined to provide a member list) and has recruited veterans to press for the pipeline on Capitol Hill. Another is Oil Sands Fact Check, a group that aggressively rebuts assertions that the pipeline would cause environmental devastation. The latter group, run through the firm FTI Consulting, often sends representatives to anti-Keystone protests and emails reporters to highlight low attendance numbers.

Vets4Energy organized a recent pro-Keystone news conference with Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry and North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven. Both Republicans demanded action on the pipeline in front of a small handful of reporters — and a throng of Keystone-backing veterans associated with the group.

“The greatest generation conquered Nazi Germany in a little over four years,” Terry said. “But here we are, five years after the permits have been filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline, and we’re still waiting.”

Keystone foes with smaller budgets have nevertheless established national operations of comparable sophistication, often hiring brand-name Democratic firms to help. They have coordinated activities between national groups like the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and activist organizations like environmentalist Bill McKibben’s 350.org — often with the help of nationally known political consultants. McKibben’s group has paid thousands of dollars to the liberal PR firm FitzGibbon Media to amplify its message.

On its website, powerhouse Democratic firm Global Strategy Group touts its role in creating an umbrella coalition of anti-Keystone interests, dubbed All Risk, No Reward, which has held events and run television ads opposing the pipeline.

Acknowledging that “public opinion on [Keystone] is very mixed,” GSG’s online case study states: “GSG organized opportunities for experts to speak directly with top reporters and media outlets, planned and executed several high profile events, and earned top flight coverage in the nation’s most prominent print and broadcast media.”

Lower-profile groups have played an influential role in the pipeline fight: The progressive Bold Nebraska worked with state landowners to challenge Keystone’s intended route, while an eclectic collection of environmental and tribal groups calling itself the Cowboy and Indian Alliance gathered for an April protest on the National Mall — complete with teepees and horses.

It’s all come a long way since 2008, when McKibben and a band of activists based at Vermont’s Middlebury College started 350.org to advocate for action on climate change. Since then, McKibben has helped organize protests against the pipeline in front of the White House that have resulted in well over 1,000 arrests.

“Everyone is working together in a pretty unprecedented way,” McKibben said, calling the collaboration across diverse groups “the greatest joy of the whole fight, since we’re badly going to need unity for all the battles against the fossil fuel industry to come.”

The consulting ‘arms race’

With the fight over Keystone now more than five years old — TransCanada filed its first permit application in 2008 — it’s almost harder to find a consultant or lobbyist in Washington who hasn’t been involved than one who is.

Since 2009, advocates directly employed by TransCanada have reported $6.7 million in lobbying expenses related to Keystone. (A TransCanada official said after the publication of this story that $3.8 million was spent exclusively on the pipeline, as opposed to the broader TransCanada agenda.) A second Canadian entity, the In Situ Oil Sands Alliance, has reported spending $1.7 million.

But those sums only begin to approach the total cost of the Keystone lobbying campaign, since many interest groups — including companies such as Shell and Exxon, and umbrella organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — disclose massive, unitemized lobbying expenses, with Keystone just one of the many issues their advocates address.

API, for example, has disclosed spending $22 million in lobbying reports that include Keystone as a target issue. For the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, that figure was nearly $15 million.

Pipeline opponents have spent a fraction of those totals, but the expenses still run into the millions: The League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation spent a combined $3.1 million on lobbying campaigns that touched on Keystone.

The pro-Keystone coalition includes some of the most prominent names in Washington influence, including former Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein and former Michigan Gov. John Engler, both registered to lobby on behalf of Keystone for the Business Roundtable, and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist. Former Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd of Florida, John Tanner of Tennessee and Michael Arcuri of New York are all registered pro-Keystone lobbyists.

At the heart of the operation is API, the deep-pocketed industry alliance that employs a long list of lobbyists, along with an unknown number of consultants who are said to sign nondisclosure agreements keeping all their API work strictly confidential. Two lobbyists connected to the Keystone fight said API holds regular huddles with a collection of interested groups, looping in powerful interests like the Chamber, Business Roundtable, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and National Association of Manufacturers.

TransCanada and its Canadian allies have thrown money at a number of D.C. firms, including white-shoe lobbying outfits like Bryan Cave LLP and Dutko, and the Democratic super-PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, which includes former White House communications director Anita Dunn and former Clinton-Gore adman Bill Knapp among its partners. This week, CEA released polling from the Democratic firm Hickman Analytics showing public support for Keystone in Iowa, Michigan, Montana and New Hampshire.

What Keystone opponents lack in lobbying muscle — they largely rely on the in-house lobbyists of national environmental groups — they make up for with a lineup of political consultants that looks like the roster of a presidential campaign.

Some literally are right off the roster of a presidential campaign: Steyer’s group hired Obama-linked companies like the TV firm GMMB and the pollsters at Benenson Strategy Group to plan a national advocacy campaign. The GSG team that worked for the League of Conservation Voters on organizing the All Risk, No Reward coalition included former White House spokesman Bill Burton; that coalition, in turn, has hired the Democratic firm New Partners to do its PR.

The finances of many anti-Keystone groups are opaque, but at least some of them have benefited from Steyer’s largesse: In 2013, LCV received $500,000 from a group funded by the hedge fund mogul, according to Federal Election Commission reports. In September, NextGen Climate Action gave $30,00 to the Chesapeake Climate Leadership Alliance and $125,000 to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, the political arms of two anti-Keystone groups that recently co-sponsored the Cowboys and Indians protest.

Pope, the former Sierra Club head, said that these days it’s far easier for groups of all sizes to engage in grass-roots mobilization — real or manufactured — thanks to social media. They’re not collecting petition signatures by hand anymore: “We had to have people with clipboards in parks,” Pope recalled.

The air war

Keystone wouldn’t be a full-fledged Washington advocacy fight without plenty of television commercials — many of them aimed squarely at the D.C. market. As much as the players on all sides of Keystone want to marshal public opinion in their favor, the ad spending reveals who their real audience is.

Both TransCanada and Steyer’s anti-Keystone vehicle bought ample Beltway airtime, particularly during the all-important Sunday morning talk shows. NextGen spent $340,000 on local broadcast airtime last September to run 90-second ads over the course of several Sundays, according to information shared by the tracking firm MunKato ADvantage. The group also bought national cable ads during that time, including CNN on Sundays.

TransCanada answered the spending a month later, putting about $300,000 into local broadcast and cable TV ads in October, according to MKAD.

The company says it launched the first paid media in its history in 2011 to combat opposition to the pipeline and estimates it has done 3,500 interviews with reporters since 2010. Over the course of 2013, the Canadian company spent approximately $700,000 in the all-important Washington media market; this year, it has already shelled out an additional $159,000 to reach viewers in the nation’s capital.

Both entities — TransCanada and NextGen — have purchased airtime elsewhere but in markedly lower volumes. (A recent NextGen ad campaign targeting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio cost about $7,000, MKAD said.)

The behemoth on the airwaves is API: Since 2012, the group has spent more than $18 million on local broadcast and cable television advertising, pushing a range of industry priorities including Keystone and reaching markets from Little Rock to Pittsburgh to Sioux Falls, the MKAD numbers show.

But many of the API ads have been straightforward Keystone advocacy spots aimed directly at D.C. The group spent more than a quarter-million dollars pushing Keystone on Washington local broadcast and cable — in July 2013 alone.

Unlike NextGen, which discloses its political vendors in FEC reports, API is under no such obligation. There’s little doubt, though, that a handful of GOP media firms have profited handsomely.

The ads have likely helped push public opinion at least modestly in favor of the pipeline: A Pew survey released in March showed that 61 percent of Americans support the project.

But that’s only slightly higher than in March of 2012, when 57 percent of Americans told Gallup they favored building Keystone — and Mitt Romney featured the pipeline in his first general election ad.

“What would a Romney presidency look like?” the ad began. “Day One: President Romney immediately approves the Keystone Pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked.”

florida union trib?

as Congress returns from recess soon, members will be tasked with deciding whether to support the Iran nuclear deal, a portion of which would allow that country to start selling its oil globally.

In the meantime, U.S. crude oil products still cannot be sold globally.

And that needs to change.

The ban on U.S. crude oil exports was put in place in the 1970s during the energy crisis as a way to insulate the nation from price spikes and ensure a sufficient supply. The U.S. was at the mercy of OPEC nations' oil.

However, the United States is now an energy superpower, exporting more oil and natural gas than it has in decades and developing smarter technology to use alternative energy sources.

From a global perspective, we should be using those resources to improve our national security by providing allies with U.S. oil so they aren't buying from our enemies.

The group I represent - Vets4Energy - believes that there is a nexus between energy security and national security and that energy policy should be made with defense and the military in mind.

We believe it's time for the outdated crude oil export ban to be lifted.

There's an economic benefit to lifting the ban as well - experts believe that if the ban were lifted, U.S. oil prices would increase, spurring additional production and driving down costs at the pump.

This helps consumers, who have already been enjoying low gas prices in recent years due to this increase in production.

IFrame Content

The United States now has the ability to flex its energy muscle to the benefit of our economy and our national security.

It seems possible Iran will soon be flooding the global market with its oil. Lawmakers shouldn't help Iran's economy and not afford American companies the same opportunity.

Congress should lift the ban on crude oil exports.

Cmdr. Tom Garcia, Ret. USN

Co-chairman, Vets4Energy,

Lake Worth

===

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/10/i-feel-used-how-fossil-fuel-firms-court-black-leaders-to-support-pipelines

pastor Geoffrey Guns was sceptical when asked to join the community advisory board for a gas pipeline, but decided it was his duty to advocate for the Black communities that would be affected by the fossil fuel expansion project.}:

The Virginia Reliability Project (VRP) is a proposal by the Canadian fossil fuel company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to expand and upgrade gas infrastructure through tribal lands, fragile waterways and underserved neighbourhoods in south-east Virginia.

Almost 50% of the population along the VRP route live below the poverty line and more than half are people of colour.

TC Energy claims the expansion will create thousands of local jobs and that community engagement is core to the company’s mission. For this reason, Guns, a senior pastor at the Second Calvary Baptist church in Norfolk, joined the advisory board along with several other local Black religious leaders.....

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/**2021/02**/biden-climate-change-actions-anger-big-oil/

President Joe Biden signed executive actions last week prioritizing solutions to the “existential threat” of climate change, drawing the ire of many key players in the politically powerful oil and gas industry.

Biden’s actions pressed pause on the leasing of federal lands and waters for oil drilling, set a goal of keeping 30 percent of federal lands for conservation purposes and announced the electrification of the federal government’s fleet of vehicles.The move comes a week after Biden revoked the permits for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline just hours after his inauguration, following through on a campaign-trail promise.

Leading up to the 2020 election, the oil and gas industry contributed around $1.6 million more to former President Donald Trump than to Biden. Trump painted himself as an ally to the industry on the stump and throughout his presidency — though industry insiders told Politico in 2020 that the Trump administration was “a mixed bag” and “more like ‘meh’” than the windfall they had hoped for in 2016.

The oil industry spent millions in 2020 to try to keep a GOP majority in the Senate. Valero, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, among the few corporations that give to super PACs, gave at least $1 million each this election cycle to the Senate Leadership Fund, a conservative super PAC that spent $271 million to campaign against Democrats vying for the Senate.

Pausing land and water leases ‘to the extent possible’

Biden’s decision to halt future leases of federal land, pending a comprehensive review of the climate impact, caused an uproar among oil and gas companies and trade associations. Just hours after Biden formalized the order, the Western Energy Alliance announced it would sue the Biden administration, alleging the move violates existing law.

Most drilling occurs on private land, rather than federal property. In 2017, approximately 24 percent of oil and 13 percent of natural gas extracted in the United States came from federal lands. According to analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey, around a quarter of U.S. emissions come from the combustion and extraction of resources from federal lands.

Oil and gas companies rushed to stockpile drilling permits during Trump’s lameduck period — doubling the number of permit requests over the same period in 2019, according to an AP report.Under Biden’s order, oil and gas companies can continue to obtain new permits to drill on land that has already been leased.

Experts say the executive action likely won’t immediately impact rates of oil extraction in the U.S. As of 2019, there were 38,294 leases active across the country, concentrated mostly in the American West. Once a lease has been issued, companies have 10 years to begin production on the land before the lease terminates.

The oil and gas industry’s leading trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, came out against the order. API President Mike Sommers criticized Biden’s suspension of federal agencies’ authority to issue leases of federal land to drilling companies in a Jan. 21 statement.

“Restricting development on federal lands and waters is nothing more than an ‘import more oil’ policy. Energy demand will continue to rise—especially as the economy recovers—and we can choose to produce that energy here in the United States or rely on foreign countries hostile to American interests,” Sommers said.

In 2020, API’s PAC spent $88,200 to support Republican candidates, giving $5,000 to the Great America PAC, a Trump-aligned Carey committee. API also dropped $5.3 million to employ 40 lobbyists, reporting lobbying 66 individual bills. The institute’s lobbying spending fell during Trump’s administration after trending upward throughout former President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.

Another leading oil and gas industry association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has also come out in opposition to the action.

“We think it was really misguided,” Senior Vice President for Government Relations Dan Naatz told an Arkansas TV news team. “It impacts jobs and economies through the inner-Mountain West, all the way through the country.”

In 2020, the organization’s PAC spent $215,300 in campaign contributions, giving $10,000 each to Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and former Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).

Biden framed the executive action as a jobs package,remarking, “today is climate day in the White House which means today is jobs day at the White House,” just before he signed the executive actions. Labor leaders say they are waiting to hear how exactly Biden will replace jobs lost in energy sectors.

“It’s too glib and easy to say someone working in the mines can get a solar job. That is too simplistic,” Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, told the Washington Examiner. “There is a mismatch between where energy jobs are getting lost and where they are created. We have to close that gap, but we also have to be real and help economies diversify their economies in ways based on their own assets.”

Oil corporations emphasize that gap. The Global Energy Institute, a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, came out against some of Biden’s climate actions, claiming it would lead to widespread unemployment.

“Without the prospect of future leases, investment and planning will begin to dry up immediately, thwarting job creation and the economic growth at the worst possible time,” the Institute’s President Marty Durbin said in a statement.

The Chamber of Commerce perennially favors Republicans and dropped $5.7 million in outside spending in 2020.

Keystone canceled, frustrating some oil companies

The Chamber of Commerce also condemned Biden’s action to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, a project widely opposed by environmental advocates, indigenous communities and scientists.

“This is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science. It will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work,” Durbin said.

The Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008, vetoed by Obama in 2015 and promptly re-initiated by Trump in 2016 along with another controversial project, the Dakota Access Pipeline. Environmental and indigenous rights advocates are now calling on Biden to cancel the latter pipeline, which abuts the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

That pipeline is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, an oil and gas conglomerate that gave more in campaign contributions than any other company in the industry. Ninety-nine percent of its donations went to Republican candidates and committees. In 2020, the company’s co-founder and board chair, Kelcy Warren, donated a whopping $10 million to America First Action, a Trump-affiliated super PAC.

Biden’s climate actions are also drawing criticism from Republican lawmakers from oil-rich states who have benefited from industry contributions. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), **John Barrasso**(R-Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) announced Jan. 22 that they wouldintroduce legislation to overturn Biden’s executive action and re-issue permits to the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was slated to pass through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska before connecting to an existing pipeline in Kansas.

“We came so far during the last administration – from prioritizing American energy development to ending the far-left’s war on fossil fuels,” said Inhofe in a statement announcing the legislation.

Throughout his career, Inhofe has received in excess of $2.2 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies. Daines and Barrasso have each received $1.2 million from the industry.

The group’s bill is a symbolic gesture to the industry and its supporters without any real hope of passing the Senate, where Democrats wield a majority, albeit narrowly. The oil and gas industry spent heavily to prevent the upper chamber from swinging blue, giving around $600,000 each to Republican Senate candidates in Georgia Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who both lost narrowly to Democratic challengers in January runoffs. The American Petroleum Institute donated $5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund in late November, after every Senate campaign had concluded save the two ultra-expensive Georgia races.

