THEN you are supporting the very people who are working to take more from you and give it to the rich. THINK AND VOTE 4 NOV 14.
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label afp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label afp. Show all posts
12 September 2014
21 March 2014
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 ...
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 .
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
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 ...
David Koch, vice-président exécutif de Koch Industries (AP Photo / Mark Lennihan)
, 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
Roughnecks construire un rigt de forage près de Fort McMurray au Canada (Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)
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...
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.
Like perfect movie villains, the Koch brothers have their fingers in everything, but secretly. Or not so secretly, anymore.
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
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...
David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
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
attribution: REUTERS
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
Roughnecks build a drilling rigt near Fort McMurray in Canada (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
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
Americans for Prosperity claims people are getting less at a higher cost under Obamacare 20MAR14
THE +koch brother's +Americans For Prosperity (it should be the 1% americans for prosperity) propaganda campaign against Obamacare is nothing but lies and deception and misrepresentation of the law and health care in the U.S. Their goal is the defeat of enough Senate Democrats in the 2014 elections to possibly pass legislation in Congress repealing Obamacare. While their propaganda campaign seeks to instill fear in gop / tea-bagger voters of loosing health care insurance because of +Obamacare the reality is they seek a return to the good old days of unfettered rate increases, denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions and personal bankruptcy due to medical bills. The americans for prosperity propaganda campaign's goal is to increase the profit margins of the health insurance companies and health care industries and the crippling of the Obama administration's last two years in power with a gop / teabagger controlled congress. This from + PolitiFact.....
Subjects: Health Care
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP launches new ads in Louisiana, Colorado," March 17, 2014
Email interview with Levi Russell, spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, March 19, 2014
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Why Premiums Will Change for People Who Now Have Nongroup Insurance," Feb. 6, 2013
Kaiser Family Foundation, "The Flip Side of Higher Premiums: Better Coverage," March 21, 2013
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Health Cost Growth Is Down, Or Not. It Depends Who You Ask," March 5, 2014
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditures 2012 Highlights, accessed March 20, 2014
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey, Aug. 20, 2013
Congressional Budget Office, The Slowdown in Health Care Spending, Sept. 19, 2013
National Bureau of Economic Research, "Is this time different? The slowdown in health care spending," Dec. 2013
Executive Office of the President of the United States, Trends in health care cost growth and the role of the Affordable Care Act, Nov. 2013
National Review, "GOP Rep. Asks Sebelius Why Single Men Need Maternity Coverage," Oct. 30, 2013
Healthcare.gov, "What does Marketplace health insurance cover?" accessed March 18, 2014
RAND Corp., "No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act," Aug. 29, 2013
Written by: Steve Contorno
Researched by: Steve Contorno
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan, Louis Jacobson http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/20/americans-prosperity/americans-prosperity-claims-people-are-getting-les/
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Millions of Americans are "paying more and getting less" under Obamacare.
Americans for Prosperity on Monday, March 17th, 2014 in a political adAmericans for Prosperity claims people are getting less at a higher cost under Obamacare
Share this story:
Americans for Prosperity is airing
versions of this ad in Colorado and Louisiana, where Democrats face
tough Republican challenges.
http://youtu.be/R5LR1BwX_TI (afp has disabled comments on this video on their YouTube page, too many negative votes, so I offer my (not PolitiFact's) here. I wish this woman, this fotze, politically prostituting herself in this ad, a life long yeast infection so she experiences a bit of the misery she is advocating for the rest of us.)
Americans for Prosperity has been active on the airwaves
already this election cycle. The group, which opposes Obamacare, has run
a handful of ads featuring people telling health care "horror stories"
meant to tug on the heartstrings. We’ve looked at a couple and explained how they can be misleading.
But a pair of new ads take an entirely different tack to undercut support from Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Udall of Colorado.
In these ads, a woman on screen trashes political ads in her 30-second personal pitch.
"People don’t like political ads. I don’t like them either. But health care isn’t about politics," she says. "It’s about people. And millions of people have lost their health insurance, millions of people can’t see their own doctors, and millions are paying more and getting less."
We’ve tackled claims about lost insurance and access to personal doctors before. But we haven’t heard someone say that the health care law is causing people to pay more for less, so we decided to check it out.
Paying more
There are a lot of factors in the health care law — and health insurance in general — that make it difficult to pin down whether people are paying more or less for coverage.
In general, insurance premiums were increasing every year well before Obamacare became law. In fact, rates have increased consistently during the last 15 years. But there are signs that the rate of the increase has declined since the law was passed.
Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, surveyed people who purchase insurance through their employer. Here are the average annual cost of premiums:
Other than a sharp increase between 2010 to 2011, the Obama years have experienced the smallest rate increases of the last 14 years. Throughout much of the early 2000s, premium increases of 9 percent or more were the norm.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid also found a slowdown in the increase in health costs during the last four years, including a modest 4 percent increase from 2011 to 2012.
The government attributed the decrease in health costs to the economic downturn. Kaiser, too, said the recession accounted for much of the decline, though they said the health care law may have played a role, too.
Because of the law, people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level are now eligible for subsidies to buy insurance, and for many of them, costs are going down. Those costs are capped at a percent of their income.
But some people may see rate increases on existing policies or as they transition to new plans.
Insurers can no longer deny individuals with pre-existing conditions, and there is now a much larger pool of people looking to purchase coverage. For younger, healthier people, this means they are now taking on some of the financial burden so older or sick people can buy insurance at a reasonable price. (This is especially true for young males, since young women were often charged more, and even more so if they don’t qualify for premium subsidies.)
There were also people who previously purchased very cheap plans. But those policies provided very little coverage or capped their benefits at low levels, which the new health care law bars. So they’re getting more coverage, albeit at a greater cost.
Getting less?
Which gets us to our next point.
We found it strange that the ad claimed that people are getting less under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, we’ve usually heard the opposite from critics of the law that people are now paying for types of coverage they don’t need.
The favorite example is single men who now will now have maternity coverage if they buy a plan on the individual market. In October 2013, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., grilled Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on this very point.
"An insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not," Sebelius said during her testimony on the Hill.
"And that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high," Ellmers said. "We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need."
"Individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families," Sebelius responded.
"To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?" Elmers asked. The discussion ended there.
So are you getting less coverage, or getting more than you need? We asked Americans for Prosperity to clarify their position.
"Getting less speaks to a multitude of data points that has been America's Obamacare experience so far: botched website, shrinking provider networks, a string of broken promises, missed deadlines, and unilateral rule changes that have kept the entire country in limbo ever since this debacle rolled out," said spokesman Levi Russell.
That’s a pretty ambiguous definition of "less." We think most people would assume "less" is referring to the amount of coverage or benefits under the law.
Americans are getting more benefits under the law in a number of ways -- including, in some cases, being able to buy affordable insurance for the first time.
In addition, insurance purchased in the individual and small group marketplace must meet 10 essential health benefits. This includes coverage for emergency services and hospitalization, prescription drugs, free preventative coverage for things ranging from basic immunizations to HIV screening, and maternity care.
The law also caps out-of-pocket costs, providing greater protection from exorbitant hospital bills. The most a person could pay for health care in a year is $6,300; the most a family can pay is $12,600.
Before the law passed, some insurers capped annual or lifetime benefits, forcing people who thought they were covered to pay large hospital bills once they passed the threshold.
People with pre-existing conditions are also seeing a lot more benefits, since they previously couldn’t buy a policy at all.
So it’s a tough sell to say millions are getting less. And for many, they aren’t paying more, either.
Our ruling
Americans for Prosperity said "millions are paying more and getting less" under Obamacare. We found their explanation of "less" rather dubious. Most people on the individual market are getting more benefits under the law. At worst, they’re paying more to get more, though in many cases they’re actually paying less.
We rate this claim False.
But a pair of new ads take an entirely different tack to undercut support from Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Udall of Colorado.
In these ads, a woman on screen trashes political ads in her 30-second personal pitch.
"People don’t like political ads. I don’t like them either. But health care isn’t about politics," she says. "It’s about people. And millions of people have lost their health insurance, millions of people can’t see their own doctors, and millions are paying more and getting less."
We’ve tackled claims about lost insurance and access to personal doctors before. But we haven’t heard someone say that the health care law is causing people to pay more for less, so we decided to check it out.
