BREAKING: TransCanada asks for KXL application "suspension" & Why Keystone XL Is Dead & BREAKING: Keystone XL pipeline rejected! & President Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline Plan 2,4&6NOV15

WE DID!!!!
ONCE transcanada asked for a delay on approval for their proposed keystone xl pipeline things moved very fast considering decisions had to be made in D.C. Thankfully, Pres Obama made the right choice. To grant a delay on the decision would have wiped out any credibility the American delegation to the Paris Climate Summit. While Pres Obama said he didn't like the way the whole debate over keystone xl  became so politicized by both those for and against the proposed pipeline, his decision to deny the application for keystone xl is nothing but political. He has not been the champion of the environment he claimed he would be when campaigning for the presidency. He can not go to Paris empty handed and expect to be taken seriously. So he stopped the whole transcanada project through the U.S. One of the best direct results of his decision? shell oil canceled their new tar sands operations in Alberta. Be assured, this issue is not over, and if a republican wins the presidency in 2016 transcanada may be able to reapply to the state department and  would probably get fast track approval. Here's a bit of a time line of how this played out this week from +350.org , Scientific American and +NPR 
FROM 360.org 2NOV15

BREAKING: TransCanada asks for KXL application "suspension"

Bill McKibben and 350.org's Keystone XL Team <350@350.org>

Well, somewhat astonishing news tonight. Transcanada—the company that was so sure it would be building the Keystone Pipeline that it mowed the 1700 mile route and stockpiled the necessary pipe across the Midwest—tonight said it wanted to suspend its application.
This is—make no mistake—a massive victory for people power. You emailed, you phoned, you marched, and in record numbers you went to jail. That’s what it took to persuade the arrogant oil industry they simply couldn’t prevail in their plan to pump the world’s filthiest oil across the heart of the continent.
They’re clearly pursuing a gambit—knowing they’ve lost, they’re trying to ask for some extra innings from the umpire, on the theory that they’ll re-submit a new route for the pipeline after the next election. President Obama shouldn’t give it to them. He should finally break his silence on Keystone and say the most important thing: it fails the climate test that he laid out. It will help cook the planet. It’s a bad idea no matter what route it takes, because it’s a fuse to one of the planet’s nastiest carbon bombs.
If President Obama rejects this pipeline once and for all, he’ll go to Paris with boosted credibility—the world leader who was willing to shut down a big project on climate grounds. Truthfully, though, we know it was a movement that shut it down: First Nations and Indigenous Peoples, climate scientists, farmers and ranchers, ministers and rabbis, young people and old people.
Tell President Obama not to let TransCanada play for time. It’s time to reject this pipeline once and for all.
They told us it was a done deal. We are an inch away from undoing it completely. And in the process, we’ve helped build a movement ready to take down hundreds of other fossil fuel projects and keep fossil fuels where they belong—underground.
Thank you all for your relentlessness. Let's not stop now.
Onward,
Bill, Sara, Jason, Rae, Jamie, Deirdre and the rest of 350.org's KXL team

---

350.org is building a global climate movement. Become a sustaining donor to keep this movement strong and growing.

Why Keystone XL Is Dead

Once seeking a fast approval, TransCanada wants to pause the pipeline’s review

By David Biello | November 4, 2015

PIPELINE PROBLEMS: The Keystone XL pipeline has faced challenges based on its proposed route through Nebraska.

© David Biello

Tough times have come to Alberta's tar sands. The oil-rich region enjoyed a long boom in the early 21st century. A truck driver could make $100,000 per year hauling bitumen-rich sand. Man camps sprang up in the boreal forest to house workers from as far away as Venezuela and Angola. Strips of cleared land crisscrossed the seemingly endless woods so that geologists could precisely tell where to mine for oil sands or flood the depths with steam to melt the bitumen in place. Clouds of steam and pyramids of sulfur rose at the vast industrial machines to turn bitumen into oil.
But with oil hovering around $50 per barrel, companies working the oil sands could barely make existing projects worthwhile, let alone start new ones. For example, oil giant Shell not only withdrew from its Arctic oil ambitions but also shelved plans for more oil sands action at Pierre River and Carmon Creek, eating billions of dollars in investment.
What did Shell blame for its retrenchment? The lack of infrastructure to move oil from the tar sands into the global oil market.
That problem just got worse. The builder of the 830,000 barrel-per-day Keystone XL Pipeline—enough alone to increase oil sands production by more than 40 percent—wants a time out. TransCanada has asked the U.S. State Department to pause its review (pdf) of the pipeline that crosses an international border for roughly a year while the state of Nebraska deliberates about changes in the proposed route, also, perhaps, amid concerns that the Obama administration might reject the pipeline outright.
In fact, with hindsight, if TransCanada had simply followed this new route from the beginning in September of 2008, the $8 billion, nearly 2,000 kilometer-long pipeline would likely be up and running today. The new route follows existing easements rather than cutting a new swath through private properties and seizing land. Instead of a quiet approval, there have been seven years of delay, legal wrangling and, most importantly, activism.

A quiet approval is no longer possible. Activists have helped to hamper the expansion of pipelines like KXL while also organizing against the railcars, tanker trucks and other conveyances that transport the oil instead. Canada's attention has turned to other pipeline projects to transport oil from the tar sands either west to British Columbia, a project known as Northern Gateway or east to the existing infrastructure in Ontario and Quebec, dubbed Energy East. Both do not cross any international borders.
TransCanada could also be holding out for a more friendly U.S. administration, one easier on the industrial infrastructure that supports the fossil-fuel economy and more favorable toward Canada's tar sands. The company could also be hoping for more expensive oil to revive the good times in Alberta's tar patch. But the momentum of this fossil-fuel juggernaut is hard to stop and oil production from the tar sands will continue to increase even as the companies producing it may end up suffering a loss on that low-price oil. The excess oil will help keep global prices low.
Still, Keystone XL is not dead, merely sleeping. While the pipeline proposal slumbers, circumstances will continue to change, however. Already, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate for president, has explicitly rejected the pipeline. While Republican contenders Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have indicated they would approve the pipeline as soon as possible. And it's possible the current occupant of the White House could reject the pipeline before leaving in 2017.
Regardless of what happens at the national level, Nebraska and the issue of state's rights still mean the pipeline might not go through. After all, even if the federal government approves the border-crossing, that does not obligate the Cornhusker State to approve the pipeline's path through its territory. And if the world decides to get serious about climate change, tar sands—among the world’s most polluting forms of oil—may not find favor anywhere.

More on this Topic

• 

  Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Exacerbates Climate Change

• 

  Oil Sands May Irrevocably Tar the Climate

• 

  Pay Dirt: How to Turn Tar Sands into Oil [Slide Show]

FROM 360.org 6NOV15

BREAKING: Keystone XL pipeline rejected!

