So we are allowing a foreign oil company to run a pipeline across our state so they can sell that oil to other foreigners.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense;

The facts:

  • Keystone XL is an export pipeline. The Port Arthur, Texas, refiners at the end of its route are focused on expanding exports to Europe, and Latin America. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.
  • Valero, the key customer for crude oil from Keystone XL, has explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. Because Valero’s Port Arthur refinery is in a Foreign Trade Zone, the company can carry out its strategy tax-free.
  • In a shrinking U.S. market, Keystone XL is not needed. Since the project was announced, the oil industry acknowledges that higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth mean declining U.S. oil demand, even as domestic production is booming. Oil from Keystone XL will therefore displace American crude from new, “unconventional” domestic fields in Texas or North Dakota.

And let’s add insult to injury by underfunding education in SD so we can give this foreign company tax breaks.



#1 dick on 09.01.11 at 7:41 pm

Foreign?, a couple posts ago Pathlos was excited because we would be getting oil from Canada, not depending on foreign oil. We just figured out now since we aren’t getting oil from them that they truly are foreign? The saddest part is not foreign North Dakota who they are also going through is rich with oil we for some reason won’t tap. Not a huge Palin fan, but “drill, baby drill”

#2 l3wis on 09.01.11 at 8:27 pm

Aren’t politics fantastic!

#3 rufusx on 09.01.11 at 9:24 pm

A major reason the Canadian pipeline wants to go through the US is Canadians don’t want it going through Canada tot heir East or West coats across all their pristine forests and Mountains. We are becoming Canada’s Mexico.

#4 l3wis on 09.01.11 at 9:31 pm

I had my suspicions, and you verified them. Makes you wonder what are the benefits to Americans? None.

#5 DDC on 09.01.11 at 11:02 pm

The reason that they don’t go west through Canada is because of those pesky little Rocky Mountains. The reason they don’t go east through Canada is because it would be impossible to build the pipeline. The construction season is very short, there is an almost uncountable number of lakes to deal with, it would be a much longer route, the ports on the east side of Canada aren’t very impressive (and are a long ways away from the Panama Canal), not enough refinery capacity in Canada and there are no roads in most of Canada for building and maintaining the pipeline. Canada is pretty friendly to oil production and transport, I’m sure they would love to go through Canada if it made any sense at all.

#6 l3wis on 09.02.11 at 5:54 am

Why? When dumbfucks like South Dakota lawmakers are giving them tax incentives to rail a pipeline thru our state.

#7 DDC on 09.02.11 at 1:03 pm

Yeah, I’m sure they’re going through the US simply because SD will give them $38 mil in tax breaks on the pipeline. I hear that saving 0.5% is the most important thing a company thinks of when figuring a $7 billion project.

Sounds like the same narrow reasoning that the state uses for handing out their tax exemptions.

#8 Randall on 09.02.11 at 8:38 pm

Who profits?
Among the SD lawmakers that allowed this travesty – who profits?

#9 l3wis on 09.02.11 at 9:00 pm

Yeah, DDC, if that tax break isn’t a big deal, why won’t they give it back to us?

#10 DDC on 09.02.11 at 11:19 pm

If someone gave you a hundred dollar bill for your birthday would you refuse it or feel bad about it later and return it? I wouldn’t.

Pretty much the same thing. Transcanada isn’t stupid. If someone wants to give them free money, they’re going to take it. That is why they exist, to make money providing a product. It isn’t their fault that the state of SD wants to give them free money.

#11 DDC on 09.02.11 at 11:24 pm

But, I can guarantee you that South Dakota tax breaks aren’t why they chose the route that they did. Wasn’t that pretty much the only thing the Democrats talked about last fall in SD? That the tax breaks weren’t needed because they were coming through anyways? I’m not sure why the XL line would be any different.

#12 l3wis on 09.03.11 at 9:23 pm

Well duh. But I find it a little hard to believe that XL didn’t do a bit of lobbying when it came to the tax break.

#13 ColoradoForeignTrade on 09.04.11 at 1:20 pm

Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) aren’t the problem with the Yellowstone XL project. Cars, planes and wind turbines are built inside the U.S. because of this important federal benefits program. Valero has had an FTZ in Port Aurthur for decades. They refine crude from many sources around the world. Don’t focus on FTZs. Focus on the environment.

#14 DDC on 09.04.11 at 4:35 pm

Yeah, I’m sure they did. I could ask you to give me you next paycheck, but that doesn’t mean you have to give it to me.

#15 l3wis on 09.04.11 at 7:17 pm

That’s funny, because I don’t get paychecks, I get blank stubs, because my wages go straight to Uncle Sam. So If you want it, you can have it.