Keystone XL Pipeline

Thursday, April 10th, 2014
Share |

Share |

Wednesday, October 30th, 2013

A Letter to the Editor of Michigan Live by TransCanada

Letter: Koch Industries have absolutely nothing to do with Keystone XL

We would like offer a response to errors in a recent letter, “Just say no to Keystone XL” published on October 28, 2013.

Koch Industries have absolutely nothing to do with Keystone XL (KXL). They are neither a shipper nor a receiver on KXL and this has been confirmed repeatedly and publicly many times.

Pipelines are by far the safest and environmentally responsible way of transporting oil and natural gas and TransCanada has one of the best safety records of any pipeline operator in the entire industry.

On any given day TransCanada ships up to 20 percent of all the natural gas used in North America through our pipeline systems. Since 2010, the first Keystone pipeline has safely shipped almost 500 million barrels of oil to refineries in the Midwest.

The first Keystone pipeline employed 8,969 workers, our Gulf Coast Pipeline which is nearing completion employed 4,844 U.S. laborers and KXL, should it receive a presidential permit will put another 9,000 back to work.

Safety is the number one priority at TransCanada and as the U.S. Department of State’s environmental analysis has reported “[KXL] would have a degree of safety over any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline under current code.”

Despite three years of constant misinformation from opponents of KXL, an overwhelming majority of Americans polled continue to support this pipeline because they understand the importance of building new, modern energy infrastructure that will improve the United States’ energy security and pipeline safety.

SHAWN HOWARD/TransCanada

Share |

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

Addressing Multiple Errors in Flawed Analysis of Keystone XL

An environmental activist group called International Forum on Globalization published a report this week attempting to link Koch to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. Since early 2011, we have issued numerous statements that we are not involved in the Keystone XL Pipeline project, but activists and conspiracy theorists continue to try to advance this false storyline.

The IFG report asserts that Koch will make $100 billion in profits from the Keystone XL Pipeline. Not only is the arithmetic behind that number all wrong as detailed here, but the report contains many more fundamental errors as noted in this story. Here are several more significant inaccuracies:

  • On page 9, the report makes the claim that Keystone XL “would connect to Port Arthur, Texas  where the Koch Pipeline Company (KPC) already has a major hub servicing the Gulf Coast, an area that harbors half of all U.S. oil-refining capacity. This positions KPC to benefit from toll price increases due to increased demand for their pipeline capacity in the gulf region as a result of KXL.” But the pipelines in question in Port Arthur are chemical lines that connect to and serve FHR’s Port Arthur chemical plant. These lines cannot transport crude oil, making IFG’s entire premise inaccurate. Also, the Keystone XL Pipeline that would carry oil sands will not and cannot connect to these chemical lines.
  • The representations concerning our Koch Exploration business and its “ownership” of oil sands land are not accurate.  We do not own 2 million acres in Northern Alberta.
  • Koch is not engaged in the type of exploration the report attributes to us.  In fact, we have very limited active production.

 

Share |

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

Correcting Misleading Statements from Rep. Cummings and Rep. Waxman

In response to misleading statements in a May 22, 2012 letter from Representatives Cummings and Waxman to Mr. Thomas Donahue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Koch Industries is correcting the record.  This is not the first time that Representative Waxman has made dishonest accusations about Koch.  He previously falsely claimed that Koch was involved with and behind the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Monday, May 14th, 2012

UPDATE Inside Climate on Koch in Canada

A story that appeared on Reuters on May 10 deceives readers by falsely suggesting that industry analysts have said Koch will somehow benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline project.  The article, written by professional eco-activist David Sassoon, indicated that “Analysts say that Koch Industries…and other industry titans, stands to profit handsomely as pipelines that connect Alberta’s landlocked oil to global markets come online. … That includes the Keystone XL pipeline.”  Notice Mr. Sassoon never says who those multiple analysts are.  But as if to support his point, he then quotes a single analyst, Jan Stuart of Credit Suisse, as saying “The winners will be the companies upstream in the production end in Canada, the pipeline builders, and the mid-continent refiners all the way down to the Gulf coast.”

Yet, when we subsequently contacted Mr. Stuart directly, he said he had never cited Koch and declared “I am making no connection between Koch and the Keystone XL project.”  We will be requesting a formal correction from Reuters along with an explanation for why they continue to permit an agenda-driven activist to masquerade as an objective reporter.

Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Continuing Falsehoods from Sierra Club on Keystone

fundraising letter sent out this week by Sierra Club activist Bill McKibben contains an outright fabrication about Koch.  Urging opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, McKibben writes, “the only argument for the pipeline comes from folks like the Koch Brothers — ‘we can make a lot of money.’  … but that money buys votes in Congress, unless we stand up.”