Paying more
There are a lot of factors in the health care law — and health insurance in general — that make it difficult to pin down whether people are paying more or less for coverage.
In general, insurance premiums were increasing every year well before Obamacare became law. In fact, rates have increased consistently during the last 15 years. But there are signs that the rate of the increase has declined since the law was passed.
Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, surveyed people who purchase insurance through their employer. Here are the average annual cost of premiums:
| Year | Single | % increase | Family | % increase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | $2,196 | $5,791 | ||
| 2000 | $2,471 | 12.52% | $6,438 | 11.17% |
| 2001 | $2,689 | 8.82% | $7,061 | 9.68% |
| 2002 | $3,083 | 14.65% | $8,003 | 13.34% |
| 2003 | $3,383 | 9.73% | $9,068 | 13.31% |
| 2004 | $3,695 | 9.22% | $9,950 | 9.73% |
| 2005 | $4,024 | 8.90% | $10,880 | 9.35% |
| 2006 | $4,242 | 5.42% | $11,480 | 5.51% |
| 2007 | $4,479 | 5.59% | $12,106 | 5.45% |
| 2008 | $4,704 | 5.02% | $12,680 | 4.74% |
| 2009 | $4,824 | 2.55% | $13,375 | 5.48% |
| 2010 | $5,049 | 4.66% | $13,770 | 2.95% |
| 2011 | $5,429 | 7.53% | $15,073 | 9.46% |
| 2012 | $5,615 | 3.43% | $15,745 | 4.46% |
| 2013 | $5,884 | 4.79% | $16,351 | 3.85% |
Other than a sharp increase between 2010 to 2011, the Obama years have experienced the smallest rate increases of the last 14 years. Throughout much of the early 2000s, premium increases of 9 percent or more were the norm.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid also found a slowdown in the increase in health costs during the last four years, including a modest 4 percent increase from 2011 to 2012.
The government attributed the decrease in health costs to the economic downturn. Kaiser, too, said the recession accounted for much of the decline, though they said the health care law may have played a role, too.
Because of the law, people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level are now eligible for subsidies to buy insurance, and for many of them, costs are going down. Those costs are capped at a percent of their income.
But some people may see rate increases on existing policies or as they transition to new plans.
Insurers can no longer deny individuals with pre-existing conditions, and there is now a much larger pool of people looking to purchase coverage. For younger, healthier people, this means they are now taking on some of the financial burden so older or sick people can buy insurance at a reasonable price. (This is especially true for young males, since young women were often charged more, and even more so if they don’t qualify for premium subsidies.)
There were also people who previously purchased very cheap plans. But those policies provided very little coverage or capped their benefits at low levels, which the new health care law bars. So they’re getting more coverage, albeit at a greater cost.
Getting less?
Which gets us to our next point.
We found it strange that the ad claimed that people are getting less under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, we’ve usually heard the opposite from critics of the law that people are now paying for types of coverage they don’t need.
The favorite example is single men who now will now have maternity coverage if they buy a plan on the individual market. In October 2013, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., grilled Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on this very point.
"An insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not," Sebelius said during her testimony on the Hill.
"And that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high," Ellmers said. "We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need."
"Individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families," Sebelius responded.
"To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?" Elmers asked. The discussion ended there.
So are you getting less coverage, or getting more than you need? We asked Americans for Prosperity to clarify their position.
"Getting less speaks to a multitude of data points that has been America's Obamacare experience so far: botched website, shrinking provider networks, a string of broken promises, missed deadlines, and unilateral rule changes that have kept the entire country in limbo ever since this debacle rolled out," said spokesman Levi Russell.
That’s a pretty ambiguous definition of "less." We think most people would assume "less" is referring to the amount of coverage or benefits under the law.
Americans are getting more benefits under the law in a number of ways -- including, in some cases, being able to buy affordable insurance for the first time.
In addition, insurance purchased in the individual and small group marketplace must meet 10 essential health benefits. This includes coverage for emergency services and hospitalization, prescription drugs, free preventative coverage for things ranging from basic immunizations to HIV screening, and maternity care.
The law also caps out-of-pocket costs, providing greater protection from exorbitant hospital bills. The most a person could pay for health care in a year is $6,300; the most a family can pay is $12,600.
Before the law passed, some insurers capped annual or lifetime benefits, forcing people who thought they were covered to pay large hospital bills once they passed the threshold.
People with pre-existing conditions are also seeing a lot more benefits, since they previously couldn’t buy a policy at all.
So it’s a tough sell to say millions are getting less. And for many, they aren’t paying more, either.
Our ruling
Americans for Prosperity said "millions are paying more and getting less" under Obamacare. We found their explanation of "less" rather dubious. Most people on the individual market are getting more benefits under the law. At worst, they’re paying more to get more, though in many cases they’re actually paying less.
We rate this claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 at 4:12 p.m.Subjects: Health Care
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP launches new ads in Louisiana, Colorado," March 17, 2014
Email interview with Levi Russell, spokesman for Americans for Prosperity, March 19, 2014
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Why Premiums Will Change for People Who Now Have Nongroup Insurance," Feb. 6, 2013
Kaiser Family Foundation, "The Flip Side of Higher Premiums: Better Coverage," March 21, 2013
Kaiser Family Foundation, "Health Cost Growth Is Down, Or Not. It Depends Who You Ask," March 5, 2014
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditures 2012 Highlights, accessed March 20, 2014
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey, Aug. 20, 2013
Congressional Budget Office, The Slowdown in Health Care Spending, Sept. 19, 2013
National Bureau of Economic Research, "Is this time different? The slowdown in health care spending," Dec. 2013
Executive Office of the President of the United States, Trends in health care cost growth and the role of the Affordable Care Act, Nov. 2013
National Review, "GOP Rep. Asks Sebelius Why Single Men Need Maternity Coverage," Oct. 30, 2013
Healthcare.gov, "What does Marketplace health insurance cover?" accessed March 18, 2014
RAND Corp., "No Widespread Increase in Cost of Individual Health Insurance Policies Under Affordable Care Act," Aug. 29, 2013
Written by: Steve Contorno
Researched by: Steve Contorno
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan, Louis Jacobson http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/20/americans-prosperity/americans-prosperity-claims-people-are-getting-les/
04 May 2012
Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland from POLITIFACT 3MAI12
THE repiglicans and tea-baggers have done nothing to stimulate the
economy to get us out of this recession and so have nothing to offer the
electorate but lies and deception, like these lies from americans for
prosperity (the people who are sending jobs overseas) about stimulus
money being sent to Mexico, Finland and the prc. The real kicker about this story is that the loan in question is from a program signed into law by george w bush!!!! See my earlier post on the solar plant in Mexico Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant from POLITIFACT 2MAI12
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded.html The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland." That's not what happened.
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded.html The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
Americans for Prosperity on Saturday, May 26th, 2012 in a TV adAd says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland
Share this story:
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland." That's not what happened.
Americans for Prosperity released this
ad April 26, 2012, to air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada,
New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia.
Is your tax money paying for jobs in Finland?
A TV ad running in eight states blames President Barack Obama for sending stimulus money overseas while Americans are out of work.
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
We rated one claim from the ad, about stimulus tax credits supposedly funding a plant in Mexico, a Pants on Fire falsehood. A second claim, on building traffic lights in China, we rated Mostly False. In this fact-check, we’re examining if those tax credits included "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
The ad said its source for the Finland claim was an ABC News article, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland."
A loan for U.S. work
The first clue something’s wrong is in that ABC News headline. A car company got a "U.S. loan." That’s not the same thing as a tax credit. Taxpayers expect to get loan money back, with interest. (Though, they don’t always. See: Solyndra.)
Things get even more wrong from there.
That U.S. loan program? It's the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program through the Energy Department. And it's not funded by Obama’s stimulus bill — otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is, in fact, a program signed into existence by President George W. Bush in 2007 and first funded by legislation Bush signed in 2008.
The program was designed to support development of advanced technology vehicles.
The Bush administration was in charge when the automaker filed its application. The Obama administration was in charge when the company’s loan was approved. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with it.
Now, the ad could have raised relevant criticism of the Energy Department’s loan programs. Watchdogs inside and outside government have argued since the Bush administration that the programs haven’t included safeguards sufficient to protect taxpayers. Instead, the ad says stimulus tax credits funded overseas jobs. That’s the claim we’re weighing here. And that’s just not the case.