Bill McKibben and 350.org's Keystone XL Team <350@350.org>

 Friends,
We just made history together. 4 years to the day after we surrounded the White House, President Obama has rejected the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline!
This is huge.
A head of state has never rejected a major fossil fuel project because of its climate impacts before. The President's decision sets the standard for what climate action looks like: standing up to the fossil fuel industry, and keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
Make no mistake: this victory belongs to us, the movement. President Obama's courage today is a reflection of the courage shown by thousands of people who have sat in, marched, organized, (and opened a lot of emails) across North America against this pipeline.
This fight started with First Nations in Canada where the tar sands are extracted, and spread to farmers, ranchers and tribal nations along the pipeline route. Since then people from all walks of life have joined hands against Keystone, and the 830,000 barrels per day of destructive tar sands oil it would have carried through the country to be burned.
Together, we have shown what it takes to win: a determined, principled, unrelenting grassroots movement that takes to the streets whenever necessary, and isn't afraid to put our bodies on the line.
Politicians in Washington DC didn’t make this happen. Our movement did. We want to thank everyone who has been a part of this campaign -- from calling Congress to getting arrested on the White House fence.
You can join us in appreciating everyone who made this day possible by co-signing our thank you card to the movement -- we’ll deliver personalized versions of the card with your messages to everyone who has led or attended an action against Keystone XL since 2011. Click here to sign the thank you card to the #NoKXL Movement.
Powered by our organizing, the tide is turning against the fossil fuel industry -- every major new project they propose is being met by organized opposition on the ground, and politicians are lining up to stand behind our movement and say that we must keep the vast majority of fossil fuels underground.
Resistance is growing because the fossil fuel industry is more reckless than ever: from Texas where the Southern leg of Keystone XL pumps toxic tar sands, to Alberta where Big Oil foolishly plans to expand its mines, to California where they want to frack during a historic drought, to the enormous coal pits of Appalachia and Australia.
We have more tools than ever to work with. A strong fossil fuel resistance is already taking shape across the globe. Since we began fighting Keystone XL, the movement for divestment from fossil fuels has grown into a global powerhouse able to move tens of billions of dollars and undercut the social license of the fossil fuel industry. Fracking bans have stopped drilling in towns, counties and now whole states across the country. Communities are seizing their energy futures by demanding 100% renewable power in record numbers.
And when world leaders meet in Paris later this year, they’ll do so knowing what our movement can do, and what climate action really looks like: keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
Today we can approach all of our work with new eyes. We know that we can fight, and we can win.
This isn't just a victory for the climate movement -- it's a victory for everyone who believes in the power of organized people, from the streets of Missouri, to the border crossings of Arizona, to the hills of South Dakota and Nebraska.
Together, we're on the path to real, substantive change.
With joy, and immense gratitude,
The 350.org Keystone XL pipeline fighting team:
Bill, Cam, Clayton, David, Deirdre, Duncan, Jamie, Jason, Joshua, Linda, Matt, May, Phil, Rae and Sara

---

350.org is building a global climate movement. Become a sustaining donor to keep this movement strong and growing.

President Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline Plan

November 06, 201511:39 AM ET

Bill Chappell

President Obama, flanked by Secretary of State John Kerry (right) and Vice President Joe Biden, announced the Keystone XL pipeline decision Friday in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Ending a process that has lingered for much of his time in the Oval Office, President Obama announced Friday that the U.S. has rejected TransCanada's application for a permit to complete the Keystone XL pipeline.
The president said that "after extensive public outreach" and consultations, the State Department determined that the proposal "would not serve the national interests of the United States." He added, "I agree with that decision."

YouTube

Back in February, Obama vetoed congressional legislation that approved the project. The Senate failed to override that veto in March. The first application for approval of TransCanada's plan was filed in September of 2008.
After the formal rejection was announced, TransCanada issued a statement saying it's reviewing the U.S. administration's reasons for denying the permit, and that it might reapply.
We've updated this post with today's news.
Saying he's "disappointed" with the U.S. decision, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau adds, "The Canada-U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project, and I look forward to a fresh start with President Obama to strengthen our remarkable ties in a spirit of friendship and cooperation."
Trudeau, who won his leadership post last month, added that his government "will work hand-in-hand with provinces, territories and like-minded countries to combat climate change, adapt to its impacts and create the clean jobs of tomorrow."

Proposed And Existing TransCanada Pipelines

Source: TransCanada
Credit: Stephanie d'Otreppe and Alyson Hurt / NPR

Obama made the announcement in the White House's Roosevelt Room, alongside Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, whose agency has been conducting a review of the project for more than seven years. The statement came shortly after Obama and Kerry met privately Friday morning.
In rejecting the proposal, Obama said the Keystone debate has played an "overinflated role in our political discourse" — something for which he blamed both parties.
The president also disagreed with what he described as critics' claims that the completed pipeline would be "the express lane to climate disaster."
Discounting Keystone supporters' claims that the pipeline would boost the U.S. economy, Obama later added, "Shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America's energy security."
Obama also said that American industries have moved quickly to adopt renewable energy.
"Today, the United States of America is leading on climate change," he said, citing gains in efficiency and environmental protections.
"Ultimately, if we're going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we're going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky," Obama said.
TransCanada says that despite the permit rejection, the company is reviewing its options — including the possibility that it will file a new application for a cross-border pipeline.
"TransCanada and its shippers remain absolutely committed to building this important energy infrastructure project," said Russ Girling, the company's president and CEO.
Reacting to the news, Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh called Obama's rejection of the permit "a courageous leap forward in the climate fight."
She added that the pipeline extension "would have locked in, for a generation or more, massive development of among the dirtiest fuels on the planet — posing a serious threat to our air, land, water and climate."
Bill McKibben, co-founder of the group 350.org, said the move gives Obama "new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight."
McKibben added: "We're still awfully sad about Keystone south and are well aware that the next president could undo all this, but this is a day of celebration."
Speaking out against the decision, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard said, "It's ironic that the administration would strike a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market while refusing to give our closest ally, Canada, access to U.S. refineries."
Calling the permit denial "politics at its worst," Gerard added, "the White House has placed political calculations above sound science. Seven years of review have determined the project is safe and environmentally sound, yet the administration has turned its back on Canada with this decision, and on U.S. energy security as well."
The official rejection, which had been rumored for days, comes after TransCanada on Tuesday asked the State Department to suspend its review of its permit application, citing ongoing debate over its route in Nebraska. Plans for the pipeline had called for it to stretch from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf of Mexico. Hundreds of miles of the projected route have already been completed.
As NPR's Jeff Brady reported this week, the Keystone project became a target for activists and others who want new energy policies to focus on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
Jeff added, "A big reason environmentalists don't like the Keystone XL is because of the oil it would transport. Much of it would come from Alberta's oil sands, which have to be mined. Then the gunky mixture has to be processed before it's usable. That emits more pollution than traditional methods of oil production."