Koch has never made any such statement or argument.  McKibben is citing something that simply doesn’t exist in an attempt to make money for his own partisan activist group.  Koch has stated publicly and repeatedly that we have no stake in the Keystone pipeline.  It is troubling that the Sierra Club and McKibben are somehow taken seriously by news media covering this issue when they have such brazen disregard for the truth.  Even Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune (a cohort of McKibben), had to be formally corrected by the Los Angeles Times this past July when he tried to mislead readers into thinking Koch had some connection to Keystone.

It’s worth noting that the Sierra Club was just exposed for surreptitiously taking $26 million from a natural gas company to fund criticism of competing industries.  It now seems obvious that this tainted funding has also been used to drive Sierra Club’s activities on the Keystone issue.

Given that the Sierra Club secretively took millions of dollars from a natural gas company in return for attacking other energy industry participants and that McKibben is willing to invent statements from others out of whole cloth and pass them off as legitimate, no one should believe anything else that he or the Sierra Club has to say.

Share |

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

Koch Industries GC on Politics and the Keystone Pipeline

Law.com

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202541514593&Koch_Industries_GC_on_Politics_and_the_Keystone_Pipeline

As House Republicans are pushing for a committee vote on a bill to move the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, opponents keep dragging Koch Industries, Inc., into the controversy—even though it claims no interest in the bill.

“It’s political theater,” complains Koch general counsel Mark Holden, as a vote on the bill was scheduled for Tuesday before the House Energy and Commerce committee. Wichita-based Koch operations include refineries, chemicals, and related technology.
Holden, a 17-year veteran with the company, said in an interview with CorpCounsel.com on Monday, “As Koch has stated consistently since last year when the issues first arose, Koch is not involved in the Keystone Pipeline XL project, it has no ownership interest in the proposed pipeline, and it is not a proposed shipper or customer of the proposed pipeline.”
Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

Stop harassing the Koch brothers

Politico - Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kanas)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72379.html#ixzz1lRs1fY2j

President Barack Obama and his allies, including those in Congress, have shown what a nasty, personal and abusive reelection campaign we are about to experience. A recent sideshow in my committee in Congress provides yet another clear and shocking example.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently wrote a letter demanding a live witness and testimony from “a representative of Koch Industries” at a hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline, scheduled just two days later. The request’s frivolous nature is proven by that unreasonable deadline. But the partisan tactics go far beyond that.


Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Friday, February 3rd, 2012
Share |

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Koch Responds to Rep. Waxman’s false public comments

“A series of ongoing, politically motivated attacks by Representative Waxman and others are part of an orchestrated campaign to demonize an American company with 50,000 U.S.-based employees. This should be concerning to all Americans who exercise their Constitutional right to free speech.

At a hearing of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 25, Rep. Henry Waxman repeated several demonstrably false statements he had made earlier this year, asserting that Koch has some financial stake in the Keystone Pipeline project.  In particular, Mr. Waxman said at the hearing, ‘We learned that [Koch] told the Canadian government they have a direct and substantial interest so something does not add up.’

As we have previously stated, Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline and we are not party to its design or construction. 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.
Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

More Dishonesty from InsideClimate News

The latest article about Koch by InsideClimate News is a prime example of the agenda-driven, dishonest journalism that is so characteristic of coverage on the Keystone pipeline.  Here is how the InsideClimate approach works:

  • Manufacture a “news” item out of something utterly ordinary.
  • Distort the meaning of the event.
  • Disregard anything that doesn’t fit the narrative, even when the target of the attack explicitly points out the facts.
  • Then give prominent, positive attention to any politician that tries to parade the distortion.

Here are the specifics:
The headline of the article reads, “Rep. Waxman requests investigation…cites legal papers filed by Koch subsidiary, uncovered by InsideClimate News.”  Yet we have detailed repeatedly (including hereherehere, and here) in response to these allegations by Congressman Waxman and InsideClimate that we have no financial interest whatsoever in the Keystone pipeline that is at issue. What’s more, the document that InsideClimate claims to have “uncovered” was, in reality, publicly filed over 2 years ago and readily available.

It was a request we made to be classified as an “intervener” — a common term in regulatory law that enables any party or person to stay directly informed about the status of a particular issue.  We have detailed publicly on numerous occasions (and to InsideClimate directly) why Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, a Koch subsidiary, applied for “intervener” status with the Canadian National Energy Board.  An intervener in a NEB proceeding is entitled to gain access to information about the progress of a particular matter, in this case the “application” concerning the Keystone XL Pipeline project.  Many others also applied and were granted intervener status in exactly the same way — including individual citizens, members of various First Nation groups, businesses, and environmental activists similar to Mr. Sassoon and InsideClimate.