Fisker Automotive, a U.S. automaker with global headquarters in Anaheim, Calif., got its $529 million federal loan to develop and produce two lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles — the Karma and the Nina.
The project was expected to create about 2,000 jobs in Wilmington, Del., where the Nina would be manufactured, according to the Energy Department.
Part of the loan — $169 million — paid for design, engineering and other work in the United States on the Fisker Karma. A larger part — $359 million — was slated to help buy and reconfigure a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware to build the Nina.
Here’s where Finland enters the story: Before its Energy Department loans were approved, Fisker had decided it would manufacture the Karma at a plant in Finland. The company argued there simply wasn’t a U.S. plant available for the type of car they were building. But 65 percent of the parts for the Karma, based on cost, would come from U.S. suppliers.
"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," Henrik Fisker, the company's founder, told ABC News. "They don't exist here."
The loan for the design of the car "was only used for the U.S. operations" and could not be spent overseas, according to Fisker and the Energy Department.
Meanwhile, most of the loan has yet to be disbursed. Fisker says it stopped taking loan money from the Energy Department in May 2011, after drawing $190 million — most of it for Karma design and development. Its Nina project, now called the Atlantic, has been delayed.
The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., reported the payments to Fisker stopped after the company failed to meet Energy Department milestones set as conditions for the loan.
"Our loan documents require borrowers to meet certain milestones and other conditions prior to receiving loan proceeds," department spokesman Damien LaVera told PolitiFact. "As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule -- which is common for start-ups.
"As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America."
That makes it an open question when the Delaware plant will produce Fisker autos. As of April, it only employed a small maintenance team. In the meantime, it's not getting loan money.
Our ruling
An ad from Americans for Prosperity starts with an image of Obama and says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
The reality: Half a billion in loans from a Bush-era program were approved for Fisker Automotive. But they weren’t tax credits, weren’t part of the stimulus bill, and didn’t go to Finland. And so far, the company has only gotten $190 million in those loans, far less than the half a billion.
Instead, the U.S. company spent a third of the money on U.S. engineering of a new electric vehicle. It chose to manufacture the car in Finland, without U.S. help. Another two-thirds of the loan, which it may or may not get, will go toward retooling a shuttered GM plant in Delaware.
The ad strings together disparate statements to tell a concocted story. The result is simply False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/03/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-jobs-finland/
Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant," May 2, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
ABC News, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland," Oct. 20, 2011
Inteview with Damien LaVera, spokesman for the Energy Department, May 2, 2012
Fisker Automotive, Fisker Automotive Fact Sheet, accessed May 2, 2012
Energy.gov, "Fisker, Tesla, and American Auto Innovation," Oct. 20, 2011
Fisker, "Press Releases: Fisker Statement re: Misleading News Reports," Oct. 21, 2011
Fisker Automotive, "Fact Sheet: Fisker Karma and Fisker Automotive," Feb. 16, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "Fisker Automotive," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "About the ATVM Loan Program," accessed May 2, 2012
Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, "The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department, "Department of Energy Announces Closing of $529 Million Loan to Fisker Automotive," April 23, 2010
Federal Register, "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program," Nov. 12, 2008
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Can Fisker keep its promise?" Feb. 13, 2012, via Nexis
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Fisker catches flak on GOP campaign trail" April 19, 2012, via Nexis
Taxpayers for Common Sense, "DOE Loan Guarantees: Overview, Risks and More," Nov. 3, 2011
Government Accountability Office, "New Loan Guarantee Program Should Complete Activities Necessary for Effective and Accountable Program Management," July 2008
Government Accountability Office, "Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program," July 2010
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
A TV ad running in eight states blames President Barack Obama for sending stimulus money overseas while Americans are out of work.
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
Washington promised to create American jobs. We passed their
stimulus. But that's not what happened. Fact: Billions of taxpayer
dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. The
Obama administration admitted the truth, that $2.3 billion of tax
credits went overseas, while millions of Americans can't find a job.
$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico. Half a
billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in
Finland. And tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in
China.
We rated one claim from the ad, about stimulus tax credits supposedly funding a plant in Mexico, a Pants on Fire falsehood. A second claim, on building traffic lights in China, we rated Mostly False. In this fact-check, we’re examining if those tax credits included "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
The ad said its source for the Finland claim was an ABC News article, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland."