Faced with pressure from Washington, other corporations look to adapt

Some energy companies are taking a different tact, announcing plans to adapt their business model to thrive in a Biden administration that prioritizes conservation and climate action.

Industry giant Exxon Mobil announced Feb. 1, just days after Biden’s executive order, that it would initiate massive investments in carbon capture technology aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The company, whose employees favored Biden over Trump in 2020 campaign contributions, will spend $3 billion over the next five years to build up a new subsidiary business: ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions.

General Motors has committed to only manufacturing zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035, inline with Biden’s commitment to electrifying the government’s fleet. Ford’s new CEO has also pledged to restructure production plans, prioritizing the addition of electric vehicles to its portfolio, which currently features only one fully-electric model.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an oil-refining trade association that spent $3.2 to lobby the government in 2019, responded to that provision by reaching out to an unlikely ally: biofuel manufacturers. AFPM reportedly hopes to create an alliance with the competitor industry to lobby Biden to revise his fleet electrification plans in order to include cars powered by low-emission gasoline made from a mix of gasoline and ethanol.

===

ding dong!

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/is-keystone-xl/

comm dr

After more than a decade of grassroots organizing, agitation, and tireless oppositionby the international climate movement, the final nail was slammed into the Keystone XL's coffin Wednesday afternoon when the company behind the transnational tar sands pipeline officially pulled the plugon its plans.

Following consultation with Canadian officials and regulators—including "its partner, the Government of Alberta"—TC Energy confirmed its "termination" of the project in a statement citing the revocation of a federal U.S. permit by President Joe Biden on his first day in office on January 20 as the leading reason.

Climate campaigners, however, were immediate in claiming a final victory after years of struggle against the company and its backers both in Washington, D.C. and Ottawa.

"TC Energy just confirmed what we already knew but it's a thrilling reality all the same—the Keystone XL pipeline is no more and never will be," said David Turnbull, strategic communications director with Oil Change International (OCI).

OMG! It’s official. We took on a multi-billion dollar corporation and we won!! Keystone XL is dead!! The People m… https://t.co/BT5PAhBxmy

— Dallas Goldtooth (@Dallas Goldtooth) 1623271957.0

"After more than 10 years of organizing we have finally defeated an oil giant, Keystone XL is dead!" declared theIndigenous Environmental Network (IEN) in reaction. "We are dancing in our hearts because of this victory! From Dene territories in Northern Alberta to Indigenous lands along the Gulf of Mexico, we stood hand-in-hand to protect the next seven generations of life, the water and our communities from this dirty tar sands pipeline. And that struggle is vindicated."

IEN said that the win over TC Energy and its supporters was "not the end—but merely the beginning of further victories," and also reminded the world that there are "still frontline Indigenous water protectors like Oscar High Elk who face charges for standing against the Keystone XL pipeline."

Calling the news "yet another huge moment in an historic effort," Turnbull at OCI said that while the Canadian company's press statement failed to admit it, "this project is finally being abandoned thanks to more than a decade of resistance from Indigenous communities, landowners, farmers, ranchers, and climate activists along its route and around the world."

Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared the victory in the drawn-out battle—which largely took place under the Democratic administration of former President Barack Obama—"a landmark moment in the fight against the climate crisis."

"We need to keep moving away from dirty, dangerous pipelines that lock us into an unsustainable future," added Margolis, who said he now hopes President Joe Biden will take this lesson and apply to other polluting fossil projects. "We're hopeful that the Biden administration will continue to shift this country in the right direction by opposing fossil fuel projects that threaten our climate, our waters and imperiled wildlife," he said. "Good riddance to Keystone XL!"

After YEARS the #NoKXL fight is over. The Keystone Pipeline is finally dead. Now do #Line3 and #DAPL https://t.co/A7YukN0GR0

— RAN (@RAN) 1623274946.0

Jamie Henn and Bill McKibben, both co-founders of 350.org and key architects of the decision to make the Keystone XL pipeline a target and symbol of the global climate movement, also heralded the news.

"When this fight began, people thought Big Oil couldn't be beat." —Bill McKibben, 350.org co-founder

"When this fight began, people thought Big Oil couldn't be beat," said McKibben, who was among those arrested outside the White House in 2011 protesting the pipeline.

"Keystone XL is now the most famous fossil fuel project killed by the climate movement, but it won't be the last," said Henn. "The same coalition that stopped this pipeline is now battling Line 3and dozens of other fossil fuel projects across the country. Biden did the right thing on KXL, now it's time to go a step further and say no to all new fossil fuel projects everywhere."

Clayton Thomas Muller, another longtime KXL opponent and currently a senior campaigns specialist at 350.org in Canada, said: "This victory is thanks to Indigenous land defenders who fought the Keystone XL pipeline for over a decade. Indigenous-led resistance is criticalin the fight against the climate crisis and we need to follow the lead of Indigenous peoples, particularly Indigenous women, who are leading this fight across the continent and around the world. With Keystone XL cancelled, it's time to turn our attention to the Indigenous-led resistance to the Line 3 and the Trans Mountain tar sands pipelines."

McKibben also made the direct connection to KXL and the decision now looming before Biden when it comes to Line 3 in northern Minnesota. "When enough people rise up we're stronger even than the richest fossil fuel companies," he said. "And by the way, the same climate test that ruled out Keystone should do the same for Line 3."

From Your Site Articles

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Massive Pipeline Leak Shows Why Nebraska Should Reject ... ›

Time's Up for California AG Becerra to Investigate #ExxonKnew and ... ›

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/24/trump_s_green_lighting_of_keystone_and_dapl_is_a_power_play_that_won_t_create.html

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed executive orders that will allow the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline projects to move forward, as he assured voters he would do on the campaign trail. Both of these projects were halted by the Obama administration and have been widely criticized by activists. As Reuters reports:

[A] restart of the projects would mark a defeat for Native American tribes affected by the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. Protesters had rallied for months against plans to route the $3.8 billion pipeline beneath a lake near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, saying it threatened water resources and sacred Native American sites.

Environmental activists broadly opposed the Keystone XL pipeline and campaigned against it for more than seven years.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in January said it would begin an environmental assessment that could delay the Dakota project further. It was not clear if Trump’s order supersedes that move.

In November 2015, Trump said he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline on the condition that the United States government would receive 25 percent of the profits. He reiterated this proposal in May. Tuesday's executive order, which invites Keystone developer TransCanada to resubmit its application for a construction permit from the State Department, includes no such stipulations.

The Keystone XL project, which will take 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, was the subject of a largely symbolic battle [?!} waged by climate activists opposed to the continued development of fossil fuel infrastructure. It was torpedoed by President Obama in 2015, a month before the Paris Climate Summit. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” he said upon rejecting a permit for the pipeline's construction. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.”

Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which will carry 470,000 barrels per day across the Dakotas into Iowa and Illinois was halted after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the pipeline, permission to tunnel under a portion of land north of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation without further environmental impact assessments. Construction of the pipeline was close to completion before protests against it halted progress.

Trump used to be invested in Energy Transfer Partners, the company developing the Dakota Access Pipeline, but he sold his $50,000 stake last summer. Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren donated $100,000 to the Trump Victory Fund, a joint fundraising effort by the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee, and state Republican parties.

Despite Trump's framing of the pipelines as job creators, the economic benefits of both are minimal. In signing the order approving Keystone XL, Trump said the pipeline would create 28,000 jobs. In fact, a 2014 State Department report found that the pipeline would create 35 permanent jobs post-building, with a mix of 42,100 temporary and nonconstruction jobs created over the course of the pipeline’s construction. As Jonathan Thompson wrote in November, the economic impact of the Dakota Access Pipeline will be similar:

Construction on the pipeline is about 85 percent complete and it has, indeed, put people to work. Yet it is not clear how many new jobs have been created since the jobs are spread out over 1,000 miles. Rural towns along the pipeline’s corridor have reported a boost in hotel and campground occupancy rates as the contractors move through. That, in turn, generates sales and lodging tax revenues for the local governments. The boost, however, won’t last. In a few months, when (and if) construction is complete, the workers and their spending money will depart. The finished pipeline will require just 40 permanent maintenance and operational jobs along its entire stretch.

Thompson also writes that the Dakota pipeline will not spur domestic production enough to measurably offset the 5.2 million barrels of oil the United States imports each day and will thus fail to bring America substantially closer to energy independence. Keystone XL's completion would similarly do little to insulate the United States from the volatility of global oil prices. And, of course, both projects reinforce American dependence on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.... "Times New Roman">

Trump's approval of the pipelines will mainly accomplish two things—deliver profits to their backers and deliver a base-satisfying blow to environmentalists and activists concerned over the pipelines' impacts on surrounding lands and carbon emissions. “If, for the first time, this nation can listen and hear us, they’ll understand that this is about climate change,” Standing Rock Sioux chairman David Archambault II said in December. “We all have to take a good look at ourselves and say, ‘Are we dependent on fossil fuels?’ If we say yes, we’re creating the demand for the Dakota Access Pipeline and for future pipelines." On Tuesday, Trump said yes.

Read more in Slate about the Dakota Access Pipeline.

===

8/17

https://www.ecowatch.com/keystone-xl-hearing-2469081732.html

The Nebraska Public Service Commission (NPSC)—the Republican-dominated state board deciding the fate of TransCanada's long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline—have barred experts and homeowners from testifying over potential spills or whether the tar sands pipeline is even necessary during final hearings next week.

The Omaha World-Herald reports that former Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers, who was hired by NPSC to conduct the hearings, issued more than 30 rulings based on objections filed by TransCanada.

She ruled that issues such as safety or if the U.S. even needs Canadian oil are out of the commission's scope of authority.

"The (Nebraska Major Oil Pipeline) Siting Act specifically prohibits the commission from considering safety considerations, including the risk of spills and leaks," Flowers wrote in her ruling.

Nebraska law requires the NPSC to approve a pipeline construction application if it is "in the public interest." The commission—made up of four Republicans and one Democrat—will mainly consider issues that impact the local economy such as jobs and revenues.

Pipeline opponent Oil Change International spoke out against the hearing officer's ruling, as it bars the testimony of 15 outside experts and more than 25 landowners.

For instance, the decision barred the planned testimony of Lorne Stockman, senior research analyst at Oil Change International. Stockman's testimony, which was submitted ahead of the hearings and thus part of the official record, would have stressed how changing market conditions and realities in the tar sands industry negates the need for Keystone XL pipeline.

"There is simply no need for the Keystone XL pipeline based on the current market conditions, which even TransCanada has admitted," he said, noting recent statements by TransCanada representatives who have cast doubt in finding sufficient shippers to fill the pipeline.

"Those conditions," Lockman [sic, cf maine]continued, "include an end to growth in the tar sands sector and stagnant global oil demand, headwinds that look set to end the reckless proliferation of tar sands pipelines. Given all of the risks to Nebraskans inherent in the building and operation of this pipeline, the fact that there's no compelling need to build it should be a critical element of the commission's deliberations."

"My testimony exposes that the Keystone XL pipeline is not only a disaster for our climate and communities, but also that TransCanada has no business case to it to be built in the first place. It's no wonder they don't want me to testify," Lockman concluded.

Bold Nebraska founder Jane Kleeb, a prominent critic of the Keystone XL project, said legal action against the NPSC's decision to bar expert and landowner testimonies could be necessary.

"They're headed for a very tough court fight," Kleeb told the World-Herald.

A recent Bloomberg report highlighted how during the hearings, Keystone opponents will focus on the issue of eminent domain, which Republicans traditionally oppose in favor of landowner property rights. Keystone proponents, meanwhile, will focus on job creation, which the GOP also supports.

TransCanada's proposed pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil from Canada into the U.S. daily.

===

350 bill m Jane Kleeb with Bold Alliance, Wayne Frederick, Rosebud Sioux Tribe Council, Michael Brune from Sierra Club, Lindsey Allen from the Rainforest Action Network and Eriel Deranger from Indigenous Climate Action.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23032017/keystone-xl-pipeline-donald-trump-rex-tillerson-state-department-nebraska

The White House's approval of the Keystone XL pipeline Friday opens a fierce, new battle over a project that has become a front in the fight against climate change.

President Donald Trump made reviving the 1,200-mile pipeline, which will transport heavy crude oil from tar sands mines in Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast, a key plank of his fossil fuel-focused energy plan. He promised in January to reverse President Barack Obama's rejection of the TransCanada project, one of Obama's signature environmental decisions, within 60 days. The president just beat that deadline.

"It's going to be an incredible pipeline, the greatest technology known to man or woman," Trump said Friday in a signing of the project's presidential permit, flanked by TransCanada officials, pipe suppliers and union leaders. "It's a great day for American jobs and a historic moment for North America and energy independence."

The Trump administration's hasty approval is expected be the basis for court challenges by environmentalists. Groups say they will argue the administration sidestepped the law by failing to conduct a new and thorough environmental analysis with public comment before making its decision. The approval, they say, was based on an Obama environmental review when oil prices were much higher than they are today.

"Whenever Congress or TransCanada or its lobbyists have tried to create shortcuts to expedite approval, it tended to backfire and cause the process to be longer," said Anthony Swift, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Canada project. "We're seeing that again with the [administration] making a decision on the basis of an incredibly outdated environmental review."

Meanwhile in Nebraska, long ground zero of the opposition, landowners who do not want the pipeline near their property will argue their case before the state Public Service Commission in hearings this spring on whether the proposed route protects the public interest. Years of resistance there led TransCanada to move the 830,000-barrel-a-day pipeline out of the Nebraska Sandhills, a fragile ecosystem that overlies the Ogallala aquifer. Many wanted the project scrapped altogether.

Protests are scheduled to take place on Friday in front of the White House as well as Trump International Hotel in New York. "This pipeline won't be built," the grassroots climate action group 350.org said on Twitter. "People stopped it once & will again."

President Obama rejected the project in November 2015, largely on grounds that the carbon-heavy tar sands crude it would transport would contribute millions of tons of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. "If we're going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not just inhospitable, but uninhabitable...we must act not later, not someday, but right here, right now," Obama said.

His administration also said blocking the project would send a powerful signal to the world of the U.S. commitment to the Paris climate treaty.

When asked if approval of the pipeline would undermine U.S. climate leadership, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, "That's not fair. This administration is conducting a review of climate change policy, but our record on this issue speaks for itself. We have been a leader addressing climate change globally, regardless of this decisions that's made with respect to the Keystone application."

Since arriving in Washington, the Trump administration has mounted a relentless campaign to defeat climate policies needed to meet the Paris treaty's goal of shifting rapidly away from fossil fuels. The Keystone XL is seen as a test of the nation's commitment to action.

...

http://www.ecowatch.com/state-department-approve-kxl-2326597009.html

omg

Nearly a decade after it first applied for a presidential permit, TransCanada is getting the green light from the Trump administration for its $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline.

POLITICO reported Thursday that the U.S. State Department's undersecretary for political affairs, Tom Shannon, will approve by Monday the cross-border permit needed for the project to proceed.

Reuters reported an update Friday saying President Trump will announce the approval of the tar sands pipeline at the White House today with the CEO of TransCanada.

Sec. of State Rex Tillerson, former ExxonMobil CEO, recused himself from the Keystone decision since Exxon stands to profit from the pipeline.

The Keystone XL was blocked by President Obama two years ago because the pipeline would "not serve the national interests" of the United States.

But the November election changed everything. On Jan. 24, President Trump signed an executive order that invited TransCanada to reapply for a presidential permit. The company did so two days later.

Environmental groups and grassroots citizens have long opposed the pipeline, painting it as a symbol of the threat of climate change.

Once complete, the 1,200-mile pipeline will carry Alberta tar sands to processing and export facilities in the southern U.S.

"Keystone carries Canada's oil through an unnecessary pipeline likely made of foreign steel, all while polluting our heartland, treading on the rights of Indigenous people and private landowners," said Greenpeace USA climate campaign specialist Diana Best in reaction to today's development.

