Friday, January 20, 2012

Can Anyone Make Sense Of This Statement?

I received the following from Senator Wyden's office.

“The Keystone Pipeline is an environmentally risky and economically dubious project that would have boosted the balance sheets of oil producers at the expense of American families. If the pipeline had been approved and Canadian tar sands oil producers had been able to sell their oil to customers throughout the world instead of here in the United States, the already high cost of oil would have gone up for Midwest consumers at a time when budgets are tight as it is. I commend the Obama Administration for siding with the American consumer over the oil industry and not approving a pipeline that would have been painful to the wallets of American families and not in our national interests.”



g said...

I don't understand why "oil would have gone up for midwest consumers".

Do they have an explanation of the economically dubious statement?

Also, what is the explanation of the "environmentally risky" statement?

MAX Redline said...

Wyden defines the term, "quirky". But the, he's long been big on biofool subsidies. So he loves this:

( - Two days after President Barack Obama blocked construction of a major oil pipeline, his administration is touting its efforts to expand domestic production of renewable energy.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Friday that his agency has approved a $25-million conditional loan guarantee to build a 55,000-square-foot biorefinery plant in Iowa.

The Fiberight facility will produce cellulosic ethanol by converting municipal solid waste and other industrial pulps into "advanced biofuels," the news release said.

The project is expected to create 38 jobs and save 16 jobs. By contrast, expansion of the Canada-Texas Keystone XL pipeline would create thousands of jobs; some estimates say as many as 20,000.

Gordon R. Durand said...

He says it's environmentally risky but he doesn't say why. He doubts it "economically" but he doesn't say what that means. He says it will raise the cost of oil but he doesn't say how.

Three unsupported assertions don't make an argument, but then, he's not making an argument--he's preaching to his choir, and we're not in it. His statement makes perfect sense, but not to us.

fallingpianos said...

Wyden's statement is straight out of San Francisco, otherwise known as "left field". If it weren't for the fact that Wyden and Pelosi occupy different chambers of the same Congress, some enterprising academic could secure some government funding to study the effects of Pelosi's secondhand botox.