A loan for U.S. work
The first clue something’s wrong is in that ABC News headline. A car company got a "U.S. loan." That’s not the same thing as a tax credit. Taxpayers expect to get loan money back, with interest. (Though, they don’t always. See: Solyndra.)
Things get even more wrong from there.
That U.S. loan program? It's the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program through the Energy Department. And it's not funded by Obama’s stimulus bill — otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is, in fact, a program signed into existence by President George W. Bush in 2007 and first funded by legislation Bush signed in 2008.
The program was designed to support development of advanced technology vehicles.
The Bush administration was in charge when the automaker filed its application. The Obama administration was in charge when the company’s loan was approved. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with it.
Now, the ad could have raised relevant criticism of the Energy Department’s loan programs. Watchdogs inside and outside government have argued since the Bush administration that the programs haven’t included safeguards sufficient to protect taxpayers. Instead, the ad says stimulus tax credits funded overseas jobs. That’s the claim we’re weighing here. And that’s just not the case.
Fisker Automotive, a U.S. automaker with global headquarters in Anaheim, Calif., got its $529 million federal loan to develop and produce two lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles — the Karma and the Nina.
The project was expected to create about 2,000 jobs in Wilmington, Del., where the Nina would be manufactured, according to the Energy Department.
Part of the loan — $169 million — paid for design, engineering and other work in the United States on the Fisker Karma. A larger part — $359 million — was slated to help buy and reconfigure a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware to build the Nina.
Here’s where Finland enters the story: Before its Energy Department loans were approved, Fisker had decided it would manufacture the Karma at a plant in Finland. The company argued there simply wasn’t a U.S. plant available for the type of car they were building. But 65 percent of the parts for the Karma, based on cost, would come from U.S. suppliers.
"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," Henrik Fisker, the company's founder, told ABC News. "They don't exist here."
The loan for the design of the car "was only used for the U.S. operations" and could not be spent overseas, according to Fisker and the Energy Department.
Meanwhile, most of the loan has yet to be disbursed. Fisker says it stopped taking loan money from the Energy Department in May 2011, after drawing $190 million — most of it for Karma design and development. Its Nina project, now called the Atlantic, has been delayed.
The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., reported the payments to Fisker stopped after the company failed to meet Energy Department milestones set as conditions for the loan.
"Our loan documents require borrowers to meet certain milestones and other conditions prior to receiving loan proceeds," department spokesman Damien LaVera told PolitiFact. "As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule -- which is common for start-ups.
"As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America."
That makes it an open question when the Delaware plant will produce Fisker autos. As of April, it only employed a small maintenance team. In the meantime, it's not getting loan money.
Our ruling
An ad from Americans for Prosperity starts with an image of Obama and says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
The reality: Half a billion in loans from a Bush-era program were approved for Fisker Automotive. But they weren’t tax credits, weren’t part of the stimulus bill, and didn’t go to Finland. And so far, the company has only gotten $190 million in those loans, far less than the half a billion.
Instead, the U.S. company spent a third of the money on U.S. engineering of a new electric vehicle. It chose to manufacture the car in Finland, without U.S. help. Another two-thirds of the loan, which it may or may not get, will go toward retooling a shuttered GM plant in Delaware.
