EPA trying to Scuttle Keystone XL Oil Pipeline from Canada to Oklahoma to Port Arthur, TX,

We received this press release from Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin's Office yesterday with the details about the oil pipeline and the fact that the EPA pressured Secretary of State Clinton into not signing the agreement thus delaying for months new job growth or as Obama puts it 'shovel ready' jobs.  So why the delay?  Three letters tell the story when it comes to Oklahoma and Texas -- EPA who has put both states in their target zone to stop growth.  We believe the WSJ editorial perfectly sums up what is happening:

The Keystone XL pipeline is another case in which the Obama Administration's ideology clashes with its professed goal of job creation. Why do jobs always lose?

When the EPA gets involved, you can be sure that job creation is not at the top of their list.  They would rather protect insects, lizards, and the like then provide jobs for people.  One of their missions seems to be to put oil and gas domestic drilling out of business.  This is an agency out of control that needs its wings clipped and frankly put back under a cabinet department instead of being a dictator agency which Obama loves to see.  

With all the trouble that Oklahoma and Texas have had with the EPA, we cannot believe we still see media saying that Obama has a chance of winning in Texas.  That is one of the biggest lies being told by the Obama media yet. as most Texans know they are in the target zone of the Obama Administration and have no desire to see four more years of Obama.  Polls from Democrat Public Policy Polling who way over sample Dems does not equate to votes, but it gives the Obama media a source for their stories.  When is the last time they polled in the south Texas Hill Country?

Governor Fallin and our two Senators Coburn and Inhofe are fighting back against the Obama Administration.  When we first moved to Oklahoma in 1997, it was Governor Keating along with Senators Inhofe and Nickles fighting Clinton and the EPA.  Today three names have changed but the policies of a Democrat Administration and the EPA may be actually worse under Obama than Clinton which speaks volumes of how bad Obama is as President.  He talks job creation while at the same time his Secretary of State is holding up job creation by not approving this pipeline based on irrational facts that don't come close to the truth.

This email from Governor Fallin yesterday gives the facts about what is happening and lays the blame squarely on the Obama Administration where it belongs:

Today the Wall Street Journal added its voice to the effort to have the Keystone XL oil pipeline – which would connect Canadian oil supplies to those in Oklahoma and ultimately Port Arthur, Texas – approved by the Obama Administration. As Governor Fallin wrote (in a letter co-penned by Oklahoma Senators Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn and attached to this email), “the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to build Oklahoma’s economy by adding $1.2 billion in new spending, increase personal income by $874 million, provide additional state and local tax revenues of more than $25 million, and add more than $1 billion in increased Gross State Product.”

The pipeline continues to be a job-source in waiting as well as a tremendous opportunity to increase the supply of American energy. As the WSJ writes:  

With 9.1% unemployment and gasoline prices in the stratosphere, President Obama must sometimes wish that some big corporation would suddenly show up and offer a shovel-ready, multibillion-dollar project to create 100,000 jobs and reduce U.S. reliance on oil from dictatorships. 

Oh, wait. His Secretary of State has had that offer sitting on her desk since she was sworn in. The trouble is that the Administration can't approve it without upsetting its anti-fossil fuel constituency. And so the proposal sits. … 

… The Keystone XL pipeline is another case in which the Obama Administration's ideology clashes with its professed goal of job creation. Why do jobs always lose?

We invite you to read the full editorial below:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
JULY 7, 2011
Jobs in the Pipeline

The EPA tries to scuttle oil transport from Canada's tar sands.

With 9.1% unemployment and gasoline prices in the stratosphere, President Obama must sometimes wish that some big corporation would suddenly show up and offer a shovel-ready, multibillion-dollar project to create 100,000 jobs and reduce U.S. reliance on oil from dictatorships.

Oh, wait. His Secretary of State has had that offer sitting on her desk since she was sworn in. The trouble is that the Administration can't approve it without upsetting its anti-fossil fuel constituency. And so the proposal sits.  

