The Satanic Capitalist

This blog is dedicated to our unelected, and infallible, Plutocrat masters and my loyal fellow sheeple! :) Get a job!

Approving the Keystone Pipeline Could Cost US Consumers $3 to $4 Billion Per Year in Higher Gas Prices
By Ryan Koronowski

There are many good reasons why approving the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea. But not many factor the possibility of higher gas prices into the equation.
According to a new report from Consumer Watchdog, that is likely to happen. In particular, drivers in the Midwest would see increases at the pump ranging from 25 to 40 cents per gallon. This dovetails with another report by Public Citizen earlier this year.
Why would this happen? Isn’t the global oil market immune to changes in where oil comes from, or even better, wouldn’t more oil supply on the market make prices drop? Right now, the price of Canadian tar sands oil is lower than it otherwise would be because refining the substance into usable oil is an energy-intensive process, and Alberta does not have an easy way to transport it all to refining and export facilities. As the report says, “The tar sands oil price won’t go up without substantially more exports.”
Refiners in the Midwest are taking advantage of the glut of supply in Alberta and the corresponding low prices, but that savings is not being passed down to the consumer at the pump. At the same time, gas prices in the Midwest have been similar to or higher than prices nationwide this year.
The construction of the pipeline would mean much of it would likely be sent down to refineries in Texas, bypassing the Midwest and reducing supply. According to the report, this means that local gas prices would rise by 20-40 cents in the region, and a few cents nationally. All told, the cost to Americans could range from $3-4 billion, according to the Consumer Watchdog report:

In the Midwest alone, each year of only a 20-cent-a-gallon increase could rip $3 billion to $4 billion from more productive spending. The up to $4 billion in Midwest economic loss is close to the amount that TransCanada would spend on the pipeline project, canceling a major claim of U.S. economic benefit. While the company says it will spend $7 billion, some of that will be spent in Canada and some has already been spent, so it is has no future economic effect.
Backers regularly make the case that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline will drop gasoline prices, even though the pipeline would take years to build even if the Obama administration approved it today. A comment from Rep. Fred Upton last year that Keystone would help lower gas prices earned a “Pinocchio” from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker.
TransCanada and other stakeholders that want to extract the oil sands out of Albertan soil see the Keystone XL pipeline as the best way to be able to charge more for the Canadian tar sands oil. That is, at root, what this fight is about. So they try to move the debate away from how it would affect gas prices, and onto U.S. construction spending and jobs. But, as the Consumer Watchdog report says, “It is likely that the higher oil price and gasoline prices would offset any provable jobs or manufacturing benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline.”
Meanwhile, American Automobile Association and the Energy Information Administration officials told Congress Tuesday that current gas prices remain high and are only likely to get higher despite increasing domestic production.
This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/approving-keystone-pipeline-could-cost-us-consumers-3-4-billion-year-higher-gas-prices-1374036193. All rights are reserved.
image

Approving the Keystone Pipeline Could Cost US Consumers $3 to $4 Billion Per Year in Higher Gas Prices

By Ryan Koronowski

There are many good reasons why approving the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea. But not many factor the possibility of higher gas prices into the equation.

According to a new report from Consumer Watchdog, that is likely to happen. In particular, drivers in the Midwest would see increases at the pump ranging from 25 to 40 cents per gallon. This dovetails with another report by Public Citizen earlier this year.

Why would this happen? Isn’t the global oil market immune to changes in where oil comes from, or even better, wouldn’t more oil supply on the market make prices drop? Right now, the price of Canadian tar sands oil is lower than it otherwise would be because refining the substance into usable oil is an energy-intensive process, and Alberta does not have an easy way to transport it all to refining and export facilities. As the report says, “The tar sands oil price won’t go up without substantially more exports.”

Refiners in the Midwest are taking advantage of the glut of supply in Alberta and the corresponding low prices, but that savings is not being passed down to the consumer at the pump. At the same time, gas prices in the Midwest have been similar to or higher than prices nationwide this year.

The construction of the pipeline would mean much of it would likely be sent down to refineries in Texas, bypassing the Midwest and reducing supply. According to the report, this means that local gas prices would rise by 20-40 cents in the region, and a few cents nationally. All told, the cost to Americans could range from $3-4 billion, according to the Consumer Watchdog report:

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

Backers regularly make the case that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline will drop gasoline prices, even though the pipeline would take years to build even if the Obama administration approved it today. A comment from Rep. Fred Upton last year that Keystone would help lower gas prices earned a “Pinocchio” from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker.

TransCanada and other stakeholders that want to extract the oil sands out of Albertan soil see the Keystone XL pipeline as the best way to be able to charge more for the Canadian tar sands oil. That is, at root, what this fight is about. So they try to move the debate away from how it would affect gas prices, and onto U.S. construction spending and jobs. But, as the Consumer Watchdog report says, “It is likely that the higher oil price and gasoline prices would offset any provable jobs or manufacturing benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Meanwhile, American Automobile Association and the Energy Information Administration officials told Congress Tuesday that current gas prices remain high and are only likely to get higher despite increasing domestic production.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/approving-keystone-pipeline-could-cost-us-consumers-3-4-billion-year-higher-gas-prices-1374036193. All rights are reserved.

  1. kikisdeliveryfanservice reblogged this from betsumei
  2. betsumei reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  3. silas216 reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  4. chemman9 reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  5. poodleman reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias and added:
    I’d like to see consumers wise up to the point where they start buying Teslas and starve the oil vampires to death. Not...
  6. socialistjew reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  7. umph reblogged this from randomactsofchaos
  8. corporationsarepeople reblogged this from randomactsofchaos
  9. fullhousewithouttheolsentwins reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  10. randomactsofchaos reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  11. chipmunksback reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  12. bridgeportlandia reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  13. tryllvester reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  14. tr0tskitty reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  15. rosewad reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  16. truth-has-a-liberal-bias reblogged this from mommapolitico
  17. mommapolitico reblogged this from oldparasitesingle
  18. oldparasitesingle reblogged this from resistkxl
  19. resistkxl reblogged this from satanic-capitalist
  20. raw-r-evolution reblogged this from delirium-hits
  21. delirium-hits reblogged this from satanic-capitalist
  22. warlikeparakeet88 reblogged this from satanic-capitalist
  23. satanic-capitalist posted this