The ad strings together disparate statements to tell a concocted story. The result is simply False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/03/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-jobs-finland/
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant," May 2, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
ABC News, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland," Oct. 20, 2011
Inteview with Damien LaVera, spokesman for the Energy Department, May 2, 2012
Fisker Automotive, Fisker Automotive Fact Sheet, accessed May 2, 2012
Energy.gov, "Fisker, Tesla, and American Auto Innovation," Oct. 20, 2011
Fisker, "Press Releases: Fisker Statement re: Misleading News Reports," Oct. 21, 2011
Fisker Automotive, "Fact Sheet: Fisker Karma and Fisker Automotive," Feb. 16, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "Fisker Automotive," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "About the ATVM Loan Program," accessed May 2, 2012
Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, "The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department, "Department of Energy Announces Closing of $529 Million Loan to Fisker Automotive," April 23, 2010
Federal Register, "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program," Nov. 12, 2008
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Can Fisker keep its promise?" Feb. 13, 2012, via Nexis
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Fisker catches flak on GOP campaign trail" April 19, 2012, via Nexis
Taxpayers for Common Sense, "DOE Loan Guarantees: Overview, Risks and More," Nov. 3, 2011
Government Accountability Office, "New Loan Guarantee Program Should Complete Activities Necessary for Effective and Accountable Program Management," July 2008
Government Accountability Office, "Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program," July 2010
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant from POLITIFACT 2MAI12
THE repiglicans and tea-baggers have done nothing to stimulate the economy to get us out of this recession and so have nothing to offer the electorate but lies and deception, like these lies from americans for prosperity (the people who are sending jobs overseas) about stimulus money being sent to Mexico, Finland and the prc. See my post on the Finland story Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland from POLITIFACT 3MAI12
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded_04.html
The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity
claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "$1.2 billion
to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." That's not what
happened.
The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico."
Americans for Prosperity on Thursday, April 26th, 2012 in a TV adAd says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant
Share this story:
Americans for Prosperity released this
ad April 26, 2012, to air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada,
New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia.
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity
claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "$1.2 billion
to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." That's not what
happened.
A TV ad running in eight states blames President Barack Obama for sending stimulus money overseas while Americans are out of work.
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
We checked all three examples — and found the ad incorrectly describes them all.
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
For this fact-check, we’re focusing on whether "tax credits" that "went overseas" included "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." (In other fact-checks, we found the Finland claim False, and the China claim Mostly False.)
The ad listed two sources for its Mexico claim, the Energy Department and PV Magazine. We tracked those down, then chatted with the companies involved.
Two programs, two projects
We’ll start with what’s true: An American solar company, SunPower, was approved for federal stimulus money. It also opened a solar panel plant in Mexico.
(Or, rather, it moved its Mexican manufacturing from Chihuahua to a building it’s leasing in Mexicali, said company spokeswoman Natalie Wymer.)
That’s where the claim’s relationship to the truth ends.
• The company didn’t get tax credits, but a $1.2 billion loan guarantee. What’s the difference? The Energy Department expects the loan to be paid back — with interest.
• That loan guarantee wasn’t for the Mexico plant — a separate project with its own funding — but to build the California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Construction on the California project has already started, with the Energy Department projecting 350 construction jobs and 15 permanent ones. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state’s largest utility, will ultimately buy the power.
• Most of the solar panels for the California project will come from SunPower’s California manufacturing facility in Milpitas, though given the size of the project, they’ll also come from the company’s plants in Mexico and Asia, Wymer said.
• SunPower no longer owns the California Valley Solar Ranch project. The solar project — and the loan guarantee — belong to New Jersey company NRG Energy. That’s the company that will get the federal loan money, and be responsible for repaying taxpayers.
Our ruling
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity says billions of tax dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. It claims that stimulus bill tax credits went overseas, such as "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." The ad even cites sources for its claim.
But those same sources, plus a few phone calls, quickly bring down the ad’s house of cards. Sure, taxpayer money was originally approved for a California solar company that also happened to open a plant in Mexico. But that loan — not tax credits, as the ad claims — will go to a New Jersey company for a solar project in California, employing construction workers in the state, using mostly California-built solar panels, to create solar power that’ll be purchased by a California utility.
That’s a completely different story. The ad strings together alarming-sounding tidbits about actual stimulus projects to create the impression of something else entirely — in a way that’s ultimately ridiculous. And that earns our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/02/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-solar-company-/
Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Government Efficiency, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland," May 3, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
PV Magazine, "SunPower to open Mexican plant," Aug. 8, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Offers Conditional Commitment for $1.187 Billion Loan Guarantee, Support California Solar Generation," April 12, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Finalizes $1.2 Billion Loan Guarantee to Support California Solar Generation Project," Sept. 30, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "NRG Solar (California Valley Solar Ranch)," accessed May 1, 2012
California Valley Solar Ranch, accessed April 30, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower Announces New Solar Panel Manufacturing Facility," Aug. 5, 2011
Interview with Natalie Wymer, senior director, SunPower corporate communications, May 1, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower's and Flextronics' New Solar Manufacturing Plant Creates Jobs, Economic Benefits and Clean Affordable Energy," April 12, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower and Total Partner to Create a New Global Leader in the Solar Industry," April 28, 2011
SunPower, "NRG Energy, SunPower Invite Community Leaders to Ceremonial Groundbreaking for 250-Megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch," Nov. 10, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower Announces Agreement to Acquire Tenesol SA," Dec 23, 2011
NRG Energy, 10-K filing, Feb. 28, 2012
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
We checked all three examples — and found the ad incorrectly describes them all.