In September 2008 TransCanada applied to build a new pipeline—the Keystone XL—to bring diluted bitumen from the oil-rich tar sands of Alberta to thirsty American refineries on the Gulf Coast. It is hardly a radical proposal. Canadian crude has been flowing to the U.S. for decades. Another Canadian company—Enbridge—operates the Clipper pipeline across the Canadian border to Chicago. In July 2010 TransCanada began operating its Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma, which is a major storage and pricing depot.  

The Keystone XL would cut a slightly different path, through the American heartland to Port Arthur, Texas. Judging from its past experience and that of Enbridge, TransCanada expected that permitting would take roughly 23 months. Thirty-three months, two State Department studies and 208,000 public comments later, TransCanada is still waiting. On current trend, the company will be lucky to get its permit by January, or after 40 months. But even that is far from certain.  

If Mr. Obama were drawing up a plan from scratch to boost union employment and deflate Iranian-ally Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, it might look like the Keystone XL. TransCanada estimates that building the pipeline will mean more than $20 billion—$13 billion from TransCanada itself—in investment and 13,000 new American jobs in construction and related manufacturing. The company also expects more than 118,000 "spin-off" jobs during the two years of construction. 

TransCanada says it has signed building contracts with four major U.S. unions. It projects that construction will generate $600 million in new state and local tax revenue and that over its life the pipeline will generate another $5.2 billion in property taxes. The Energy Policy Research Foundation in Washington estimates that by linking to the XL, oil producers in North Dakota's Bakken region will enjoy efficiency gains of between $36.5 million and $146 million annually. Lower transport costs will mean savings for Gulf Coast refiners of $473 million annually if the pipeline meets conservative expectations of shipping 400,000 barrels per day.  

Today those refineries are highly dependent on imports from Mexico and Venezuela, which have decreased output in recent years. TransCanada would help to provide Gulf Coast refiners with a more reliable source of supply from a U.S. ally.  

None of this is lost on the State Department, which must approve the project because it crosses the U.S. border. Its first environmental impact statement, in April 2010, found that the XL would meet industry standards and not significantly affect the environment. Without the pipeline, State said, the U.S. would not be able to benefit from cost-efficient Western Canadian oil and "would remain dependent upon unstable foreign oil supplies." 

Hillary Clinton indicated early on that she was inclined to allow it and so it seemed the company would get its permit after a 90-day comment period. But the Environmental Protection Agency raised a stink and State acquiesced to a "supplemental" statement, which took months to prepare. On June 6, at the end of another 90-day comment period, the EPA stamped the report "inadequate" and sent State a nine-page letter with objections, which, no surprise, would require years of further study.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this must have something to do with pipeline safety. But pipelines remain the statistically safest way to transport oil, pipeline accident rates have fallen sharply, and technology has improved reaction time to leaks and the ability to contain them.
Friday's Exxon pipeline leak of up to 1,000 barrels along the Yellowstone River in Montana is a case in point. Any spill is unfortunate, but Exxon says it has put 150 workers on clean-up duty, has asked local residents to identify further damage, and has flown in 90,000 feet of absorbent boom, 3,000 absorbent pads and 2,200 feet of containment boom. TransCanada points out that for river crossings the XL will be 25-feet underground versus Exxon's eight feet (laid 20 years ago) and will feature other state-of-the-art safety enhancements. 

***
So why the EPA push back? Ask the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This is really a campaign against tar sands expansion rather than a single pipeline," Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the council's international program, told the New York Times last month. The EPA's June 6 letter echoes that point. It complains at length about the "[green house gas]-intensive" tar sands and frets about what Canadians are doing to migratory birds.  

U.S. greens loathe oil, and the tar sands has become the next Alaska in green mythology. We get that. But what about jobs and growth? The U.S. economy needs a stable and affordable energy supply and, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), Canada's tar sands oil from "wells to wheels" isn't any "dirtier" than Nigerian light or California or Middle East heavy crude. 