"It isn't what this country wants or needs. President Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline because of public outcry," she said. "We cannot let the Trump administration undo the progress that people all over the country have made to ensure we avoid catastrophic climate change."

Best suggested that the president should shift his energy policy to prioritize renewables instead.

"Instead of pushing bogus claims about the potential of pipelines to create jobs, Trump should focus his efforts on the clean energy sector, the key to America's future growth," Best said. "Trump's energy plan is more of the same—full of giveaways to his fossil fuel cronies at a time when renewable energy is surging ahead. Renewable energy is not only the future, but the only just economy for today. Keystone, the Dakota Access Pipeline, and fossil fuel infrastructure projects like them will only make billionaires richer and make the rest of us suffer."

"We will resist these projects with our allies across the country and across borders, and we will continue to build the future the world wants to see," she concluded.

Greenpeace is asking the State Department to provide documentation about the justification for Tillerson's recusal and any waivers obtained or requested.

Although TransCanada might have secured the permit, POLITICO noted that the company still needs approval from the Nebraska Public Service Commission to build the pipeline through the state.

Additionally, Jane Kleeb, the president of Bold Alliance and Nebraska Democrat Party chair told the publication that construction will likely be delayed from landowners in the state who are unhappy with TransCanada's use of eminent domain along the route.

"Trump's decision will galvanize Americans, and further stiffen resistance to Trump's campaign to sacrifice our planet for Big Oil profits," Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said. "The fight over Keystone XL is not over."

Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard agreed. "It takes money to build a pipeline, and the opposition movement to stop fossil fuel projects like Keystone will do everything it can to deprive TransCanada of any new funding for this ill-fated and unnecessary pipeline," Leonard said.

"TransCanada may have a permit, but can they find the funding? Financial institutions should have learned by now that it's risky to hitch themselves to a project that already faces historic on-the-ground opposition from private landowners and Indigenous sovereign nations and could unlock a massive environmental, health and climate disaster. Keystone was stopped once before, and it will be stopped again."

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune shared the same sentiment. "This project has already been defeated, and it will be once again. The project faces a long fight ahead in the states, but the fact remains that the American people do not want more fossil fuels, we do not want our private and public lands destroyed by a pipeline carrying the dirtiest fuel around, and we do not want our future and our children's future to continue be threatened by climate change."

Putin's Ties to the Keystone XL Pipeline

Feb. 14, 2017 01:32PM EST

DeSmogBlog

By Steve Horn and Itai Vardi

Believe it or not, there's a key connection to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, in the fight over North America's controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

One of President Donald Trump's first actions in office was to sign an executive order on Jan. 24 expediting the approval of the Keystone XL. Owned by TransCanada, this tar sands oil pipeline was halted by former President Barack Obama in November 2015. Trump signed another order on Jan. 24, calling for steel for U.S. pipelines to be made in the U.S. to the "maximum extent possible" and two days later TransCanada filed a new presidential permit application for Keystone XL with the U.S. Department of State.

Critics, such as John Kemp of Reuters, pounced on the caveat language in Trump's steel order and noted that it appears "designed to preserve lots of wiggle-room." In fact, a DeSmog investigation reveals that much of the steel for Keystone XL has already been manufactured and is sitting in a field in rural North Dakota.

DeSmog has uncovered that 40 percent of the steel created so far was manufactured in Canada by a subsidiary of Evraz, a company partly owned by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, who is a close ally of Putin and a Trump family friend. Evraz has also actively lobbied against provisions which would mandate that Keystone XL's steel be made in the U.S.

Abramovich is described in the 2004 book Abramovich: The Billionaire from Nowhere by British journalists Dominic Midgley and Chris Hutchins as "one of the prime movers behind the establishment of the only political party that was prepared to offer its undiluted support to Putin when he fought his first presidential election in late 1999. When Putin needed a shadowy force to act against his enemies behind the scenes, it was Abramovich whom he could rely on to prove a willing co-conspirator."

Evraz describes itself as "among the top steel producers in the world based on crude steel production of 14.3 million tonnes in 2015."

DeSmog's findings comes as Trump is under scrutiny from Congress, U.S. intelligence agencies and others for his personal and presidential campaign team's ties to Russia. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded in January that Russian state-sponsored actors had hacked into the email databases of both the Democratic National Committee and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign in order to influence the election in favor of Trump.

Meet Roman Abramovich

After helping launch Putin's presidency in Russia, Abramovich also was instrumental in the vetting and picking of Putin's cabinet, according to Midgley and Hutchins in their book. They also reveal that Abramovich was instrumental in the creation of Putin's political party, Unity.

Abramovich bought a 41 percent stake in the steel producer Evraz in 2006. Prior to that, he owned a 72 percent stake in the Russian state-owned oil company Sibneft, which was eventually purchased for $13 billion by the state-owned company Gazprom and became known as Gazprom Neft.

Before this, however, Sibneft merged in 2003 with the company Yukos, then owned by Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in an attempt to create what was envisioned as a competitor to the likes of ExxonMobil. Had it materialized, the resulting company, called Yukos-Sibneft, would have been at that point the fourth largest oil producer in the world.

Under pressure from Putin, however, and with what was reported as the helping hand of Abramovich, the deal was called off and Khodorkovsky ended up arrested and then jailed for eight years for alleged tax evasion and fraud. Abramovich's personal wealth doubled as a result of the later Sibneft-Gazprom merger.

The Telegraph reported that Abramovich met with Putin before the Yukos-Sibneft deal was tossed to the curb.

"The revelation of the meeting will fuel suggestions that the Kremlin is closely involved with the fate of the two companies," The Telegraph wrote at the time. "Many industry commentators saw [the] decision to halt the merger as a government-backed effort to further weaken Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former chief executive of Yukos and its largest shareholder."

Abramovich's influence would continue in the years ahead. The 2010 book The Crisis of Russian Democracy: The Dual State, Factionalism and the Medvedev Succession, written by Richard Sakwa, further describes Abramovich as someone "whose wealth in the Putin years increased at least tenfold and he remained one of Putin's closest confidants" while Putin carried out his first term as president.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/7/headlines/transcanada_files_15b_nafta_claim_against_us_over_keystone_xl

TransCanada Corporation has sued the U.S government over its rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. On Wednesday, it filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court alleging President Obama’s rejection of the pipeline exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution. TransCanada also filed legal action under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, claiming the pipeline permit denial was "arbitrary and unjustified." It’s seeking $15 billion as part of its NAFTA claim. President Obama rejected the cross-border crude oil pipeline in November, after years of review and one of the most vocal grassroots campaigns this country has seen in decades. We’ll have more on this story after headlines.

also so dakota

Breaking: TransCanada’s Hopes For “Zombie” Keystone XL Pipeline Revived As South Dakota Validates Expired Permit

The South Dakota Public Utility Commission (PUC) voted unanimously to keep TransCanada’s hopes for the Keystone XL pipeline alive by validating its permit certification that expired in 2014..

whoohoo http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline-victory-environmental-activists

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/13/as_internal_docs_show_major_overreach

As Internal Docs Show Major Overreach, Why Is FBI Spying on Opponents of Keystone XL Pipeline?

A new report confirms for the first time that the FBI spied on activists in Texas who tried to stop the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Documents from the FBI reveal it failed to get approval before it cultivated informants and opened its investigation, which was run from its Houston field office. The files document "substantial non-compliance" with Department of Justice rules. The Tar Sands Blockade mentioned in that report was one of the main groups targeted by the FBI. Agents in Houston office also told TransCanada they would share "pertinent intelligence regarding any threats" to the company in advance of protests. We are joined by Adam Federman, contributing editor to Earth Island Journal and co-author of the new investigation published by The Guardian, "Revealed: FBI violated its own rules while spying on Keystone XL opponents." In February, he also revealed how the FBI has recently pursued environmental activists in Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington and Idaho for "little more than taking photographs of oil and gas industry installations."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A new report confirms for the first time that the FBI spied on activists in Texas who tried to stop the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The report is based on FBI documents obtained by The Guardian and the Earth Island Journal. The documents also reveal that the FBI failed to get approval before it cultivated informants and opened its investigation, which was run from its Houston field office. The files document, quote, "substantial non-compliance" with Department of Justice rules. Much of the FBI’s surveillance took place between November of 2012 and June 2014.

AMY GOODMAN: The Tar Sands Blockade mentioned in the report was one of the main groups targeted by the FBI. Agents in Houston also told TransCanada they would share, quote, "pertinent intelligence regarding any threats" to the company in advance of protests.

For more, we are joined by Adam Federman, contributing editor to Earth Island Journal, co-author of this new investigation that was published by The Guardian. It’s headlined "Revealed: FBI Violated Its Own Rules While Spying on Keystone XL Opponents." In February, he also revealed how the FBI has recently pursued environmental activists in Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington and Idaho for, quote, "little more than taking photographs of oil and gas industry installations."

Adam Federman, thank you so much for joining us from Burlington, Vermont. Talk about this most recent exposé. How do you know the FBI was spying on those who are opposed to the Keystone XL?

XL map

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/05/koch-brothers-connection-keystone-xl/

ICN on Mayflower http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130716/exxons-secrecy-over-ruptured-pipeline-could-mask-national-dangers

Another week, another instance comes to light of governments targeting peaceful environmental activists. This latest document leak finds that South Korea asked for an assessment from South Africa of whether Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo constituted a “security threat against the president of South Africa during the G20 summit to be held in South Korea.”

The cables are part of a leaked cache from South Africa’s spy agency that shows efforts by a number of countries to keep close tabs on dissenters. The request was made in the run-up to the 2010 summit, and listed Naidoo alongside two other “dangerous persons” who were later arrested during a terrorist raid in Pakistan. In an otherwise unamusing document, Naidoo’s first name is amusingly misspelled “Kimi.”

Another document in the cache alluded to some sort of cooperative effort between the CIA and intelligence agencies in the U.K., Australia, and South Africa “to provide the CIA with a deeper understanding of the potential for ramping up renewable and clean energy in key parts of the world and a better understanding of the collection capabilities and interests on renewables in the UK, South Africa and Australia.” From The Guardian:

The reasons for the CIA’s interest are not clear. It may see climate change as a potential source of conflict and want to explore possible consequences. Some see a potentially more sinister motivation.

A senior US climate scientist, Alan Robock, based at Rutgers University in New Jersey, expressed concern this month that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.

The document casting Naidoo as a potential terroristic threat puts South Korea among a host of governments recently discovered to be targeting Greenpeace. The Indian government cracked down on the group, as well as other international environmental NGOs, ahead of Obama’s recent visit to the country, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, irked by the group’s anti-Keystone activism, named Greenpeace alongside the Sierra Club and Tides Canada in a leaked document outlining potentially violent threats to Canadian infrastructure.

Environmental activists have also faced some heat in the States recently. Grist’s own Heather Smith wrote last month that FBI agents have been paying visits to anti-Keystone activists, asking for information while also saying that there’s no investigation underway. Bloomberg reported this week that the intelligence behind those FBI visits could be coming from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Reporter Isaac Arnsdorf writes that local authorities along the pipeline’s route had been warned that homegrown extremists were targeting the project:

That risk assessment, laid out in documents obtained through open-records requests, wasn’t provided by law enforcement. It was provided by TransCanada Corp., the Calgary-based company that has waged a long campaign to sell America on Keystone XL and the Canadian crude it would carry. President Barack Obama vetoed Congress’s approval of extending the pipeline, but the fight is far from over.

Few understand the threats facing corporations better than corporations, and few could argue with putting safety first. Yet the alarms TransCanada raised in Nebraska … were part of a broad campaign for Keystone XL, the documents suggest. Time and again, in private e-mails and closed-door meetings with federal, state and local law enforcement, the Canadian company characterized peaceful opponents engaged in constitutionally protected protest as dangerous radicals or worse. …

TransCanada representatives have met with law-enforcement officers in at least two states. Hundreds of pages of meeting logs, police e-mails and other documents obtained by Bloomberg suggest TransCanada provided intelligence on protesters’ activities and, at times, helped guide law enforcement’s response.

Kumi “Kimi” Naidoo, for his part, said he wasn’t particularly surprised that spy agencies were keeping tabs on him. “Sadly, the assumption that we make, especially after the Edward Snowden leaks and the Wikileaks information came out, is that we are heavily monitored and under constant surveillance,” he told Al Jazeera. “But it’s one thing assuming that it’s happening; it’s a little numbing and chilling to have it confirmed.”

T?en Democratic senators have voted with Republicans to allow the progress of a bill to extend the Keystone oil pipeline, placing more political pressure on the White House to reconsider its proposed veto of the legislation.

The procedural motion was passed by 63 votes to 32, comfortably clearing the three-fifths majority needed to avoid a filibuster and falling just short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overcome a presidential veto when it comes to a final vote.

But some of the Democrats, who were also joined by Maine independent Angus King, may switch votes in future to avoid embarrassing Barack Obama who has said he is opposed to Congress interfering in a long-running administration review of the pipeline extension.

Keystone has become a symbolic battlefield for the administration’s climate change policy, with critics insisting that it will encourage the exploitation ofheavily-polluting Canadian tar sands and supporters claiming it will createthousands of jobs.

The bill will now see various amendments added over the coming weeks, a process which could ultimately decide on its level of support among Democrats.

It was approved by the House of Representatives last week by 266-152 votes, a margin also short of the two-thirds majority in both chambers needed to overcome White House opposition.

The Obama administration has stood by its decision to reject the bill, even though a Nebraska court decision in favour of the Keystone route removed one of its remaining objections.

The Democrats who joined senator King in voting for cloture on the motion to proceed included: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Warner of Virginia. King has said he would vote against final passage, and five senators have not voted at all yet.

1/15

In a move that surprised exactly no one, the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives voted today for the tenth time to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Following a short floor discussion that reiterated all the familiar arguments pro and con, the House voted 266-153 in favor of the project

The vote took place only four days after the current session opened, rejecting pleas from some Democrats to give the matter more consideration. But it’s not like the result was ever in doubt; with an enhanced Republican majority in the House, it passed by an even bigger margin that in the previous votes.

“The only folks who think the first major act of Congress should be to force approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline are those in the pocket of oil and gas billionaires,” said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune. “That explains why 266 members of the House voted to try and do just that. Big polluters are getting the Congress they paid for, and they are now trying to make everyone else pay the price.”

On the Senate side, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the pipeline by a vote of 13-9 and passed it on to the full Senate for a vote. Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell, who has said repeatedly that approving the pipeline would be his first priority in the new Congress, said that a cloture vote will take place Monday night. With 60 sponsors, the bill will easily clear that hurdle and go on for a guaranteed-to-pass vote, following its failure to pass the Senate in November by one vote. It will then be the first item that the new Congress sends to President Obama to sign, which he’s indicated lately that he would veto the bill.

Stirring up the rhetoric on the already heated issue, the Nebraska Supreme Court this morningfailed to find in favor of local landowners trying to block the state from implementing the route chosen by TransCanada, the company building the pipeline. Obama has given as one of his reasons—pipeline supporters’ coordinated talking point today is that this was an “excuse” rather than an actual reason—that the Nebraska court case was pending. But it was far from the only reason he’s offered in recent weeks. The State Department review of the project is still pending and concerns about its environmental impacts remain.

“We take risk to our lands, the American people face threats to their health, and TransCanada gets to reap the rewards,” said Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “That’s not a winning formula for our country or the economy.”

And despite the Nebraska ruling, it appears Obama is still not inclined to let the Keystone XL project proceed.

“Regardless of the Nebraska ruling today, the House bill still conflicts with longstanding executive branch procedures,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “If presented to the president, he will veto the bill.”

