Senator Johnson votes against South Dakota interests

If you want jobs and increased energy production, Senator Tim Johnson has again made it clear he is not representing you.

Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in a bipartisan effort to support the Keystone XL pipeline. Senator Tim Johnson was not one of them. Despite the fact that Kent Conrad (ND), Max Baucus (MT) and John Tester (MT), all from this region, supported the passage.

The Democrats who crossed party lines on the 56-42 vote were: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, and Jim Webb of Virginia.

President Obama and Senator Johnson continue their efforts to block the creation of tens of thousands of jobs for Americans who are unemployed and looking for work as they ignore the struggles of South Dakotans paying for their continued partisanship at the pump.

Eleven Democratic Senators stood up against Obama and his anti-energy agenda. They chose to listen to a majority of their constituents and not be intimidated by the environmental left. President Obama has shown his willingness to support anti-energy causes at our expense. Unfortunately, Senator Johnson once again chose to act as a loyal puppet for Obama’s political interests rather than as a voice for the people of South Dakota.

94 Replies to “Senator Johnson votes against South Dakota interests”

  1. i-pea

    Sen. Johnson is a patriot.

    Senators Baucus and Tester are poised to turn all Montana constitutional offices blue out of disgust for red state failure: it’s called political cushion.

    The GOP is toast.

  2. M.D.

    What has happened to senator johnson? He used to have my respect. Rounds and 2014 can’t happen soon enough.

  3. i-pea

    Ben Nelson and Tom Harkin opposed it; Mike Johanns and Chuck Grassley voted in favor of ecocide.

    “The contract assigning a third-party company to investigate the environmental impacts of the Keystone XL project adds to questions about the impartiality of the study, after the document was shown to be a binding contract between the outside company and the company building the pipeline, not the State Department.”


  4. Anonymous

    Thank you Tim as the wingers don’t know you got more money for lewis and clark pipe line wow you are such an extremist.I didn’t know you were such a boogy man.

  5. springer

    There is a wall between Johnson and anything that is not pro Obama. We might as well ignore paying attention to him for the next few years as he will vote solid Obama.

  6. Doug Wiken

    I guess I don’t quite get the GOP fascination with a pipeline the industry and Bloomberg news thinks will increase gasoline prices ten to twenty cents per gallon in the midwest The aim is to get rid of the glut of oil in the midwest with a pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast.

    The price increase is likely to increase oil company profits by $ billions and probably add about $8 million or so to gasoline costs of South Dakotans per year.

    1. duggersd

      I really do not understand how building a pipeline would increase the cost of gasoline at the pump. How could a pipeline possibly increase gasoline in the Midwest? I think this is a total disconnect. It seems to me a pipeline is a way of transporting a raw product to a refining facility. This pipeline costs less to transport than rail. It is even considered more safe and reliable than rail. Also there are less pollutants used to transport the raw material. If building a pipeline will add 20 cents to a gallon of gasoline, I hate to think what it would cost if rail is used. BTW, I hear Warren Buffett is happy. Maybe he owns some rail stock?

      1. Les

        Whats the value of gold on the moon Doug? What is the value of that gold if we ship it back to earth in the little shuttle? What we did was give the moonshiners a little value for their product just as we do the producers who will fill this pipe. The product is no longer land locked where you and I(the locals) have a captive source.

        Good luck if you believe we can fill the barrels of 3bil asian/indians who want that oil. That is minutiae(thanks DE), nada in the the real of supply. Maybe some year down the road this pipe would play a role in a decreasing price but for the time being all the petro that used to feed local refineries will be priced at West Texas Intermediate minus a buck or two and that’s no drop for us Doug. The value for us will come with oil production being able to increase in our corner of the world.

      2. Les

        Gulf refineries are not local Doug, they do not provide the northern plains gasoline. You’re right about Buffet, his engineers are designing rail to get the Williston Basin oil to the Gulf. They say crude will seek the highest price available according to the infrastructure in place. I won’t argue with Buffet.

        BTW, you wouldn’t mind moving out of your house for the purpose of a private golf course needing your property would you Doug? You don’t mind private enterprise taking your world without your approval do you?

        1. duggersd

          But, Les, we already do not have, Les, any refiners here. Les, we already have to transport our fuel from the refiners. Right, Les? So my question is how does a pipeline increase the costs to the Midwest? Les, I see a total disconnect. As for your question about the moon, if someone can build a ship and go to the moon, mine it and transport it back at a profit, then someone might consider doing it. It does not matter how much the gold is worth on the moon. What matters is whether it is profitable to bring it back. Just because someone brings it back does not guarantee a profit, Les.

          1. Les

            Just like the oil stuck in the midwest, gold stuck on the moon has a lesser value Dug, sometimes much less.

            Doug the disconnect is you. Alberta our neighbor, local in my mind, refines 1.5mil b/day. Mandan,ND 60K b/d, MT 183K b/d, MN 400K b/d, CO 100K b/d, KS 300K b/d, IL 1mil b/d.

            That black gold trapped, whether in Canada or Williston or on the moon, has lesser value until it can hit the big market. Our refiner’s listed above can bid 15-30/b less than Gulf prices without the pipe. Given the pipes costs of maybe a couple bucks a barrel we will see an increase of the difference.

            When Hyperion does come online, they will not pull Canadian oil or Williston oil out of that pipe as that would run the next 1500 miles of pipe to the gulf empty while they offload that slug and they didn’t build it to sit empty. With the on ramp, our oil local producer had to guarantee a daily that as full all the time.

            Please tell me you’re not an econ teacher Doug.

            1. Bill Fleming

              Les is right. The way to keep gas cheap is to refine it and distribute it here. (Basically strand it… create a bottlneck… a surplus glut.) Send it to the Gulf shipping ports and it goes to China in a heartbeat, at full markup.

              As I understand it, the bottleneck is in Oklahoma right now:


              Mention the words “foreign oil” and most people think of the Middle East, but the largest supplier of foreign oil to the U.S. is actually much closer.

              Canada ships about 2.5 million barrels of oil to the U.S. every day, and much of that comes from the oil sands of Alberta. It’s shipped via pipeline to the Midwest, and often lands at the end of the line in Cushing, Okla., a town where incoming oil supplies have backed up enough to start changing area market conditions, keeping prices in the middle of the country lower than on the coasts.

              ‘We’re Taking A Haircut On Every Barrel’

              Lately, the price difference between Cushing and the coasts has been about $15 a barrel.

              “We’re taking a haircut on every barrel of oil we sell in Oklahoma, relative to the price in the global marketplace,” says Mickey Thompson, chairman of the Crude Oil Committee for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association.”

              1. Bill Fleming

                …and, from the same article:

                “Those of us living in Denver and living in the Rocky Mountain areas are benefiting from the bottling up of crude from Cushing,” says Philip Verleger, a Colorado resident and professor of management at the University of Calgary in Alberta.

                Verleger monitors oil and gas markets closely and says that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, prices may rise in Colorado and throughout the Midwest, but the rest of the world will benefit by all that oil making its way to the Gulf Coast and on to other markets, like China.”

            2. duggersd

              Which costs less/b to bring oil to a refiner. A train car or a pipeline? I understand economics plenty, Les. If a commodity cannot be recovered, brought to market and sold at a profit, it is unlikely to be recovered.

              1. Les

                You keep arguing in favor of my point Doug. I’ve said the one reason I’m in favor of the pipeline is, it will bring more money for my minerals on which you and I agree.

                However you seem to think that means cheaper gas for you when the gas you burn will now cost our local refiners 15/barrel more. Tell me about that econ degree, honorary and don’t tell me we have no local refiners Doug.

          2. Les

            BTW Doug, I left Rockport Tx for SD a week ago. 3.59/Rockport, 3.60/Ft Worth, 3.89/Kansas, 3.29/Alliance NE, 3.39/Lead SD.

            That looks like 20 cents between Lead SD and Rockport TX just 45 minutes from a glut of refineries in Corpus. I’d say that 20 cent increase floating as a price increase for the midwest looks very possible.

            1. duggersd

              Les, you and Bill seem to be saying a glut lowers the price. Yet, you buy gas in a location 45 minutes from a glut and pay more?

