Share This Page

Pipeline conflicts

| Saturday, Feb. 15, 2014, 4:10 p.m.

There's more motivating two congressional Democrats' opposition to TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline than their professed environmentalism: Both have invested in companies with competing pipeline plans, creating blatant conflicts of interest.

That's what the most recent financial disclosures by freshman Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Alan Lowenthal of California show, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Last year, in an anti-Keystone-XL Washington Post column that questioned “the wisdom of using tar sands oil,” Mr. Kaine did not disclose that he has invested between $15,000 and $50,000 in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. Kinder Morgan has proposed expanding its Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta's tar sands to Canadian West Coast refineries and export facilities, as a Keystone XL alternative.

Mr. Lowenthal has invested between $16,000 and $75,000 in Kinder Morgan holdings, plus $15,000 to $50,000 in another TransCanada/Keystone XL competitor, Enbridge Energy Management. He voted last year against legislation to approve Keystone XL without the Obama administration signing off.

These competing proposals reinforce the State Department's recent favorable Keystone XL report, which concluded that Canadian tar-sands crude will be transported and burned even if that pipeline isn't built. And when Keystone XL opponents stand to benefit if a rival pipeline's built, their “no tar-sands oil” stance loses all credibility.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.