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
Washington promised to create American jobs. We passed their
stimulus. But that's not what happened. Fact: Billions of taxpayer
dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. The
Obama administration admitted the truth, that $2.3 billion of tax
credits went overseas, while millions of Americans can't find a job.
$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico. Half a
billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in
Finland. And tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in
China.
Sounds like a scandal and an outrage. Is that what happened?For this fact-check, we’re focusing on whether "tax credits" that "went overseas" included "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." (In other fact-checks, we found the Finland claim False, and the China claim Mostly False.)
The ad listed two sources for its Mexico claim, the Energy Department and PV Magazine. We tracked those down, then chatted with the companies involved.
Two programs, two projects
We’ll start with what’s true: An American solar company, SunPower, was approved for federal stimulus money. It also opened a solar panel plant in Mexico.
(Or, rather, it moved its Mexican manufacturing from Chihuahua to a building it’s leasing in Mexicali, said company spokeswoman Natalie Wymer.)
That’s where the claim’s relationship to the truth ends.
• The company didn’t get tax credits, but a $1.2 billion loan guarantee. What’s the difference? The Energy Department expects the loan to be paid back — with interest.
• That loan guarantee wasn’t for the Mexico plant — a separate project with its own funding — but to build the California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Construction on the California project has already started, with the Energy Department projecting 350 construction jobs and 15 permanent ones. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state’s largest utility, will ultimately buy the power.
• Most of the solar panels for the California project will come from SunPower’s California manufacturing facility in Milpitas, though given the size of the project, they’ll also come from the company’s plants in Mexico and Asia, Wymer said.
• SunPower no longer owns the California Valley Solar Ranch project. The solar project — and the loan guarantee — belong to New Jersey company NRG Energy. That’s the company that will get the federal loan money, and be responsible for repaying taxpayers.
Our ruling
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity says billions of tax dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. It claims that stimulus bill tax credits went overseas, such as "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." The ad even cites sources for its claim.
But those same sources, plus a few phone calls, quickly bring down the ad’s house of cards. Sure, taxpayer money was originally approved for a California solar company that also happened to open a plant in Mexico. But that loan — not tax credits, as the ad claims — will go to a New Jersey company for a solar project in California, employing construction workers in the state, using mostly California-built solar panels, to create solar power that’ll be purchased by a California utility.
That’s a completely different story. The ad strings together alarming-sounding tidbits about actual stimulus projects to create the impression of something else entirely — in a way that’s ultimately ridiculous. And that earns our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/02/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-solar-company-/
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Government Efficiency, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland," May 3, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
PV Magazine, "SunPower to open Mexican plant," Aug. 8, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Offers Conditional Commitment for $1.187 Billion Loan Guarantee, Support California Solar Generation," April 12, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Finalizes $1.2 Billion Loan Guarantee to Support California Solar Generation Project," Sept. 30, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "NRG Solar (California Valley Solar Ranch)," accessed May 1, 2012
California Valley Solar Ranch, accessed April 30, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower Announces New Solar Panel Manufacturing Facility," Aug. 5, 2011
Interview with Natalie Wymer, senior director, SunPower corporate communications, May 1, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower's and Flextronics' New Solar Manufacturing Plant Creates Jobs, Economic Benefits and Clean Affordable Energy," April 12, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower and Total Partner to Create a New Global Leader in the Solar Industry," April 28, 2011
SunPower, "NRG Energy, SunPower Invite Community Leaders to Ceremonial Groundbreaking for 250-Megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch," Nov. 10, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower Announces Agreement to Acquire Tenesol SA," Dec 23, 2011
NRG Energy, 10-K filing, Feb. 28, 2012
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)