This is a guest post by Victor Menotti, Executive Director of the International Forum on Globalization.
Charles and David Kochsโ communications crisis team fromย the Center for American Freedom (CAF), along with Tim Worstall writing in Forbes, are countering International Forum on Globalizationโs (IFG) recent report, โBillionairesโ Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline,โ only one day after its release and before IFG had a chance to respond to CAF‘sย queries.
IFG stands firmly by its findings that the Kochs could profit plentifully from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (KXL), and that KXL is not in Americaโs national interest.ย With a decision due any day, we also wonder why a U.S. president would approve a pipeline whose biggest beneficiaries could be the very billionaires who have spent millions of dollars to undermine his efforts. The Kochsโ current net worth ($92B) exceeds that of the worldโs wealthiest man, Bill Gates ($72B), according to the October 1, 2013 Bloomberg Billionairesโย Index.
Forbesโ reporter, Tim Worstall, also attacked IFGโs 2011 report by arguing that people who profit from the production of fossil fuels play no role in promoting their use, nor in financing efforts to prevent their phase out. ย Worstall wrote,ย โOh, sure, the rich guys turn a penny or two on supplying us with these things that we desire and use but it is our desire and use which is causing the problem, not the people doing the supplying.โย IFGโs 2012 report showed the Kochs outspent all other oil companiesโeven Exxonโ to block U.S. efforts to reduce carbon emissions and advance cleanย energy.
CAF was created by the Kochs in 2012 to counter increasing public scrutiny of the billionaire brothersโ record spending on a sprawling political influence network whose money, organizational structure, and unprecedented scale have been mapped extensively in IFGโs online, interactive Kochtopus. CAFโs Washington Free Beacon staff writer, Lachlan Markay, came from the Heritage Foundation, where he was the conservative think tank’s first investigativeย reporter.
Below is IFGโs official response to theirย claims:
1. Forbes accepts IFGโs basic premise as valid but then challenges IFG as confusing revenues versus profits. However, it is Forbes that confuses Kochsโ costs as including KXLโs construction as well as its maintenance, which are the pipelinesโ owners, Transcanada, and not to be subtracted from any Kochsโ revenues.ย IFGโs calculations, whose methodology is painstakingly explained in Box A on page 8 of our report, is clear that producersโ standard production costs are already included in our calculations and that we are talking about pure profit. IFG did not subtract the Kochsโ $53M given to front groups pushing for KXLโs permit, since this could more accurately be considered anย โinvestment.โ
2. Koch counters the claim of its own former geologist who helped Koch Exploration Canada to purchase two million acres, as quoted in the Pulitzer Prize winning publication, Inside Climate News. ย Kochfacts.com failed to counter these claims of acreage (though they made detailed attacks against other assertions in the article), and IFGโs attempts to confirm the actual amount of Koch prior to publishing โBillionaires’ Carbon Bombโ were rebuffed by KEC staff. ย IFGโs report acknowledges that only the Kochs know how much acreage they hold in Alberta, so we would welcome the Kochs’ full public disclosure of all acreage in Alberta, as well as their others assets involved in the tar sandsย trade.
3.ย CAF wrote to IFG: โThe report notes on page 10 that Koch would have to produce 8 billion barrels of oil to offset reduced revenues for the Pipe Bend Refinery. Koch tells me that they don’t think they will accomplish that benchmark. Do IFG‘s calculations suggest otherwise?โ โPipe Bendโ is CAFโs apparent error for the Kochsโ Pine Bend, Minnesota oil refinery, which currently processes about one-quarter of existing tar sandsย imports.
IFGโs calculations are based on former Koch geologistsโ reports of helping Koch purchase two million acres in Alberta (equal to 32 billion barrels of recoverable reserves), from which IFG conservatively estimates that only half of the barrels of oil from this acreage (16 billion barrels) would be profitably produced.ย Koch claims that it wonโt surpass 8 billion barrels is, firstly, an admission of its plans to produce billions of barrels of Canadian crude from tar sands.ย Secondly, it stands in direct contradiction to the Kochsโ clear patterns of political spending; indeed, it is almost impossible to imagine that the profit-driven Kochs would give $53M to front groups who advocate for Keystone if KXL would be a โnet negative financially for Koch,โ not to mention that Koch-funded Tea Party members of the House of Representatives would include passage of KXL as one of four โcore conditionsโ in its budget bills approved before the recent 16-day shutdown of the U.S. government.ย The Kochs could convincingly counter IFGโs calculations by full public disclosure of its actual acreage in Alberta, and showing conclusively that they have an amount of acreage whose potential profits will not exceed their potential reduced profits from its Pine Bendย refinery.
4.ย Koch spokesperson Melissa Cohlima claims โKeystone XL will be a net negative financially for Koch,โ due primarily to a reduced flow of Canadian crude to the companyโs Pipe Bend Refinery, and that KXL will mean โless Canadian oil sands coming into our Pine Bend Refinery, thus reducing the amount of we are refining.โ While IFGโs analysis anticipates (as do Canadian producers) that the price of Canadian crude will increase due to KXL, Cohlimaโs claim that KXL will reduce the flow of Canadian crude is counter to the entire premise of KXLโs purpose: to increase the flow of Canadian crude to US refineries.ย IFGโs report only attempts to give the public some credible, quantifiable sense of scale of how much the Kochs might profit form KXL, based on information from ex-Koch employee as well as from established experts in energy investment contracted by IFG.ย
5. Koch counters that its Port Arthur, Texas hub of Koch Pipeline Company does not carry crude oil yet IFG does not claim that it currently carries crude oil (since KXL does not exist), nor do we include any potential KPC profits in our projections. Even if Kochs’ Port Arthur hub transports only chemicals, they could surely benefit since several categories of chemicals are created as by products from the refining process of crude oil. Onlyย the Kochs know what they carry in their pipelines and we would welcome a commitment from Koch not to carry any Canadian crude through itsย pipelines.
6.ย IFG also notes what Koch did NOT challenge, particularly our assertion that Koch may make MUCH more money from their unregulated trading of oil derivatives due to their expanded influence over energy supplies, shipping, storage, et. al.ย Nor did they challenge the claim that they will spend some of their profits on expanded attacks against carbon pollution laws, labor rights, voting rights, and other extremistย agendas.
The Kochsโ record makes clear that their making more money will only empower the very extremists who more and more Americans view unfavorably, and that approving the pipeline will not be in Americaโs national interest, nor the interest of our rapidly warmingย planet.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts