The Senate, Pipelines and Oil Money

Oil has been in the headlines for the past month or more, mainly because of the rapid downward readjustment in price.  As well, in case we've forgotten, in mid-November the transportation of oil caught the media's attention as Senate Democrats  blocked Bill S.2280 that would have approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.  The measure, Senate Roll Call 280, fell one vote short of overcoming a filibuster with a vote of 59 in favour and 41 opposing with 60 votes needed to see the bill proceed.  This followed a vote in the House which saw the bill approved by a relatively wide margin.  As it looks now, voting on Keystone XL is taking on the appearance of a proxy war between the President and the Republican party with the pro-side consisting mainly of Republicans and the anti-side consisting mainly of Democrats.

From Open Congress, here is a summary of who voted for and against the measure:

All Republicans (45) voted for Bill S.2280 along with 14 Democrats and 39 Democrats and 2 Independents voted against the bill.

What has been little covered by the mainstream media is the real reason why the vote in the Senate was split as it was.  According to research by the Center for Responsive Politics, there is a good reason and that reason is money.

On average, over the course of their careers, the 59 Senators who voted for the pipeline have received significantly more money from the oil and gas industry than those who voted against the construction of Keystone XL.  Here is a graphic showing the total amounts received by both the pro- and anti-pipeline Senators:

In total, the 59 Senators who voted for the pipeline received over 33 million in campaign donations from the oil and gas sector, averaging out to $572,000 each.  By comparison, the 41 that voted against  the bill received a total of $4.2 million from the oil and gas sector, averaging out to only $103,900 each.  This means that the pro-pipeline Senators received 5.5 times as much in campaign donations from the oil and gas sector as those Senators that voted against Keystone XL.

In case you were curious, here is a complete listing of total career donations from the oil and gas sector for each Senator:

Here is the same data, sorted in order from largest to smallest career oil and gas sector donations for each Senator, keeping in mind that longer-serving Senators would have had a far longer period of time to accumulate donations:

It is interesting to note that the top 30 recipients of oil and gas money all voted "yea" to Keystone XL and that on average, each Senator has received $940,595.75 in oil sector donations.

As we all know, money is obviously a significant motivator in Washington.  The Keystone XL decision was no exception.

The Latest Salvo in the Keystone Battle

As the Keystone XL pipeline decision day approaches, I thought I'd post this odd but entertaining little video:

The video was created by NextGen Climate Action group, headed by Tom Steyer.  The ad was to run during the Tonight Show during President Obama's appearance on August 6th, 2013, however, NBC rejected the ad because it was determine that "the ad violates our guidelines".  NBC's advertising guidelines state the following about unacceptable content:

 "Unacceptable Content:

An advertisement may be rejected if its content, or other content referenced in the ad or otherwise disseminated by the advertiser, is grossly offensive (e.g., on racial, religious or ethnic grounds). An advertisement may also be rejected if: (1) it is merely an attack of a personal nature, a direct attack on an individual business or a comment on a private dispute; or (2) it contains violent or otherwise graphic or potentially offensive content that is deemed incompatible with a network's viewing environment or general standards; or (3) its content or style of production is otherwise deemed inconsistent with a network’s viewing environment or general standards, as determined by a network in its sole discretion. An acceptance may be subject to limitations regarding time period and type of programming." (my bold)

But apparently, during an election cycle, all network advertising rules are put on hold!

In case you were wondering who Tom Steyer is, he is a 56 year old San Francisco billionaire and former partner in the Farallon Capital Management hedge fund who has made an aggressive move to raise the profile of environmental and energy issues during elections.  According to Forbes, his net worth is $1.4 billion placing him as the 344th richest person in the United States and in 1031st place among the world's billionaires.

As a bit of background, Russ Girling has been the President and CEO of TransCanada Corporation since July 1, 2010.  Even though TransCanada's net income for 2012 dropped by 14.9 percent to $1.299 billion, Mr. Girling's base salary rose by 18 percent to $1.3 million and his total compensation package rose by 17 percent from $6.05 million in 2011 to $7.1 million in 2012.

Here is a map showing TransCanada's existing oil and natural gas pipeline system:

The proposed Keystone XL 1897 kilometer (1179 mile) expansion is expected to expand capacity of the existing Keystone Pipeline System to 1.4 million barrels of oil per day at a total cost of $US5.3 billion as shown on this map:

In closing, here's part of an interesting graphic from Desmogblog showing the history of spills during the first year of operation of the Keystone 1 Pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta and Patoka, Illinois which has been operational since June 2010:

One of these spills, the May 2011 North Dakota spill, was relating to a malfunctioning pipeline fitting according to TransCanada.  Even before it has been commissioned, the Gulf Coast Pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas which is scheduled to come on line later this year, is causing quite a bit of grief for TransCanada as shown on this video taken in the Winnsboro, Texas section of the pipe where several dozen repairs have taken place:

From its 2009 Keystone environmental assessment, here is TransCanada's projection of the size and number of spills from the project over a ten year period:

In the report, TransCanada projects that there will be one spill in every 18,600 years in the ecologically sensitive areas of Montana and one in every 1900 years in the ecologically sensitive areas of Nebraska.

Only time will tell whether TransCanada's continued problems with small spills add up to much larger problems, particularly as age takes its toll on the project.  Perhaps NextGen's video will prove to be prophetic.