# Is the link between KXL pipeline and the Koch brothers as big as my facebook newsfeed suggests? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448 "2014-03-24T15:59:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/21 "2014-04-12T14:20:04Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I’m not disputing this. The ones who should be against the use of eminent domain are the ones who claim to be free market purists, who scream that government can never do anything right, that all taxes are confiscation, that Obama wanting a small tax increase is tantamount to socialism. Eminent domain is way closer to confiscation than taxes are. > > I don’t disagree that many people sold their right of way voluntarily, but I’m also under the impression that many people only sold it “voluntarily” after being threatened with eminent domain (i.e. may as well settle now cause we’re gonna take it anyway.) So what’s your point? Do you want this to be endlessly delayed so you can score a point for your team? Do you want to build up a cartoon straw man opponent that you can criticize? The people that want this approved the most are the ones that have spent the money and stand to gain the profit, the TransCanada shareholders. The people who want it approved the second most are the Gulf Coast refiners? The people who want it approved the third most are the members of the Canadian government that are supporting their constituents. Which one of those groups is this cartoonish anarchist that you describe? Just because Republicans (and a lot of Democrats, not a token few) support this doesn’t mean they are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/22 "2014-04-12T14:55:05Z")
> [@Mr.Duality](#): > > Lower-cost energy, and less dependence on middle-eastern oil. Bullshit. The oil would be shipped through, not to, the US for shipment overseas. The Chinese want the gunk because they don’t really give a shit how dirty this oil is. Keep this oil and its carbon in the ground. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/23 "2014-04-12T15:02:08Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, it’s certainly a fact that the Koch brothers have massive oil interests in Alberta which stand to benefit directly from Keystone XL, and that [they operate the most insidiously aggressive network of spinmeisters and lobbyists in the United States today](http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/the_koch_club/story/Koch_millions_spread_influence_through_nonprofits/). Since Koch Industries is private, many of the details of where this money is going can only be surmised, but in recent years it’s known to have gone to at least 90 tax-exempt advocacy/lobbying organizations, many of which in turn support smaller organizations, websites, and other media campaigns. Their use of dark money funnelers like Donors Trust – basically a money-laundering outfit – and secretive 501(c)6 organizations makes it even harder to trace details of exactly what specific propaganda the Kochs are funding, but it’s clear that much of it is directed toward pro-oil and anti-environmental lobbying which is central to Koch interests. According to the EPA, Koch Industries alone emitted 24 million tons of CO2 in 2011, and has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for chronic and repeated environmental violations. > > Given the Koch brothers’ massive interests in Alberta oil and their history of aggressive and often secretive lobbying, you can draw your own conclusions about whether or not any of their money is responsible for the terrific things you may be hearing about the Keystone pipeline which is directly linked to Alberta oil. If you want a notarized statement of how much they contributed to supporting it, I don’t have it. Rich guys profit from oil pipeline—film at 11:00 Rich guys employ lobbyists to help ensure they can profit from said pipeline—film 1t 11:01 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/24 "2014-04-12T15:15:15Z")
. We don’t typically require such an explanation before approving private infrastructural projects. Like **LonghornDave** has mentioned, oil and gas pipelines form a lattice of lines crisscrossing the country. They are primarily there for the benefit of the transportation companies that build and operate them and the customers who want to move the product on the pipe. Consumers benefit only in that they ultimately want the product and this is one mechanism for getting it to them, that is cheaper than other mechanisms. But it’s like asking who benefits from a coal mine. It’s mostly the coal operators. That doesn’t mean we don’t need the coal mine. Environmentally I’d like to see less coal burnt, but as long we we’re still burning it it doesn’t make sense to not mine it. Same thing with petroleum. Environmentally opposition to KXL is basically a negative. While an earlier poster said the pipeline may or may not be environmentally worse than rail, the truth is every study I’ve seen and all the actual statistics on rail spillages/leaks and pipeline ruptures/leaks shows that rail is dramatically worse for the environment. Rail is less reliable which means more accidents, and rail itself is less energy efficient than moving something along a pipeline, so we actually use more fuel moving it which is worse for the environment even when there are no accidents. The environmentalists might have a point if KXL was a drilling project, as undeniably drilling projects are unlocking the petroleum product that will ultimately be burnt and contribute to carbon in the atmosphere. However, the drilling project is independent of KXL. They’re drilling in the Alberta oil sands whether this pipeline is built or not, they have been for years and they will continue to do so for years. If the Koch’s have significant investments in the oil sands, they are already making money off of those investments and will continue to make money off of those investments. The reason the pipeline is desired is it will get product from where it is to where it is wanted cheaper than rail. But if it’s not built, that product will still be drilled in the exact same amount it is currently being drilled and it will still be sent to where it is wanted. The only difference is, since shipping by rail makes it somewhat less attractive, it may be more likely to get shipped away from North America and refined elsewhere instead of going down to the Gulf. But that would be a marginal game in the vein of “a bit less goes to the Gulf and a bit more goes overseas”, it wouldn’t be substantial and the global environmental impact is essentially a push (except shipping it overseas of course means more pollution just to get it to consumers than refining it here and using it here.) What is ingenious is Warren Buffett must have foreseen this to some degree, his buying BNSF and it being positioned as the primary mover of oil along these routes (also from North Dakota’s Bakken) has made him billions of dollars as rail has become a significant mover of oil whereas prior to political noise about pipelines it was not. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/25 "2014-04-12T15:16:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Rich guys profit from oil pipeline—film at 11:00 > > Rich guys employ lobbyists to help ensure they can profit from said pipeline—film 1t 11:01 No argument there! The point was that the Kochs lobby so much more aggressively than most, and have been largely successful in swaying public opinion to support their many and varied mercenary interests. It’s interesting that their industries have been some of the worst environmental violators, too. In any case, this was meant to address the OP’s doubts that the Koch brothers have any vested interest in Keystone XL. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/26 "2014-04-12T15:20:00Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No argument there! The point was that the Kochs lobby so much more aggressively than most, and have been largely successful in swaying public opinion to support their many and varied mercenary interests. It’s interesting that their industries have been some of the worst environmental violators, too. In any case, this was meant to address the OP’s doubts that the Koch brothers have any vested interest in Keystone XL. In this case it is worth it to note the Kochs are making a lot of money off of this oil either way if they have investments in the oil sands. Them making money doesn’t really justify or not justify it from a public policy perspective. From a public policy perspective the fact that the oil is going to be extracted and burned regardless of approval for KXL and that moving oil through other methods is more dangerous and less efficient both suggest it is actually a public/environmental policy negative to oppose KXL. There’s a branch of environmentalists like me that donate money to things like the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land who believe in conservation and trying to wean ourselves off of polluting resources but that recognize reality. Then there is the branch that opposes anything but wind/solar, ignores the numerous benefits of nuclear and hydro, and will make illogical stands on issues that don’t even further _that_ goal. This opposition to KXL doesn’t even get anyone closer to using “only wind and solar”, it just changes how we get a dirty fuel from one location to another to eventually burn it, and it changes it in a way that is worse for the environment. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/27 "2014-04-12T15:30:39Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Our closest ally wants it done and this has damaged our relationship with them with our politicizing of it. Let’s get our facts straight here. This project is very controversial in Canada, and [support for it has been rapidly dropping over the past year](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/support-for-keystone-xl-pipeline-on-the-decline-nanos-1.2498835). It has even less support than it does in the US, and it seems that the more Canadians learn about it, the more likely they are to oppose it. The perception that Canada wants this thing comes from the fact that the present federal government is comprised of right-wing yokels led by an Alberta cowboy who is so pro-oil that you could send him down and make him the Republican governor of Texas and no questions asked. This is the same idiot who has gutted environmental research and cut environmental regulations and wants to bulldoze a path from the tar sands straight through to the Pacific and build another pipeline to supply China. However this government will have a tough fight in the next election and Harper himself has hinted that he will step down, so let’s not confuse the ruling right-wing yokels with what the people who actually make up your closest ally really want. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/28 "2014-04-12T16:02:53Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > In this case it is worth it to note the Kochs are making a lot of money off of this oil either way if they have investments in the oil sands … > > … This opposition to KXL doesn’t even get anyone closer to using “only wind and solar”, it just changes how we get a dirty fuel from one location to another to eventually burn it, and it changes it in a way that is worse for the environment. Do you honestly believe that private oil companies are willing to sink billions into KXL because it’s “safer” or “better for the environment”? Think about the real reason they want it and it will help clarify why the rest of us shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/29 "2014-04-12T18:06:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Do you honestly believe that private oil companies are willing to sink billions into KXL because it’s “safer” or “better for the environment”? Think about the real reason they want it and it will help clarify why the rest of us shouldn’t. I actually know the reason: it’s cheaper to move oil on a pipeline than a train. But in this case cheaper also means better for the environment. It means less accidents (accidents cost money and lose product) and it means less energy (which costs money) to get oil from A to B. Surely you recognize that just as it can be profitable for a business to do something bad for the environment, it can also be profitable for a business to do something good for the environment? In fact lots of efficiency changes in business are long term profitable and good for the environment, as more efficient energy use is always an environmental positive. Let’s ignore accidents entirely, just the fact that it’s much cheaper to move oil by pipeline than rail suggests it probably uses less energy. Typically a major component of the cost of moving anything is the energy to power the conveyance. It’s not always the case that the cheapest transportation option is the most energy efficient, but generally there is a correlation between what method is cheap to transport and what method is energy efficient. Here is roughly the hierarchy of expense (from greatest) to least expensive, for shipping petroleum products across a continent: Trucks –\> Rail –\> Barge –\> Pipeline Now the reality is often times oil will be shipped in all four methods, for different parts of its journey. But for large consumers of oil pipelines will often go straight to their facility, but that’s actually true of roads, rail lines, and even navigable waterways as facilities that use lots of crude petroleum products tend to have access to some or all of these connections. But anyway, that is roughly the hierarchy of transportation costs. The difference can be quite high, too, you might pay $31/bbl to ship by rail and barge and $8/bbl by pipeline. And the hierarchy of energy usage? In this scenario, it’s exactly as the cost hierarchy. It’s least energy efficient to use trucks, more efficient to use rail, yet still more efficient to use barges (which benefit from the physics of waterways versus railways) and finally most efficient to use are pipelines. Let’s not make the tired arguments that if it’s good for business, environmentalists should be wary of it. In fact one of the things environmentalists need to be active on is promoting the many ways in which environmentalism is **good** for business. It’s not always true, and sometimes we as society need to look out for that or even mandate business pays for its externalities, but we certainly shouldn’t be opposed to the idea that what can be good for the environment can be good for business. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/30 "2014-04-12T18:10:36Z")
It’s actually not just cheaper, there’s also a volume/availability concern. It takes a good while for oil to move along a pipeline, but it moves in vast quantities and consistently. So once you’ve signed a pipeline contract and the oil starts coming, it’s almost like a faucet and you get as much as you’ve agreed to receive. All the other modes of transport have capacity issues and some have delivery issues (timeliness of rail deliveries has always been spotty in comparison to the other modes), pipelines aren’t “fast” but once they are turned on the oil just flows and flows. You don’t have to worry about a missed shipment causing you to shut down a billion dollar facility. So to some degree even aside from cost savings there’s a business reason to want pipelines. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/31 "2014-04-12T18:15:09Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Not sure how we should stick it to the Koch brothers though: there is a public interest in doing just that. I’m willing to throw common sense and efficiency on the back burner to stick it to the enemies of democracy but I’m not seeing KXL as being that great a boon to the Koch brothers. So I wonder why the “Other 98%” keeps touting KXL as a Koch brothers backed project. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > We can deny approval for the XL pipeline. If transporting it by rail proves too dangerous, we can ban the transport of dilbit across American territory by rail. The Canadians can then build the pipeline across their own territory. Yeah, none of those things are going to happen. We are going to approve KXL and if we don’t we aren’t going to ban the transport of dilbit over rails. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > Bullshit. The oil would be shipped through, not to, the US for shipment overseas. The Chinese want the gunk because they don’t really give a shit how dirty this oil is. Keep this oil and its carbon in the ground. There is virtually no way this oil stays in the ground unless the price of oil drops below $60 barrel. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Let’s get our facts straight here. This project is very controversial in Canada, and [support for it has been rapidly dropping over the past year](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/support-for-keystone-xl-pipeline-on-the-decline-nanos-1.2498835). It has even less support than it does in the US, and it seems that the more Canadians learn about it, the more likely they are to oppose it. The perception that Canada wants this thing comes from the fact that the present federal government is comprised of right-wing yokels led by an Alberta cowboy who is so pro-oil that you could send him down and make him the Republican governor of Texas and no questions asked. This is the same idiot who has gutted environmental research and cut environmental regulations and wants to bulldoze a path from the tar sands straight through to the Pacific and build another pipeline to supply China. However this government will have a tough fight in the next election and Harper himself has hinted that he will step down, so let’s not confuse the ruling right-wing yokels with what the people who actually make up your closest ally really want. Canada is still a democracy right? Then why doesn’t your government reflect the will of the people? AFAICT, Canada without oil would be a much poorer country. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Do you honestly believe that private oil companies are willing to sink billions into KXL because it’s “safer” or “better for the environment”? Think about the real reason they want it and it will help clarify why the rest of us shouldn’t. Safer maybe but it probably has more to do with efficiency and cost. So why shouldn’t we support cheaper and more efficient transportation of oil? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/32 "2014-04-12T18:29:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I actually know the reason: it’s cheaper to move oil on a pipeline than a train … It’s actually not just cheaper, there’s also a volume/availability concern … pipelines aren’t “fast” but once they are turned on the oil just flows and flows. Exactly! And what do you suppose that billions of dollars invested in a high-capacity pipeline is going to do both to **motivate** and to **enable** an unconstrained explosive expansion of the dirtiest source of oil in the world – for the entire expected lifetime of this pipeline, and others that the same myopic anti-environment PM is also pushing for? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/33 "2014-04-12T18:35:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Exactly! And what do you suppose that billions of dollars invested in a high-capacity pipeline is going to do both to **motivate** and to **enable** an unconstrained explosive expansion of the dirtiest source of oil in the world – for the entire expected lifetime of this pipeline, and others that the same myopic anti-environment PM is also pushing for? I don’t think that reflects reality. The oil sands aren’t being exploited because of KXL, that predates KXL. Even if KXL never gets built it will continually be drilled. That oil is getting drilled unless the price of oil collapses or we have moved to alternative energy. But blocking the pipeline doesn’t block the oil nor does it help efforts to move towards alternative energy sources. Even shipped by truck this oil is worth it for the companies involved, there’s no stopping it by stopping KXL. I don’t imagine either the laws of Canada or the United States are going to be changed anytime in the next 30 years in a way that would stop truck and rail shipments of petroleum. The way I see it some environmentalists are trying to block something that makes a dirty industry operate more efficiently. It’s like saying “don’t put a bandaid on it since that might make them think it’s okay.” But they already think it’s okay, and they can operate with or without the bandaid. The anti-pipeline stance does nothing for the environment, it just slightly reduces profit margins for the drillers and makes the process less environmentally friendly. It’s lose/lose, whereas building the pipeline is good for both environmentalists and the oil industry. As to your bolded words, businesses aren’t motivated by politics. They are motivated by profit. Since Canadian and American oil can be profitably explored and extracted without Keystone XL or any major trans-continental pipeline their motivation is there regardless of KXL. They are enabled already, KXL doesn’t enable greater drilling and opposition to it does not prevent further exploration and drilling. It really is comparable to the nuclear argument where environmentalists oppose it reflexively based on specious reasons and ultimately have hurt the environment with their opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/34 "2014-04-12T18:39:38Z")
Basically unless you’re arguing Canada should outlaw oil extraction nothing you’re saying makes sense. If it’s legal to extract oil it makes sense to let it be extracted and transported in the most energy efficient way, because that makes it as environmentally friendly as oil can possibly be. It’s to no one’s benefit to make it artificially worse for the environment. If you are arguing oil should be outlawed, I can only counter that we live in the real world and that’s not happening. So I would say your opinion on KXL should reflect the world as it is not as you want it to be. All estimates I’ve seen suggest we’ll be reliant on fossil fuels for at lest 50+ years, as environmentalists our obligation is to promote alternatives and to promote efficiency of fossil fuels themselves. This also includes heavily promoting cleaner fossil fuels over dirtier ones (so supporting natural gas over coal.) ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/35 "2014-04-12T18:46:54Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Bullshit. The oil would be shipped through, not to, the US for shipment overseas. The Chinese want the gunk because they don’t really give a shit how dirty this oil is. Keep this oil and its carbon in the ground. It is not going to be kept in the ground, no matter how much you wish it to be. So the question then becomes this: what is the safest way to exploit it? We could move it by rail, but then you’re not only burning oil to get it where it needs to be but you’re also [risking serious accidents](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/usa-derailment-pennsylvania-idUSL2N0KU12B20140120). By ship? [The same](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill). Canada has chosen to exploit its resources. It’s that simple. Everything else is logistics. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/36 "2014-04-12T18:53:58Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > It is not going to be kept in the ground, no matter how much you wish it to be. So the question then becomes this: what is the safest way to exploit it? We could move it by rail, but then you’re not only burning oil to get it where it needs to be but you’re also [risking serious accidents](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/usa-derailment-pennsylvania-idUSL2N0KU12B20140120). By ship? [The same](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill). > > Canada has chosen to exploit its resources. It’s that simple. Everything else is logistics. But, this project is bad because… Koch Brothers. You clearly don’t understand! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/37 "2014-04-12T18:58:44Z")
There is certainly lots of evidence – despite industry claims to the contrary – that KXL will [encourage and enable increased production](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-caseylefkowitz/keystone-xl-will-signific_b_4772995.html). Also interesting (too lazy to look for the reference right now) is that this is predominantly an export pipeline and TransCanada’s 2008 permit application actually referenced the fact that the pipeline would reduce existing US midwestern oversupply, thus improving profitability for the producers (and presumably raising US gas prices). There is just **so much** industry spin surrounding this billion-dollar self-serving venture. As it now stands, a future government that wasn’t so environmentally hostile could impose environmental standards on future oil sands expansion regarding air, water, and land pollution, all of which are considerable. But the pipeline creates a huge high-capacity infrastructure that would make such regulations politically unpalatable and indeed may have international implications that make them impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/38 "2014-04-12T19:39:16Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There is certainly lots of evidence – despite industry claims to the contrary – that KXL will [encourage and enable increased production](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-caseylefkowitz/keystone-xl-will-signific_b_4772995.html). Also interesting (too lazy to look for the reference right now) is that this is predominantly an export pipeline and TransCanada’s 2008 permit application actually referenced the fact that the pipeline would reduce existing US midwestern oversupply, thus improving profitability for the producers (and presumably raising US gas prices). There is just **so much** industry spin surrounding this billion-dollar self-serving venture. That’s really an opinion piece predicated on two points: that tar sands oil is marginal oil (it is) and the concerns about Keystone XL approval has or might slow investment in it (maybe a bit.) But what drives marginal oil is always going to be oil prices, yes, if oil prices just _slight_ make tar sands oil profitable, then the transportation cost differential of not having the pipeline could stifle investment. But long term, the trend is undeniable: marginal oil will only become more profitable. That continues until _total_ global energy consumption peaks and then declines, or widespread alternatives to fossil fuels reach market saturation and are cheaper than fossil fuels. I’m sorry you think this is energy industry spin, but it’s really not. Right now there is no one serious who thinks Alberta oil sands oil is going to stop being extracted because Keystone XL doesn’t get built, or that it won’t increase because Keystone XL doesn’t get built. > [@](#): > > As it now stands, a future government that wasn’t so environmentally hostile could impose environmental standards on future oil sands expansion regarding air, water, and land pollution, all of which are considerable. But the pipeline creates a huge high-capacity infrastructure that would make such regulations politically unpalatable and indeed may have international implications that make them impossible. I doubt this happens. The Liberals are desperate to get back in power in Canada and they aren’t going to do that by campaigning against one of the biggest engines of growth in the country. They’ve been in power before obviously during oil sands extraction, so I’m not seeing some fabled “future government” in Canada shutting down the oil sands. Maybe minor environmental regulatory changes here and there, but none of that is going to stop the oil coming out of the ground. The only thing that is going to stop it given the economic realities would be a true ban, like the U.S. has on much of its offshore oil resources. But given the reality of the situation, such a ban isn’t coming. So again–why do you want to move this oil in a way that is worse for the environment? It’s a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/39 "2014-04-12T20:30:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m not seeing some fabled “future government” in Canada shutting down the oil sands. Niether do I. But how do you get from my statement about “impose environmental standards on future oil sands expansion regarding air, water, and land pollution” to “shutting down the oil sands”? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > why do you want to move this oil in a way that is worse for the environment? It’s a simple question. Simple answer: because a vast high-capacity infrastructure that **enables** much higher production is going to **create** much higher production, and its enormous cost is going to make such higher production essential to recoup the investment. And much higher volume of this oil _ **is** _ going to be worse for the environment, even if the relatively insignificant unit transportation impact is less. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448/40 "2014-04-12T20:50:07Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What is ingenious is Warren Buffett must have foreseen this to some degree, his buying BNSF and it being positioned as the primary mover of oil along these routes (also from North Dakota’s Bakken) has made him billions of dollars as rail has become a significant mover of oil whereas prior to political noise about pipelines it was not. Buffett is smart: he isn’t psychic. He knew that rail capacity was high and sussed that political trends would be favorable for this generally energy efficient mode of transport (relative to trucks, not pipelines). > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m willing to throw common sense and efficiency on the back burner to stick it to the enemies of democracy but I’m not seeing KXL as being that great a boon to the Koch brothers. So I wonder why the “Other 98%” keeps touting KXL as a Koch brothers backed project. I think we both know the answer to that. It’s red meat for the plebes. It makes sense to keep hammering away at these enemies of transparency and democracy and if your pet peeve is supported by them, so much the better. But if you want to be serious, just look at the merits. I disagree that this is just another infrastructure project. But by now it has had its formal review: it’s time to unpack the shovels. Unless somebody wants to play political hardball with this. But I don’t think that would work. But nor do I apologize for the Koch brothers’ extensive political corruption. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-link-between-kxl-pipeline-and-the-koch-brothers-as-big-as-my-facebook-newsfeed-suggests/684448.md?page=3)