              1. Les

                Doug, you need reading comprehension, or just plain comprehension. I am saying the glut is here buddy. You are mixing words. The Gulf has no glut of oil or we wouldn’t be shipping it down there, now would we. We(Williston and Canada) have the oil glut.

                You are saying we have no refineries here. How many did I show you we have and how many do we need for a few million people in the plains?

      3. Bill Fleming


        “The reason for the higher prices is pretty basic: the Canadian oil is curretnly essentially stranded and was priced at an average discount to Brent crude of about $23.50/barrel in 2011. Moving Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast where prices are higher will not lower the price of Brent crude unless the new oil more than replaces the existing supply. The Gulf Coast imports around 5 million barrels/day and the Keystone XL pipeline and a couple of other pipelines proposed to move oil south from Cushing to the coast will transport less than 1.5 million barrels/day if and when all the current plans are realized.

        The effect will be to raise the price of Canadian crude everywhere, including the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain regions, where Marathon and HollyFrontier do their refining. Their feedstock costs will rise and the price for their refined products will also rise.”

        1. duggersd

          Bill, when it says “it is priced”, that does not mean “it will be purchased”. If a refiner can purchase oil from another source for less cost per gallon of gasoline produced, it will. The differences in prices have a lot to do with quality. I am not arguing the pipeline will decrease the cost of gasoline. I am only saying it will have little if anything to do with the price. The pipeline only increases the supply. And we know that increased supply does not necessarily decrease price. It will have a downward pressure, but other factors have to be considered. And it would be absolutely stupid to just add some supply to lower the cost, right? Oh wait, then why is BHO and Democrat leaders suggesting releasing oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve?

          1. Les

            Most of the US outside of the area now sourcing our/their trapped crude could see either reduced or a more steady price Doug, your econ is working there.

  7. D.E. Bishop

    Seems I’ve heard a lot about the job numbers being wildly exaggerated. I’m sure some of you smart people know more about that.

    And what jobs are short-term construction and which are long-term maintenance/operation work?

    1. duggersd
      If you can believe the industry and the unions involved, 13,000 jobs will be created during construction. They are saying over 7 million hours of labor. I am not sure of the 13,000 are all laborers on the project or if they include jobs in businesses that have to provide goods and services to the project. According to an independent study cited in the article, they are estimating 118,000 person hours. This appears to be about 9 years of work?

  8. Les

    I support the pipeline strictly based upon the growth in the oil industry of our little corner of the world with an on ramp near Baker Mt. Williston had larger tax revenues than Fargo.

    That being said, that bad with the good. Our petro products will all cost more as that oil is headed south and offshore. We can have whatever quantity we want, just raise your hand and bid. It will cost us at the local refinery roughly $15/barrel more.

    As someone who for decades has despised eminent domain for private industry gains, I am held to exposing all the negatives regardless of a personal interest in seeing the pipe.

    Whether Tim voted based upon beliefs or politics, we may never know, but we darn sure know politics plays a major role in policy or we wouldn’t have tied policy to pipeline to force our presidents hand. There I go again, that Stace just doesn’t get how this politics thing works.

    BTW our DC Rep states, ”our loss is China’s gain” to the Meals on Wheels center in Sioux Falls. I’m just not sure how to take this. Regardless of China owning oil production in Canada, somehow a pipeline through the US is going to help us rather than help them get their oil to an offshore transport? Rep Noem, I think if the Canadians were so doggone willing to pipe that oil to the west coast, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now would we.

    1. duggersd

      This has been studied and re-studied. The company was even working around the Nebraska problem. Either you do not want to admit or are unaware this has been put off because president Obama does not want to make a decision that will pit him against environmentalists and labor unions until after the election. Again, he voted “present”. And Tim Johnson and the rest who voted with the President are just enabling him to vote “present”. They are not voting in the interests of our state or our country.

      1. Clay Bill

        Oh, Dugger — I realize this must be a difficult time for you as you watch the GOP try, in any way possible, to damage Obama because you’re likely to nominate Romney as your presidential candidate, a person who is about as phony as the Republicans’ “outrage” over Keystone.

        Among the many truths being ignored by the GOP right now:

        1) There are many theories about why gas prices have risen, but the most logical explanation was voiced by Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein: Americans are caught in an economic vise between the world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, which holds exports steady to keep the price up, and the world’s most desperate consumer, China, which has no choice but to buy oil at whatever the price is. China’s demand is driving world gasoline prices up and the US is suffering. Completion of Keystone won’t keep more oil in the U.S. Oil is a global commodity; it will be purchased by the country that demands it the most, and that means whether the oil is from Canada or Timbuktu, China increasing demand for it and willingness to purchase it at any price means Keystone simply doesn’t have the ability to lower prices.

        2) On February 7th, Bloomberg News reported, “The U.S. is the closest it has been in almost 20 years to achieving energy self-sufficiency… Domestic oil output is the highest in eight years…” Republicans refuse to acknowledge the truth: America has energy, in general, but not enough oil. That’s the economic “elephant” in the room, the genesis of our gas woes. The world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, has reserves of 260B barrels and produces 10M each year; 2M barrels go to the US. The world’s most desperate energy consumer, China, has oil reserves of 20B barrels, produces 4M each year, and consumes 8M. The United States has oil reserves of 19B barrels [1.4 percent of the world total], produces 9M each year, and consumes 19M barrels.

        3) Recently, Mitt Romney said. “Obama should do more to open up domestic sites for drilling, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.” None of these suggestions would remedy soaring gasoline prices. For example, if the decision was made to drill in ANWR it would take 10 years before this oil reached our pumps and then it would only slightly diminish our need to import oil. Republicans refuse to acknowledge the obvious: America doesn’t have enough oil and must turn to alternatives.

        4. Republicans claim President Obama doesn’t have an effective energy strategy because he’s beholden to environmentalists. The reality is that Republicans have no energy strategy because they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. Since 1990 oil and gas companies have contributed $238.7 million to candidates and parties and 75 percent has gone to Republicans — a higher percentage this year. It’s not “drill, baby, drill,” it’s “money, baby, money.”

        Just because the truth hurts doesn’t mean we should ignore it. Right now, though, that’s all that Republicans are willing to do.

        1. Anonymous1

          Clay Bill you have some very good points. i have some questions for you plus a couple of points that I would like your response.

          Clay Bill could you please answer duggersd question about Obama does not want to make a decision that will pit him against environmentalists and labor unions until after the election.

          Second I have been hearing this ANWR debate for almost twenty years. If we would have started drilling when this debate first came up, we would have the oil by now.

          Third Clay Bill, I have been involved in these alternative energy on and off for about 35 years. Solar, ethanol, wind and so on and so on. The thing that most people do not know is that these alternative energies do not make any money. These industries have to survive on their own. Until they do, that means make money, they will not work. We have been trying solar for almost forty years and nobody can make a profit. That is unless they get a lot of help from the government. Yes oil companies do get some government breaks in taxes but in the overall balance sheet of the oil companies in means little.

        2. duggersd

          I really do not worry so much as to what the price of gasoline is as long as it is not being hampered by excessive government regulation. Whether the price goes up or down has many factors. Restricting supply would have upward pressure. Increasing supply would have downward pressure. Even President Obama believes this as he is considering releasing oil from the SOR.
          If American does not have the reserves, then why do oil companies want to drill? As for your ANWR statement, that has come up before and if it had passed then, it would be online already.
          The only people who wish to restrict the supply of oil are people who want to force the US to change its source of energy. This is bad policy.

    2. Ron

      Really? You are going to come on this site and refer us to an MSNBC video like that is going to convince us of something? Why don’t you just post on the guy who cited the Huffington Post?

      1. Clay Bill

        Watch the video, Ron. It’s from Morning Joe, a conservative yet well-balanced program. And if you have watched the video, then I guess you’re following the current GOP line of denying the truth.

        1. Anonymous

          Joe is center right but it is NOT a balanced show. If this think that then we have no basis to begin. That whole network is a joke.

    1. Troy Jones

      Good point. It is almost as if Johnson is trying to make sure the Dem. Candidate gets below the Heidepriem line.

      1. Anonymous1

        More importantly Mr. Jones this proves that Johnson is not running for re-election in 2014.

  9. Doug Wiken

    Trans-Canada may have its subcontractors working on re-routing XL in Nebraska. How about where it goes through the water reserves of central South Dakota?
    Below is link to Bloomberg News with Story on XL planned pipeline to increase midwest fuel prices. Take up your arguments with the author who knows more about this angle than I do. The original stories were noted in the Mitchell Daily Republic, but those links have become pay only. Bloomberg is still free as of today at least.

    1. Cliff Hadley

      A pipeline through our backyard is many times safer than any other transport of oil, whether tankers, trucks or trains. How do we know this? Consider all the false anxiety whipped up about the Alaska pipeline 30 years ago. In that time, no animals hurt, no spills, no troubles. Also, Canada wants to pay us billions of dollars to steer its oil to our refineries. That’s a good deal, no matter how you cut it. Add in the jobs to build and maintain the thing, and it’s winner winner, chicken dinner. As for prices at the pump, more supply always pushes prices downward, and in the world market for oil, even small increases in barrels produced can affect retail prices significantly. Happened before, will happen again.

        1. V


          You are always focused on the negative. That’s why you are a liberal. Tanker transport is far more dangerous than any pipeline ever built.

          The earth releases more oil naturally by shifting plates and cracks in the oceans floor than man has ever spilled. Deal with it.

          But keep looking for any example you can about a leaky pipeline.

          1. Bill Fleming

            V, I just think it’s important when discussing these things to tell the truth. Shale oil (bitumen) is a lot harder to clean up than other types of crude. We should do everything possible to ensure clean transport in order to protect our land and water supply. That’s not “liberal” that’s conservative.

              1. Bill Fleming

                p.s. V, the “liberal” position would be to nationalize the energy industry. Oil, gas, coal, the whole ball of wax. THEN you could have gas cheap. LOL.

        2. Cliff Hadley

          Nope, not kidding. Weighing risk and reward, I’ll take Big Oil over Big Enviros every time. Because Big Oil (and Big Coal and Big Natural Gas) delivers freedom to the modern world in the form of the cheapest and most reliable energy. Big Enviros — and the Left in general — wants everyone’s energy to come from rainbows and unicorns so we can party like the Ingalls. Tell us, Bill, are there any fossil fuel or nuke projects the Left supports? If not, then what are the alternatives?

          1. Bill Fleming

            Yes. See the Obama policy.

            The US is now producing more oil than it ever has, even as the per capita demand has remained constant for the past 30 years.

            The net result is that the US has become a net EXPORTER of oil products under the Obama administration.

            Your argument is bogus, and you know it, Cliff. Alaska produces 14% of US oil, and the gas prices there are higher than they are in South Dakota.

            This is too important of an issue to lie about it.

            Get with the program.

            1. Cliff Hadley

              Three things:

              1. All the increase in oil and gas production has happened on private and state land. Production on federal lands is down — from memory here — around 15% under Obama’s watch.

              2. As far as the price at the pump in Alaska, all finished products cost more there, including refined oil. Their crude is sold on the world market, and all prices would go up if Alaska’s 14% were left in the ground. And the world price would be affected if ANWR were tapped.

              3. Lying? Strong word, pardner.

      1. Les

        Our backyard Cliff? How far is it from your back door?

        Private industry and eminent domain. Cool. I want to build a daycare and your property is in the way.

          1. Les

            Of course it is Veldy! So is getting Chinese oil to the Gulf. We’ve made it a national security to offshore all of our manufacturing to China so this only seems natural.

  10. Anonymous

    Anon 1, 1:25am, asked about ANWR. In the late 1990’s Congress passed the ok to drill in ANWR but Bill Clinton vetoed it saying that it would not help the then high prices for gas because it would take years to develop. Wish Clinton had signed it, would maybe helping today.

    ANWR is the size of eastern SD. Drilling would have been done on a total of 3 square miles on the barren plains of the northern coast. That is a pretty small footprint in that huge area. And oh yes, the reindeer don’t mind, pictures show thousands of them very close to the operations.

  11. duggersd

    I have a question. Does anybody know the answer? I am under the impression the subsidy for ethanol alcohol has been discontinued. Is that for in the future or is it in fact now no longer being given? If so, then why is gasahol still 10 cents cheaper than pure gasoline?

    1. Cliff Hadley

      As I understand it, the direct subsidy for ethanol has ended. Instead, 37 percent (correct this figure if I’m wrong — working on memory) of the total corn market is now reserved for fuels.

      1. duggersd

        So why is there still a 10 cent difference between gasahol and pure gasoline? Something is not adding up.

        1. Les

          Good question Dug. It doesn’t make sense as E85 is much higher and possibly going away in many places as the volume at some E85 pumps in MN has dropped by 80%.

          My knee jerk thought is, 10%ethanol is being sold with the margin needed and the regular is being sold 10cents higher because we are used to paying that higher price.

          With the renewable fuels mandate 37% of our 2011-12 crop must go to blended fuel. Makes for 6.50 corn and higher beef from my point of view, and of course higher in all the myriad of products produced from that kernel. It is obvious in the grocery store, happy I’m past feeding a bunch of hungry kids.

  12. D.E. Bishop

    So who read Mac’s link about Keystone jobs? Anyone? C’mon, you can do it!

    The article is from Cornell University and strongly criticizes the information Keystone offers. This study provides a complete and thorough analysis of what is known, and what is not known, about work and Keystone. Cornell’s figures show that Keystone is a little high on their figures. About 15,000 too high. Keystone claims 20,000 jobs.

    I expected Keystone to be exaggerating, but not by 75%. Even if you quibble with the Cornell numbers, I hope you will be willing to assume that the Keystone numbers are considerably higher than can actually be expected. You could reasonably give Keystone the benefit of exuberance, and figure they are only 50% exaggerated.

    What caught my eye the most, was the math Keystone is using. When they talk about the number of jobs added, they are figuring over a 100 year period. Yes, One Hundred Years. Hm, kind of skews the grid a bit.

    Cornell and the state department also said that a very small percentage of those jobs would actually be new ones filled by South Dakotans.

    You really ought to read the article. Really.

    (BTW, I suck a math.)

    1. Bill Fleming

      Troy, Cliff, picky, picky picky.

      Is it a good summary analysis or not?

      Attacking brevity in lieu of a specific rebuttal doth not a sufficient counter argument make, gentlemen.

      “I’m sorry this letter is so long… I didn’t have time to make it shorter.” ? George Bernard Shaw

      1. Cliff Hadley

        Stab us in the heart, Bill! I’ll see your 2-page in-depth analysis and George Bernard Shaw and raise you a Lewis Carroll:

        ‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

        ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

        Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t ? till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

        ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

        ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master ? that’s all.’

        Progressives always remind me of this passage from “Through the Looking Glass.”

  13. ymous

    My Econ prof is rolling over in his grave. Increasing supply will increase cost per the democrats. Adding 15,000 tp 20,000 good jobs in a down economy is bad per the democrats. Starting the project in other areas that we agree on (excluding the NE Sand Hills) is a politcal ploy by the republicans.

    Bill Clinto vetoed ANWAR because the production wouldnt come on line for 10 years. It’s been 10 years and we could be using that oil and maybe, just maybe we wouldnt be having this conversation about high gas proces. We owe the future like we owe the past for bringing prices down by increasing supply.

    Bill and Troy
    Where am I wrong here?

    1. Jo

      All the oil in the U.S. and Canada will never do anything to lower gas prices. It’s either too expensive to get or too low quality and US worker production costs are too high.

      The jobs aspect is potentially bad for South Dakota right now. Many companies are looking hire and take advantage of the market to expand their share of it – they are in a unique and precarious position in many ways. But if people get lured by the oil fields for a temporary gig – then we lose out on more permanent jobs that would be better for our state in the long run.

        1. Les

          Canada is one of the countries higher on the list with oil reserves. We just need some assurance if we are going to pipe through our land that we will at least be able to bid on that Chinese product.