While an additional three Democrats are said to support the bill in addition to its 60 sponsors, the Senate would need 67 votes to override the President’s veto.

possible 2x:

may 2012

Koch Brothers' Political Activism Protects Their 50-Year Stake in Canadian Heavy Oils

... icn: These sources reveal that Koch Industries has touched virtually every aspect of the tar sands industry since the company established a toehold in Canada more than 50 years ago. It has been involved in mining bitumen, the hydrocarbon resin found in the oil sands; in pipeline systems to collect and transport Canadian crude; in exporting the heavy oils to the U.S.; in refining the sulfurous, low-grade feedstock; and in the subsequent distribution and sale of a variety of finished products, from jet fuel to asphalt. The company has also created or collaborated with other companies that have become leading players in the development of Alberta's oil resources, and it remains deeply invested in western Canada’s oil patch.

...

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120510/koch-industries-brothers-tar-sands-bitumen-heavy-oil-flint-pipelines-refinery-alberta-canada

WASHINGTON –- Senate supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline say they think they have enough votes to pass a bill that would force the approval of the controversial project. A group of 56 senators -- all 45 Republicans plus 11 Democrats –- introduced legislation on Thursday that would bypass the Obama administration and grant approval for the pipeline.

Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) introduced the bill on Thursday. Democrats Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), John Walsh (D-Mont.), and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) are cosponsoring it.

===

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140415/keystone-advocates-inject-ukraine-pipeline-debate

Keystone Advocates Inject Ukraine Into Pipeline Debate

ANALYSIS: Controversial project included in wish list of actions industry says would send more oil and gas to vulnerable Ukraine and Europe.

===

letter: The following Senators joined Baucus, Hoeven and Tester's letter: Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), David Vitter (R-La.), Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio).

===

http://www.prwatch.org/print/12402

Posted by THE PRW STAFF [1] on February 28, 2014

Keystone PipeLIES Exposed: The Facts on Petroleum Politicians, Crude Money and Media Spin [2]

-- by Dave Saldana, Director, Writer, and Producer of "Keystone PipeLIES Exposed [3]," a new short film that is a production of the Center for Media and Democracy Investigative Fund. (An excerpt of this article is featured in the April issue of The Progressive [4].)

U.S. Representative Joe Barton - Texas"TransCanada set out to build this pipeline five years ago, and they still haven't. That's saying something about the efforts of activists throughout the country, in spite of all of the money invested in seeing it happen," Natural Resources Defense Council analyst Anthony Swift says.

"In the southern portion of the pipeline, we saw ranchers, we saw longtime Texas farmers joining with the climate justice activists from Tar Sands Blockade, working to block the tar sands," says Kevin Zeese, co-director of It's Our Economy [5]. "And they did a good job. They slowed it down and made it more difficult and more expensive. And they're effective; a big French investor pulled out [6] because it was getting too expensive."

The effort that goes into street-level organizing is as much a matter of necessity as it is anything else. Facing one of the most profitable industries [7] in the world, KXL opponents know they can't compete in the Washington arena using the traditional weapons of choice: campaign contributions and lobbying budgets.

"Our opposition is quite formidable," says Jason Kowalski of 350.org "The fossil fuel industry has made more money in the history of money in recent years. If we win, it's because of our bodies and our spirits and our courage and our numbers. We know we have the moral high ground, and that's how we are going win this thing."

The American Petroleum Institute Is the "Fourth Branch of Government"

Moral high ground and strength in numbers are going to have to when the day Keystone opponents, because there is no way -- no way -- that they could compete financially. In addition to the millions of dollars [8] TransCanada has spent lobbying [9] for the KXL project, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has spent millions more [10].

That kind of spending carries a lot of clout.

"You cannot move a piece of legislations through Congress in the year 2013 unless the American Petroleum Institute proposes it," says Public Citizen Energy Program director Tyson Slocum. "You cannot move legislation without their consent. They are a de facto fourth branch of government."

"They are one of the most profitable industries in the world, and they're throwing that money into Washington, DC," says Kate Colarulli of the Sierra Club. "They're buying politicians. When we see politicians that vote the oil the agenda, we see 500 times as much contributions coming from oil companies than we see going to politicians who don't vote the oil agenda."

For example, look to South Carolina, where Republican Senator Tim Scott, who sits on the Energy and Natural resources Committee, gave the GOP's weekly address and offered his full-throated support [11] to KXL. Of course, he also decried opponents of the pipeline for killing jobs in favor of the environment.

Why was a newly appointed [12] senator from South Carolina, a state not known for its thriving petroleum industry, stumping to build a foreign corporation's pipeline that doesn't come anywhere near his home state? Possibly because the oil and gas industry is among his largest sources [13] of campaign contributions.

The $153,000 Scott has received from oil and gas contributors is a comparatively low take for a legislator willing to do the industry's bidding. In Washington, DC, a city where climate denial is something of a cottage industry, those who are willing to toe the corporate line can make out very well indeed.

The list of climate deniers in Congress [14] is not a short one, but looking at the top achievers [15] in the field shows a strong correlation between vehemence and campaign cash, just as Colarulli describes.

Take the grand poobah of climate deniers, Senator James Inhofe. The Oklahoma Republican is widely recognized [16] as a leading light in benighted views on climate change, having authored a book [17] claiming that climate change is a vast global hoax. (As a measure of its credibility, consider that the book's publisher is WorldNetDaily [18], a media outlet known for its dogged attachment to Birtherism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and xenophobia.)

Not content to "debunk" mountains of peer-reviewed climate science, Inhofe also enjoys spreading unsubstantiated theories [19] on how the climate works.

Though this might be a chicken-and-egg matter -- does he say crazy things because he gets money, or does he get money because he says crazy things? -- it's well worth noting that Inhofe has pocketed more than $1.5 million [20] from the oil and gas industry in his congressional career.

Consider also Senator Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who recently made headlines with his heartfelt plea for understanding. "I think it's time for some tolerance in the public discourse [21] regarding the many scientific viewpoints on climate change. Respect should be shown to those who have done the research and come to a different conclusion," he said.

He was not speaking of the 97 percent of global climate scientists [22] who have sounded the alarm on the ongoing global crisis, whom his colleagues routinely deride as swindlers [23], incompetents [24], and one-government co-conspirators [25], but for the relentless minority whose delusional tenacity threatens the rest of us.

Witter's career haul from the oil and gas industry? Just shy of $650,000 [26].

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) famously quipped [27] in a July 2013 hearing on climate change that President Obama and the Democrats "are willing to bet the economy today on an uncertain [prediction] about the future." Which is easy for him to say, considering he's gambling with $530,000 in oil-industry house money [28].

Lest you believe that pay-for-play is a game for senators only, U.S. Representative Joe Barton of Texas has 1.76 million reasons [29] to convince you otherwise. A water carrier for the oil industry for the bulk of his 30 years in the House, Barton is remembered for apologizing to British Petroleum for the fines they would face for the Deepwater Horizon spill. He also claims that the Flood story [30] in the Bible is evidence that climate change is not caused by fossil fuels.

See also Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska, who describes himself as "light green" and calls himself "a renewable Republican." But that doesn't mean he is willing to accept facts as they are on climate science. "Is it really 97 to 3?" Terry asked Esquire [31]. "I don't think so."

While Terry has collected more than $330,000 [32] in oil industry cash, his constituents at Bold Nebraska celebrated his receipt of the "#1 Climate Denier Award [33]."

Terry isn't the only member of Congress whose position on KXL is at odds with his constituents. In South Dakota, Senator John Thune and Representative Kristi Noem, both Republicans, have been backing the project, which will run through thousands of acres a valuable ranch land. The ranchers they represent in Washington are disappointed that families in South Dakota may suffer to advance someone else's cause.

"They want to push this agenda with these jobs and look good," rancher Dwayne Vig told the Rapid City Journal [34]. "But they are not ranchers. I know John [Thune] comes from a ranching family, but he's not a rancher."

He's also not a scientist, but that doesn't stop soon from pushing a project that research indicates will result in catastrophic climate change.

"It's dismaying to see that there are still so many members of the House of Representatives who actually denied that climate change is happening, and then even more who may say, 'oh it's happening, but we shouldn't do anything about it,'" says Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters. "That is in our view absolutely outrageous -- people out of touch with basic facts, with science, with reality."

In fairness, one must point out that politicians don't merely parrot industry claims and spout junk-science rationalizations purely for the campaign cash it brings in. Some, like Iowa Representative Steve King, who gets little campaign money from Big Oil, do it just because it's a cheap sop to constituents [35] who might be persuaded that climate change could do them some good, in that "we'd probably raise a little more corn."

Even those who are not "true believers" in climate denial find it best to remain agnostic, even in the face of staggeringly compelling evidence. To wit, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R), who saw his state's coast get pounded into rubble [36] by Superstorm Sandy [37] in 2012, has maintained steadfast refusal to acknowledge that climate change may have contributed to the destruction his constituents suffered. Although Christie rarely shies from controversy, he contends that human-caused climate change is "a scientific discussion and debate that I'm simply not engaged [38] in."

(American politicians haven't cornered the market on head-in-the-sand climate obliviousness: Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, the parliamentarian pushing the KXL project from the other side of the border, said NASA scientist Hansen's warning of "game over for the climate" was "nonsense [39]" and that Hansen "should be ashamed.")

It's hard to ignore the fact that climate deniers in Congress uniformly come from one political party [40] (although support for KXL is more bipartisan [41]). It's troubling to recognize that many of them are on particularly powerful committees [42]. But it wasn't always this way.

The Bipartisanship that Has Sailed

For much of America's history with environmentalism, the Republican Party plays a very prominent role. Recall that president Abraham Lincoln signed the law that preserved Yosemite Valley [43] for public use; Pres. Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act that would allow later presidents to protect natural resources [44] by declaring them national monuments; and it was Pres. Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency [45] and signed the Clean Air Act.

America's bipartisan concern for the environment has an even more recent history. Remember that former House Speakers Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sat together [46] in 2008 for a public service announcement on climate change, proclaiming that putting a stop to the crisis reached beyond party politics.

It's telling that three years later, while in the midst of a run for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich denounced the ad. He called it "the dumbest thing [47] I've done in the last four years."

What was behind Gingrich's change of heart? Could it be his position was "misconstrued," as he suggested as he furiously backpedaled from the idea that climate change should not be a partisan issue?

More likely, the Republican base veered sharply to the right, reflexively rejecting anything Democrats might support even though it could hurt them [48] long term. Perhaps also, others suggest, Republicans' close ties to corporations make them more likely to curry favor through favorable legislation.

"We have seen some members of Congress who are likely to side with big oil over or to vote for various legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline," says Sittenfeld. "Clearly they're getting their contributions from the Koch brothers or Karl Rove or the Chamber [of Commerce], or they've had runs ads run on their behalf. ... We've seen corporate profits really influencing the decisions that get made."

Politicians Make for a Great Return on Investment

From a purely economic standpoint, political contributions are an astonishingly good investment for oil companies.

"One of the most profitable investments they make, one of the biggest returns they get on their money is the money that they pay into campaign contributions to politicians -- pay a few million dollars and they get back billions on those investments," says Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman.

The Center for American Progress backs up Stockman's assertion. Its research finds that for every dollar the top five oil companies spent lobbying in Washington, they got back $30 in tax breaks [49]. That translates to a 3000-percent return on investment.

Of course, they don't limit their contributions to the federal level. If the pipeline is approved, state governments will have much to say about how it's routed, how construction will take place, and how landowners will be compensated when their property is seized. Many states are willing to pay for that privilege.

"States offer property tax breaks for pipeline companies to build pipelines through their states. So we see very favorable property tax terms on the state level for these kind of projects," says Stockton.

Of Course ALEC Is Involved in the Keystone Cash

Not willing to leave anything to chance, the oil industry is taking action to make sure state legislators see things their way. As the Center for Media and Democracy (which publishes PRWatch) reported, the American Legislative Exchange Council [50] (ALEC) sent nine state legislators on an industry-paid field trip [51] to the Alberta tar sands in 2012.

ALEC, which receives funding from TransCanada, the Koch brothers (whose Canadian subsidiary has tar sands investments [52]), and other fossil fuel corporations, set up the event to put legislators in the same room as the industry lobbyists who paid for the lavish private-jet travel and fine dining. ALEC also prompted each of the nine legislators to send their corporate sponsors a thank you note, with a reminder of what the lobbyists had paid for the tour.

CMD also uncovered emails between TransCanada's lobbyist and Ohio state Rep. John Adams in which the lobbyist provided Adams with a model bill in support of KXL [53], with Adams swiftly introduced in the legislature. The bill was co-sponsored by another participant in ALEC's Alberta field trip.

Politicians Prey on the Poor's Jobs Hopes

Big Oil's influence extends even to, and perhaps most powerfully in, local politics. Port Arthur, Texas, where the KXL pipeline is slated to terminate, is essentially a one-industry town. What few jobs there are, are in the refineries that dominate the city's landscape, or in the small businesses that serve them. And with one in five people unemployed, and one in four living in poverty, those with jobs are unwilling to put their livelihoods at risk. Activists say that includes elected officials.

Community organizer and environmental activist Hilton Kelley says what success his organization has had has come with little help from local politicians.

"A lot of times local government stands as a stumbling block in the way of local activists that are pushing for clean air and clean water, because they get the biggest part of their tax base from these industries," he says. "Maybe one or two council members had the heart to stand up in city council in Port Arthur say something but they're soon ousted. They don't get reelected the following year."

Kelley recognizes that his independence from the refineries is a rare luxury in Port Arthur, and it allows him to take the lead. "I have no connections to the plants," he says, "therefore they can't really hurt me like they could someone who retired from the plant someone who has a kid who works at the plant."

"They could possibly lose their job and all they'd tell them is, 'We don't need you anymore,' or, 'We cut that position.' But the reason they're letting them go is because their mother or dad was seen on TV protesting with me. I don't hold any animosity toward those who are really intimidated to stand with me, because I understand the dilemma."

American Dreams Denied in American "Sacrifice Zones"

That dilemma is often exploited by industries that use economic desperation in the communities they occupy. In exchange for a few jobs, the companies get to pollute. It's a phenomenon called "sacrifice zones [54]."

"Oftentimes front-line communities, which tend to be low-income and minority communities, are left out of the conversation, ignored, and they bear the brunt," says Colarulli of the Sierra Club. "They're often called 'sacrifice zones' these places where people are living in [squalid] conditions. This is not the American dream. This is not the way we should have people living in America."

Of course none of this could happen without the media's acquiescence. We're not even talking about right-wing talkers like Rush Limbaugh, 2011 winner of Media Matters' "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year [55]" award who recently told his listeners that they cannot concurrently believe in God and climate change [56]. We're talking about the mainstream media that have given very little time to the issue of climate change and how KXL could impact it.

Where's the Media?

The mainstream media's failure to confront climate change is more a sin of omission then one of commission. The Daily Climate [57], an online publication that monitors news coverage of climate issues, has been tracking total coverage of climate change for the past several years. What they have found is shrinking coverage as the crisis has escalated.

Despite the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, a drought that wrought havoc [58] on more than half of the US, California's current epochal drought, and the fact that 2012 was the hottest year on record [59], total reporting on climate change dropped two percent [60] from 2011. And climate coverage in 2011 was 20 percent less [61] than in 2010, and just over half the amount of reportage in 2009, the year when the issue got the most attention in the mainstream media.

Last year, the New York Times, "the paper of record," and "All the news that's fit to print," shut down [62] its environmental reporting desk and its Green blog. Though the editors offered assurances that the paper would cover environmental issues with just as much vigor, reassigning the reporters and terminating two editorial positions makes that difficult to believe.

Evidence indicates skepticism about those promises is well founded. On August 5, the American Geophysical Union [63] and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [64] each released major climate report. Neither garnered a mention [65] in the Gray Lady.

The Times is not alone in cutting back on specialized environmental reporting. Inside Climate News, a Pulitzer Prize-winning online news outlet, reports that among the top five US newspapers by circulation, there are approximately a dozen reporters [66] on the environment beat.

(To its credit, the recently launched and unjustly attacked [67] cable network Al Jazeera America dedicated a half-hour of its inaugural day [68] to climate change, which propelled it to the fore of media outlets paying attention to the issue, topping Fox News' and CNN's combined total [69] for the preceding four months.)

