This is the sort of awkward juxtaposition that newspapers usually try to avoid. In today’s Washington Post (7/9/12), a story about the Keystone pipeline appears above a Chevron ad:
Awkward.
Then again, maybe not. Juliet Eilperin‘s article is all about what supporters of the pipeline project in the state of Montana are saying. Politicians, academics and labor leaders are all behind the project. One critic–a farmer–is heard from (“Not everyone in Montana has embraced the pipeline…”), but she says she’d support the pipeline if it was exclusively for the benefit of a local oil field.
Is Keystone really the kind of story that needs a story devoted to the views of pipeline supporters? It doesn’t seem like it; a recent Media Matters study shows that pipeline proponents far outnumber critics. And that doesn’t count the amplification of their message through paid ads like the one that accompanied the Post story.
Nonetheless, the energy industry is revving up a PR campaign to rebut critics of Keystone. The Houston Chronicle reports:
Manufacturers, refiners, energy companies and pipeline operators that think the promise of Canadian crude is getting lost in the criticism of it have formed an initiative to promote the fossil fuel.
They’re already winning this debate–at least in the corporate media. Apparently they want to run up the score.
Notice the section both ads are in.
“THE ENVIRONMENT”
I’d say the irony drips, but “oozes” would be more apt, don’t you think?
And in the “language is a virus department” …
The Houston Chronicle states that energy companies and pipeline operators “think” the promise … yadda yadda.
Now, how do they know that? They can say that they *said* they think, or that they *said* they believe, but I see this continually – the ascribing of honest belief for no other reason than the subject claims that is the case.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of the time, that ascription benefits those whose past and present behavior would seem to dictate an aversion to taking their pronouncements at face value.
But then, I don’t work at a corpress outlet.
It is the Black/White mentality of InSoc, or what ever group is in charge of the Media. They said it, so it must be so. Like the Buddy who told me that his compnay was using ‘infrared’ to instantly sterilize water in the filter system they sold. Told me “it is guaranteed to work, I saw the results from the lab. Why would they want to lie about it?” when I questioned him. If his Corporation says that the Sky is Green with pink dots, then it must be so. The corporation would never lie in order to sell things to people….
Yes, he was fully indoctrinated AmWay MLM Zombie. According those types of people, the Corporation is incapable of lying.
What a surprise! Not everybody agrees with The Washington Post. Keystone XL is nothing more than a big export pipe designed to get oil to refineries in Texas and from there to a world market and energy hungry China.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/the_truth_about_keystone_xl_an.html
And Jim Hansen (of NASA) says it’s “game over” for climate change if this pipeline is built.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/28/508563/game-over-hoffert-on-unconventional-gas-oil-and-unconventional-self-destruction-of-civilization/
You would think that there would be some reporting on the tar sands oil pipeline spill anniversary in Kalamazoo, at least noting (due to the high costs, inept management of the cleanup, and ineffective safety procedures) that the companies should get it right and know what they are doing this time.
…..while Canada’s prime minister all but directly said that this pipeline is for Asian markets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/canada-pledges-to-sell-oil-to-asia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html
Why must Canadian crude be shipped half way across the continent to get refined? Why can’t Canada refine its own damn oil? Could it be because the Canadians know how filthy this tar sand oil really is and want the pollution south of their border? Let Canada refine its own damn oil.
I’ve sent FAIR a screen grab showing the NPR website page at
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2012/07/09/156485615/were-headed-to-newport
that also had a sponsor ad for the Newport Festival . Since I complained, they have removed the ad. But this isn’t the first time. This is the 76th time I’ve documented ads on the same page as articles on the musicians in the ad. The last two NPR Ombudsman have written posts on the problem – but it doesn’t help.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/04/27/151547357/music-sponsorship-and-apparent-conflict-of-interest?sc=nl&cc=omb-20120428
FAIR how about adding your voice to this ongoing NPR conflict of interest. And be sure to mention these points – revenue sharing for all records and books sold on NPR website, all reviews of records and books are positive, and no musician that opposes revenue sharing are ever reviewed.
Did they pay the normal size rate for the ad, or were they accessed for the whole page? (maybe the industry owns the section -seems like the environment is not the property of the Commons anyway)
Elaine, regarding Mr. Hansen’s position that it is “game over” if…
The game is over. We have already put too much CO2 in the air. The warming will continue. The rate of change is the only thing that will be affected by giving the fossil fuelers what they want.
Well Elaine I don’t know what to say about what that NASA scientist said but WOW.Finally a man comes out and says it bluntly.Open that pipeline and all life will end on earth.We really need more like him.No dissemination,no dancing around the truth.Just a simple statement.You all will soon be dead.Only thing missing in this end of world- proclamation is the hour ,and the day when it will end. We must give any man he steps away from the smoke screen the respect to look at his numbers.And we shall.We shall.
Allan the answer to your question is Obama has let our refining capacity drop and drop and drop.We used to refine a lot of oil that is now shipped over seas.
As far as China getting the oil yeah that bugs me.Wanna get really bugged?Look into WHY they are buying the oil.Little to do with oil companies, and a whole lot to do with government intrusion.We borrow money from China hand over fist and when they demand something we jump.Then the libs who needed the borrowing are mad at the results.Classic.Again I will ask it………….Ok we know you hate the oil producers,and the users.What would you have us do?
Allen: I believe the reason Canada wants the tar sands oil shipped here is that Canada doesn’t have the refinery capacity that we have. The obvious question is why doesn’t Canada build refineries? Perhaps it’s too costly and not worth the effort when they have a neighbor to the South that already has them.
Perhaps the fossil fuel industry will begin to call it “freedom oil” since it’s coming from another democracy. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Im still lost Elaine.You don’t want Canada to tap its own resource.Don’t want us to tap ours.Don’t want either of us buying Opec.What do you want?When airforce one takes off to take the president to some fund raiser ….it is not flying on Windmill power.Your a bloody tree hugger and that is fine and dandy.But how will air force one take off and get the hell out of my back yard?
Stay lost, Michael e. I have better things to do than talk to a wall.
“Obama has let our refining capacity drop and drop and drop ”
this isn’t remotely right….while it’s true that a number of refineries have closed in the last few years because they were unprofitable due to decreased domestic demand, currently america is a net exporter of petroleum products, including a record high in gasoline exports.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/256f583c-7a83-11e1-8ae6-00144feab49a.html#axzz20cqbeZck
@Allan and Elaine
The tar sands oil needs a certain type of refinery to process it. Many facilities can’t handle it.
P.Ness: What type of facility is needed to handle tar sands oil?
This might explain why a couple of refineries in the East Coast are closing (or have closed). They want to get in on the processing of heavy tar sands oil for the next fossil fuel money maker.
Hi michael e.:
You should take a look at recent photos of what has become of Canada and what will become of the people that live near the tar sands. Sadly, the landscape looks like the moon. Of course, the people that live in the long ago forests are looking at moonscape and the water is compromised along with the air. I suppose, as it is so expensive to go to the moon, that with American & Canadian business “ingenuity” we will just make a moonscape in Canada! “Oh Canada” takes on a new meaning, and sadly so does the
Big Sky Country” state of Montana; maybe it can be renamed “Big Shale Country.”
On the other hand, if we didn’t have all those wars going on, would we really need all that oil? Although, the original topic was where the media often puts its advertising. As Mr. Latimer pointed out, oh the irony, to put this ad under ENVIRONMENT! Perhaps we need to tweak that popular idea of “all news all the time,” and replace it with “all business, all the time.” : )
Our refining is down about 50% over 10 years ago.Main reason is the problems in obtaining permits to build the new refineries.At this time it is damn near impossible.
We need to tap our own resources as does Canada.You may not like that.And Elaine thinks that makes me a wall.But there is no alternative at this time.Drill baby drill is not just for business.It is for national security.The Dems would choke of our oil supply.A war starts to keep oil lanes open in the middle east…and those same Dems stand around looking innocent.As always the road to hell is paved with liberal good intentions.
“Our refining is down about 50% over 10 years ago”
This isn’t true
“Since 2001, total net U.S. refinery capacity grew by more than 1 million barrels per day.”
http://www.econmatters.com/2011/07/us-crude-oil-refining-capacity-near-30.html
Elaine
some basic info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Transportation_and_refining
and here:
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm
I am by no way supporting Enbridge,but the oil in that pipeline in Kalamazoo was not bitumen from the tar sands but heavy crude.Two completely different things.NTSB report addressed this fact.
P.Ness
I should of said our “refining capacity”is down 50%.We still refine as much or more than we did years ago.Due to the remaining refineries working double time.In a national emergency the loss of our capability could become deadly.And yes we do ship oil to be refined ,because we have lost capability.We should be refining far more oil than we now do.So much has been found.It will take political will to build new refineries ,and sink offshore wells.Obama is not the man to do that.His dept now stands in contempt due to his holding up drilling permits.And it has been years and years since we built new refineries.
Oh…it would just be so much easier, cleaner and efficient to let China buy its oil from Iran. : )
Gloriana correct you are.And as soon as Iran stops enriching the fuel rods toward weaponization we can talk.
oh, michael e.:
There is no proof that Iran is any where close to creating a WMB. This is so tiresome. If that was really a worry, well Pakistan has nuclear, and we seem to keep bombing them, although the news keeps saying it’s accidental. Where is their nuclear plant? I’m surprised we haven’t bombed that yet. The U.S. is certainly close to being renamed, “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.”
India has the capability too. Shouldn’t we worry about WHO actually has one, rather than spending time worrying about what isn’t? Israel has the capability too, and why isn’t theirs checked ? Oh, and North Korea does have one too, they say.
We live in a very strange country when we go to war with rumor, since we already did that in Iraq. I thought that at the very least “being attacked” was a prerequsite for going to war.
Thanks, Elaine: You called the wall the Wall.
I have a question for all of you! what happens to the sand after the tar is removed? The tar sands in Canada are the size of the state of North Carolina, and if all that sand, and tar are transported to the gulf coast to be seperated, then do they dump the sand into the gulf? just a question that has not come up in any conversation about this subject.
There are many questions raised here. There are many misperceptions as well as justifiable ignorance. Supply and transportation of crude and refined products is a complex affair.
There is a huge range of differences across the refining spectrum. light sweet parafinic crude is easily refined with simple distillation towers costing a few hundred million–often to make gasoline and waxy lubricants including petroleum oils and Vaseline. Think Pensylvania crude—ie Penzoil, etc. Then there are more typical lights Brent and WTI—which are fairly easy to refine with high yields of light products. The grades range all the way to the heavy crudes that require ever-more sophisticated and expensive facilities to produce the same yields per barrel as the lightest–Mayan from Mexico being a good example.
The most extreme and challenging feedstocks are the bituminous oils. Those most commonly refined in the US include Venezuelan bitumen which used to be imported into the U.S gulf coast in great quantities–but which has fallen off as the Russians and Chinese have taken over concessions seized by Chavez from Conoco and Exxon. The Canadian barrels are intended to replace the falling imports of Mexican Maya from the failing Cantarell field and the Venezuela bitumen. Today the shortfalls in heavy feedstocks for which these refineries are built—with upwards of $10 billion replacement cost –or more–are made up by Kuwait heavy, Colombian heavy and Saudi Arab Heavy–albeit actually a medium grade by our standards. So yes, although US imports are down–those from the most risky undependable sources are way up since 2009. I have the benefit here of hindsight–because as I write—-US troops are moving into Jordan and Russian missile batteries into Damascus. Navies are converging—and Israelis just got done bombing Damascus So those that want to see an off-oil economy may soon get their chance.
Lastly, while the California tree-huggers that finance opposition to Keystone are speculating on oil prices via their hedge funds, the rest of the California enviros are busily burning more bitumen-derived refined product than any other state. Ironically the 3rd largest reserves of bitumen [the “dirty crude” ] after Venezuela and Canada were found in California’s Central Valley. Think La Brea Tar Pits–which are produced at a pace of over 400,000 bpd –and have been since 1894. yes that is for over a Century the Californians have been burning as much bitumen as they can lay their hands on –while importing in recent years 200,000 bpd or so from Canada via water —down their precious and fragile coast line from tight channels in Vancouver. As a genuine Midwesterner–I find it a bit hard to swallow that California has escaped the last few oil shocks suffered by the rest of us because Caifornia had access to the “dirty” crude and has never hestitated to use it in over a century. However in their righteous indignation they would deny us the same protections–the same flexibility of energy independence. im so glad the California enviros are looking out for my interests so aggressively. But I guess its one of “Do what I say –not what I do” sort of things. AKA HYPOCRACY? Of course if keystone goes through and the rest of us get to use locally produced oil –like California, the California access to expanded imports of 500 tankers per year from the Trans-Mountain and Northern Gateway 1 million bpd plus pipeline expansions will be more price competitive rather than a near-monopoly. Chevron will benefit more than any other oil company if Keystone flops and its bids through the Pacific northwest go through.
I hope you check the facts before condemning me.