      1. Cliff Hadley

        All construction jobs are temporary. The Canadians want to pay us a ton of money continuously for the privilege of shipping their oil to our refineries for a long, long time. This is, as Martha Stewart sez, “a good thing.”

        1. Bill Fleming

          As long as they are willing to clean up after themselves, Cliff. I bet even Martha frowns on messy house guests. (i.e as in “Yes by all means, join us for dinner, just please don’t take a crap in the bathroom sink, or a pee down the water well.”)

        2. Les

          I wonder what the Canadians know that we don’t Cliff eh? KS1 is 15 miles from your back door, you want it, and they won’t have anywhere east or west of the tar. Shortest route out they say. All those thousands of miles of nothingness.

          Sen Maher tried to get a penny a barrel clean up fund going and Rounds vetoed? Or did it not make it out of the Senate? This should bring memories of the fuel clean up fund needed for all those old leaking gasoline tanks across our state. I don’t think any South Dakotan minds the pipe with the right pieces in place to protect our citizens and their infrastructure.

  14. Bill Fleming

    ymous, in order to see the price go down (in theory), you have to look at the global market where the increased demand really is. Per capita oil demand in the US has remained roughly constant for over 30 years, even as the price has fluctuated wildly, even as US drilling and production has gone up to a level where we are now a net exporter of oil products.

    The jobs argument is a good one, and has to be weighed against environmental concerns. The transportation bill and other infrastructure projects also offer significant job opportunities. What’s the best overall long range investment?

    1. duggersd

      The key is “downward pressure”. Increasing supply will have a downward pressure. There are other factors, but the fact is the pressure is downward.

  15. Troy Jones


    You are exactly correct. There is no rationale that increasing supply and increasing the efficiency of the delivery (e.g. pipeline) to market will not have a positive impact on prices in the long-term. The positing it will be negative is speculative comment with regard to short-term dislocations.


    Besides being a summary with a clear bias (read the intro), a summary by definition is not a “complete and thorough analysis.”

    And, we are not a net exporter of oil and oil products. See below from the federal Energy Information Administration:

    “In 2010 the United States imported 11.8 million barrels per day (MMbd) of crude oil and refined petroleum products. We also exported 2.3 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products during 2010, so our net imports (imports minus exports) equaled 9.4 MMbd.”


  16. Bill Fleming

    Sorry… just oil products… even so, apparently we already have more supply than demand, Troy. That’s the point. I don’t see why you are choosing to be obtuse about this.

    “The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said.

    Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day, the department said today in the Petroleum Supply Monthly report. In 2010, daily net imports averaged 269,000 barrels. U.S. refiners exported record amounts of gasoline, heating oil and diesel to meet higher global fuel demand while U.S. fuel consumption sank.”

  17. Troy Jones

    You still need a raw material (oil) which we imported and without the raw material we can export nothing.

    However, the reality we export products now is a good thing (refinery independence) and helps the balance of trade.

    1. Bill Fleming

      Okay better, so, is the goal to reduce our dependance on oil from the middle east (i.e hostile trading partners?) …or ALL foreign oil? If the latter, why do we want KXL?

    1. Bill Fleming

      I agree in spirit, Troy, but in fact, those nations will still have markets in China, India, Russia, etc. And we will still have the same environmental concerns both nationally and globally.

  18. D.E. Bishop

    Because the study was summarized in two pages, does not call into question its quality.

    I still haven’t heard any refutation of the information it provided.

    1. Troy Jones

      The “thorough and complete analysis” you reference is only a summary (from a clearly biased source) provides no analysis which we can judge the “information it provided.”

    2. Cliff Hadley

      The way-left Global Labor Institute’s dour analysis of Keystone reveals the progressives’ usual whacky logic on economics: If I had some ham, and you had a loaf of bread, we could make a sandwich! Keystone will create jobs just like the Bakken oil project — thousands of people signing up to do great-paying jobs. If I was starting over, I’d spend a few years of my youth driving truck and welding pipe in a heartbeat.

      1. Les

        It takes youth or good drugs ro both to survive up in the Bakken. It is really ugly up there. I have already moved my back door 200 miles knowing it is a short time before our beautiful ranch country is spoiled, at the minimum short term. The exodus is on for my age on up.