When activist organizations can't get their issues covered in the mainstream media, they sometimes turn to the old-fashioned alternative: buying publicity. But for Green organizations, it appears that their money is not green enough to buy a seat at the table for the debate on KXL.

Think Progress reports that the NBC television station in Washington DC rejected an advertisement [70] by a group opposing KXL, despite the organization's assurance that its ad complied with all station policies. A station spokesman said it violated the policy against personal attacks.

The group, NextGen Climate Action, [71] wanted the ad to run in conjunction with President Obama's August 2013 appearance on "The Tonight Show." It parodies [72] the specious and suspect claims made by TransCanada in its ads, such as the one that aired during the preceding Sunday's "Meet the Press" on the very same NBC station that rejected the parody.

All the News That's Fit to Print, on One Side?

The result in this case is a debate in which only one side gets to make its case.

"If you have a large enough bank account you can create a multifaceted campaign that involves buying politicians, influence peddling, and writing the story of energy policy from your perspective," says Public Citizen's Slocum. "That is invaluable if you get to tell the story on your terms about climate change, if you don't have to have a rebuttal, and you don't have to have a fact check."

TransCanada and the API have very large bank accounts. And they've been willing to open their checkbooks (to the tune of $153 million [73] leading up to the 2012 election, or nearly four times what clean-energy groups spent) to tell the story their way. According to their adversaries, that story has what Slocum politely calls "credibility problems." Others offer a more blunt assessment.

"TransCanada has lied repeatedly throughout this process, and unfortunately, some of their lies have been printed," LCV's Sittenfeld says.

(Nation of Change has compiled a lengthy, but not exhaustive, list of misleading and/or unethical conduct [74] on behalf of the KXL project.)

NEXT: Tar Sands, corporate profits, and stopping "game over" for the climate.

===

another BS report: icn 2/14?

The analysis of greenhouse gas emissions presented by the State Department in its new environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL pipeline includes dozens of references to reports by Jacobs Consultancy, a group that is owned by a big tar sands developer and that was hired by the Alberta government—which strongly favors the project.

In the end, the environmental review took into account much of the Jacobs group's work—though not quite as much as the Alberta government wanted. TheState Department report will play a crucial role in the Obama administration's decision about whether to approve the Canada-to-Texas tar sands pipeline.

The Jacobs Consultancy is a subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering, a giant natural resources development company with extensive operations in Alberta's tar sands fields. The engineering company has worked on dozens of major projects in the region over the years. Its most recent contract, with Canadian oil sands leader Suncor, was announced in January.

"The Alberta Oil Sands are a very important component of our business," the parent company said in late 2011, announcing seven new contracts in the region. "Jacobs has a strong history in the area, and we are pleased to support our clients in these initiatives."

Jacobs's deep involvement with the expansion of the tar sands extends beyond its engineering activity. Jacobs Consultancy has carried out influential studies assessing the oil sands' carbon footprint—research that has played a role in in the Obama administration's review of the Keystone XL.

Two of its widely cited reports were paid for by government agencies in Alberta that are devoted to oil sands expansion.

One, done in 2009, was among a handful of studies chosen by the State Department in its Jan. 31 environmental impact statement to represent a range of estimates of the tar sands' greenhouse gas impact.

As a rule, the Jacobs carbon footprint estimates of the tar sands oil that would move through the Keystone XL were considerably lower than alternative estimates produced by the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, which is part of the Energy Department and is independent of tar sands commercial interests.

Rather than choose a single figure, the State Department presented a range of estimates. Compared to other sources of oil, it said, annual incremental emissions of tar sands oil moving from Alberta to the Gulf Coast through the Keystone would fall between 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide and 27.4 million tons.

The 1.3 million figure came from Jacobs; the 27.4 million figure from NETL.

A spokesman for Jacobs did not return a call.

The research is significant because President Obama has said he will base his decision on whether the project will "significantly exacerbate" climate-changing pollution.

Alberta has made extensive use of the Jacobs data when its officials have lobbied governments and politicians against imposing strict limits on tar sands imports because of the fuel's heavy carbon footprint, including in California and in Europe.

The Jacobs Factor

Jacobs may be an unfamiliar name to the public, but it is one of the best-known and often-cited sources by researchers studying the emissions of carbon dioxide from the tar sands and how they compare to other types of fuel. TheCongressional Research Service, for example, cited the Jacobs studies in its own survey of the tar sands' carbon footprint, and they have figured in past environmental impact statements about other tar sands pipelines.

When Alberta sent the State Department its official comments last year seeking tweaks to the Keystone draft environmental report, which was still under review, the name Jacobs occurred two dozen times, on six of the Canadian letter’s 19 pages.

Alberta's repeated invocations of the Jacobs group's expert opinions centered on the two influential studies the group wrote in recent years, one published in 2009 and the other in 2012. Both had to do with measuring the carbon footprint of Canada's tar sands crude oil.

The 2009 study, in particular, has been widely cited since its publication in just about every report examining how much dirtier the tar sands fuel is than other fuels from anywhere in the world.

In the State Department's final environmental impact statement, as in the draft, the Jacobs group's work is mentioned repeatedly in the same breath as work by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

But as Alberta's government sought to influence the conclusions in the lead-up to the crucial final State Department review, provincial officials wanted the contractors writing the agency's environmental study to pay more attention to the 2012 Jacobs study than the 2009 one.

The 2012 study contained more recent data, the Canadians pointed out.

It also presented a prettier picture of pollution from the tar sands as compared to pollution from other sources of oil.

Alberta's government also wanted the State Department in its final review to correct one citation of Jacobs in its bibliographic list of references. It had to do with who funded the 2012 study.

The citation said the 2012 study, like the 2009 study, had been conducted for the Alberta Energy Research Institute, an arm of the provincial government sponsoring research on behalf of tar sands enterprises.

Not so, Alberta noted. Rather, the later work had been commissioned by the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the province's other arm—devoted to pushing tars sands as well.

Either way, Alberta had been paying for research to advance its strategic interest in producing more oil from the tar sands and shipping it to more new markets.

That has been a traditional role for Jacobs. Often, its work has been cited—twisted, according to some pipeline opponents—by the governments of Alberta and Canada or by sympathetic research institutes to further the cause of expanding the tar sands and building new corridors for sending its oil abroad, such as the Keystone XL.

Alberta Half Loses

In the end, the final environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL pipeline leaned more heavily on Jacobs's 2009 study than the 2012 one preferred by Alberta.

The 2009 study was deemed more useful for dealing with the Keystone XL situation, as it compared Canadian crude oil to typical U.S. crudes. The 2012 study was more useful in Canada's fight to tear down the European Union's fuel quality directive, a law that would effectively discourage tar sands shipments to refineries in Europe if is carried out.

"Because Jacobs Consultancy (2012) focuses on the European market, this analysis continued to use Jacobs Consultancy (2009)," the final State Department report explained in a footnote....

http://desmogblog.com/2014/02/05/keystone-xl-northern-leg-fracked-oil-pipeline-tar-sands

On January 31, President Barack Obama's U.S. State Department released its Final Environmental Impact Statement [1] (FEIS) for the northern leg of TransCanada [2]'s proposed Keystone XL tar sands [3] pipeline.

The State Department's FEIS argues that the northern half of Keystone XL [4], if built, "remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States."

But flying under the media's radar so far, the State Department review also highlights the prospect that Keystone XL will not only carry tar sands, but also be tapped to carry up to 100,000 barrels per day of oil extracted via hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") [5] from North Dakota's Bakken Shale [6] basin.

"[Keystone XL] would have the capacity to deliver up to 830,000 bpd, of which 730,000 bpd of capacity has been set aside for [tar sands] and the remaining 100,000 bpd of capacity set aside for [Bakken] crude oil," the report details [7].

"[TransCanada] has represented that it has firm commitments to transport approximately 555,000 bpd of [tar sands], as well as 65,000 bpd of crude oil from the Bakken."

A smaller proposed project owned by TransCanada called the Bakken MarketLink pipeline [8] and incorporated as Keystone Marketlink LLC in February 2011 [9], would ship the fracked oil to Keystone XL's northern leg as an "on ramp."

"This project would include a 5-mile pipeline, pumps, meters, and storage tanks to supply Bakken crude oil to the proposed pipeline," explains the FEIS [7].

For Bakken Fracked Oil, 'No' on KXL Means Rail

Many doubt that rail could ever replace pipeline [10] as a viable marketing mechanism for Alberta's tar sands. But few could argue the fact that rail reigns supreme for bringing Bakken fracked oil to market.

"Last November, rail shipped 71 percent — nearly 800,000 barrels of oil a day — of the Bakken’s oil, much of it on lines across Minnesota and Wisconsin, while pipelines shipped just 22 percent, according to estimates from the North Dakota Pipeline Authority," explains the Duluth News Tribune [11].

The State Department FEIS suggests that if Keystone XL were never completed, the oil industry will instead ship the Bakken crude via rail. Both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) are mentioned by name as the potential corporate beneficiaries.

"One new rail loading terminal would be needed in Epping [in ND] to ship Bakken crude oil," reads the FEIS [7]. "Sufficient off-loading rail facilities currently exist or are proposed in the Gulf Coast area such that no new terminals would need to be built under this scenario."

On December 30, 2013, a BNSF freight rail train carrying Bakken fracked oil exploded in Casselton, ND [12], spilling over 400,000 gallons of oil [13]. In July 2013, 47 people were killed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec by another "bomb train" carrying Bakken crude. ...

===

Koch brothers could make $100 billion profit from Keystone pipeline

Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline could generate $100 billion in profits for billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, according to a report released Sunday, which revealed the extent to which the Kochs would benefit from the tar sands development the proposed pipeline would help spur.

A progressive think tank called the International Forum on Globalization completed the study, which found that the Kochs and their privately-owned company, Koch Industries, hold up to 2 million acres of land in Alberta, Canada, the proposed starting point of the Keystone XL.

Read the full story: http://americablog.com/2014/01/koch-brothers-make-100-billion-profit-keystone-pipeline.html

Daily Kos [1] / By Meteor Blades [2]

Koch Brothers Could Earn $100 Billion in Tar Sands Profit if Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved

October 21, 2013 |

Authors of a 40-page report [3] by the liberal think-tank International Forum on Globalization [4] have concluded that the billionaire duo, David and Charles Koch, stand to make as much as $100 billion in profits from their holdings in the tar sands of Alberta if President Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline. Because it would cross the boundary between Canada and the United States, the pipeline, which would connect the tar sands to refineries on the Texas gulf coast, requires a presidential permit based on U.S. national interest. Given the mandates of the review process, a decision isn't likely until early 2014.

Boiled down to the essentials of its executive summary, the IFG report—Billionaires' Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline [3]—states:

By better connecting Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries and their growing export markets, KXL will create a cash cow on steroids for the Kochs. KXL would worsen today's chances for controlling carbon by enormously expanding the Kochs' financial war chest thereby increasing their ability to influence U.S. carbon pollution policymaking and undermine urgent global climate cooperation.

IFG's special report reveals that Koch Industries' role in KXL includes:

2 million or more potential acres in Alberta with tar sands (and emissions) exceeding Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips combined;

$53 million in Koch Cash for front groups and politicians who are pushing to fast-track KXL;

$100 billion in potential profits due to KXL, or 1 million times more than the average KXL worker's wage over the life of the pipeline.

The resulting rise in the pace and scale of Canadian crude oil consumption will make more money faster for the Kochs, who stand to personally profit from KXL more than any other individuals, even Exxon executives.

Approval of the pipeline, the report's authors add, would give the Kochs "more money to ramp up their already successful attacks against Americans' voting rights, labor rights, pollution controls, and other public interest protections."

The Kochs, with a combined net worth of $92 billion, have been the leaders in financial support for climate change denialist propaganda, surpassing even Exxon's massive support for such lies, as well as denying candidates and lobbying meant to spur lawmakers away from pollution controls.

The authors conclude:

No single permit or pipeline will itself solve our Earth's deepening crisis of economic inequality and ecological collapse, but rejecting both can build awareness and popular pressure to reduce the role of private money polluting politics, the underlying problem obstructing our global economic transition from today's delusion of endless industrial growth to ecological sustainability and social justice.

KGrandia has a diary up on the subject here [5].

See more stories tagged with:

koch [6]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-brothers-could-earn-100-billion-tar-sands-profit-if-keystone-xl-pipeline-approved

A DeSmogBlog investigation reveals that Robert Bauer, former White House Counsel and President Barack Obama's personal attorney, works at the corporate law firm Perkins Coie LLP, which does legal work for TransCanada's South Central LNG Project, formerly known as Alaska Gas Pipeline Project.

Furthermore, Dan Sullivan, current Commissioner of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources, and former Alaska Attorney General and former Assistant Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, is a former Perkins attorney.

These findings come in the immediate aftermath of a recent investigation revealing the contractor hired by Obama's U.S. State Department to do the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the northern half of TransCanada'sKeystone XL tar sands export pipeline - Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM Group) - lied on its June 2012 conflict-of interest filing. ERM Group checked the box on the form saying it had no current business ties to TransCanada.

In fact, ERM - a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has spent over $22 million lobbying on tar sands and Keystone XL since 2008 - does maintain business ties to TransCanada, the investigation revealed. This includes an ongoing consulting relationship with South Central LNG, co-owned by TransCanada, ExxonMobil, BP and ConocoPhillips.

Under 18 USC § 1001, making a "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation...[to the] executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States" is a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.

On top of his job at Perkins Coie, Bauer - a well-known architect of bending campaign finance law to allow more corporate money to flood into electoral races - served as general counsel to President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. He also serves as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and did electoral law work for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

His wife, Anita Dunn is the co-owner of SDKnickerbocker, former Obama Communications Director, senior advisor for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and is the former communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under then-Senator Kerry. She's met with top Obama administration officials more than 100 times since leaving in 2009, according to a recent New York Times investigation.

Dunn currently does public relations work on behalf of TransCanada and freight rail industry lobbying group, American Association of Railroads (AAR). The tar sands pipeline boom comes alongside a freight rail boom to carry tar sands crude and fracked oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale.

While the Obama administration dithers overwhether to approve TransCanada’s planned Keystone XL pipeline, the pipeline builder announced Thursday that it will pursue an even bigger project connecting Alberta’s tar-sands oil fields with refineries in the nation’s east.

The 2,700-mile, $12 billion Energy East Pipeline would carry 1.1 million barrels per day, making it more than a third larger than Keystone XL, which is intended to carry 800,000 bpd.

http://grist.org/news/arkansas-tar-sands-spill-was-an-accident-60-years-in-the-making/

desmog;

The State Department's decision to hand over control to the oil industry to evaluate its own environmental performance on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has led to a colossal oversight.

Neither Secretary of State John Kerry nor President Barack Obama could tell you the exact route that the pipeline would travel through countless neighborhoods, farms, waterways and scenic areas between Alberta's tar sands and oil refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

A letter from the State Department denying an information request to a California man confirms that the exact route of the Keystone XL export pipeline remains a mystery, as DeSmog recently revealed.

Generic maps exist on both the State Department and TransCanada websites, but maps with precise GIS data remain the proprietary information of TransCanada and its chosen oil industry contractors.

Thomas Bachand, a San Francisco-based photographer, author, and web developer discovered this the hard way. A year and a half after he first filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the GIS data for his Keystone Mapping Project, Mr. Bachand received a troubling response from the State Department denying his request.

In the letter, the State Department admits that it doesn't have any idea about the exact pipeline route - and that it never asked for the basic mapping data to evaluate the potential impacts of the pipeline.

===

http://www.prwatch.org/print/12160

Keystone Academy: Where Legislators Learn the Etiquette of Serving Special Interests

by Nick Surgey [1] — July 1, 2013 - 9:18am

Topics: Front Groups [2], Energy [3], Environment [4]

Projects: ALEC Exposed [5]

[6]

In October 2012, nine U.S. state legislators went on an industry paid trip to explore the Alberta tar sands. Publicly described as an "ALEC Academy," documents obtained by CMD show the legislators were accompanied on a chartered flight by a gaggle of oil-industry lobbyists, were served lunch by Shell Oil, dinner by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and that the expenses of the trip were paid for by TransCanada and other corporations and groups with a direct financial interest in the Alberta tar sands and the proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline.

2012

Among the nine legislators on the tour was the new ALEC national chairman, Representative John Piscopo from Connecticut, and Senator Jim Smith from Nebraska who has sponsored legislation in his state to speed up the building of the Nebraska segment of KXL. Email records obtained by CMD show that after the trip, legislators were asked by ALEC to send "thank you notes" to the lobbyists for their generosity in Alberta.

Far better than a mere "thank you," Rep. John Adams from Ohio returned from the trip and sponsored a bill given to him by a TransCanada lobbyist calling for the approval of KXL. As previously reported by CMD [7], similar legislation, reflecting both an ALEC "model" bill and language taken from a TransCanada set of talking points, has been introduced in seven states in 2013.

The tar sands of Alberta are estimated to be the third largest reserve of crude oil on the planet. But the process of turning the tar-like bitumen into a refined product that can be used as fuel is extremely energy intensive and highly polluting. The former NASA scientist James Hansen, warned that the extraction and use of Canadian tar sands would mean "game over" for the climate. TransCanada is the operator of the proposed KXL pipeline, which would carry the tar sands to Texas for processing and likely for exports to markets abroad.

In Private Jets and "Petroleum Club" Dinners, U.S Politicians Get the Dirt on Canadian Tar Sands

Officially, ALEC organized the Alberta tour as an "ALEC Academy." In ALEC's description of corporate sponsorship opportunities [8], this type of event is described as being "an intensive, two--day program for legislators that focus on a specific area of policy." It comes with an $80,000 fee to sponsor [8]. Unofficially however, and made clear to legislators on the trip in emails from ALEC obtained by CMD, the expenses were paid for by lobbyists from the oil-industry and by the government of Alberta. In an email sent to Ohio representative John Adams ahead of the trip, ALEC staffer Karla Jones reassured participants that all transportation, accommodation costs and meals would be paid for.

According to a copy of the trip itinerary [9] obtained via a public records request, legislators flew into Alberta on Tuesday October 16, 2012, and were met by TransCanada lobbyists who took them on a tour of their facilities in Calgary.

TransCanada, which is a member of ALEC, sponsored ALEC's Spring Task Force Summit in Oklahoma City in May 2013, alongside other corporations with tar sands interests including BP, Devon Energy and Koch Industries. TransCanada's Vice President Corey Goulet presented to legislators at the conference during a session called "Embracing American Energy Opportunities. [10]"

Dinner on the first night was at the up-market Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in downtown Calgary, paid for by American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). The dinner included a presentation to the captive audience of lawmakers from AFPM about Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS), a mechanism designed to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. As CMD has reported recently [11], LCFS is considered a real threat to the tar sands industry, because it might restrict the U.S. market for fuels derived from the tar sands. AFPM, which has funded one of the other groups on the tour -- the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) -- to work to oppose LCFS legislation, would successfully sponsor an ALEC "model" bill on this issue just weeks after the trip, called "Restrictions on Participation in Low-Carbon Fuel Standards Programs [12]."

On Wednesday morning, after breakfast at the hotel, legislators were taken to the airport where a private charted plane was waiting to fly them around a number of different tar sands operations. Accompanying the legislators and ALEC staffer Karla Jones, were lobbyists from AFPM, TransCanada, Devon Energy, CEA, Shell Oil, and the Government of Alberta. The flight was chartered by the Alberta Government, at a cost of $22,000, with the costs split evenly between them and another unknown entity.

During the day, legislators toured facilities owned by Shell -- which also provided lunch -- and Devon Energy, where they viewed the massive "Jackfish" tar sands projects. At these facilities, Devon utilizes Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), an energy intensive process that injects steam into the dirty bitumen to access otherwise inaccessible deposits too deep for mining. This process is expected to open up further areas of Alberta for tar sands extraction, including by Koch Industries subsidiary Koch Exploration Canada [13] which has a pending permit request [14]in Alberta to utilize SAGD.

Dinner on Wednesday night was served at the Petroleum Club, sponsored by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. On the Thursday morning, just before their return flight, legislators did have a brief meeting with a representative from the Pembina Institute, an Alberta environmental group that calls for responsible exploitation of the tar sands. According to the ALEC trip itinerary [9], this was to "provide the opposing point of view."

Although Pembina does represent a different view from those that want completely unrestrained extraction of the tar sands, the group is not representative of those that oppose tar sands extraction. There are plenty of organizations that could have provided alternative viewpoints, particularly First Nation tribal leaders who are campaigning vigorously on this issue, but perhaps unsurprisingly they were not included. Even Pembina's -- somewhat limited -- opposing voice was not wanted during the tour of the oil sands facilities, and they were not invited to the lobbyist-sponsored dinners.

ALEC as Emily Post

A month after the trip, the Director of International and Federal Relations at ALEC, Karla Jones, sent participants an email helpfully reminding them of what each industry lobbyist had paid for on the tour. CMD obtained a copy of that communication via a public records request, which included a spreadsheet containing the names, telephone numbers and mailing addresses of each of the lobbyists on the trip. The ALEC email [15] also prompted legislators to send each of the sponsoring corporations a "thank you note."

The phenomenon of ALEC legislators sending such letters to lobbyists is something CMD has previously reported on [16]. Ohio Rep. Adams, for example, sent at least a dozen letters to corporate lobbyists in 2010, thanking them for writing checks to the ALEC scholarship fund, which paid his and his colleagues way to an ALEC conference.

"Because of your help and others like you, the trip to ALEC was made possible for our legislators," Adams wrote to AT&T lobbyist Bob Blazer.

"Rather than sending thank you notes to their corporate lobbyist sponsors, these legislators should instead consider an apology to their constituents," Stephen Spaulding, Staff Counsel for the good government group Common Cause told CMD. "I doubt lobbyists want thank you notes in return for bankrolling legislators' international vacations -- they would rather a bright, shiny souvenir in the form of corporate-drafted legislation."

Better Than a Thank You Note, Payback in Ohio

After the trip to Alberta, Rep. Adams, the Assistant Majority Floor Leader and Ohio ALEC state chair, led the calls in Ohio for the approval of the KXL pipeline, sponsoring a bill (HCR 9) [17] and talking publicly [18] about the proposed pipeline. "It is of the upmost importance that we strongly urge the U.S. government to take the necessary steps towards operation of the Keystone Pipeline," Adams wrote in March 2013 while promoting his bill. Rep. Rosenberger, the other Ohio legislator on the ALEC trip to Alberta, accordingly co-sponsored the Adams bill.

According to documents CMD obtained from public record requests in Ohio, a draft bill was sent to Adams on January 23, from Steve Dimon of 21 Consulting LLC, who represents TransCanada. The bill was sent as an attachment to the Dimon email.

The email message itself simply read, "Thank you so much! [19]"

Dimon stayed in touch with Adams' office over the proceeding months, providing his staff with further materials [20] about Keystone XL, including a set of talking points stamped with the TransCanada logo.

By February 14, Adams had an updated draft that had been reviewed by the Ohio legislative service commission, the non-partisan body that assists legislators with drafting legislation. Adams staffer Ryan Crawford sent this language to Rob Eshenbaugh [21], a lobbyist with Ohio Petroleum Council, the state affiliate of the American Petroleum Institute. "Please let me know if I can be of further assistance," Crawford wrote to the lobbyist. Eshenbaugh responded with some requested changes [22], which Crawford then incorporated into the bill.

All this occurred prior to Adams sharing the bill with his fellow legislators, which didn't happen until February 20. Adams finally introduced his bill in the Ohio Assembly on March 9 [17], without any public statement about his involvement with the ALEC Academy or that the source of the bill was a tar sands lobbyist.

The route of the proposed KXL pipeline takes it through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This is a long way from Ohio, but the debate over the KXL project has become a national issue. The ALEC Academy, and subsequent lobbying from the oil-industry, demonstrates that TransCanada sees value in developing a list of states supportive of the project to influence the federal debate over KXL approval.

The precise details of the ALEC tour, including the trip being part-sponsored by TransCanada, are not mentioned in Adams' financial disclosures, which only reports his expenses as being from ALEC and the Alberta Government. Adams is not breaking the law here. This is because of the way ALEC works to fund legislator travel. Its scholarship system allows corporations to "sponsor" legislator's expenses, which are then simply disclosed as being a payment from "ALEC" and not from the sponsoring corporations or groups. CMD documented the ALEC scholarship fund in a 2012 report released jointly with Common Cause: "How the American Legislative Exchange Council Uses Corporate-Funded "Scholarships" to Send Lawmakers on Trips with Corporate Lobbyists [23]."

Graduates of the Keystone Academy appear to be learning a lot about how ALEC works behind the scenes to promote special interest legislation while keeping the public entirely in the dark.

Attachment Size

ALECLegislators.png [24] 1.2 MB

ALEC_sponsors.pdf [15] 77.45 KB

Embracing_American_Energy .pdf [10] 1.33 MB

ALEC_Invitation_Alberta.pdf [9] 165.32 KB

Dimon_email1.pdf [19] 17.17 KB

Dimon_email2.pdf [20] 695.13 KB

Eshenbaugh_email1.pdf [21] 174.29 KB

Eshenbaugh_email2.pdf [22] 193.03 KB

note API ups game:

Energy Forums

The API Sponsors nearly identical "Energy Forums" in almost every state. Most are simply labeled "_State_ Energy Forum" (examples include Nebraska Nebraska Nevada and Arizona) but a few feature more nuanced titles, such as Ohio's Buckeye Energy Forum and Pennsylvania's keystone energy forum.

Each Energy Forum claims to represent "A group of concerned citizens", and each runs articles in support of Hydrofracking], the Keystone XL pipeline, and expanded offshore drilling.[5] [6] [7]

Vote4Energy

In December, 2011, an API TV ad campaign titled "Vote4Energy" was prematurely exposed by the Checks and Balances Project and Greenpeace, which both sent representatives to attend a Vote4Energy commercial shoot.[8] [9] Audio recordings from inside the Vote4Energy commercial shoot reveal how the commercials will debut on CNN in January, 2012 during presidential debates, and how oil industry talking points were fed to actors on set to be repeated, contrasting API's public relations campaigns aimed at demonstrating authentic grassroots support for the oil industry's political priorities.

The Vote4Energy Campaign also launched a website which argues that "A Vote For Energy is a vote for more jobs, higher government revenues and greater energy security." the site features a state-by-state breakdown of how states could be impacted by adopting their policies. According to Vote4Energy's "Policy Perspectives" sheet, they support opening federal areas that currently do not allow drilling, such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, the removal of certain EPA regulations (which the sheet implies are not based on "sound science") and the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Oil Sands Fact Check

In July 2012 the Houston Chronicle reported that API had created the front group Oil Sands Fact Check (OSFC) to promote the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands crude as a "safe and secure energy resource."[10]

Source: Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1hrAy)

Responses to Obama administration actions

2012 election spending

In the 2012 election cycle API gave nearly half a million to the following groups running political ads against Democrats and in support of Republicans:[11]

$50,000 to Americans for Prosperity’s 501(c)(4) group, which ran ads against President Obama and congressional Democrats.

$412,969 to Coalition for American Jobs’ 501(c)(6) group, a front group set up by API lobbyists to air ads.

$25,000 to the Sixty Plus Association’s 501(c)(4), which ran ads against congressional Democrats.

In addition, API president Jack Gerard was a close ally to the Mitt Romney campaign.

Center for Offshore Safety

In March 2011 the board of directors of the American Petroleum Institute approved the creation of the Center for Offshore Safety to address industry safety and environmental performance. [12] This action follows recommendations made by the Presidential Oil Spill Commission investigations in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon / Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that occurred in 2010. Some industry analysts question whether the center, which will be headquartered in Houston and is funded by API and its oil and gas industry members, can remain independently objective. [13][14]

Other climate policy-related actions

In April 2009, API sent a letter to members of Congress, in Gerard's name, that slammed the Obama administration. It stated: "The US oil and natural gas industry has the expertise and technology to produce the energy we need to fuel economic growth, create jobs, generate significant revenues for local, state and federal governments, and bolster our national security. However, our companies cannot do so if held back by harmful, counter-productive taxes and are restricted from access to domestic oil and natural gas resources that the country urgently needs. ... If imposed, these taxes and fees could have a debilitating effect on our economy, when our nation can least afford it. They would reduce investment in new energy supplies, meaning less energy produced for American consumers. We cannot tax our way out of our energy problems.” [15]

The same month, API protested the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gas emissions endangered public health and could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. "The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases," said API's Jack Gerard. [16]

2008 elections

In response to the November 2008 election of Democrats Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice-president, API released a statement in the name of their CEO, Jack Gerard, saying: "The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want politicians to put aside partisan bickering. ...The oil and natural gas industry stands ready to help put America's vast energy resources to good use, strengthening our nation's economy and energy security, and providing good jobs for Americans across the country." [17]

Earlier, Gerard had criticized Obama's platform, saying "Obama's plan to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies would harm one of the few industries that are thriving" in the economic crisis. [18]

===

Environmental advocates are mounting pressure against the U.S. State Department over a Keystone XL review process they say is "plagued by conflicts of interest."

"Imagine if the surgeon general was replaced with a tobacco executive," Robin Mann, past president and board member of the Sierra Club, said during a press call on Tuesday. "At the State Department, we're seeing something just as outrageous."

The advocacy group filed a lawsuit on Monday asserting that the State Department is withholding key documents related to the latest Keystone XL environmental impact statement, including evidence related to potential conflicts of interest at Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the third-party contractor hired to conduct the analysis of the fiercely-debated proposal to ferry heavy crude from Alberta's oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

During the press call on Tuesday, advocates pushed for a State Department investigator general analysis of the impact statement. Mann added that ERM is a "dues-paying member" of the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S trade association for the oil and natural gas industry.

An API spokesman said the group had not yet reviewed the lawsuit and therefore would not comment. ERM deferred HuffPost's inquiry to the State Department....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/keystone-xl-lawsuit-sierra-club-state-department_n_3422849.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

===

TransCanada Whistleblower Warns Of Shoddy Pipeline Practices

Posted: 06/11/2013 7:37 am EDT

Former TransCanada Corp. employee Evan Vokes' impassioned testimony before a Canadian Senate committee last week painted "a very, very bleak picture of the pipeline industry in Canada, and probably by extension, the States," according to Sen. Betty Unger.

Vokes' allegations on Thursday against TransCanada, the Canadian company leading the controversial proposal to send tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast via the Keystone XL pipeline, were sobering: a "culture of noncompliance" and "coercion," with "deeply entrenched business practices that ignored legally required regulations and codes" and carries "significant public safety risks."

"It's organized crime, in my opinion," Vokes, an expert in pipeline welding and now whistleblower against his ex-employer, told The Huffington Post after the hearing. "The source of revenue is legal, but how they go about it isn't legal."

TransCanada quickly came to its own defense after learning of the attack.

"We take great exception to the claims by Mr. Vokes that we do not take safety and compliance issues seriously," company spokesman Shawn Howard told HuffPost. "Our track record and the safety of our energy infrastructure network shows that we do."

Vokes worked for TransCanada for five years until May 2012, when he said he was fired without cause. From his first days at the company, Vokes recalled raising concerns, or as he put it, "pointing out the obvious." He provided the Canada Senate with evidence supporting complaints of what he said were shoddy safety practices, including management pressure to retract a welding code violation on a natural gas line feeding a tar sands project in Alberta, and the use of "substandard materials" in the original Keystone pipeline that carried the heavy, molasses-like oil into U.S. Midwest markets.

"What I have documented is a mix of politics and commercial interests that has resulted in the false public claims of exceptional industry practice," Vokes told the Senate committee.

