Opposition to the Keystone XL Suprised the Developer

This is a very, very good story about the Keystone XL with regard to the opposition it has experienced.

Many months ago I posted a note about how fracking caught those opposed to "Big Oil"completely off guard. I post up to 10 new posts/day and update dozens of other posts and it will take a moment to find that post or posts. Ah, yes, here are the posts in which I first discussed this issue. Click here and here -- links will have to wait. I'm using Microsoft IE and links are impossible to access; when I get home I will use my old MacBook and put in the links.

Folks who say that the oppositon to Keystone XL is simply about opposition to pipelines in general are misreading the story.

Folks are misreading the reason for the national interest in opposition to the Keystone XL. The anti-Big Oil folks have fewer and fewer issues to challenge. Even the response to the Gulf oil spill back in 2010, in retrospect, caused more economic damage than the spill itself.

When you get right down to it, there's really only one national issue the anti-Big Oil folks have in common: fracking. But with regard to fracking, opponents to "Big Oil" were caught completely off-guard. Early on I opined that opponents might be able to stop fracking, but the tea leaves suggest otherwise. Too many states with unemployment in double digits and budgets in disarray desperately need the industry, even if their leaders are unwilling to admit it. I understand even Governor Moonbeam of California is courting the oil industry for onshore drilling.

With gasoline at $4.00/gallon, with wind turning out to be more expensive than folks realized and are whooping crane and bald eagle killers to boot, and solar all but dead (see Solyndra; see two more companeis get Obama's larges -- links to follow), common folk are asking: what's wrong with Canadian oil?

So, having been caught off-guard with regard to fracking, the anti-oil folks didn't have many places to go. It is truly amazing that a simple pipeline became a national lightning rod. Even SecState Hillary Clinton was caught off-guard, having flip-flopped on the issue. I don't know her current position on the Keystone. [According to motherjones.com --http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/transcanada-keystone-pipeline-map:

Friends of the Earth, Corporate Ethics International, and the Center for International Environmental Law are seeking a record of all communication between Clinton's office and that of Paul Elliott, who served as the national deputy director in her 2008 campaign and now serves as the director of government relations at TransCanada. The initial Freedom of Information Act request was denied. A new request was submitted in late January.]

The following from someone else who understands what is going on:

The problem with fracking isn't that it's particularly new or dangerous. The methodology has been in use for decades, and it is as safe as other drilling processes. The real problem is that it could produce relatively cheap hydrocarbon energy for a very long time, and that's what has environmentalists worried.

Others have already talked about the hypocrisy of giving a pass to whooping crane killers. Now, check out the goverment's map of pipelines crossing the country, particularly through Nebraska, and it is obvious the degree of hypocrisy with regard to Keystone XL. The national pipeline infrasture, we are told, is old and in need up repair or renewal. Everyone talks about need for new infrastructure in the US. Now that a Canadian company actually has a shovel-ready infrastructure project in place, folks in New York City, Washington (DC), and San Francisco are against it. (I assume most of them don't even know where Nebraska is on a map.) Hypocrisy in full bloom.

I don't have a dog in this fight. My interest is in Enbridge and KinderMorgan.