JonSCKs - 11/6/2014 07:35 It looks like with McConnell becoming the new Senate Majority Leader that Keystone is going to get another looksie.. Originally I was all for it.. However given the API's fight over the RFS I now believe my support is conditional.. I'm not going to sign off on Keystone without some concessions from "Big Oil" on the RFS and I believe Joni Ernst, Grassley, John Thune, Johanns, Fischer the new Senator in Colorado Gardner Rounds in South Dakota Hoevan in North Dakota as well as Moran and Roberts in Kansas are with me on this one.. Cruz can carry Big Oil if he wants.. but that sure will not sit well in Iowa..
There's a lot of Republican support for Ethanol in the Senate.. and we may need to exercise some of that support.. "Let's go!"
ps what do "we" want as a trade off for Keystone? Interesting responses . . . . First off - make no mistake (and take some time to research the keystone line/oil) . . US consumers get nothing out of the crude going through the line - The Pipeline will supply Canadian crude to US refiner, to refine and export to other Countries . . . . . . How does that help ethanol, the US revenues or consumers ? It does NOTHING to reduce oil trains, or grain transportation, or moving other rail products around the US - into or out of ports, or interstate ~ Personally, I do not want any US refiner capacity used to refine any oil that is exported outside the USA (domestic or imported crude) - that'd be my trade off for keystone pipeline.
Edited by iseedit 11/6/2014 10:52
| 
Ethanol and Keystone pipeline