Today, Vokes said, he sees the same "breaches of construction quality" in portions of TransCanada's Keystone XL already laid in Texas. The advocacy group Public Citizen Texas posted a video highlighting what it says are dents, faulty welds and other anomalies that have been unearthed in recent weeks.

"What else are they cutting corners on? No one knows," said Vokes.

Damon Hill, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration, said the agency is "in contact with TransCanada to discuss the results of recent inspections, the excavations of certain portions of the newly constructed pipeline, and to monitor the operator's activities to make any necessary repairs."

The anomalies that have been uncovered don't raise immediate concern for Richard Kuprewicz, president of the Redmond, Wash.-based pipeline safety firm Accufacts Inc. Still, Kuprewicz suggested that the industry is far from immune to safety issues.

"There is a tendency that the bigger the project, the harder it is to maintain control," Kuprewicz said. "You're just trying to do more things and so you've got to be sure management team has appropriate quality-control checks and balances."

One pressure, Kuprewicz added, is the "time value of money." The $7 billion Keystone XL project has now been stalled for three years as it awaits a permit from the Obama administration for the northern portion that crosses the U.S.-Canada border.

"Cash is only flowing when you're moving oil," Kuprewicz said.

Vokes said this industry reality showed itself to him as pressure to "step into unsound practice" and to "stop investigations." He said TransCanada managers forced him to take "stress leave" before he could finish submitting all of his documentation during an internal audit at the company.

"When he brought issues forward, TransCanada took Mr. Vokes' concerns seriously and believes it has treated him fairly and appropriately," said Howard, who would not provide a reason for Vokes' dismissal. "For legal reasons, we are unable to comment any further."

Don Wishart, a senior operations and major projects adviser at TransCanada, spoke in front of the same Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on Feb. 12. In response to questions about an unnamed whistleblower, Wishart said the allegations were "administrative." He went on to suggest that tar sands oil "floats on water," which some scientists refute.

"What they presented to the Canadian Senate was a lie," Vokes told HuffPost.

"You don't know you're a whistleblower until the retaliation starts," he said. "The wrong-doers in positions of authority will do everything they can to discredit you."

Kuprewicz acknowledged the whistleblower label is something people "want to be careful about seeking," adding that it typically "doesn't go well in industry."

The Canadian senators expressed similar sentiments as they questioned Vokes on Thursday.

"I have enormous respect for you and the courage it's taken to come forward," said Sen. Judith Seidman. "I'm worried about Canadian safety as we look at building an increasingly larger infrastructure across the country."

At the same time, senators also demonstrated the Canadian government's push to get more tar sands oil flowing. "It's important for this country to get bitumen to the U.S.," said Sen. Michael MacDonald. "I also think it's important to do it safely."

On this point, Vokes doesn't disagree. He called oil and gas the "lifeblood" and said he believes it is possible to pipe it all safely. "I don't have a problem with what's in pipeline," said Vokes. "I have a problem if it comes outside the pipeline."

In an interview in April, Joe Oliver, Canada's minister of natural resources, told HuffPost that 99.9996% of oil going through U.S. pipelines is delivered safely.

Unger underscored this safety record, and asked Vokes to "rationalize" his seemingly incongruous allegations.

"I've been on several projects that were very nearly disasters. I'm surprised there aren't more accidents," Vokes responded, noting that pipeline problems may not result in accidents until decades later -- often "long after designers and those that constructed them have retired."

"There's thousands of cracks in the system -- it's just which ones will become the problem? It's low probability, high consequence," Vokes said.

"Regardless of my poor experiences with some individuals, there are still a lot of people that would like to do it right," added Vokes. "That's the only thing that is saving us."

===

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130523/analysis-bill-fast-track-keystone-pipeline-loses-democratic-support-why

transcanada uses law against protesters http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/keystone-xl-transcanda_n_3229958.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=050713&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=Photo

epa renews crit; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/epa-keystone-xl-pipeline-state-department_n_3135117.html

===

Joe Nocera of The New York Times is back with another column in support of building Keystone XL. I counted four errors or willful oversights in Nocera's piece, although I'm sure I missed some. Let's review.

Speaking about KXL's importance: "Energy independence is a long-sought national goal. We would no longer need OPEC, a cartel of countries with values, in many cases, antithetical to ours."

First, it remains unclear how "energy independence" can be achieved by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels and the corporations that supply them. Exxon made $45 billion last year; its CEO Rex Tillerson made $100,000 a day by supplying our fossil fuel addiction. If Joe wants to keep lining their pockets and strengthening their grip over our democracy that's his deal, but you can't argue in favor of independence if you want to keep a supplier from whom you can't shake loose. Second, no one that I know of seriously thinks that the Keystone XL export pipeline would lead to us no longer needing OPEC. The only way to do that is to drop Big Oil and petro states once and for all. And the only way to do that is to get serious about green energy which Nocera treats like a punch line. I wonder if they are laughing in Iowa now that they are getting 25 percent of their electricity from wind?

"That oil is coming here anyway -- by rail and boat, where spills are common, and via pipelines that are older, and hence less safe, than Keystone would be."....

===

Revealed: How the Keystone XL Pipeline Would Hasten Climate Change

April 17, 2013 |

WASHINGTON, DC, April 16, 2013 (ENS) – In a new report, “Cooking the Books: How The State Department Analysis Ignores the True Climate Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline,” environmental groups and scientists opposed to the pipeline warn of “climate disaster” if President Barack Obama allows it to cross the Canada-U.S. border, carrying tar sands bitumen from Alberta to Nebraska.

“This is simply incorrect,” states “Cooking the Books. [2]”In its latest environmental analysis [3] of the pipeline, issued March 1, the State Department asserts that if the pipeline is not built, the Alberta tar sands will be exploited one way or another and carbon dioxide will be emitted anyway.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would send at least 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year into the atmosphere, warming the Earth’s climate, finds the report’s authors Steve Kretzmann, Lorne Stockman, David Turnbull and Paulina Essunger of Oil Change International.

These emissions compare to the emissions from 51 coal-fired power plants or the tailpipe emissions from more than 37.7 million cars – more cars than are now registered in California, Washington, Oregon, Florida, Michigan, and New York combined, calculates the report, which was issued by some of the nation’s largest and most influential environmental groups: Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, Environment America, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Greenpeace and Oil Change International.

Alberta-based TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP has applied for a Presidential Permit authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline to cross the U.S.-Canada border carrying 830,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day from the tar sands of northern Alberta to an existing pipeline in Steele City, Nebraska.

The proposed project would consist of 1,204 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, with 329 miles of pipeline in Canada and 875 miles in the United States. It would cross the international border between Saskatchewan and Montana.

It is the State Department’s responsibility to determine if granting a permit is in the national interest. President Obama will make the final decision.

“This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said then. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”On January 18, 2012 President Obama rejected TransCanada’s first permit application, refusing to be pushed by Congressional Republicans who tied the pipeline decision to a bill providing a payroll tax cut extension.

House Republicans are still trying to force a decision favorable to the $7 billion pipeline. They plan to vote by Memorial Day on legislation that would go around President and give congressional approval to TransCanada.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton Upton, a Michigan Republican, is a coauthor of the legislation – the Northern Route Approval Act (H.R. 3) – which would clear regulatory and legal hurdles, and remove the project’s requirement for a Presidential Permit.

Upton told a House subcommittee April 10, “We have an historic opportunity with the Keystone XL pipeline to create thousands of good-paying American jobs and reduce our reliance on overseas energy.” Upton did not mention the pipeline’s impact on the planetary temperature.

Environmentalists dispute the “thousands” of jobs to which Upton refers, saying only a few dozen permanent jobs would be created.

The State Department has issued two Environmental Impact Statements, both of which find that the Keystone XL pipeline is “not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects,” and “no substantive change in global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Scientists and environmental groups disagree with those conclusions....

http://www.alternet.org/print/environment/revealed-how-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-hasten-climate-change

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 15, 2013

Mr. Terry (for himself, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Upton, Mr. Barrow of Georgia,

Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Barton, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of

Broun of Georgia, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Burgess, Mrs.

Utah, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr.

Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Daines, Mr. Rodney Davis

Capito, Mr. Carter, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Coble, Mr. Conaway,

Gingrey of Georgia, Ms. Granger, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Griffin of

of Illinois, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. Fincher,

Mr. Flores, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gardner, Mr.

Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Lance, Mr. Latta, Mr.

Arkansas, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Harper, Mr.

Harris, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Hunter, Mr.

Long, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McCaul, Mr.

Pitts, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Ribble, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Rogers

McHenry, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.

Mullin, Mr. Mulvaney, Mrs. Noem, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Olson, Mr. Pearce, Mr.

of Michigan, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Stivers, Mr.

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in

Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Walden, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Weber of

Texas, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Womack, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Coffman,

Mr. Bentivolio, and Ms. Foxx) introduced the following bill; which was

addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural

jurisdiction of the committee concerned

Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the

Greg Palast: Koch brothers could save two billion dollars a year if they can replace Venezuelan heavy crude crude with Canadian tar sands – one of the dirtiest sources of carbon emissions on the planet.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/02/koch-brothers-driving-keystone-xl-pipeline-from-canada-to-cut-out-venezuelan-oil/

The cleanup is still underway from a massive pipeline spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, but you don't hear anything about it at public hearings across the nation dealing with the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline. Resolutions supporting the controversial KXL pipeline have now been introduced in seven states, but while TransCanada, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Chamber of Commerce have been lobbying in force for the bills to pass, there have been few opposing voices by either Democrats or environmentalists at public hearings dealing on the measures. The massive pipeline project will transport tar sands crude oil from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries for processing and export and once underway, the project will be a major contributor to global warming.

In February, CMD reported on state resolutions calling for the approval of the KXL pipeline project in Mississippi, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. The language in three of these resolutions closely matched a "backgrounder" from TransCanada. The forth resolution, introduced in Missouri, mirrored a resolution from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

In the last few months, Ohio, Kansas, and Indiana have introduced very similar resolutions, which also feature paragraphs from TransCanada’s own materials. Although these resolutions are non-binding, they will be showcased by industry lobbyists as evidence about how state legislators (and by extension the public) feel about the pipeline project in an attempt to influence the pending State Department decision on KXL. While opponents of KXL have been active on many fronts, their absence from state legislatures nationwide has been notable.

Industry Turns Out in Force, But Face Little Opposition

===

http://www.tomdispatch.com/dialogs/print/?id=175684 bill mck

===

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-contractor-ties-transcanada-state-department

...

When the Keystone report—officially known as a "draft supplemental environmental impact statement"—was released, environmental activists ripped it as shoddy and misleading. Russ Girling, TransCanada's CEO, cheered the report as "an important step" toward receiving President Barack Obama's final stamp of approval for the pipeline.

Outside contractors (managed by the State Department) wrote the Keystone report, which neither endorsed nor rejected the Keystone pipeline. The contractor that produced the bulk of the report was Environmental Resources Management (ERM), an international consulting firm. On the day the State Department published the Keystone impact report, the agency also released a cache of documents that ERM submitted in 2012 to win the contract to produce the Keystone environmental report. That cache included a 55-page filing in which ERM stated it had no conflicts of interests writing the Keystone report.

But there was something strange about ERM's conflict-of-interest filing: The bios for the ERM's experts were redacted.

Here's what those redactions kept secret: ERM's second-in-command on the Keystone report, Andrew Bielakowski, had worked on three previous pipeline projects for TransCanada over seven years as an outside consultant. He also consulted on projects for ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips, three of the Big Five oil companies that could benefit from the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of heavy crude oil taken from the Canadian tar sands.

Another ERM employee who contributed to State's Keystone report—and whose prior work history was also redacted—previously worked for Shell Oil; a third worked as a consultant for Koch Gateway Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Koch Industries. Shell and Koch* have a significant financial interest in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. ERM itself has worked for Chevron, which has invested in Canadian tar sands extraction, according to its website.

Here is ERM's redacted filing as it appeared on the State Department's website (begin reading on page 30):....

The Democrats who supported the legislation -- most of them vulnerable incumbents facing tough reelection races next year -- include Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Chris Coons (Del.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Mark Warner (Va.).

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, spoke out against the measure on the Senate floor. "This amendment has already made the decision for us that everything is hunky-dory with this pipline," she said. "We don't know if our national security -- people think that dirty tar sands is going to create climate disruption ... there'll be another day to fight, but I want to say ... I hope we will vote no and allow the process to continue."

Boxer introduced her own counter-amendment -- Amendment 622 -- which would create a fund to protect U.S. interests in the Keystone XL decision. Hoeven called it merely "an excuse to kill the project." Boxer's measure was voted down 33 to 66.

Bill Mckibben, founder of climate advocacy group 350.org, denounced the Senate's vote.

"The fossil fuel industry asked the Senate to approve Keystone XL, but ordinary people around the country pushed back -- our 'leaders' ended up taking a meaningless vote instead, and giving us more months to convince the president not to sign off on this boondoggle," he said. "Everything that happens in D.C. happens ugly, and this is no exception -- but it's been beautiful to watch people rallying around the continent."

Over the coming two weeks, 350.org will be targeting the senators who voted to approve the pipeline, according to a press release.

The co-sponsors for Hoeven's amendment include Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)....

===

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/keystone-xl-pipeline-john-hoeven_n_2935921.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

better on motive:

The 17 Democrats who voted yes included every single possibly vulnerable incumbent facing reelection next year, from 34-year veteran [Max] Baucus [Mont.] to first-term Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska).

Perhaps more importantly, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, voted for the resolution. Bennet is not up for re-election until 2016, but his post requires him to raise money from the wealthy liberal community that is highly opposed to the pipeline.

Additionally, a crop of Democrats who survived difficult reelections in 2012 — Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) — all supported the GOP Keystone amendment.

« EPA sued over failure to protect bees from pesticides

Gristmill: Fresh, whole-brain news.

Comments

23 Mar 2013 11:46 AM

Lisa Hymas

The vote was non-binding but all too telling. On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted 62 to 37 in favor of building the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, with 17 Democrats joining all of the Republicans. It was just an amendment to a budget plan that won’t even be going to the president’s desk, but it shows that the political class in D.C. views the pipeline very favorably — and believes voters view it very favorably too.

From The Washington Post:

The 17 Democrats who voted yes included every single possibly vulnerable incumbent facing reelection next year, from 34-year veteran [Max] Baucus [Mont.] to first-term Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska).

Did fossil-fuel money have anything to do with the vote? You be the judge:

New analysis today from Oil Change International reveals that supporters of the just-passed non-binding Keystone XL pipeline amendment received 3.5 times more in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests than those voting “no.” In total, researchers found that supporters took an average of $499,648 from the industry before voting for the pipeline, for a staggering total of $30,978,153.

===

koch fraser 2012: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120510/koch-industries-brothers-tar-sands-bitumen-heavy-oil-flint-pipelines-refinery-alberta-canada

===

state dept study written by contractors of TC: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130306/keystone-xl-eis-state-department-transcanada-oil-tar-sands-industry-ensys-energy-koch-brothers-exxonmobil-bp-obama

...

EnSys Energy has worked with ExxonMobil, BP and Koch Industries, which own oil sands production facilities and refineries in the Midwest that process heavy Canadian crude oil. Imperial Oil, one of Canada's largest oil sands producers, is a subsidiary of Exxon.

ICF International works with pipeline and oil companies but doesn't list specific clients on its website. It declined to comment on the Keystone, referring questions to the State Department.

EnSys president Martin Tallett said he couldn't talk about the proposed pipeline, but he pointed out that in addition to working for the oil industry, his company also works for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and the World Bank.

"We don't do advocacy," Tallett said. "Our goal is to tell it like it is, to tell the way we see it… If we were the pet of government agencies or oil companies, the other side wouldn't come to us."...

icf board moniz http://www.icfi.com/about/board-of-directors

===

grist:

Then came the news on Friday that John Kerry??s State Department had issued a draft environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL pipeline, offering President Obama no reason to reject the project. Reactions from climate hawks were swift and, in some cases, blistering. And with a decision still months away, some (like TIME‘s Mike Grunwald) are suggesting that the Keystone battle — and the larger battle over the Alberta tar sands — is shaping up to be the climate movement’s Selma moment, comparing it to that 1965 hinge point in the civil rights struggle.