The Keystone XL pipeline is another case in which the Obama Administration's ideology clashes with its professed goal of job creation. Why do jobs always lose?

Here is the letter from April 19, 2011 to Secretary of State Clinton and still no answer:

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 2050 

Dear Madam Secretary: 

The present situation in Libya, and its impact on global energy markets, underscores the increasing importance of satisfying U.S. energy demands with resources from politically stable regions of the world. The Keystone XL pipeline, which seeks to connect Canada’s rich oil sands to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast, is critically important in this effort. We write to urge your support and expeditious approval of a cross-border permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which critically enables the construction of the section of the line connecting Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. 

Oklahoma is the nation's third-largest producer of natural gas, sixth-largest producer of crude oil, has the third greatest number of active drilling rigs, and ranks fifth in crude oil reserves. As a whole, the oil energy industry contributes $23 billion to Oklahoma's gross domestic product. Oklahoma has one of the fastest growing economies in the nation, ranking among the top states in per capita income growth and gross domestic product growth. The $7 billion, privately funded Keystone XL Pipeline is the kind of energy infrastructure project that keeps Oklahoma strong in these times of national economic uncertainty. 

According to an independent study, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to build Oklahoma’s economy by adding $1.2 billion in new spending, increase personal income by $874 million, provide additional state and local tax revenues of more than $25 million, and add more than $1 billion in increased Gross State Product. The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, Oklahoma could see more than $667 million in property taxes to county and other local governments during the operating life of the pipeline. 

What’s good for the residents of Oklahoma can be good for all Americans. According to independent studies, the Keystone XL pipeline will add more than 250,000 permanent jobs for U.S. workers and add more than $100 billion in annual total expenditures to the U.S. economy. During the construction phase of the expansion, Keystone will generate more than $585 million in state and local taxes for the states along the pipeline route and stimulate more than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy. 

With millions of barrels of crude oil flowing into Oklahoma’s Cushing Hub each day, Oklahoma plays a vital role in the distribution of crude oil supplies throughout the U.S. The Cushing Hub serves as the price point for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, which is used to set equivalent prices for crude oil produced in Oklahoma and other nearby states and which has historically been considered the global benchmark for crude oil. Due to a significant increase in inbound crude oil supplies from oil sand production in Canada and the northern U.S., crude oil supplies at the Cushing Hub have outpaced outgoing pipeline capacity, glutting local oil markets and distorting crude oil prices throughout the U.S. Keystone XL presents an opportunity to restore marketplace transparency in a way that could eliminate arbitrage opportunities and positively affect the price consumers ultimately pay for refined products. 

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline can provide a beneficial solution. Presently, construction is planned for two phases: a northern segment extending from Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska and a southern segment extending from Cushing, Oklahoma to Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. The proposed pipeline will be capable of providing the U.S. with an additional 500,000 barrels of crude oil each day. These additional volumes of North American crude oil are vital to America as it looks to secure its future.

Yet, if these additional supplies are delivered without first ensuring adequate outgoing pipeline capacity from Cushing, it will only exacerbate present bottlenecks and price distortions. It is therefore critically important that construction of the pipeline commence with the Southern segment. Only by first ensuring adequate outgoing pipeline capacity from Cushing will America be able to realize the full potential of Keystone XL. 

The Keystone XL pipeline presents a tremendous opportunity to America. If approved, the proposed pipeline would become an integral component in ensuring America’s energy supply. We strongly encourage you to consider the economic impacts and national security interests that this proposal implicates..

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important issue. 

Sincerely,
/s/
Mary Fallin
Governor
State of Oklahoma

James M. Inhofe
US Senator
State of Oklahoma 

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
US Senator
State of Oklahoma

The question of the day is "Does Obama want job creation" and the answer from Oklahoma and Texas would be not if it is going to take place in our two states.  That is the only reasonable answer we can come up when all the facts are presented.

We do encourage Obama to campaign in Texas and Oklahoma so we can win more seats!