ALBERTA SABLES BITUMINEUX HUILE, CANADA, frères Koch, PROJET DE LOI C-23 FAIR LOI ÉLECTORALE, LA CORRUPTION ET DÉMOCRATIE 21MAR14

Les frères Koch sont déterminés à transférer l'Amérique à une ploutocratie Tiers-Monde, ils dépensent des dizaines de millions de dollars par le biais de leur groupe avant + / afp + Américains pour la prospérité d'acheter les élections de 2014 au Congrès afin qu'ils puissent tourner le contrôle du Congrès sur leur gop / alliés thé-bagger. Leader de la majorité du Sénat + Sen Harry Reid reconnaît la menace que les frères + koch sombres contributions politiques monétaires actuelles de la démocratie américaine et à juste titre, les ont décrits comme anti-américain.
C'est sans surprise les frères Koch sont impliqués dans les sables bitumineux champs pétrolifères de l'Alberta. Ils sont mauvais et ne donnent rien à foutre de qui ou de quoi ils nuisent aussi longtemps que leur investissement rend plus riche. Ils profitent de leur exploitation des sables bitumineux, peu importe ce que la décision sur le pipeline Keystone XL est.
Mais il est un autre aspect de la présence de son frère koch au Canada qui est plus inquiétant que leur exploitation des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta. Il ya un projet de loi avant le + Parlement du Canada (projet de loi C-23) de la Loi des élections justes (voir Ne porte pas atteinte Élections Canada et La vraie raison Cons Vous voulez Museau élections http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/dont-undermine-elections-canada-real.html  ) qui auraient pu être prises de toute frères Koch financés / thé-bagger républicain contrôlée législature de l'État aux États-Unis C'est un assaut complet soufflé sur les libertés civiles et des droits de vote de tous les Canadiens, écrite pour accroître l'influence et le contrôle des riches et des entreprises toires Canadiens. du gouvernement harper stephen et + ont probablement accepté de l'argent noir de l'Alberta pétrole des sables bitumineux et d'autres intérêts de la société dans la conviction de leur pouvoir et de contrôle du Canada seront leur. Ce sera, jusqu'à ce que ceux qui, comme les frères Koch entre eux ont utilisé pour atteindre leurs objectifs. Espérons que la population canadienne et de l'opposition politique se reconnaissent la menace projet de loi C-23 et les frères Koch sont à leur nation et vaincre tous les deux. douter de la puissance corruptrice des frères Koch? Considérez le fait que le Washington Post avait de publier une explication, une justification pour cet article le lendemain il a été publié (voir ci-dessous). Même Pres Richard Nixon n'avait pas ce genre de pouvoir. Il ya beaucoup d'informations sur ce blog sur le mal de + david koch et + charles koch, il suffit de faire un seach pour koch ...

• Par Steven Mufson et Juliette Eilperin

• 20 mars à 11h59

David Koch, vice-président exécutif de Koch Industries (AP Photo / Mark Lennihan)

Vous pourriez vous attendre le propriétaire du bail plus grand dans les sables bitumineux du Canada, ou les sables bitumineux, l'un des géants mondiaux du pétrole, comme Exxon Mobil ou Royal Dutch Shell. Mais ce n'est pas le cas. Le plus grand détenteur de bail dans le nord des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta est une filiale de Koch Industries, la pierre angulaire privée de la fortune de conservateurs frères Koch Charles et David.
, la filiale de Koch Industries détient des concessions sur 1,1 million d'acres - une superficie presque la taille du Delaware - dans la région des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta, au Canada, selon un groupe d'activistes qui a étudié les dossiers provinciaux de l'Alberta. Le Post a confirmé les conclusions du groupe avec l'Alberta Energy, le ministère de l'énergie du gouvernement provincial. Par ailleurs, des sources proches concessions de sables bitumineux de l'industrie a déclaré des avoirs de location de Koch pourraient être plus près deux millions d'acres. Les entreprises les prochaines plus grandes positions de la superficie nette dans les sables bitumineux baux sont Conoco Phillips et Shell, à la fois proche derrière. Qu'est-ce que Koch Industries là? La société n'a pas voulu commenter sur ses avoirs ou stratégie, mais il semble être un investissement à long terme qui pourraient produire des dizaines de milliers de barils de marque épaisse de pétrole brut de la région au cours des trois prochaines années et peut-être des centaines de milliers de barils quelques années après. La conclusion de la superficie Koch est susceptible d'enflammer le débat déjà controversé sur le pipeline Keystone XL et stimuler les militants et les écologistes qui cherchent à ralentir ou arrêter l'expansion prévue de la production de la partie nord des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta, de sables bitumineux. Les groupes environnementaux ont déjà fait opposition au pipeline leur cause ce printemps et la majorité au Sénat, Harry Reid, a appelé les frères Koch, Charles et David "anti-américain" et "milliardaires ombre." Le lien entre Koch et Keystone XL est, cependant, indirect au mieux. La production de pétrole de Koch dans le nord de l'Alberta est «négligeable», selon des sources de l'industrie et des publications trimestrielles du gouvernement provincial. De plus, Koch n'a pas réservé un espace dans le pipeline Keystone XL, un processus qui prend généralement lieu avant un pipeline est construit. Le pipeline également ne fonctionne pas n'importe où près des installations de raffinage de Koch. Et TransCanada, propriétaire des routes Keystone, dit Koch ne devrait pas être l'un des clients du pipeline. Pourtant, le groupe militant qui est connaître les chiffres concernant les exploitations de Koch dans les sables bitumineux - le Forum international sur la mondialisation - fait valoir que Koch bénéficieront indirectement. L'IFG soutient que le projet de pipeline Keystone XL créera la concurrence entre le rail et d'autres pipelines et des coûts de transport plus faibles pour tous les producteurs de sables bitumineux, en renforçant les marges de profit et de faire des réserves supplémentaires économiquement viable. "l'intention de l'IFG est de démontrer le lien Koch-Keystone," dit Victor Menotti de l'IFG. Ce nouveau rapport est le deuxième IFG a publié dans les six mois, Koch Industries et les sables bitumineux. Dernière Octobre, IFG dit que Koch possédait deux millions d'acres dans les sables bitumineux, et maintenant il dit que le vrai chiffre - sur la base minérale bail du gouvernement provincial de l'Alberta enregistre qui la relie à - est plus petit mais toujours impressionnant, leader de l'industrie de 1,1 million acres. Koch n'est pas généralement connu comme un acteur majeur dans les sables bitumineux où les principaux acteurs ont été les goûts de Royal Dutch Shell, Conoco Phillips, Suncor, Exxon Mobil et Chevron. Les entreprises chinoises ont une participation d'environ 5 pour cent de la production actuelle, selon un rapport publié par IHS CERA. Suzanne Bayley, un professeur de sciences biologiques à l'Université de l'Alberta qui étudie les sables bitumineux, dit-elle été surpris d'apprendre des avoirs des de Koch, les qualifiant de «significatif» étant donné que la superficie louée totale de la région s'élève à 35 millions d'acres. Koch Industries ne dirais pas combien d'acres de concessions de sables bitumineux qu'elle détient en Alberta et n'a pas voulu commenter sur le rapport IFG. The Post a pris un coup d'oeil qui est qui et qui est quoi derrière une question qui est sûr d'être rejoué à plusieurs reprises dans cette année électorale. Qui est IFG? Le groupe se décrit comme un groupe de réflexion qui a commencé en opposition au libre échange nord américain Association et l'Organisation mondiale du commerce, dont il dit "étaient considérés comme la mondialisation du pouvoir des entreprises et un modèle économique fondamentalement insoutenable." Au cours des 15 années écoulées depuis la grande bagarre de l'OMC à Seattle, l'IFG a prises sur les questions relatives à l'environnement, les populations autochtones, et le financement du climat. Il dit qu'il donne «voix aux critiques des mouvements sociaux locaux du système économique et offre des visions alternatives." Le matériau sur Koch et ses concessions de sables bitumineux a été fourni à La Poste par Victor Menotti, qui a été arrêté lors des manifestations anti-OMC à Seattle en Novembre 1999. Mais il dit que l'IFG se concentre sur la recherche et l'éducation, pas d'action directe. http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Menotti.pdf Le groupe reçoit des fonds de diverses fondations à but non lucratif, dont la Fondation Tides, Parc Fondation, Fondation Janelia, Fondation de la famille Tarbell, Fondation Cloud Mountain, Fondation de la famille Klein, Susie Fondation Tompkins Buell, Fondation Buckley, et la Fondation européenne pour le climat. Quel est IFG dire? Il est dit que Koch est peut-être le plus grand investisseur en concessions de sables bitumineux en Alberta . Son rapport contient des liens vers 299 documents de location, qui indiquent que Koch a acheté les baux en Alberta depuis plusieurs années, dans certains cas, il ya aussi longtemps que 2002. Le gouvernement Provinicial Alberta Energy a déclaré jeudi en réponse à une demande que «nous confirmons que Koch Sables bitumineux ULC fonctionnement est le représentant désigné de 298 Couronne de l'Alberta Oil Sands baux couvrant environ 455 000 hectares (1,1 millions d'acres). "la division foncière du ministère a renoncé à son tarif habituel pour de telles informations disant qu'il était dans l'intérêt public pour répondre à de telles demandes. IFG dit que Koch tirer d'énormes avantages - quoique indirectes - de l'oléoduc Keystone XL. Le raisonnement? Si meilleurs pipeline et ferroviaires font l'entreprise de transport de l'huile plus efficace et plus compétitif, le prix de l'expédition brut sera moins cher pour tous les producteurs de pétrole de la région. Il serait restreindre les réductions sur le pétrole brut, et ferait plus de zones économiquement viable. "Le plus grand moyen Koch pourrait bénéficier de Keystone est par le jeu de la conduite comme la« clef de voûte »de la stratégie de l'industrie pétrolière pour augmenter la 'livraison' capacité pour les producteurs de Canada brut, lequel devient de plus l'huile de marchés plus lucratifs, et mettre fin aux rabais importants sur le pétrole brut canadien engorgement actuellement les marchés ", a déclaré Menotti de l'IFG. Qu'est-ce que l'IFG dire en Octobre? Dans son précédent rapport , "Carbon bombe» Les milliardaires », le IFG a déclaré que «en raison du pipeline Keystone XL, les Kochs pourrait faire une somme supplémentaire de 100 milliards de dollars en bénéfices de leurs activités de production seulement." Le groupe, en utilisant des estimations approximatives, assumé à 15 dollars le baril bénéfice supplémentaire de six milliards de barils de réserves qui serait devenir économiquement récupérables. L'estimation IFG est ouvert au débat. Beaucoup de baux détenus par Koch ont été achetés avant le pipeline Keystone XL a même été proposé et étaient probablement économiquement viable sans elle, et à un prix du pétrole beaucoup plus faible à l'époque. En outre, le premier rapport de l'IFG utilise les estimations de la superficie presque deux fois plus grandes que les chiffres de la superficie mise à jour. Mais Menotti dit que même le plus petit chiffre, "bien qu'il ne soit pas aussi bien que la superficie des rapports estimé qu'ils pourraient avoir, il est encore plus d'un million d'acres et d'une valeur de plusieurs dizaines de milliards de dollars." Une autre hypothèse clé à la base de l'argument IFG est que si Keystone XL n'est pas construit alors autre moyen de transport ne sera pas en mesure de le remplacer. C'est peut-être vrai, mais il est différent des conclusions de la récente étude d'impact environnemental du département d'Etat, qui dit que l'expansion du chemin de fer ou d'autres pipelines permettraient le développement des sables bitumineux de poursuivre sans entrave. Université de professeur Alberta Business School Andrew Leach a écrit dans un e- courriel que "une certaine croissance des sables bitumineux va se produire avec ou sans nouveaux pipelines», mais «la question est de savoir combien." "Le joker est le coût de transport ferroviaire à l'échelle et les prix qui seraient pratiqués pour l'expédition par chemin de fer si elle est devenue clair que les pipelines ne pouvaient pas être construits ", écrit-il, ajoutant que transport ferroviaire est écriture pas cher maintenant parce que ces entreprises tentent de rivaliser avec les pipelines. l'heure actuelle, il en coûte au moins un couple de dollars de plus par baril pour le transport de pétrole par chemin de fer, selon le rapport du Département d'État, mais qui pourrait augmenter si la construction de pipelines supplémentaires étaient en danger, ou si l'un des États-Unis ou le gouvernement canadien imposées plus réglementations sur rail à la suite d'accidents récents. Quoi d'autre est en train de faire Koch en Alberta maintenant? Koch n'a pas été ralenti en Alberta. Il a pris une part active dans le développement de ses propriétés, et a fait des demandes de permis pour une nouvelle production. Dans une offre 2012 de vendre une partie de ses avoirs en location, Koch a déclaré qu'il avait foré plus de 100 puits et fait des travaux sismiques pour délimiter ses ressources. Koch a un intérêt terminal pétrolier opération est d'Edmonton à Hardisty, le point de départ pour Keystone XL. Mais d'autres pipelines commencent également à Hardisty, qui a été un terminal pétrolier majeur pour la région depuis un certain temps. Flint Hills filiale de Koch a une raffinerie à Pine Bend, dans le Minnesota qui a longtemps traité de gros volumes de bitume dilué des sables bitumineux canadiens. Mais l'Association canadienne des producteurs pétroliers dit que Koch ne dispose d'un pipeline de quitter le Canada, mais plutôt Koch prend sables bitumineux brut hors du système de pipeline d'Enbridge aux États-Unis et le transporte à travers leur propre pipeline Minnesota à la raffinerie de Flint Hills, l'ACPP a dit. Menotti dit que Koch a construit une ou plusieurs usines de valorisation, les plantes qui affinent partiellement le bitume des sables bitumineux afin qu'il puisse circuler plus facilement dans les pipelines. Où est la superficie de Koch et comment s'inscrit dans le développement dans le nord de l'Alberta ne? plupart des baux de Koch semblent être dans la région de Peace River, une bonne manière à l'ouest des principaux développements actuels dans le domaine de la rivière Athabasca. Les dépôts de Peace River sont les plus petits (il ya une autre zone appelée Cold Lake). Pourtant, il ya beaucoup de pétrole pour y avoir. L'région de Peace River sera exploitée par injection de vapeur et non les grandes mines à ciel ouvert qui constituent la moitié de la mise au point de l'Athabasca. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire? Il ne sera pas aussi mauvais. Mais il est encore très énergivore si le développement implique plus d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre que le pétrole conventionnel. C'est ce premier galvanisé l'opposition des groupes environnementaux des États-Unis. Il existe aussi une incertitude quant à savoir si contaminés fuites de vapeur et d'eau dans les aquifères souterrains ou cours d'eau avoisinants. plupart des baux détenus par les frères Koch utiliser "in situ" l'extraction de pétrole, Bayley dit, qui consiste à injecter un mélange de produits chimiques et l'eau chaude pour en extraire le bitume. Ce type de développement peut être dommageable, dit-elle. "Il s'agit de la fragmentation du paysage avec des routes, ainsi tampons et des pipelines», a déclaré Bayley. En Alberta, la production des sables bitumineux gère aujourd'hui environ 2 millions de barils par jour et Alberta Energy dit production pourrait augmenter à 3,8 millions de barils par jour d'ici 2022. Mais peu d'huile est encore produite. Royal Dutch Shell a le plan le plus ambitieux, pour produire jusqu'à 80 000 barils par jour dans la région de Peace River. Il a reçu l'approbation du régulateur de l'énergie de l'Alberta en Avril 2013. Première huile s'écoule vers la mi-2017. Pleine capacité de production est prévue deux ans plus tard. Koch a des plans trop. L'Association canadienne des producteurs pétroliers dit que Koch a déposé une demande en février 2013 avec l'énergie de l'Alberta Régulateur de développer une vapeur assistée (connu sous le nom SAGD in situ) projet qui aurait deux phases égales totalisant 60 000 barils par jour. En attendant l'approbation, la construction va commencer au quatrième trimestre de 2016 et la production devrait commencer deux ans plus tard. Koch a vendu superficie avant. Il a mis 347 000 hectares pour la vente en 2006 et il a mis 220 000 hectares avec 2,9 milliards de barils de estimée "ressources récupérables" pour la vente en 2012. En outre, le gouvernement provincial a ordonné Koch et d'autres entreprises à renoncer à certains baux si près du cœur de Fort McMurray qu'il entravait l'expansion de la ville à croissance rapide. une combinaison de ces pourrait avoir contribué à la révision de l'IFG de la quantité de superficie détenue par Koch.  Koch Industries site Web a cette brève description de ses activités canadiennes.

Devinez qui est le principal intervenant dans les sables bitumineux du Canada? Bien sûr, ce sont les Kochs
par Joan McCarter

attribution : REUTERSComme parfaits méchants de cinéma, les frères Koch ont leurs doigts en tout, mais en secret . Ou pas si secrètement , plus .

    Vous pourriez vous attendre le propriétaire du bail plus grand dans les sables bitumineux du Canada , ou les sables bitumineux , l'un des géants mondiaux du pétrole , comme Exxon Mobil ou Royal Dutch Shell . Mais ce n'est pas le cas . Le plus grand détenteur de bail dans le nord des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta est une filiale de Koch Industries , la pierre angulaire privée de la fortune de conservateurs frères Koch Charles et David . La filiale Koch Industries détient des concessions sur 1,1 million d'acres - une superficie presque la taille du Delaware - dans la région des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta , au Canada, selon un groupe d'activistes qui a étudié les dossiers provinciaux de l'Alberta . Le Post a confirmé les conclusions du groupe avec l'Alberta Energy , le ministère de l'énergie du gouvernement provincial . Par ailleurs, des sources proches concessions de sables bitumineux de l'industrie a déclaré des avoirs de location de Koch pourraient être plus près de deux millions de acres.The entreprise avec la prochaine plus grande collection de concessions de sables bitumineux est Conoco Phillips .Alors que les Kochs ne sont pas le principal espace bénéficiaires , ils n'ont pas réservé dans le pipeline potentiel et ne sont pas s'associe à TransCanada - ils bénéficient largement de l' infrastructure mise en place par le pipeline . C'est ce que dit le groupe militant , le Forum international sur la mondialisation , qui est la publicité des sables bitumineux de la tenue de Koch . Ils affirment que le pipeline " créer une concurrence entre le rail et d'autres pipelines et des coûts de transport plus faibles pour tous les producteurs de sables bitumineux , en renforçant les marges de profit et de faire des réserves supplémentaires économiquement viable . " Exploiter leurs vastes sables bitumineux exploitations ne serait plus facile et plus rentable - IFG dit , si Keystone XL est approved.That pourrait certainement aider à expliquer l'obsession républicaine avec l'approbation du pipeline Keystone XL , au-delà de leur amour de base pour les combustibles fossiles et de l'environnement dégradation . 

Pourquoi nous avons écrit sur les Industries Koch et ses contrats de location dans les sables bitumineux du Canada

• Par Steven Mufson et Juliette Eilperin

• 21 mars à 14h52

Roughnecks construire un rigt de forage près de Fort McMurray au Canada (Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

Nous tenons à faire quelques brèves remarques en réponse à un article paru dans Powerline concernant notre article sur les vastes bases de location des filiales de Koch Industries dans la région des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta, au Canada.
D'abord, en ce qui concerne l'orientation politique du groupe qui a introduit le présent histoire à notre attention, notre article fait ses origines claires de gauche, la nature controversée de ses affirmations antérieures, et son ordre du jour politique. Deuxièmement, quant à savoir si Koch bénéficierait de la construction de l'oléoduc Keystone XL, nous faisons clairement que bon nombre des baux de Koch pré-date à laquelle le plan de pipeline, que Koch a pas enchérir pour l'espace dans le pipeline, et que Koch ne serait pas un client . Troisièmement, si les avoirs de location de Koch sont 1,1 million d'acres, qui en ferait l'un des premier de la région, n'a d'égal que Shell (1 million d'acres nettes à travers une joint-venture Athabasca et peut-être 1,3 million d'acres nets au total), Cenovus Energy ( 1,5 million net hectares ), et peut-être Canadian Natural Resources ( 717 000 hectares __gVirt_NP_NNS_NNPS<__ sous-développés net , plus un nombre indéterminé d'acres développés). Shell a refusé de libérer l'ensemble de ses chiffres de superficie. Si les avoirs de location de Koch sont "plus près de deux millions," comme cela a été dit par des sources de l'industrie que nous considérons comme très autoritaire, alors Koch est en effet le plus grand détenteur de bail dans la province.
L' article Powerline se , et son ton, est une preuve forte que les questions entourant intérêts politiques et commerciaux »les frères Koch seront remuer et enflammer le débat public en cette année d'élection. C'est pourquoi nous avons écrit la pièce.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/ 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/20/1286250/-Guess-who-s-the-major-stakeholder-in-Canada-s-oil-sands-Of-course-it-s-the-nbsp-Kochs?detail=email

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/21/why-we-wrote-about-the-koch-industries-and-its-leases-in-canadas-oil-sands/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