A complete list of interveners is found here.  Notice in particular that in the application FHR states it did not anticipate taking any active role at the regulatory hearing in question and noted that it would not appear at the hearing; true to its word, FHR did not appear or take any role at the hearing.  Indeed, other than its application to intervene, FHR did not file anything else in the proceeding.  By contrast, other groups that were given the exact same “intervener” status, such as Sierra Club Canada (which stated it would appear at the hearing), the Alberta Federation of Labour, and the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, took an active role in the proceedings, presenting evidence, making final arguments, and seeking information from Keystone XL Pipeline.

When a party applies to be an intervener, they formally state that they have an “interest” in the application that is being considered.  That use of the word “interest” means, by first definition, curious or paying attention.  But InsideClimate distorts that meaning as if it meant a financial interest or stake — a secondary but altogether different meaning of the word.  That’s how, when InsideClimate writes that, “the company claimed ‘a direct and substantial interest’ in the Keystone XL,” it deceives readers.  What FHR actually said when it applied for intervener status was that it had”a direct and substantial interest in the application” — meaning it wanted to stay informed about Keystone’s application, and nothing more.  That intervener status does not mean (as Mr. Sassoon apparently wishes readers to believe) that FHR has a direct financial interest stake in the project.  In fact, if FHR or any other proposed intervener had a financial, ownership, or investment interest in the proceeding, that would have been required to be disclosed.  Of course, FHR did not have and still has no such interest in the Keystone Pipeline XL project.

All this is both well known to anyone familiar with regulatory procedure, easily fact checked, and something that we have publicly stated repeatedly.

We spelled all this out for the writer at InsideClimate, Stacy Feldman, and she refused to include it in the article.  Instead, she suggested that we post it in the comment thread beneath the article.  The editor’s note at the top of the article, “This version of the story adds comment from Koch Industries,” further misleads readers.  The truth is that we tried several times to get Ms. Feldman to include our full comment and she would not, oddly insisting that it did not “pertain” to the issue.  That verbatim statement is posted below.

Perhaps the worst part of the dishonesty at InsideClimate is that it aims to deceive readers into thinking that it is an objective, independent news organization — and also provide their copy to legitimate news outlets as such.  We have detailed, however, that InsideClimate has multiple financial and ideological conflicts of interest.  News outlets that reprint their material as straight reporting do a deep disservice to readers and we would urge anyone that encounters their copy to regard it with deep skepticism.

Indeed that is exactly what happened last February when InsideClimate and its owner, David Sassoon, were the first to write false stories saying that we had some financial connection to the Keystone project.  They never bothered to fact check with us prior to writing that approval of the project would be a “big victory” for Koch and a “great financial opportunity [for Koch to] profit.”  Those two stories, in turn, prompted Congressman Waxman’s staff to raise the issue with us directly and then he raised it directly with the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  We detailed for his staff that we have no financial interest in the project whatsoever and also responded with the same message in response to Rep. Waxman’s letter to the Committee.  Naturally, InsideClimate touted Mr. Waxman’s efforts, again completely disregarding our explicitly stated position, and then wrote that Koch was being “accused of stonewalling.”  Yes, the deceit is that obvious and just as brazen, and we exposed it at the time.

Here is the full statement that we provided to InsideClimate News — and which they refused to include in the article:

Subject: Statement from Koch Industries

As previously stated, Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline and we are not party to its design or construction. 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.

This is just the latest of many false allegations initiated by InsideClimateNews and advanced by aligned advocacy media. It is also evidence that those promoting these falsehoods do not even do the basic due diligence before attacking Koch industries. A rudimentary fact check by any legitimate investigator or reporter would reveal the clear difference between “intervening” in an application in Canada’s National Energy Board hearings, and “having an interest” in the pipeline. By definition, an intervener is anyone who wants to learn more about a project. In this case, interveners included individuals, environmental groups, businesses and many others. We challenge InsideClimateNews and other advocacy media to ask Sierra Club Canada and other interveners in this case if they have a financial interest in the pipeline.

A complete list of interveners is found here.  Notice in particular that in the application documents, our subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, indicates that it did not anticipate taking any active role at the regulatory hearing in question.  By contrast, other groups that were given the exact same “intervener” status, such as Sierra Club and the Alberta Labour Union, took an active and role at the hearing, presenting briefs and other arguments.

Share |

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

UPDATE Continuing Falsehoods from InsideClimate and its Owner, David Sassoon

InsideClimate News has published a “reply” to the statement we provided them on their latest story on the Keystone pipeline — a statement that they refused to run in full.  The reply itself, however, is shot through with further falsehoods.  We detail them here both to set the record straight and as further notice to readers and legitimate news outlets alike that InsideClimate is being willfully deceptive in its coverage of Koch:
Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Thursday, October 6th, 2011

Setting the Record Straight on Keystone

As previously stated, Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline and we are not party to its design or construction. 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.

This is just the latest of many false allegations initiated by InsideClimateNews and advanced by aligned advocacy media. It is also evidence that those promoting these falsehoods do not even do the basic due diligence before attacking Koch industries. A rudimentary fact check by any legitimate investigator or reporter would reveal the clear difference between “intervening” in an application in Canada’s National Energy Board hearings, and “having an interest” in the pipeline. By definition, an intervener is anyone who wants to learn more about a project. In this case, interveners included individuals, environmental groups, businesses and many others. We challenge InsideClimateNews and other advocacy media to ask Sierra Club Canada and other interveners in this case if they have a financial interest in the pipeline.

A complete list of interveners is found here.

Share |

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

Confronting Shoddy Reporting at Forbes.com

Mr. Tom Post
Managing Editor
Forbes

Mr. Bruce Upbin
Managing Editor
Forbes

Dear Mr. Post and Mr. Upbin:

I would like to share our concerns regarding a pattern of factually inaccurate and slanted postings about Koch Industries by several bloggers on Forbes.com.

In the past, Forbes magazine has covered us responsibly and in keeping with its well-earned reputation for having the highest standards in journalism. However, in recent months, some Forbes.com bloggers have disregarded that professionalism altogether. Here are a few specifics:
Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Monday, July 18th, 2011

UPDATE – We Respond to the LA Times Regarding Keystone XL

Correcting the Record at the Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times deserves credit for correcting an falsehood that partisan activist groups have been trying to spread about Koch Industries.  Contrary to what groups like Sierra Club have been asserting, Koch has no involvement with the Keystone pipeline project.

Here is the published correction from the Times:

For The Record; Los Angeles Times Friday, July 15, 2011

Correction; A July 11 Op-Ed on what President Obama can do to reassert his environmental credibility said that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was “backed” by the Koch brothers. Koch Industries says it has no involvement in the project and has not taken a position on it.


Dear Editor:

A piece that appeared on the op-ed page written by Michael Brune [How President Obama can reclaim his green cred; June 11] contains an error in reference to Koch. The essay asserts that “The administration is weighing whether to approve the Koch brothers-backed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring dirty tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.”

Koch is not involved in the Keystone Pipeline project in any way as we have stated publicly and as has been widely acknowledged. This is not a matter of opinion since there are no facts to the contrary. Mr. Brune’s statement is simply and demonstrably false.

It is troubling that the Times would permit an activist like Mr. Brune to make aspersions without rudimentary fact-checking. I am curious to know how this got past the editors. In the meantime, I request a formal, published correction on that point. Thank you and I’ll look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Melissa Cohlmia
Director, Corporate Communication
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC

Share |

Friday, May 27th, 2011

Reuters Misleads Readers on Koch Industries and the Keystone XL Pipeline. We Respond.

Mr. Jack Reerink
Managing Editor
Reuters

Dear Mr. Reerink:

For the second time in recent weeks, Reuters has permitted an agenda-driven advocacy organization, SolveClimate, to run an article on your news agency about Koch Industries that is factually inaccurate and beneath Reuters’ standards. Here are links to those two articles:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/idUS292515702420110210

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/idUS336798587820110525

Let me be specific about our concerns:

– We have stated publicly and repeatedly, including last week when questioned by staff of Congressman Waxman, that we have no financial stake in the pipeline that is the subject of the reporting and we are not party to its design or construction. 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.


Click Here For Full Post »

Share |

Monday, May 23rd, 2011

Dems’ push to link pipeline to Kochs ‘outrageous’

THE HILL

By Ben Geman

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) on Monday bashed his Democratic counterparts for suggesting a pipeline project that Republicans want to expedite is a gift to Koch Industries, the refining company helmed by billionaire brothers that support conservative causes.

Upton used a statement prepared for a hearing about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline — which would expand imports of crude from Canada’s oil sands — to attack Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) letter Friday that asked Upton to probe whether Koch has oil sands-related investments that would benefit from the project.

Upton attacked the “outrageous accusation from the minority that this pipeline deserves even greater scrutiny because one company might or might not benefit from its construction.”

“This blatant political sideshow is simply a distraction that, in the end, underscores the desperation of those who want to stand in the way of this common sense project,” Upton said.


Click Here For Full Post »

Share |