• Comment (3)

Kochs Won't Benefit From Keystone XL--But Warren Buffett Might

January 25, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The Democrats are taking a beating over President Barack Obama's decision to "red light" the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from the Canadian tar sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast.

According to some estimates, including one promulgated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, the pipeline could, in the short term, lead to 20,000 new jobs at a time when they are sorely needed. Its construction would also help the nation become more energy secure.

To deflect from the political fallout, Democrats on Capitol Hill are trying to make the case that the pipeline would benefit Koch Industries, one of the world's largest privately-held companies and the left's principal bête noire.

[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]

A story appearing Tuesday in Politico reported that Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman and Energy and Power Subcommittee ranking Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush have asked committee Republicans "to request a Koch representative as part of their months-long probe into whether the company expects to profit mightily from the project."

"We make this request so that committee members can understand whether Koch is positioned to be a 'big winner' if the pipeline is approved, as some news accounts have reported," the piece quoted their letter as saying.

Attempting to create the impression that congressional Republicans are pushing the pipeline as a payoff to their corporate supporters may be good political theater but it's short on facts.

[Read Washington Whispers: Most Want Keystone Pipeline Built]

"Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline and we are not party to its design or construction," Philip Ellender, president of Koch Companies Public Sector, said in a statement. "We are not a proposed shipper or customer of oil delivered by this pipeline. We have taken no position on the legislative proposal at issue before Congress and we are not cited in any way in that legislation."

That, however, is not the end of the story. If Waxman and Rush and their fellow Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee are interested in seeing if political favoritism has entered into the debate over the Keystone pipeline, they might want to talk to Warren Buffett, the Omaha-based billionaire who has been a strong supporter of President Barack Obama.

According to Bloomberg Business News by way of the San Francisco Chronicle, Buffett's Burlington Northern Santa Fe "is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration's decision to reject TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit."

[Read Michael Lynch: Keystone XL's Rewards Outweigh Its Potential Risks]

"Whatever people bring to us, we're ready to haul," Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett's Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in an interview. If Keystone XL "doesn't happen, we're here to haul," the story quoted her as saying.

Did Buffett have anything to do with the Obama administration's decision not to go ahead with the pipeline, which critics alleged would have damaged an "environmentally sensitive region" of his home state of Nebraska? It's a fair question to ask since he would seem to benefit from the decision—certainly more than the Kochs would if the pipeline were allowed to go ahead. Unfortunately you can be almost certain that it's not a question that Waxman or Rush are going to ask.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Warren Buffett,
energy,
Obama administration,
oil

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

And what's with Democrats' desire to bring us back to the stone age?

Are you really concerned about "clean air"? If you were, you'd support the pipeline. The pipeline produces no emissions to merely transport the stuff from point A to point B. The most emissions would come from building the damn thing.

Instead, Canada is going to sell to China. They're going to go ahead with building the pipeline with or without America. The carbon and ecological footprints to build through the mountains to the Pacific are far greater than building the thing on a straight shot over flat land.

Then, China's going to load it up on to their ships. The carbon footprint of shipping the stuff across the ocean is massive. And then, in the end, the oil is going to be processed into fuel and burned anyway.

The only difference is that it helps China, not America.

Not to mention that tankers transporting oil across the Pacific means potential for oil spills. Maritime oil spills are far more difficult to contain than land-based ones.

So this begs the question: why do Democrats hate clean air AND clean water?

The Keystone thing shows just how out of the realm of reality today's left is. It's why they got their asses handed to them in 2010 and it's why there will be a repeat in 2012.

Brad9883 of FL 5:37PM January 25, 2012

First of all, Obama has not permanently banned the XL pipeline. His actual words were: "Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people."

Why would someone use a Washington Whispers reference as if a documentation of fact? It is an opinion site, not an official and/or credible site. In fact, it is emphasized that: "Washington Whispers has appeared in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun take at the scene inside Washington."

There are hundreds of thousands who were hoping the President would delay the XL pipeline construction until research was completed and safety issues addressed.

Groups against XL pipeline:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AfSyJJCAkY

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/groups-sue-to-block-construction-of-keystone-xl_n_996075.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline/story?id=15387980#.TyBz5kpU-Cg

http://sicangueyapaha.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/bordeaux-to-thune-clarify-keystone-comments-and-apologize/

ann keenan of MI 5:28PM January 25, 2012

What is this adoration for dirty air and water that Republicans have? The idea is to save the Ogalalla Aquifer, not benefit Warren Buffett. What a splendidly irrelevant piece of rancid snark.

Dreary Peter Roff has once again been a good little errand boy for the Koch Brothers. They will undoubtedly give him a lollipop.

Panskeptic of MT 10:25AM January 25, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement