I made a phone call to Robert Hurt's Washington office with this question:

[phylny]

"I received an e-mail from Congressman Hurt today, and in it he stated that Virginians are concerned about the soaring price of gasoline and that the Keystone Pipeline will change that. Gas in our area has been decreasing in price, and I read an article that said the oil from the Keystone Pipeline isn't meant for the United States, but will be shipped to South America and China. I also read an article that said the price of gasoline will rise, especially for the Midwest, if the pipeline extends to Texas. And, I read that supply has never been higher, and domestic demand has decreased, which should mean that the price actually decreases. So, why did the Congressman say what he said?"

"I will have to...direct you to someone who can answer that. Please hold."

I was connected to another person, and reiterated my points/question (see above).

"I will...I will take your name and someone will get back to you."

I'm planning on calling next week. And again and again until someone answers me

[alfredo]

1. Very good.

[Suich]

2. Good on you!

[obxhead]

3. Good for you.

I'll try to join you in those questions.

[freshwest]

4. Great, but I fear you will never hear back from him. Keep collecting your data for them if they do!

[Swede Atlanta]

5. They will never call you back and will never answer your questions because.....

they know this is all made up. I have seen several analyses about Keystone with different potential outcomes, none of which are desirable.

One is, as you suggest, that the Canadian oil will be put on tankers destined for other countries. I find it difficult to believe that China is in the mix given the need to tank that oil through the Panama Canal but it is still perhaps shorter than winding its way all the way from the Persian Gulf. If that was the objective I would expect Canada to be building a pipeline to their west coast unless, of course, they understand the inherent risks of such a pipeline and will let us suffer any ecological damage from a leak or spill.

Another is that when one considers the cost of the pipeline, the environmental risks it presents to the states across which it would pass and the environmental cost to the planet from the tar sands project generally, any potential positive upside to U.S. petroleum supplies would be far outweighed by these negative considerations.

All told I don't think building another pipeline is the answer. We must stop enabling our oil consumption. We need to double-down on conservation, increased mileage performance, fixing or replacing inefficient, aging infrastructure including home windows, doors, etc. and pursuing renewables.

[annabanana]

6. Shame on you, messing up their nice talking point. .

Good Job!