Press "Enter" to skip to content

New Report Confirms Keystone XL Boosts Exports to China and Midwest Gasoline Price

Last updated on 2014.08.11

Consumer Watchdog posts a new report confirming pretty much everything I've told you about the Keystone XL pipeline: it will send North American tar sands oil overseas, raise our oil prices, and boost Big Oil profits at our expense.

Long-time Los Angeles Times journalist Judy Dugan and independent petroleum analyst Tim Hamilton authored the report for Consumer Watchdog. They confirm that Keystone XL's business case revolves around putting Canada's currently landlocked oil on the international market—i.e., selling it to China, not the United States. Alberta energy minister Ken Hughes, whose province depends on growing oil royalties, says exporting that tar sands oil is in his province's interest:

If TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast were approved, that would be “an important step” to connect Alberta to international markets.... said Ken Hughes, Alberta’s energy minister. “[I]t is a strategic imperative, it is in Alberta’s interest, in Canada’s interest, that we get access to tidewater... to diversify away from the single continental market and be part of the global market” [J. Van Loon, quoted in Judy Dugan and Tim Hamilton, "Keystone XL: Oil Industry Cash Machine," Consumer Watchdog, 2013.07.16, p. 7].

Dugan and Hamilton note that tar sands oil has consistently sold for $30 less per barrel, due to the lack of access to the export market. Build Keystone XL, let the Gulf refineries take that 900,000-barrel-per-day slurp of Alberta's milkshake, and that price discount shrinks, meaning the Koch Brothers, Exxon, Shell, and the Chinese, Korean, and Russian tar sands investors make a whole lot more money.

Dugan and Hamilton also conclude that Keystone XL is the only immediately viable way for the Kochs et al. to realize that windfall. The report says provincial opposition to a tar sands pipeline running west through the Rockies and British Columbia to the Pacific is too strong for Big Oil to prevail, at least in the near term. Block Keystone XL, and you keep the tar sands oil cheap on on the U.S. market for some time.

Build Keystone XL, and the tar sands profits come at America's and especially the Midwest's expense. Reducing our regional oil supply naturally raises our prices, wiping out the economic benefits TransCanada promises us from building Keystone XL:

In the Midwest alone, each year of only a 20-cent-a-gallon increase could rip $3 billion to $4 billion from more productive spending. The up to $4 billion in Midwest economic loss is close to the amount that TransCanada would spend on the pipeline project, canceling a major claim of U.S. economic benefit. While the company says it will spend $7 billion, some of that will be spent in Canada and some has already been spent, so it is has no future economic effect [Dugan and Hamilton, 2013].

Keystone XL offers South Dakota and the United States little to gain and much to lose. Let's not play patsies to Big Oil. Say no to Keystone XL.

12 Comments

  1. John 2013.07.16

    Thanks, IP; Jackley and the rest of the republican jackals think it's fine to ship North America's energy to China and to raise our energy prices.

  2. Jerry 2013.07.16

    Marty will get to ride a big airplane to do this. Oh how he loves that. Gets to try to ride up front and everything. Marty is a fraud, plain and simple and only cares about the dough, nothing about our state other than the exploitation of it to the highest raper.

  3. Les 2013.07.16

    Now why would our governor veto Sen Maher's bill to put .02 per barrel with a cap for a clean up when the pipe breaks in SD? And why would our legis not put that law on the books without his signature? XL is coming whether you want it or not, it is bought and paid for in too many ways. Great for Baker and the on ramp there with Continental I believe.

  4. interested party 2013.07.17

    Curious why you frequent Madville, Les: you enjoy being a target?

  5. bret clanton 2013.07.17

    Sen. Maher's bill never made it to the governor's desk.....

  6. Les 2013.07.17

    Yes Bret, you are exactly right. Almost. That's what I get for posting when I should be sleeping.
    .
    Same gang of 11 that upheld his veto's.

  7. Les 2013.07.17

    Who are you implying I am a target for Larry?

  8. interested party 2013.07.17

    "I am a target for whom, Larry?"

  9. Les 2013.07.17

    Ya Lar, Who are you implying I am a target for?

  10. Les 2013.07.17

    Looks like you're on your own over there Bret. I guess it's just fun to be on the train, throwin suckers and all. That'd have been a tough one for me. Represent our landowners or my ND oil interests...hmmm. I wonder who's getting represented when they don't have the ND oil interests to worry about?

Comments are closed.