ALBERTA TAR SANDS, CANADA, KOCH BROTHERS, BILL C-23 FAIR ELECTIONS ACT, CORRUPTION & DEMOCRACY 21MAR14

THE koch brothers are determined to devolve America to a Third World plutocracy, they are spending tens of millions of dollars through their front group +afp / +americans for prosperity to buy the 2014 congressional elections so they can turn the control of congress over to their gop / tea-bagger allies. Senate Majority leader +Sen Harry Reid recognizes the threat the +koch brothers dark money political contributions present to American democracy and rightly described them as un-American.
It is no surprise the koch brothers are involved in the Alberta tar sands oil fields. They are evil and don't give a damn about who or what they harm as long as their investment makes them richer. They will profit from their tar sands operation no matter what the decision on the keystone xl pipeline is.
But there is another aspect of the koch brother's presence in Canada that is more disturbing than their Alberta tar sands operation. There is a bill before the +Canadian Parliament, (Bill C-23) the Fair Elections Act (see Don’t undermine Elections Canada & The Real Reason the Cons Want to Muzzle Elections Canada http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/dont-undermine-elections-canada-real.html ), that could have been taken from any koch brothers funded republican / tea-bagger controlled state legislature in the U.S. It is a full blown assault on the civil liberties and voting rights of all Canadians, written to increase the influence and control of the rich and corporate Canadians. The stephen harper government and +tories have probably accepted dark money from Alberta tar sands oil and other corporate interest in the belief the power and control of Canada will be their's. It will be, until those like the koch brothers have used them to achieve their goals. Hopefully the Canadian people and political opposition will recognize the threat Bill C-23 and the koch brothers are to their nation and defeat both of them.
Doubt the corrupting power of the koch brothers? Consider the fact that the Washington Post had to publish a explanation, a justification for this article the day after it was published (see below). Even Pres Richard Nixon didn't have that kind of power.
There's plenty of information on this blog about the evil of +david koch and +charles koch, just do a seach for koch...

• By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin

• March 20 at 11:59 am

David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

You might expect the biggest lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.
The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records. The Post confirmed the group’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial government’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said Koch’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres. The companies with the next biggest net acreage positions in oil sands leases are Conoco Phillips and Shell, both close behind.

What is Koch Industries doing there? The company wouldn't comment on its holdings or strategy, but it appears to be a long-term investment that could produce tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next three years and perhaps hundreds of thousands of barrels a few years after that.
The finding about the Koch acreage is likely to inflame the already contentious debate about the Keystone XL Pipeline and spur activists and environmentalists seeking to slow or stop planned expansions of production from the northern Alberta oil sands, or tar sands. Environmental groups have already made opposing the pipeline their leading cause this spring and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called the Koch brothers Charles and David “un-American” and “shadowy billionaires.”
The link between Koch and Keystone XL is, however, indirect at best. Koch’s oil production in northern Alberta is “negligible,” according to industry sources and quarterly publications of the provincial government. Moreover, Koch has not reserved any space in the Keystone XL pipeline, a process that usually takes place before a pipeline is built.  The pipeline also does not run anywhere near Koch’s refining facilities. And TransCanada, owner of the Keystone routes, says Koch is not expected to be one of the pipeline’s customers.
Still, the activist group that is publicizing the figures about Koch holdings in the oil sands – the International Forum on Globalization – is arguing that Koch will benefit indirectly. The IFG contends that the Keystone XL pipeline will create competition among rail and other pipelines and lower transportation costs for all oil sands producers, bolstering profit margins and making additional reserves economically viable.
“IFG’s intention is to demonstrate the Koch-Keystone connection,” says IFG’s Victor Menotti.
This new report is the second one IFG has issued in six months about Koch Industries and the oil sands. Last October, IFG said that Koch owned two million acres in the oil sands; now it says the true figure – based on the Alberta provincial government’s mineral lease records that it links to -- is smaller but still an impressive, industry-leading 1.1 million acres.
Koch is not generally known as a major stakeholder in the oil sands where the major players have been the likes of Royal Dutch Shell, Conoco Phillips, Suncor, Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Chinese companies have about a 5 percent stake in current production, according to a report by IHS CERA.
Suzanne Bayley, a biological sciences professor at the University of Alberta who studies the oil sands, said she was surprised to learn of the Kochs’ holdings, calling them "significant” given the fact that the total leased area in the region amounted to 35 million acres.
Koch Industries would not say how many acres of oil sands leases it holds in Alberta and would not comment on the IFG report.
The Post has taken a look at who’s who and what’s what behind an issue that is sure to be replayed over and over in this election year.
Who is IFG?
The group describes itself as a think tank that began in opposition to the North American Free Trade Association and the World Trade Organization, which it says “were viewed as the globalization of corporate power and an inherently unsustainable economic model.” In the 15 years since the big WTO brawl in Seattle, the IFG has taken on issues regarding the environment, indigenous people, and climate finance. It says it gives “voice to local social movement critiques of the economic system and offer alternative visions.”
The material about Koch and its oil sands leases has been provided to The Post by Victor Menotti, who was arrested during the anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle back in November 1999. But he says the IFG concentrates on research and education, not direct action. http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Menotti.pdf
The group receives funding from a variety of non-profit foundations, including Park Foundation, Tides Foundation, Janelia Foundation, Tarbell Family Foundation, Cloud Mountain Foundation, Klein Family Foundation, Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation, Buckley Foundation, and European Climate Foundation.
What is IFG saying?
It’s saying that Koch is perhaps the biggest investor in oil sands leases in Alberta. Its report includes links to 299 lease documents, which indicate that Koch has been buying leases in Alberta for several years, in some cases as long ago as 2002.
The provinicial government Alberta Energy said Thursday in response to a request that “we confirm that Koch Oil Sands Operating ULC is the Designated Representative of 298 Alberta Crown Oil Sands leases covering approximately 455,000 hectares (1.1 million acres).” The ministry’s Tenure division waived its usual fee for such information saying it was in the public interest to respond to such inquiries.
IFG says that Koch will reap huge benefits – albeit indirect ones -- from the Keystone XL pipeline.  The reasoning? If better pipeline and rail facilities make the business of oil transportation more efficient and more competitive then the price of shipping crude will be cheaper for all oil producers in the region. It would curtail discounts on the crude, and would make more areas economically viable.
“The biggest way Koch could benefit from Keystone is by the pipeline's acting as the ‘keystone’ of oil industry strategy to increase the ‘takeaway’ capacity for producers of Canadian crude, whereby getting more oil to more lucrative markets, and ending the deep discounts on Canadian crude currently glutting markets,” said IFG’s Menotti.
What did IFG say back in October?
In its earlier report, “The Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb,” the IFG said that “because of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Kochs could make an additional $100 billion in profits from their production operations alone.” The group, using rough estimates, assumed a $15 a barrel additional profit on six billion barrels of reserves that would become economically recoverable.
The IFG estimate is open to debate. Many of the leases held by Koch were purchased before the Keystone XL pipeline was even proposed and were presumably economically viable without it, and at a much lower oil price back then. Moreover, the IFG's first report used acreage estimates nearly twice as large as the updated acreage figures. But Menotti says that even the smaller figure, “although it may not be as much acreage as some reports estimated they might have, it is still over one million acres and worth tens of billions of dollars.”
Another key assumption underlying the IFG argument is that if Keystone XL is not built then other transportation will not be able to replace it. That may be right, but it’s different from the conclusions in the recent State Department environmental impact statement, which says that rail expansion or other pipelines would enable oil sands development to continue unimpeded.
University of Alberta Business School professor Andrew Leach wrote in an e-mail that “some oil sands growth will occur with or without new pipelines” but “the question is how much.”
“The wild card is the cost of rail shipment at scale and the prices which would be charged for shipping by rail if it became clear that pipelines could not be built,” he wrote, adding that rail shipment is cheap write now because these companies are trying to compete with pipelines.
Right now it costs at least a couple of dollars more per barrel to move oil by rail, according to the State Department report, but that could rise if the construction of additional pipelines were in jeopardy, or if either the U.S. or Canadian government imposed greater regulations on rail in the wake of recent accidents.
What else is Koch doing in Alberta now?
Koch hasn’t been idle in Alberta. It has been taking an active interest in developing its properties, and has made requests for permits for new production. In a 2012 offering to sell a portion of its lease holdings, Koch said it had drilled over 100 wells and done seismic work to delineate its resources.
Koch has a substantial oil terminal operation east of Edmonton at Hardisty, the starting point for Keystone XL. But other pipelines also start at Hardisty, which has been a major oil terminal for the region for some time. Koch’s Flint Hills subsidiary has a refinery in Pine Bend, Minn. that has long processed large volumes of diluted bitumen from the Canadian oil sands. But the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said that Koch no longer has a pipeline leaving Canada; instead Koch takes oil sands crude off the Enbridge pipeline system in the United States and carries it through their own Minnesota Pipeline to the Flint Hills refinery, CAPP said.
Menotti says that Koch has built one or more upgraders, plants that partially refine the bitumen from the tar sands so that it can flow more easily through pipelines.
Where is Koch’s acreage and how does it fit into development in northern Alberta?
Most of Koch’s leases appear to be in the Peace River area, a good ways west of the current main developments in the Athabasca River area. The Peace River deposits are the smallest ones (there's another area called Cold Lake). Still, there's plenty of oil to be had there.
The Peace River area will be exploited using steam injection and not the big open pits that make up half the Athabasca development. What does that mean? It won't look nearly as bad. But it's still very energy intensive so development involves more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. That is what first galvanized opposition from U.S. environmental groups. There is also uncertainty about whether contaminated steam and water leaks into underground aquifers or nearby streams.
Most of the leases owned by the Koch brothers use “in situ” oil extraction, Bayley said, which involves injecting a mix of chemicals and hot water to extract the bitumen. That sort of development can be damaging, she said.
“It involves fragmenting the landscape with roads, well pads and pipelines,” Bayley said.
In Alberta, oil sands production today runs around 2 million barrels a day and Alberta Energy says production could rise to 3.8 million barrels a day by 2022.
But little oil is being produced yet. Royal Dutch Shell has the most ambitious plan, to produce up to 80,000 barrels a day in the Peace River area. It received approval from the Alberta Energy Regulator in April 2013. First oil will flow around  mid-2017. Full production capacity is expected two years later.
Koch has plans too. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says that Koch filed an application in Feb. 2013 with the Alberta Energy Regulator to develop a steam assisted (known as SAGD in situ) project that would have two equal phases totaling 60,000 barrels a day. Pending approval, construction will start in the fourth quarter of 2016 and production would begin two years later.
Koch has sold acreage before. It put 347,000 acres up for sale in 2006 and it put 220,000 acres with 2.9 billion barrels of estimated “recoverable resource” up for sale in 2012. In addition, the provincial government ordered Koch and other companies to give up some leases so close to the heart of Fort McMurray that it was impeding expansion of the fast-growing town. Some combination of those might have contributed to IFG’s revision of the amount of acreage held by Koch.
 Koch Industries Web site has this brief description on its Canadian operations.

Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:24 PM EDT

Guess who's the major stakeholder in Canada's oil sands? Of course, it's the Kochs

by Joan McCarter

attribution: REUTERS

Like perfect movie villains, the Koch brothers have their fingers in everything, but secretly. Or not so secretly, anymore.

You might expect the biggest lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David. The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records. The Post confirmed the group’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial government’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said Koch’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres.The company with the next biggest collection of oil sands leases is Conoco Phillips.

While the Kochs aren't the primary beneficiaries—they haven't reserved space in the potential pipeline and are not partnering with TransCanada—they would benefit handsomely from the infrastructure put in place by the pipeline. So says the activist group, the International Forum on Globalization, which is publicizing the Kochs' tar sands holding. They contend that the pipeline will "create competition among rail and other pipelines and lower transportation costs for all oil sands producers, bolstering profit margins and making additional reserves economically viable." Exploiting their extensive tar sands holdings would only be made easier—and more profitable!— IFG says, if Keystone XL is approved.That could certainly help explain the Republican obsession with the Keystone XL pipeline approval, beyond their base love for fossil fuels and environmental degradation.

Why we wrote about the Koch Industries and its leases in Canada’s oil sands

• By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin

• March 21 at 2:52 pm

Roughnecks build a drilling rigt near Fort McMurray in Canada (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)

We would like to make a few brief points in reply to an article in Powerline regarding our article about the extensive lease holdings of Koch Industries subsidiaries in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada.
First, regarding the political leaning of the group that brought this story to our attention, our article makes clear its left-wing origins, the controversial nature of its earlier claims, and its political agenda. Second, regarding whether Koch would benefit from the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, we make clear that many of Koch’s leases pre-date the pipeline plan, that Koch has not bid for space in the pipeline, and that Koch would not be a customer. Third, if Koch’s lease holdings are 1.1 million acres, that would make it one of the region’s largest, rivaled only by Shell (1 million net acres through an Athabasca joint venture and perhaps 1.3 million net acres altogether), Cenovus Energy (1.5 million net acres), and perhaps Canadian Natural Resources (717,000 net undeveloped acres plus an undetermined number of developed acres). Shell declined to release its total acreage figures. If Koch's lease holdings are “closer to two million,” as has been said by industry sources we consider highly authoritative, then Koch is indeed the largest lease holder in the province.
The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/20/1286250/-Guess-who-s-the-major-stakeholder-in-Canada-s-oil-sands-Of-course-it-s-the-nbsp-Kochs?detail=email

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/21/why-we-wrote-about-the-koch-industries-and-its-leases-in-canadas-oil-sands/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

Did you see the New York Times article?! Keystone XL Pipeline Fight Lifts Environmental Movement 24JAN14

THE environmental community is anxiously waiting for Pres Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday, 28 JAN 14. We expect him to announce his decision on the keystone xl pipeline. I have a few new post on this issue this week, just do a search on keystone xl on this blog if you are interested. This is from 350.org and the NY Times. AND of special note, as a member of Credo Mobile for many, many years I have already voted for this months disbursement of funds and voted to split my shares between 350.org, Mother Jones and Planned Parenthood.
Next week is going to be a big one -- President Obama is giving his State of the Union speech, and we're hitting the home stretch of the fight to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
To get fired up for what's next, check out the front-page New York Times article that JUST came out about an hour ago. The headline: "Keystone XL Pipeline Fight Lifts Environmental Movement." The article is a testament to your hard work, and all that we've accomplished together. Click here to check it out.
But before we jump into the next phase of this fight, I hope those of you who are CREDO customers will help out with a quick opportunity to support this growing movement.
CREDO is a cell phone company, alternative credit card provider, and a social justice campaigning powerhouse. They’ve been our partners every step of the way in the fight to stop Keystone XL -- and as the team behind the Keystone XL pledge of resistance, alongside RAN and The Other 98%, will be a key part of finishing it. Over the last few years, they have helped turn out thousands of people for many major actions on Keystone XL and a diverse range of other issues.
In addition to mobilizing the grassroots, CREDO helps fund hundreds of progressive groups -- and the way they do it is pretty cool. Every month, CREDO members vote to distribute funds among three progressive nonprofits. So, if you’re a CREDO customer -- like me, for instance -- then you have an easy way to help out 350.org with just a few clicks.
Over the next week, CREDO members can cast a vote to raise funds for 350.org as we scale up our efforts together. The voting is free and only takes a few seconds -- we’re excited to be part of it and we hope you’ll help out by voting for 350.org.
Note: this voting offer is solely for CREDO customers, which we realize many of you may not be. If you aren’t, don’t stress it -- we've got big plans in the works, so get your marching shoes ready. But if you are a CREDO customer, we hope you’ll cast a vote for us -- though we should say that the other two groups you can vote for, Mother Jones and Planned Parenthood, both do excellent work to build a more progressive world.
(FYI: I just cast my ballot right now and it took approximately three seconds.)
Thanks, and talk more very very soon,
May
P.S. I also wanted to note an important development: a few days ago, the Southern leg of Keystone XL started making deliveries of tar sands oil to refineries in Texas. The Northern leg is still President Obama’s call to make, with huge implications for our climate and water. You can learn more about the next steps of resistance to the Southern pipeline by clicking here.