This comparison, I’m finding, is one that a lot of the student activists I know are ready to embrace. It’s certainly true that none of them face anything like the racial injustice that the lunch-counter students and Selma marchers suffered. And yet most of them are consciously fighting for what they call climate justice — and, here’s the thing, fighting not only for people in faraway places but, increasingly, for themselves.

These students feel themselves — people of their generation and younger — oppressed by powerful, corrupt forces beyond their control. They grasp the urgency and scale of the climate crisis — and understand the role of the fossil-fuel industry in obstructing any serious efforts to deal with it. They quote the alarming reports from the International Energy Agency and the World Bank. They see the catastrophic trajectory their elders have put the planet on — and the failure of our governments, corporations, and media to address the crisis in any adequate way — and they feel something approaching desperation. They feel forced onto a path of radicalism.

===

There are people in Washington, D.C., right now scratching their heads and writing memos and trying to figure out how on earth we might possibly avoid budgetary doomsday, the sequestration that will lop some $1.2 trillion out of the federal budget over the next decade. Again, this is only happening because Congress tried to threaten itself. It’s like you threatening to rob yourself by holding a gun to your head and then trying to figure out how to keep from being robbed.

But while all of this is happening, something else is going on in Our Nation’s Capital™: Pipeline companies are getting an even larger tax break than expected. From Bloomberg:

A tax break used by oil and gas pipeline companies such as Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP (KMP) will cost the U.S. government $7 billion through 2016, about four times more than previously estimated, Congress’s tax scorekeepers said this month.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation quadrupled its cost estimate for exempting the fast-growing “master limited partnerships” from corporate income tax in the year ended in September to $1.2 billion from $300 million. The annual cost will rise to $1.6 billion by fiscal 2016, the committee said.

$7 billion. $1.6 billion a year. Tack on the estimated $4 billion in tax breaks the oil industry receives each year, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

Some people, new to American politics, think this pipeline tax break will become a political target. If it does, it will only be a target for as long as it takes for the American Petroleum Institute to do some overwrought hand-wringing about job creation. Then it will be ignored once again.

After all, with sequestration threatening to devastate funding for education, public safety, public health, child care programs, worker training, and the military, D.C.’s best minds are already occupied with problem-solving. And they’ll get the job done, no need to worry. In short order, they’ll figure out how to avoid those cuts to the military. That thief won’t steal all their money.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

http://grist.org/news/pipeline-companies-will-get-a-7-billion-tax-break-through-2016/

---

Four States Introduce Keystone XL Resolutions, Lifting Language from ALEC and TransCanada Itself

by Brendan Fischer [1] — February 15, 2013 - 8:29am

Topics: Corporations [2], Environment [3], Politics [4]

Projects: ALEC Exposed [5]

Legislators in four states have introduced bills in recent weeks supporting the controversial TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, with language that appears to have been lifted directly from a "model" American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) bill and from TransCanada's own public relations talking points.

Some of the first bills proposed in Missouri, Mississippi, Michigan and Minnesota in 2013 have been resolutions calling on the president and Congress to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which the Obama administration delayed last year in response to a wave of protest and civil disobedience. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because extracting oil from Canadian tar sands would unlock huge amounts of carbon, increasing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Rallies are planned for this weekend [7] to hold President Obama to his promise to fight climate change by urging him to not approve Keystone XL's pipeline application.

Missouri Resolution Tracks ALEC Model

The Missouri resolution is nearly identical to an ALEC "model" resolution approved at the December 2011 ALEC meeting. TransCanada had been a member [8] of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force in 2010 (along with oil companies like BP and Exxon Mobil). In states like Ohio and South Dakota, the corporation paid into the state "scholarship" fund [9] that pays for legislators' flights and hotel rooms to ALEC meetings. The ALEC resolution has been passed [10] in a handful of states.

Both Missouri's HCR 19 [11] and the ALEC Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline [12] begin:

WHEREAS, the United States relies - and will continue to rely for many years - on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, as well as renewable and alternative sources of energy;

And conclude:

Missouri HCR 19

The Missouri bill was proposed by Rep. Caleb Rowden (R), a newly-elected politician who has been in office for less than two months. It is not known whether Rowden has already become an ALEC member, but he may have been assigned the legislation by a more senior ALEC member legislator -- an increasingly common way of hiding ALEC's fingerprints. Rowden, who before becoming a legislator [13] was a Christian rocker [14], certainly did not come up with this legislation on his own.

Though the Keystone XL approval will happen on the federal level, the corporate interests that stand to benefit from the pipeline have lobbied extensively to curry favor in the states, which can lend the appearance of grassroots support and put pressure on federal officials.

ALEC resolutions have been one avenue for TransCanada and the oil industry to advance these goals. As ALEC was approving its Keystone XL resolution in December 2011, that month's "Inside ALEC" Magazine [15] featured an article titled "Keystone XL -- A Critical Project for America," written by Michael Whatley of the oil industry front group Consumer Energy Alliance. The CEA is an "astroturf" group parading as a grassroots organization [16] that was started with funding from big energy producers like BP and ExxonMobil (both of which are ALEC members). CEA's Board of Advisors has included [17] Tom Moskitis, top lobbyist for the natural gas trade group American Gas Association and the corporate co-chair of the ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.

Just weeks after ALEC adopted its Keystone XL Resolution in early 2012, President Obama denied TransCanada's application for the pipeline. ALEC promptly issued a press release [18] announcing its "disappointment" with Obama's decision, but it did render the resolution slightly outdated. Missouri's legislation closely tracks the ALEC model but deviates in some areas because of the shifting landscape surrounding the pipeline.

MI, MN, MS Bills Identical to One Another and TransCanada Talking Points

Legislators in Mississippi [19], Minnesota [20], and Michigan [21] also introduced legislation in recent weeks supporting the Keystone XL pipeline. The thrust of the resolutions are largely the same as the ALEC model, but the language deviates from the ALEC bill approved in December 2012. However, each state's proposed resolution is identical to the other states -- which certainly seems more than coincidence.

It is not known whether ALEC has been pushing an updated version of ALEC model legislation, but the language in these state resolutions can be traced back directly to TransCanada, the corporation that has been pushing the pipeline for years. Entire paragraphs from the Mississippi, Minnesota, and Michigan resolutions are nearly identical to public relations spin produced by TransCanada and posted as a "backgrounder" [22]on its website. Check out these paragraphs in the Mississippi [19], Minnesota [20], and Michigan [21] legislation, and compare the language from TransCanada's "backgrounder:" [22]

MI Minn Miss and TransCanada

This identical language cannot be a coincidence. But it is further proof that some legislators are doing the bidding of corporate interests rather than the people that elected them.

This well-funded effort to influence state and federal legislators stands in sharp contrast with the growing grassroots environmental movement opposed the pipeline. With tens of thousands of anti-pipeline activists [7] expected in Washington DC this weekend, it remains to be seen whether federal officials reviewing the pipeline will pay closer attention to the industry's influence-peddling or the people on the streets.

Center for Media and Democracy ?? 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714

Source URL: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11982/four-states-introduce-keystone-xl-resolutions-lifting-language-alec-and-transcana

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer

[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations

[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment

[4] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics

[5] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed

[6] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F02%2F11982%2Ffour-states-introduce-keystone-xl-resolutions-lifting-language-alec-and-transcana&linkname=Four%20States%20Introduce%20Keystone%20XL%20Resolutions%2C%20Lifting%20Language%20from%20ALEC%20and%20TransCanada%20Itself

[7] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11981/presidents-day-rally-hold-obamas-feet-fire-climate-change

[8] http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/energy,environment&agriculture_35-day_mailing%20San%20Diego.pdf

[9] http://www.prwatch.org/files/BUYING_INFLUENCE_ALEC_Scholarships_by_State.pdf

[10] http://www.commonblog.com/2012/02/13/24-hour-push-to-say-no-to-alec-on-keystone-pipeline/

[11] http://openstates.org/mo/bills/2013/HCR19/documents/MOD00005814/

[12] http://www.prwatch.org/files/ResolutioninSupportoftheKeystoneXLPipeline.pdf

[13] http://calebrowden44.com/meet/

[14] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Zcd0CkKyo&list=UU0L1EPA0SmqiAR67CW04xWQ&index=2

[15] http://www.alec.org/docs/Final_NovDec2011_IA

[16] http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/big_oil_and_canada_thwarted_u_s_carbon_standards/singleton/

[17] http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/thomas-l-moskitis/

[18] http://www.alec.org/2012/01/1437/

[19] http://openstates.org/ms/bills/2013/SC543/documents/MSD00051985/

[20] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0479.0.html&session=ls88

[21] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/concurrentresolutionintroduced/Senate/pdf/2013-SICR-0006.pdf

[22] http://www.transcanada.com/6059.html

http://www.prwatch.org/print/11982

===

Latest pro-Keystone XL letter from Congress once again awash with oil money

Jan29

David Turnbull

Last week, we put out analysis of the massive amounts of fossil fuel money lining the campaign coffers of those Senators who recently signed a letter to the President clamoring for approval of the troublesome Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. That analysis showed that Senators who signed that letter received some 340% more in campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests than those that did not.

Well, it seems some members in the other chamber of Congress have decided they don’t want to be left out. Led by Rep. Lee Terry (who has received nearly half a million dollars in dirty energy money in his career), a group of members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the White House today, in support of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Just like the Senate letter, this shouldn’t actually be news, given so many of these members have expressed their support from the beginning. But these members of Congress have decided to attempt to raise some noise today, perhaps sensing, like their Senate colleagues, that the project’s chances may be dwindling, as the movement against this climate-imperiling, aquifer-threatening tar sands pipeline continues to grow.

The results of our analysis won’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to the dirty influence of Big Oil, Gas and Coal in Washington. Once again, the facts speak for themselves:

Total lifetime contributions from oil and gas interests to Representatives signing the letter: At least $23.8 million

Average lifetime contributions from oil and gas interests to Representatives signing the letter: roughly $168,000

Those Representatives that signed the letter received roughly 250% more money from oil and gas interests compared to those Representatives who did not sign the letter.

---

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY)

Rep. Steve Daines (R-MT)

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX)

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA)

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)

Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY)

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO)

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX)

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI)

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX)

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI)

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL)

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX)

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO)

Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC)

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH)

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD)

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN)

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)

Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH)

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO)

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)

Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI)

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN)

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT)

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)

Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)

Rep. Alan Nunnellee (R-MS)

Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL)

Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY)

Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI)

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA)

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)

Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH)

Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL)

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)

Rep. Diane Black (R-TN)

Rep. John Barrow (D-GA)

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA)

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV)

Rep. Filemon Vela (D-TX)

Rep. William Owens (D-NY)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)

Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)

Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-OH)

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA)

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)

Rep. Al Green (D-TX)

Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA)

Rep. Todd Young (R-IN)

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA)

Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX)

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT)

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)

Rep. David Joyce (R-OH)

Rep. David Reichert (R-WA)

Rep. David Roe (R-TN)

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)

Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-PA)

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA)

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN)

Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA)

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA)

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL)

Rep. John Campbell (R-CA)

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)

Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA)

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)

Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN)

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV)

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ)

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID)

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX)

Rep. Pete Roskam (R-IL)

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)

Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA)

Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC)

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL)

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)

Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN)

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)

Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR)

Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN)

Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR)

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA)

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-NI)

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA)

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)

===

transcanada memo http://grist.org/news/transcanada-accidentally-emails-its-internal-media-information-to-reporters/

---

sierra club goes thoreauge

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman's approval of a revised route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline puts the long-delayed project back in the hands of the federal government.

But don't look for a quick decision on the $7 billion project, which would carry oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast if allowed to move forward.

State Department officials said they do not expect to complete a review of the project before the end of March.

===

Brigadier General On Keystone XL Pipeline: 'All Americans Should Be Outraged' (VIDEO)

The Huffington Post | By Megan Robertson

Posted: 12/14/2012 12:22 am EST | ??Updated: 12/14/2012 11:14 am EST

In an interview with HuffPost Live Thursday, former U.S. Army Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson spoke out against the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, warning that "all Americans should be outraged" about the national security implications of the project.

"I want to stop paying big oil and I want to start seeing a green economy in this nation," he told host Alicia Menendez. "And big oil is pushing Keystone, and Keystone is essentially going to maintain the status quo for another 25 years. And during that time I can only imagine the impact it's going to have on our environment and, indeed, our national security."

Gen. Anderson said that "all Americans should be outraged about the potential implications for our national security" because the pipeline "keeps us hopelessly addicted to oil."

"We've already seen by virtue of Hurricane Sandy and Katrina and others that the world is changing, and we've got to do something about the way we expend energy," he said.

Retired Brigadier General Anderson served under General David Petraeus as Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics for the Multi-National Force in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. He is currently Chief Marketing Officer for RELYANT, a Tennessee-based defense contractor that provides construction, logistics and munitions response to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

"If you understood like I do how things work in Afghanistan, it's criminal. We've had over 1,000 Americans killed moving fuel -- moving liquid fuel -- in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years. I know because I was a senior logistics officer and worked for General Petraeus for 15 months over there," Anderson said.

Watch the full segment on HuffPost Live.

TransCanada is a Canadian corporation that owns pipelines in Canada and the United States.

"With more than 50 years experience, TransCanada is a leader in the responsible development and reliable operation of North American energy infrastructure. Founded in 1951 and headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, TransCanada has approximately 3,550 employees and is the general partner and a common unit holder of TC PipeLines, LP." [1]

Contents

[hide]

1 Tar Sands, 2011

2 Closing Sundance units 1 and 2

3 Iroquois Pipeline

4 Directors

5 Contact

6 Resources and articles

6.1 Related Sourcewatch articles

6.2 References

Tar Sands, 2011

In 2011, TransCanada requested permission to build a 1,661 mile pipeline from Canada's tar sands oil fields to U.S. refiners in Texas. The so-called Keystone XL Pipeline would import as much as 510,000 barrels per day. Koch Industries is responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil tar sands crude that is imported into the United States, and are one of the biggest refiners of Alberta oil sands crude oil. [2] Some speculated that Koch Industries would benefit significantly from the project. [3]

The proposed pipeline is highly controversial due to the anticipated environmental harm the project would have and groups in opposition to the pipeline have held large protests to prevent its construction.[4]

Closing Sundance units 1 and 2

In February 2011, TransAlta said it will be closing operations at two of the Sundance coal-fired units because repairs would be too costly. The Sundance 1 and 2 units have been down since December 2010. The units comprise 560 MW of the 2,126 MW Sundance power plant, which operates as a baseload facility for the Alberta electricity system.[5]

The closing of the units could cost consumers more than $200 million in unrealized refunds through Alberta’s Balancing Pool. The agency that oversees power purchase agreements would have to pay that amount to TransAlta as net book value of the plants and to TransCanada as partial payment on the remainder of its contract. TransCanada holds the Sundance units' power purchase agreement and expects reimbursement.[5]

Iroquois Pipeline

TransCanada held the largest ownership share of the Iroquois Gas Transmission System, a natural gas pipeline that brings gas from eastern Canada to the New York City area. Iroquois was constructed over substantial environmental opposition. The construction methods did not comply with Iroquois' proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As a result a number of supervisors, as well as Iroquois' President were convicted of crimes.[6][7][8]

Directors

Accessed September 2009: [9]

S. Barry Jackson - Chair

Harold N. Kvisle - President and CEO

Kevin E. Benson

Derek H. Burney

Wendy K. Dobson

E. Linn Draper

Paule Gauthier

Kerry L. Hawkins

Paul L. Joskow

John A. MacNaughton

David P. O'Brien

W. Thomas Stephens

D. Michael G. Stewart

Contact

Web: http://www.transcanada.com

Resources and articles