---

350.org is building a global movement to solve the climate crisis. Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for email alerts. You can help power our work by making a donation

Keystone XL Pipeline Fight Lifts Environmental Movement

 By SARAH WHEATONJAN. 24, 2014

Launch media viewer

Protesters against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in San Francisco last year. Jewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Environmentalists have spent the past two years fighting the Keystone XL pipeline: They have built a human chain around the White House, clogged the State Department’s public comment system with more than a million emails and letters, and gotten themselves arrested at protests across the country.

But as bad as they argue the 1,700-mile pipeline would be for the planet, Keystone XL has been a boon to the environmental movement. While it remains unclear whether President Obama will approve the project, both sides agree that the fight has changed American environmental politics.

“I think it would be naïve for any energy infrastructure company to think that this would be a flash in the pan,” said Alexander J. Pourbaix, president of energy and oil pipelines at TransCanada, the company that has been trying to get a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline since 2008.

Environmentalists want to stop the transport of 800,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil from tar sands formations in Canada to Texas refineries, and an oil extraction process — effectively a strip-mining operation in once-pristine forests in Alberta — that emits more greenhouse gases than other forms of production. Proponents of the Keystone XL project say that the oil will come out of the ground with or without a new pipeline and that other methods of transport, like rail, cause more pollution. They point out that TransCanada began operations on Wednesday on a southern pipeline segment that connects to existing pipelines to provide a route from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.

Launch media viewer

The Keystone XL project has also raised the profile of a diverse generation of environmental leaders, like the activist Bill McKibben, a former writer for The New Yorker and founder of 350.org. Jeff Swensen for The New York Times

Although some critics say the environmental movement has made a strategic error by focusing so much energy on the pipeline, no one disputes that the issue has helped a new breed of environmental organizations build a mostly young army eager to donate money and time. The seven-year-old email list of 350.org, an organization that focuses on climate change, has more than doubled to 530,000 people since the group began fighting the pipeline in August 2011. In addition, about 76,000 people have signed a “pledge of resistance” sponsored by seven liberal advocacy groups in which they promise to risk arrest in civil disobedience if a State Department analysis, expected this year, points toward approval of the pipeline.

The Keystone XL project has also raised the profile of a diverse generation of environmental leaders, like the activist Bill McKibben, a former writer for The New Yorker and founder of 350.org, and the billionaire venture capitalist Thomas F. Steyer, who is estimated to have contributed at least $1 million to the movement and has starred in four 90-second ads opposing the pipeline. Not least, it has united national and local environmental groups that usually fight for attention and resources.

“Over the last 18 months, I think there was this recognition that stopping the pipeline is, in fact, important,” said Ross Hammond, a senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “But it has also brought a huge number of people into the movement.”

That movement, Mr. McKibben said in an interview, “looks the way we want the energy system to look: not a few big power plants, but a million solar panels all tied together.”

Politically, the draw of Keystone XL comes from its physical presence. It is far easier, environmental activists say, to rally people around something as vivid as a pipeline bisecting the United States than, say, around cap-and-trade legislation that would have forced industry to pay a price for its carbon emissions. The legislation failed in Congress in 2009.

“When we’re able to focus on distinct, concrete projects, we tend to win,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “And when we tend to focus on more obscure policies or places where we need action from Congress, we tend to stall, like every other thing tends to stall.”

The pipeline has been a particular hit with small donors, especially as environmental organizations turn more to protests, fund-raisers said. Last year, the Sierra Club raised $1 million in six weeks for a major rally in Washington. About $100,000 of that came from contributions of less than $1,000.

“This is not one of our usual long-term campaigns,” said Jackie Brown, the Sierra Club’s chief advancement officer. “This was an emerging upswelling of support.”

Wealthier donors are also opening their wallets. Betsy Taylor, a longtime environmental fund-raiser, said her network of contributors was increasingly supporting the more aggressive campaigns run by groups like 350.org and Bold Nebraska, a shift away from the environmental research and policy organizations that have traditionally drawn such contributions.

Keystone XL — the XL stands for express line — would be a shortcut to the Gulf of Mexico as well as an extension of TransCanada’s existing Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Nebraska, with small branches to Illinois and Oklahoma. Keystone XL would be a far more direct route across the United States. Keystone consists of a three-foot-diameter pipe that is three feet underground. Keystone XL would also be three feet in diameter, but four feet underground.

Initially, opposition to Keystone XL consisted of scattered people and groups along the proposed route of the pipeline, including indigenous tribes in Alberta. The fight went national in June 2011 when James E. Hansen, a former NASA climate scientist, wrote an open letter calling the pipeline “game over for the climate” and urged people to write to Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state. (Because the project crosses an international boundary, it is subject to approval by the State Department.)

Mr. McKibben, the author of numerous books about climate, decided to use 350.org to campaign against the pipeline. That fall, he urged his members to commit civil disobedience in front of the White House.

“I remember when I heard the call for civil disobedience, I thought, ‘Yeah, right, you’ll get like 40 people to show up,'  ” said Mr. Hammond of Friends of the Earth. “And then, bam!” Over a two-week period, about 1,200 people were arrested at the White House.

Stephanie Kimball, 30, a Wisconsin dentist, said in a recent telephone interview that she had been “trying to figure out where to jump in” to the environmental cause when a talk by activists arrested in 2011 inspired her to volunteer as a local coordinator for 350.org. She said she was also working to stop a pipeline by the Canadian corporation Enbridge.

To counter the campaign, TransCanada has had to run television and radio ads to promote the jobs that the pipeline could provide. Industry allies like the American Petroleum Institute have also been running ads.

If Mr. Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline, Mr. Brune of the Sierra Club said, it will be “the Vietnam of his presidency.” But, he added, environmentalists’ efforts will hardly have been for nothing.

“If you lose on this,” said Mike Casey, a consultant for Mr. Steyer, “this infrastructure doesn’t go away. It remains deployable and passionate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/us/keystone-xl-pipeline-fight-lifts-environmental-movement.html?hp&_r=1